stratostar

Never truer words were spoken/posted.... F.U. G. B. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Yes they jumped together, I watched them exit. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

I have seen two out on SL before. All 3 big line backer built guys, all 3 had the reserves fire while on the step due to being so big the main lift web pulled the pins. Also seen it happen the very same way on a "modern rig" and that guy's canopy hit the tail and cut most the front line group, he rode in a spinning reserve and lived. The first 3 had all been trained for 2 out and did as trained, with help from the radio guy. Too many instructors these days are cutting corners on what info is to be given to a FJC in order to save time or speed up the class time, IMHO. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

I still teach it in SL fjc's and train for a hanging exit, why fix what is not broken. You don't need to teach the relaxed frog modified till first 10 second.... Video of my FJC you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

The time is here! Get your BOOGIE on..... So you never been before? worried about being a low timer and getting on good skydives? LO's for all ranges of exp. Have not any fear folks this a boogie even a dummy can have a good time at! you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

John, please note this is not a NOPRM. I made that mistake before too in post about 4mos ago and..... well lets just say Randy O's phone started ringing off the hook @ HQ and he was not real happy about it, at the time. This is just "new standards" and not a rule change (for now). However as USPA has pointed out in their letters to the FAA, what they are proposing would in fact require such rule making, in order to change 105.23B. This is still open to public comments, as it should be. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

pretty much. However, there is the not much "streamlining" of anything, this will add a great deal of time for approval to jump, unlike now a verbal from airport manger is all that is needed. Also, like in my pending case the airport sponsor, has just spent 350K to draw up a new airport master plan.... now if they have to go back a redo a part of it to add in a PLA, how much do you think that will cost? Do you think that cost wouldn't passed on to any operators currently operating or any new DZ seeking to access a FFA. Also the marking of a PLA, not needed and could also become another cost to pass along to operators..... SO just how much are you willing to pay for a lift ticket in the future? 35, 40, 50 bucks? you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

We have standards in place now that the FAA has not been enforcing or selectively enforcing in some parts of the country. We don't need additional layers of crap to wade through in order to get permission to jump, that will take up to months to get approval or a denial. Also, no reason change years of standards by now making new hazards out of what is now a non hazard. This whole PLA study has been nothing but a waste of tax payer money and a waste of time for all involved. The FAA only needs to enforce it's current standards on airport sponsors and hold them accountable to the grant funding contracts they singed and agreed too in exchange for our tax dollars. A simple mandate or FAA order of compliance sent to each and every airport sponsor that makes clear to them skydiving is an approved use and denials for unjust reasons will result in no funding and repayment of funding would be mandatory, would change a great deal of current airport sponsors who are causing problems and not complying with their agreed contracts for funding. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

The wing was tested on strike flight, so it just a dent, move along here folks nothing to see here.... you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Yes & no. Depends on who is teaching and who they learned from on how to teach... if you never did SL and didn't have that rating and learned AFF and teach AFF, then you can't expect to see this type of training. If you find an SL school this is a more common style of training, and even these days the new schoolers are trying to move away from old school teachings, so your starting to see less and less of the old methods being used. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Everyone been reading their USPA news letter today and getting up to speed on this issue? Has anyone commented yet to the FAA? you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Early Spaceland otter you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Not that hard, when I toss your pilot chute out the door and hang on to your leg straps.... you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Um, don't think that's what they meant, by "low drag"... Oh and some us still have those big ass rigs and canopies, hell I just up-sized my reserve last yr. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Haven't clue.... but damn nice! you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Mr. Brown, with all do respect, can you please enlighten us all to your personal first hand experience and in depth knowledge as to how much or how little, as you claim that USPA has been failing to lead on this issue. You sir don't clue as to the many hours or meetings and dealings with a whole host of FAA people, the person, who's job it is to deal with the FAA, Mr. Randy Ottinger, and not Mr. Scott, has put into this issue, daily and for the last 2.5 yrs alone on just this PLA study/issue!!! You like a many other people posting in this thread, , hate to say it, but, y'all need to get your collective heads out of the sand and start to get educated on this important issue now facing skydiving on public use, federal funded airports and how this can effect you. For many years I have not been a big fan of many a USPA BOD, still don't care for a few current sitting ones... however I personally, along with at least 15 other members who have been seeking airport access in just the last 5 yrs, know all too well how much time USPA HQ staff have spent on this ever pressing issue. There also are a handful of people in this industry who have spent countless hours dealing with this. Mr. Brown, your out of line with your insults towards USPA on this issue, and I advise you talk to someone like Rich Grimm, Pat Garcia, Urban Moore, Greg Upper, Chris @ Skydive Columbus, to name a few, before you post again such, sorry to say, stupid comments. Please take the time learn the facts and get educated on this matter, have a good day. Thank you USPA Urban Moore Pat Garcia & others you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Well yea that it in a nut shell.... In my current case, the city would be screwed big time. However, this could kill or be a major hurt to other operators. What if this forced some place like Deland to close? Would you support that? If I could have a win for me, but it forced Deland to close, we then I can't support that change. Not sure at this point how I will respond, but respond I will. Currently, I think this is utter bullshit and a total waste of tax payer monies and time and this lack of enforcing the current rules has kept a number of people unemployed for the last 5 yrs. I think the FAA needs to stop wasting time and money and enforce the rules we have on the books of airport compliance. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-03/html/2012-15912.htm As many people now know the FAA has now released for public comments their proposed "Parachute Landing Area" requirements. There is another thread going about this subject, the problem is that thread is already so full of off subject crap it's no longer worth reading it to wade through all the crap in order to get the good info. So where did this all come from? And why is the FAA doing this? Well some of you here may remember this thread "Know your rights" and a few other airport access threads I have been following for the last 5 yrs and posting on. All of this PLA stuff is not new, it's been an on going study for 2 yrs. now. Four years ago I tried to do some jumping and was told a whole host of lies as to why I couldn't jump in whole county wide area of class E airspace and use a federal funded airport for parachute operations, this lead to filing a part 13 informal with the FAA. After many months of work & back and forth with the airport board/airport manger & the FAA... a safety study was done and found in favor of skydiving, the airport was told to comply or not. They choose the or not and drafted a letter to the FAA telling the FAA to stick it and they "the FAA" didn't know what they were talking about. (for example) one of the areas I said would be well suited for a LZ, a 470 yrd x 470 yrd x 370 yrd triangle in the middle of the airport..... the city, to the FAA, quoted the sims that says: "parachute landing areas must/should not be in areas with power lines" then they marked on an aerial all the under ground power lines to all the runway lights on the airport property. You should note, each and every grass area large enough to comply with the current rules, all contain some form of under ground wires, like all airports do! Here we are four years later, and a two year study on PLA's done by the FAA.... USPA has been working hard on this issue, like it or not the table is set and your invited to dinner and let them know how you like the taste of the dish being offered. The Why: Why did the FAA do this study and now try to make this change? Last I knew there were 12 airport access cases in the US still pending a directors ruling. Two years ago the FAA got sick of dealing with the kind of crap and game playing (example above) that airport sponsors have been doing to "limit, ban or restrict" types, kind & classes of approved activities, like skydiving. Seeing how skydiving is the most "picked on" by pilots, airport boards and airport management and it most likely one of the top informal complaints towards airport sponsors??? So now the FAA (two yrs ago) stopped all rulings, findings, or action on any part 13 cases, there is no time limit anyway on those, unlike a part 16 formal complaint. $$$$ The FAA told all ADO's & FSDO to not take action till this study was conducted, a 24 month process, pretty much. So every one here who is getting off topic over on the other thread, the fact of the matter is your all wrong, and while all those topics you are bringing up are important and don't help matters in how wuffo's, pilots, airport sponsors & board members, and YES even the FAA, all see our activities. The bottom line on this, is that, this is all about the ongoing conflicts with those seeking to operate on federal funded airport and or airport sponsors kicking off dz's via harassment & violations of the grant funding contract. It's a very complex issue, we have even seen FAA field inspectors over stepping their bounds in enforcing, or making statements of fact out of the scope of thier duties, or not understanding the FAR's or under taking actions and statements that are ATC's area of control. This has made some cases I know of more difficult because a airport sponsor is told wrongly they were correct "it would NOT be safe for skydiving on the airport" only to be over ruled later by higher up's, but the city still thinks the DZO is paying off someone or pulling a fast one some how..... see Cresswell Org. http://www.kxl.com/02/15/12/Skydivers-Arent-Falling-For-This/landing_lars.html?blockID=587404&feedID=10628 It's all about airport access people and we've talking about this for sometime. Listen up, pay attention to USPA on this one and then in a professional manner and after careful review of the info, use the USPA guidance to draft your reply to the FAA. Get educated people & Choose your words wisely!!! 1. http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx#28587 2. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/News/FAAProposal070312.pdf you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Well great question. What is most important here is to take a chill pill and relax,. Do NOT, remark or make comments to the FAA like an asshat! If everyone will follow the guidance that USPA has provided to us, it will be the best thing to do right now. Then draft well worded and thought out replies based on facts and using professional tones and language at all times. It would also be helpful for most here to remember that, they are reading not only comments on the register but here as well. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Very little, this has been coming down the pike for two yrs, now... it's all about airport access and airport sponsors telling dzo/skydive companies to keep out it's not safe here, no room. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

I can't speak for USPA. I can tell you that in my personal contacts with Mr. Ottinger on my own case, it is clear to me, they are well advised of ALL access cases in the USA. I know they, or mostly Mr. Ottinger has been helping or advising Urban, the same as they/he would do for any member in good standing. I'm sure if you call Urban he will have a lot of good things to say about that office in HQ. One thing I would like to make clear here. A lot of people totally fail to know and understand how the AAD fund works and they automatic think the USPA start handing out money to defend an operator or to help win access to an airport. That is not how it works. But I would think it's safe to say, USPA is supporting this 100%. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

http://www.eugeneskydivers.com/news-and-media.html you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

No way in hell over here! If city properties were open to everyone then there wouldn't be all these cases in the US of airport access fights over the use and or landing of parachutes on an City Airport. You also can't just fly over of a town and hop out and land in the city park, it's a violation of a couple laws if you don't have permission or proper paper work filed with the FAA to do it. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Mike Mullins is a member of USPA, his DZ in not a group member dz. As a member of USPA Mike is allowed to run for and hold a BOD seat. And for the record, it's my understanding, one of the main reasons his DZ is not a group member dz, is so that his kids could jump there without violations of the BSR's and that was one of the main reasons. Mr. Mullins can't correct me if I'm wrong on that understanding. Some non USPA dz's are just fine. Others though have been kicked out of the USPA for life because of their long proven history of doing really bad shit. A. O. Ohio......... you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Why? For one thing it's clearly covered already in far 105.23B and AC 105.2D sport parachuting. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo