riggerpaul

As previously mentioned, it is easy to fix. But the real question is how was it secured in the first place? You should be able to remove the toggle from the steering line without having the loop come undone. Did the loop just come apart, or did you do something that made it come apart? If it really just came apart, it might not have been secured correctly in the first place. By the way, why were you removing the toggle? Are you taking the canopy off the risers for some reason?

So, I'll repeat - look for the message. This is a sport with people who cover the whole range of just about every aspect of the human condition. Some are educated, some are not. Some are polite, while some tend towards rude. There are cops and criminals and lawyers and judges. There are college professors and high school dropouts. All of them who contribute are doing so out of care and concern for fellow jumpers. Oftentimes they are literally trying to save someone's life. Some can express themselves, even forcefully, better than others. But just because someone is not able to express himself to the high standards of others does not diminish the value of the message. Lets the words roll off you. Retain the message.

Skydiving has had a long tradition of brutal frankness to the point of political incorrectness. It may come from the roots of the sport being in the military, where the drill instructors have legendary insensitivity. Of course, they are tasked with toughening up a group of people for the rigors of combat. So some people think this approach is not appropriate for the teaching of today's skydivers. This thread is a direct result of another thread that was dealing with a situation where a jumper continued to use gear when it had a known problem with riser covers coming open. Continuing to use gear with such a known problem creates a grave (as in where dead people are put) hazard for not just the people who are jumping the gear, but for the people who are jumping around the gear as well. Please consider that last sentence. Is it worded to your liking? I think probably, yes. Does it have the impact that should accorded such a serious breach of safety protocols? I think not. Those of us who will occasionally use strong language have seen too many examples where the true seriousness of the problem has been ignored until it is too late. This person with the blown riser covers could well have been a fatality. Would you feel better if the postings here were more gentle, but a death was the result instead of just a harrowing nightmare experience? I hope not. This is an unforgiving sport. If one wishes to participate in such an unforgiving sport, one does well to look past the language to find the message that is being conveyed. It isn't personal. If it makes you feel better about it, try telling yourself that it is the shortcoming of the person who posted the brutal language, and that you are better than they are for your more refined ways. Then you can pity the poster, while you still search for the message. Ignoring known gear problems is really really really really really really bad thing. You think that some people are too brutal in their language. You think it is rude to be so brutal when you don't really have any knowledge of the recipient's demeanor and sensitivities. Now, flip the coin over. There are also people who will not respond unless the baseball bat techniques are used. If you use the gentle language with them, it goes nowhere at all. If that thick-skinned person dies because of failing to hear a message delivered too gently, it is a failure more grave than hurting the feelings of a more gentile individual. So, we are faced with a choice. Do we use gentle language and worry that it rolls off the recipient's back, possibly being ignored resulting in a fatality? Or do we use the baseball bat, possibly bruising some feelings, but more likely to get the message through to the thick-skinned individual? Failing to get the message across can result in a fatality, and some of us are willing to do whatever it takes to avoid that outcome.

I never said it was right. In fact, I said that I would prefer "opt in" over "opt out". So, I suspect that you and I actually agree on what would be the right way to do it. But, just because you and I agree won't change the reality that "opt out" is the law of the land here in the USA. (Nawlins is in Loosyana, right?) Do you think that the OP should, or should not, carefully read what he signs?

John what is your answer to this question? Look, John already mentioned somewhere up thread that the canopy with the better L/D has the expectation of going the farthest. That's not in dispute. At question is the cute bit of wisdom that 7 cells means you walk more. It has been years and years since I landed off the dz with my Spectre. Lots of people on their Sabre2s have landed off and I go to pick them up. Many of them even had a lower wing loading than I do. So the cute bit of wisdom doesn't always hold true. It depends on the pilot. That's what John has said over and over again. If the 7 cell pilot lands next to the road instead of in the middle of the field next to the 9 cell pilot, who walks less? Probably the 7 cell pilot who doesn't have to walk so far to the ride that picks them both up. 7 cells or 9, poorer pilots walk more than good pilots. Skilled pilots land where they want to. Less skilled pilots land where the parachute takes them.

Is that a joke? Mailing lists are sold all the time. You ever get a catalog you didn't ask for? Somebody sold a mailing list with your name on it. The USPA form has an opt out box, as required by US law. Somebody even recently posted a picture of it. Sure, I'd prefer an "opt in" box over an "opt out" box, but that's not a very common thing in my experience. To the OP, its time to learn to read carefully before you sign things.

Hi Terry, It all began when a customer asked me if his Skyhook-equipped rig could be packed as a more conventional RSL rig. I told him is was certainly feasible, but I didn't know if it was legal, and that I would ask UPT. I figured that since it would still be a configuration that is available from the factory, it should not be a very big deal. Just getting them to actually answer the question was like pulling teeth. After a bunch of email back and forth, I finally got an email with an answer. Here is the salient part of the email. I don't believe they have a blanket approval in place, so according to 65.129(d) you need a specific approval from UPT. 65.129(d) No certificated parachute rigger may alter a parachute in a manner that is not specifically authorized by the Administrator or the manufacturer And then there's the matter of what it takes to become a "Factory approved Master Rigger". Now, maybe I am reading a bit much into an answer that they didn't seem to want to give in the first place. But it sounds to me like they don't very much want to approve such an alteration. Boy, I am sorry to be the source of such confusing information. UPT has recanted on the information they gave me and I posted here. I got an email today that says: No mention of requiring a manufacturer's approval. No mention of requiring a Master Rigger. (Please don't shoot the messanger.)

Is it a little turn, or is it, as the title mentions, a spin? Or are you saying it takes you some time to initially get stable, and then you are in control? If it is just initial stability diving out the door, you'll get better with practice. But you should already be able to exit stable with a poised exit. Can you? A little bit of heading control problem is something you can practice to control. Toe taps and the like as has been suggested. But if the subject line is true, and you have a spin problem, I think you should get back with an instructor for some evaluation and help. If you really have a spin problem, I am troubled that you were graduated from AFF. Heading control is a requirement for graduation. We all understand, you might not always point exactly where you intend. Fixing that just takes some more practice. But spinning is a different matter. You mention 13 jumps before your license, but really, it is as many jumps as you need to meet the requirements. Get the required skills, don't worry about the numbers.

+1

Why do you think there will come a time when RedBull "takes over the nationals"? RedBull can have their own SkyGames ExtrordinAir any time they like. Nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. They can even schedule it to conflict with the USPA Nationals if they like. But we are talking about the National competition of the official club that regulates skydiving in the USA. This is how we choose our nations best, so they may be on the national team that goes to international competitions. If you talk to the BOD, I think you will find that they are interested in the membership's ideas of how the competition should be run, and what limits might be set by the club regarding how the hosts can conduct themselves. I for one don't want our Nationals becoming so overwhelmingly commercial that we have a dz and their sponsors unilaterally making rules that are going to even inconvenience the participants, much less have any impact on the competitors' ability to get sponsorship. It really isn't about how big or small the rule is. It is not their place to mess with things like this "partner protection" thing. Now that the issue has come up, I think the USPA will make it clearer in the future that this is our competition, not the host's boogie. If a DZ and a sponsor(s) get together to have a boogie, they are free to make any rules they desire. But if they want to host the nationals, they have to listen to and abide by rules that come from USPA. They should not be free to make any old rules they want. USPA is our club. We have a right and an obligation to tell our club what we like or do not like about how the Nationals are being run. And, believe it or not, our club has an obligation to listen. We blew it this time by leaving the door open for this sort of thing. We should be free to close that door if it is the wish of the membership.

Here's the quick recap. Sorry your head hurts. Billvon said "RSLs don't have Collins function". I replied that I just learned that UPT RSLs now have Collins function. The reason I found out was that I have a customer who asked me if I could disable the Skyhook and make it work like a regular (UPT) RSL. In the process of getting that question answered, I learned that the current RSL on a new Vector has a Collins function. I also learned that UPT would consider the change my customer asked about an alteration, and it would require approval and a Master Rigger to do it. (I was a bit surprised by this, since all you need to do to go from Skyhook to RSL is leave the red Skyhook lanyard off the hook.) Councilman24 asked if UPT was requiring a separate approval for each instance of disabling the Skyhook. I replied that since there is no blanket approval on file (like what Sunpath did for removing their RSL), I thought that a separate approval was required, and that it didn't look like UPT was much interested in approving such and alteration in the first place. I haven't heard back from councilman24. That brings you up to date. Yes, it is a confusing stream-of-consciousness sort of discussion. But hey, it the web. I hope your head feels better soon. -paul

Hi Terry, It all began when a customer asked me if his Skyhook-equipped rig could be packed as a more conventional RSL rig. I told him is was certainly feasible, but I didn't know if it was legal, and that I would ask UPT. I figured that since it would still be a configuration that is available from the factory, it should not be a very big deal. Just getting them to actually answer the question was like pulling teeth. After a bunch of email back and forth, I finally got an email with an answer. Here is the salient part of the email. I don't believe they have a blanket approval in place, so according to 65.129(d) you need a specific approval from UPT. 65.129(d) No certificated parachute rigger may alter a parachute in a manner that is not specifically authorized by the Administrator or the manufacturer And then there's the matter of what it takes to become a "Factory approved Master Rigger". Now, maybe I am reading a bit much into an answer that they didn't seem to want to give in the first place. But it sounds to me like they don't very much want to approve such an alteration.

I have not seen one, but UPT tells me that the current generation Vector with non-Skyhook RSL has a Collins loop. I was asking about what might be legal for a rigger to do or not do in the case that his Skyhook-equipped customer did not wish to use the Skyhook anymore. They told me that, similar to the Sunpath postition, if the rig was built with a Skyhook or their RSL, you had to pack it that way. We are not allowed, for example, to leave the red lanyard off the hook. They also said that either the Skyhook or their current RSL includes a Collins loop, and it must be used. Any change to the system would be considered an alteration, requiring a Master Rigger, manufacturer's approval, and logging it as an alteration.

So, we agree. Fine to say no active marketing, selling, give aways etc. Fine to say no stuff outside the team tent if it wasn't paid for. But leave the team's gear and the stuff that is in and under the tent alone. Does that pretty well sum it up?

Are those two pics taken from the same distance? I didn't see anything in the pic that gives me some scale. To me, it looks like the left pic is closer. (Not a big deal to me. My Spectre has a Dacron CF lineset already.)

I think someone else touched on this, but I want to go further. We've been talking about possible damage to the teams ability to compete, losing sponsors and the like. The people who don't think the "Partner Protection" is bad say it won't hurt anyone. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I don't know. But I've realized that I want to encourage the teams' sponsors to continue and expand their sponsorships. In my opinion, sponsoring the teams is more "grass roots" than sponsoring the event, because without team sponsors, the teams don't show up. So I want to do what we can to be certain that the team sponsors see their investment as productive, providing a good Return on Investment. Okay, I realize that the event sponsors don't want a booth from a business that hasn't paid for the commercial space. That's certainly a compromise I am willing to accept. But the team sponsors have paid to be there, and we should not treat them as though they haven't. The team sponsors are the first class citizens in this, they make it possible for the teams to compete in the first place. I don't want them to be forced into the position of the silent partner in all this. Without the teams, there's no event for anybody to sponsor. So let's not bite the hands that feed us. I don't think that the team booth should be just another commercial booth. Not at all. They shouldn't be selling their sponsors' products. Maybe they shouldn't even be passing out literature. Those are reasonable restrictions that help protect the investment of the event sponsors. But I absolutely want the passive presentations telling us who sponsored these teams to be allowed. I want the logos on the tents to be left alone. I don't think it is enough for the jumpsuits and canopies to be the only place where passive presentation is allowed. I'm okay with saying that the team area shouldn't be used for selling, or even active promotion. I am okay with saying that an airblade would take up space that is not intrinsically part of the teams' space. The space for an additional airblade should be paid for, no problem. But to restrict the passive display of sponsors logos and the like on the tent, is just slapping those sponsors in the face. They already paid for the space that tent is taking up, and we should not treat them as though they didn't. Bottom line? I want to leave the tents alone. And I want that to be a condition for hosting the event in the future, If it is reasonable for the host dz and their sponsors to make conditions, then it is reasonable for us to make our own. A little give and take, and everyone can be happy.

So he doesn't want a DZ to take steps to break even or make a profit while holding nationals. Competitors shouldn't be excluded, but a DZ should be able to try to at least break even. Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding competitors to save money... I already modified my statement in another post, but since the issue of what I said came up again, I want to be clear. Of course it is great if a host dz can break even, and even better if it can make a profit. But excluding one competitor in the process to achieve that is defeating the purpose of the USPA Nationals. The Nationals are supposed to be a place where any member can have the opportunity to show us their stuff. If the host dz has to make deals that might jeopardize the ability of a competitor to participate, I have a problem with that. In the original quote, I meant for both statements to be tied to the problem of competitor exclusion. I know, that's not what I said, and I got called on it, as I should have been. So I want to be clearer now. The problem I have is excluding any competitor in the name of profitability. In my mind, the competitors have top priority. All other concerns are secondary. If the competitors need the sponsorships to be able to be there, then jeopardizing the competitors' sponsorships, either now or next year, is a bad thing. If a dz can't agree to that, we should have known during the dz selection process, since it might have affected the selection.

(Can some old timer remind me how or why we stopped having the Nationals in Muskogee?) (Maybe we should start another thread?)

So he doesn't want a DZ to take steps to break even or make a profit while holding nationals. Competitors shouldn't be excluded, but a DZ should be able to try to at least break even. Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding competitors to save money... Okay, I'll take it back. I don't really mean they shouldn't break even. They can break even, or even profit, but we should not have to give up the real purpose of the competition in the process. The purpose of this competition is to find our nation's best skydivers, so we can give them a chance to represent us at the international level. I don't want to sacrifice this purpose because of a NEW, UNPRECEDENTED, rule from the dz. This isn't the way it has been done before, and nobody was expecting to have to deal with such a change. Not that changing is evil, of course, but changing at this late date is not a good thing. I don't think that Spaceland was really the source of the rule, either. I suspect that it was put to Spaceland that their sponsors might pull out without the rule. But now we have that their sponsors are have become more important than the teams' sponsors. And that's not really right either. Maybe if that rule had surfaced during the venue selection process, well, maybe the selection might have gone elsewhere. Maybe, maybe not. but everyone would have known up front what the rules were going to be. But now, it is too late, and someone has us over a barrel. The purpose of this competition is to find our nation's best skydivers, so we can give them a chance to represent us at the international level. That is the overriding purpose of the competition, and I don't want that overshadowed by commercial purposes. They are free to have the competition any time they like. But this is the USPA competition. And we should be sure that any eligible member has his shot.

My RD tells me that the BOD is discussing the matter as we speak. Okay, I don't know if he means email, or a conference call or what, but the matter is getting the attention of the BOD. So somebody at that level must think there is something to be concerned about.

Excellent! Thanks for your work! Thanks for also working to get recognition for you work! We all benefit from both.

Thanks!

can you post that file as something that is more universally readable? A text file? A PDF?

Boy, this one really has the hackles up fast. I can hardly keep up with the posts. Anyway, I guess I am not as opposed to it as some are. I went back and re-read the announcement several times, and it does allow people to jump with their branded or logo'd gear. I take this to mean that you can still jump the canopy you've been training on even if it has something from the sponsor on it. I still worry some about if this excludes some teams that should not be excluded. Someone posted the example of the Golden Knights packing tent. I like the example, and I'd like to know the answer to that question. Many have pointed out that this is supposed to be a not-for-profit USPA even for the benefit of the membership, and I think that is a very important point. If Spaceland is trying to make a profit from it, I don't think that's a good thing. If Spaceland excludes a competitor in the name of even breaking even, I don't think they should have that right. Another function of this event is to pick the membership for the national team that will represent us in international competition. And I do not want to see any competitor excluded, because it might mean a weaker national team. That sort of leads back to the Golden Knights question. It seems to me that active promotion, selling, give-aways and the like are reasonable to exclude. But passive advertising on your gear, including your tents, should not prohibited. Your packing tent is part of your gear. It helps to keep you in top shape for competition. If Spaceland wants to provide covered packing hangars for everyone, maybe that would mean they could exclude the packing tent. But unless they provide a level playing field (sorry for the pun), they should not exclude any passive advertising that appears on something that might reasonably be considered part of the team's gear. Your airblade, however, is not part of your gear. it is strictly advertising, and serves no purpose related to enhancing your athletic performance. So I have no problem excluding it. Of course, my $.02, ymmv

I don't know how I feel, but I do know I have some questions - 1) do the teams' sponsorship agreements include things like requiring them to hawk the sponsors' products when they are at competitions? 2) will the decree from the dz therefore prevent some of the best teams from competing? 3) do sponsored participants in other sports have similar agreements and restrictions? (motor sports, bicycle racing, golf, bowling, other non-league type high-profile sports) 4) are there differences between professional and amateur competitions?