Pulse

Even if that were true, there is still a question of what you do in that case. Suppose you just turned onto the base leg in your normal straight in approach. You happen to notice someone above and in front of you about to perform a 270 . Maybe sees you maybe not. What do you do? What do you do if you are standing in the landing area and someone comes swoopoing right at you at a high rate of speed? I think yes, you can usually pick out those who are setting up for high-speed landings. But what if you're wrong? I've been in groups where a few of us have been setting up at the same time. And though I'm usually right on how people are setting up. Every once in awhile I'm wrong. They may have to change their plane for some reason. As for being in the landing area. I like people to stay still when their in the landing area. But it begs the question, why are you there? If you're out there shooting video or something, or even walking back from your own landing, that's the risk you run. The skydive isn't over until your packing. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Two thoughts: "Good experience comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement." "Experience gives the test first...the lesson later." Both are true and I would go so far as to say there is no learning without experience. I could go on forever in the classroom about talking about using good judgement. What you should do in particular situations, why you should perform as such and so on. But until that person is there they'll never have total appreciation for it. It's well known that most accidents are not caused by one big problem. But rather a culmination of many small miscalculations, the 'error chain'. The trick is knowing when you're in it and knowing how to break it. Basically, knowing when you're in trouble. And it's not always obvious. Skills like this are impossible to learn without experience. Sadly, some will never get the chance to learn from their experience because they realized their error much too late. When they were in too deep. That's when WE have to gleen what we can from their experience. This is what incident reports and NTSB reports are for. It is an ongoing process. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

As someone who performs 270 or 360 degree turns to final, I don't believe they really have a place in the 'normal' pattern. I have done it before without any problem, but I really do believe this was a lapse in good-judgement. The term 'pattern' implies predictability. Some jumpers making 90's and others 270's does NOT make for great predictability. Low rate of turn 270's can take up a lot of airspace. 'Snap' 270's are whipping the pilot into their blind spot. There's just no fool-proof method to do this safely in the pattern environment. If we're then going to entertain the thought of how downwinders will fit into the pattern....forget it! "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

No one likes death but it's part of life. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks people were saying they would be willing to give up a certain amount of freedom if it meant they would be safer. Down the road people complain about taking their shoes off at airports. People have short memories and the same goes here. We don't find the current BSR's burdensome because that's what we know. We're used to them. Is that justification enough to add to more? Add more BSR's, require more regulation, require more USPA-sanctioned training. Ten years from now people will still be dying and there we'll be wanting to add more regulation. "After all, the current BSR's aren't particularly bothersome." Even if more BSR's are the end-all solution and I don't recognize it, there will ALWAYS be loop-holes of one form or another. People will always find their way through the system. Recently we had a jumper show up at our drop zone that said he recieved his AFF training and A-license at Eloy. Yet he didn't know how to pack. I've seen this happen numerous times. I agree with you. Segragated landing areas are NOT a bad idea and I will always support that. But that should be done at the drop zone level. The initial post was a wide open 'what should USPA do' question. I fear any knee-jerk reactions and regulations. I will blame experienced jumpers passing on bad information from time to time. People downsizing too quickly. People not understanding the discipline involved in high-speed landings. People becoming complacent while flying. In essence, people ignoring their own mortality. These are all problems contributing to the ongoing deaths and injuries under open parachutes. I guess my main question is: If we add regulations now. What do we do in the future when people are still dying? It's nice to think about an age where people don't die. But it's a fact of life. Engage in high-risk activities and it becomes even more of a factor. "...gravity is constant and powerful, and speed kills. In combination, they are particularly destructive." ~ Dan Manningham "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

33% of all fatalities per annum during landings. No... Not recent. Almost every year. Right, I guess I thought that went without saying. That doesn't change my stance. The emotional build-up is much higher because of the short time frame between them. Logically, there is no difference than if there was a month between them. Two people are dead, there's no getting around that. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

The day of my first jump course was the first time I read an article about 'hook turns'. People weren't dying from them yet, but they were getting hurt. As I was getting ready for my sixth jump I saw my first hook turn. Impact was roughly 30 feet from where I was standing and it resulted in a broken back and femur. As I progressed as a student, I was struck by a simple fact. Skydivers did not know much about how things fly. They didn't know much about flying accidents and how they come about. Worse yet, they didn't talk about it. They didn't seem to care. Luckily, that seems to have changed to a degree. But the fact remains in that many still don't seem to understand or care. I know I will get flamed for such a statement. But I actually think we're doing quite well and the number of deaths seems very low to me. It's very easy to become very emotional after accidents. We're left wondering, "What can we do? What went wrong? How can we keep this from happening again?" The fact is flying and skydiving are dangerous sports. So dangerous in fact that given enough time, people will die. Given the number of jumps we make a year. Given the number of high-performance landings we make a year. I am shocked there are not more deaths. I am not saying we shouldn't try to educate. But my point is that we cannot simply start making new rules and ratings because of a few recent deaths. These guys apparently knew what they were doing. Troubling? Yes. Particularly unique? No. Restrictions tighten gradually. So gradually that few see it. Each generation adding another layer to it feeling there's no harm because they're just adding one more rule to what they already know. What's the big deal.....right? USPA spends so much time 'promoting' the sport and trying to get people involved. When they die, we grieve. If we want to stop death in such a dangerous sport, it seems the easiest thing we could do is tell them to stay home. No skydivers = no skydiving related deaths. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

This depends on what kind of wing loading you're coming from also. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Female pilots also don't return from missions. Female pilots get taken prisoner. And you would still have the 'standards' issues. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I voted YES on the poll. YES I feel women should serve in our military. In whatever capacity they desire and qualify for. But I have my misgivings and it has nothing to do with physical or mental capability. Realizing guys are guys and women are women. Biology, chemistry, and human nature at work and I begin to think it's something we as a culture really aren't ready for. People would have to set aside their egos, their emotions, their biases, it just wouldn't happen. And how are we supposed to deal with that? I agree with the setting of identical standards for both genders. You don't cut the mustard....you're not a soldier. Then suddenly Sally gets a passing grade and people start questioning whether she passed on her performance or her gender. Who knows? But now we have to investigate it at the cost to the taxpayers. We also run the risk of keeping track of how many soldiers we have from each gender. Suddenly there's the added pressure that we're not reaching our percentage of female soldiers. Then the general public starts pointing out that not as many female canidates pass as male recruits. The higher ups want to change this to appease Joe-public and start 'bending' standards. Yes, it would happen. Of course then a war comes along. The public that thought the military was being biased about the entry of women now cries when a woman is taken prisoner. She is injured, raped, and the public is dismayed and starts taking on a new mindset. She is no longer a soldier, she is thought of more along the lines of a '...that poor defenseless woman.' Before long we're back here. Should women be allowed to serve in the military? Then we'll forget about it. Until the next military action. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I think you would be surprised how much you can see from the squad. It's not simply how far the buckle moved. Three inches makes for quite a bit of visible slack in the belt. The part that is completely visible from behind you. Part of me kind of wonders how your attitude was percieved by the cop. If you're jumping to the conclusion that you were done wrong or the cop was 'crooked', I have to think you were coming off a little 'testy' and didn't realize it. People aren't very good judges of how their coming off to others. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

A license makes you safe? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Why? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Which seems to lead me to my question for god: Would you accept my list of recommendations for your next 'creation' project? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Lucky... you're proving a point I become more aware of as time goes on. We are SO much more sensitive of news we DON'T like than news we do. When we form a strong opinion of something we tend to focus much more on information that legitimizes our own beliefs. Such as we see here. You're picking apart police, telling us 75% of them are corrupt. You could go on forever about the bad things police have done. I would never deny there is ever any bad behavior. But that goes for EVERY line of service out there. It's called 'being human'. But you're completely ignoring any good that is going on out there. Honestly, I believe there is more good than bad. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Regardless of what song it is. If it's used poorly....it sucks. If it's used well.....you have a masterpiece. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I don't know if I see a huge difference between elliptical and semi-tapered. What concerns me is a wing-loading of 1.2:1. By todays standards that's not high. But it would've been considered high for someone of your numbers 10 years ago. In fact, I believe 1.2:1 is where canopies started to be considered 'high-performance'. What has changed besides the labels? Nothing. As a student you were in somewhat 'ideal' conditions. Now you're on your own. You will make mistakes, you will get in over your head. We all do it, that's part of the fun right? But you want to be able to do this and get away with it. Be able to make your mistakes without trips to the hospital. I was considering recently that in my early days I was flying a much larger canopy than any of my other newly licensed friends at the DZ. Looking back, I realize I'm the ONLY one who didn't go to the hospital at least once. I never even took a weekend from jumping because of a 'lightly' injured ankle or anything. Coincidence? As for not feeling like you'll be lucky to make it to next year? Good. Not to scare, but I don't think many people have that good of an understanding of their own mortality. It never hurts to see things as being a little more dangerous. As long as it only serves to increase your performance. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I owned a Jonathan-136 for approx 1,600 jumps. Today I still jump one of the first Jedi's, a Jonathan with airlocks...literally. (It still says Jonathan on the side.) I absolutely loved Airtime canopies. Though a number of us had them in the area and it was quite apparent that there were differences between individual canopies. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

IMHO I believe it's less about 'feeling comfortable' and more about mastering a canopy. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

This is all fine and good considering large ram-airs. Though I have yet to see jumpers dissipate energy while skidding for yards under a ram-air. I've seen people land at half-brakes, their feet impact first, then their head. I had a friend once wind up in a coma this way. But, that was not under what I would consider a 'large' ram-air. My initial comment was more about why people should go with larger reserves rather than downsizing their container. If we're discussing large ram-air canopies and round canopies, what you're saying makes sense. But I'm thinking more along the lines of tiny reserves people are buying now. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'm not talking about 'clueless' jumpers. I'm talking unconscious. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

That's assuming you're landing in a clear area. But You're telling me someone flying into a wall at 10-mph is going to be the same as someone going 50-mph? I'm not saying rounds would be better than ram-airs in the hands of capable cargo. Sean Tucker has been under parachutes before. His bail out was also from 8,000 feet where he had some time. Sounds like we've got the same jump numbers when it comes to rounds. Interesting that we've formed two opposite opinions. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I agree to an extent, but it's not something to be ignored. No canopy lasts forever but it would be nice to have for as long as possible. I'm not a big fan of buying anything the first year it is out anyway. I'd like to hear some real-world reviews first. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I had heard a rumor of the fabric in the 'low-bulk' reserves "stretching" after ten or so openings. Anyone else heard of this? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Yes, I am agreeing with you. For the same reasons I'm saying a jumper that is unconcsious is probably better off under a round. I know that if I were to make a jump where I was not going to do anything and just ride the parachute wherever it took me, I would choose a round over a ram-air anyday. Yes, even on a windy day. And yes, I agree. In order to fly anything precisely, one needs to think ahead. How far ahead depends on the nature of what you're flying. Funny thing. I have about 20 jumps on T-10's and 5 on a Sierra (like a PC). Under my Velocity I have to think just as far ahead as one does under those other canopies. But for somewhat different reasons. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I wouldn't say rounds are 'less controllable', they are different to fly however. You can fly rounds precisely. You can fly ram-airs precisely. It all depends on the pilot, and if they're unconscious....it really doesn't matter. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."