Hooknswoop

No, it doesn't. HMA is very difficult to cascade. I have heard that continuous HMA lines have a little more drag than cascaded Vectran. Lines are a tremendous source of drag. Look at cables on bi-plane aircraft, they aren't round, but flat to reduce drag. Round cables/lines have a lot of drag and I don't know of any way to keep flat lines correctly orientated to reduce drag. Derek Derek

You really are arguing just to argue. Stop helping. Derek

Um, right, it's a metaphor. So you are back to the ‘their is no problem’ argument? Injuries and fatalities from flying perfectly good canopies into the ground is on the rise. If you don’t see that over 6 years and 60/jumps a year, you should go out to the DZ more often. When I was skydiving, rarely missed a weekend, and when I was full time, I rarely missed a day at the DZ. Injuries and fatalities from perfectly good canopies is on the rise. A lot of skydivers that have been around a while see it. There are no statistics to prove it, because of USPA, but there are increasing. We are way beyond whether or not there is a problem. Again, you want to help? Help. Don’t just sit there and say, “Why don’t you just _______________.” Derek

You think you are helping. You are being a pain in the ass. You want to help? Come up with ideas, that is a lot harder than sitting back and trashing others. It is very presumptious of you to think you can just sit back, point out what you think is wrong, tell us to fix it, while you go back to what you are doing. You want in on this? Roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Don't sit on the outside and try to tell us what is wrong. I know a record holding pilot. He has been flying a long time and built his own record setting airplane. His biggest pet peeve is when he is at an airshow, workig on the plane to get ready for a record attempt and someone will walk up and say, "Why don't you just_________." This person thinks that they can walk up and in 15 seconds, they can solve an issue that he has been working on for years. And then they shove anothe bite of hot dog into their mouth and wander off to the next airplane, to solve another difficult problem in record time. They think they are helping too. They aren't. They are just being aggrevating as hell. Helping takes real effort. Saying, "Why don't you just__________." doesn't take any efort at all. You are in the sinking boat. Don't sit there and tell someone they are lowering the life boat wrong. Grab a line. Derek

Right, how many 16-year olds can afford to buy a Corvette or a Ferrari? Cost, insurance, etc keep sports cars out of the hands of most teenagers. I have a friend that gave his son a 300 ZX for his 16th birthday. Took him 2 weeks to park it in someone’s living room. Derek

So who is more at risk, a 19 year old female jumper with 1500 jumps, the last 500 of which were under a Stiletto 97 at 1.4:1 or a 29 year old male with 50 jumps that buys a Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.6:1? The problem with saying younger drivers and therefore younger jumpers are more at risk is most jumpers don't start at age 16. Number of jumper tends to give a good indication of experience. That would equate to number of miles driven. I agree that younger males can often think they are bullet proof, but to try and make a BSR that focuses on age makes it complicated, unwieldy and unfair. A canopy doesn't care how old you are. A canopy doesn't care what gender you are. As one of my mentors told me before ltting me jump his stiletto 120, "This canopy will kill you, then lay there and wait for it's next victim." I would say inexperience and the desire to show off are the principle indicators of risk. Derek

Not, just fatalities, incidents, which includes injuries and fatalities. There have been a lot of injuries in the past 10 years from people flying canopies they shouldn't be and from a lack of education and training. I've said it several times in the last 2 hours, if this BSR had been in place when they started jumping, it would have made a difference. It is very likely that some of those fatalities wouldn't have happened if those jumpers had a solid base of understaning to build off of. Again, this BSR would affect every jumper in a posotive manner that starts jumping after it is in place. They would get the training has been missing ever since canopy performance took sucha huge step foward in the early 90's. No, it is the job of every skydiver to make things better and reduce injuries and fatalities, that includes you. What are you doing to reduce injuries and fatalities? Derek

Maybe you missed when USPA took a stand against mandatory incident reporting or leaked confidential incident information to the prosicution on a case against a DZ. That has ensured that the stastics don't and will not exist. Derek

And had the BSR been in place when they started, maybe with a better CC foundation and learning process, they wouldn't have died under a good canopy. The point is, the BSR will affect everyone that starts skydiving after it is in place in a positive way. There is no down side to better education and training and keeping jumpers from flying too small canopies. Derek

The problem I see is your idea doesn't come into effect untila fter there is a problem. I think training and education for everyone, not just jumpers that end up on a list is the way to go. I think preventing in the first place from people downsizing too fast before they become a problem is the way to go. Derek

You couldn’t. But right now you can’t monitor quality control of someone takes their rig to their local rigger for an SB either (or for a re-pack, a patch, or any other repair for that matter). If it was that big of a concern, then the manufacturer would have to get the FAA to issue an Advisory Directive that required the AD to be done at the factory. The only thing vouchers would change is to increase the number of SB’s done in the field and reduce costs and down time for the owner and manufacturer. If the rigger can’t do it right, they shouldn’t do it. The owner should take it upon themselves to read an SB and make sure the rigger does it right. Derek

Sometimes DZ's call when they ground someone in case they try a different DZ. This only works when the DZ's are on speaking terms, which in a lot of cases, they aren't. Your idea also doesn't include any training or education, which I think is vital to reducing injuries/fatalities. Derek

This is basically the system in place today, which doesn't work. Derek

I am curious to opinions of my idea of a manufacturer paying riggers to do their SB’s. The rigger shoots the manufacturer a quick e-mail with the S/N of the rig, their address, and their certificate #. That information will prevent abuse of the system and only takes a minute for the rigger to get paid. No long forms, stamps, etc. This would save the manufacturer from having to do the SB’s, save shipping both ways, possible re-packs (depending o the SB), and down time for the rig. The manufacturer saves money, the owner saves money and their rig isn’t down while in shipping or in line to get worked on at the manufacturer, the rigger gets paid a set rate. While not perfect (their may not be a local rigger that an do the SB), I don’t see any downsides. Derek

Then why have BSR's at all? Why not let jumpers do whatever they want? If they couldn't jump, then they wouldn't hammer in under a canopy they can't handle. The BSR would prevent their inury/fatality. And this one could be waived/exceeded, whatever if the jumper was competent enough to do so. That is the current system, which isn't working. There are no guidelines, so it is done haphazardly from DZ to DZ. There are DZ's in the U.S that I would not have been allowed to jump at, even though I could safely fly my canopy. They had their rules and there are no exceptions. Derek

There is the root of the problem. Kallend felt the same way. He was wrong. Why? Because this affects you as a skydiver, that's why. Again, this isn't a 'us versus them' thing. It's a skydiver thing. You should care. You should want to make a positive difference. Don’t be so lazy, sit back and say, “Convince me.” You are just another skydiver, like all the other skydivers. You are not the one-man sounding board and any BSR proposals must pass your review. You are trying to put yourself in the position of having to be convinced to justify the BSR. Sorry, but that isn’t your position, that is USPA’s position. If you want to be in that position, run for the BOD. If you want to change or stop the proposal, present some evidence. I don’t have to convince you that it is a good idea with charts an 8 x 10 glossy pictures. If you were in a sinking boat, would you ask for proof that the boat will sink before getting in the life boat? If I was on a sinking boat with you, I wouldn’t stop from getting in the life boat to try and prove to you that the boat is really sinking. If you want to go down with the ship because no one will prove to you it is sinking, good luck to you. The point is, you are in the boat. It is being addressed and worked on. Derek

How would a gray list prevent a jumper with 200 jumps that shoulodn't be flying a Stiletto 120 at 1.5:1 from hammering in? A 'watch list' is a good idea to keep jumpers are grounded from jumping their too-small canopy from going down the road and jumping it. An easier solution would be requiring the jumper to have on their license, the max WL they are allowed to jump. They buy a canopy they can;t handle and grounded at their home DZ and try to go down the road and that DZ grounds them after looking at their license. People that try and lie about their WL will be catch quickly and then they won't ba able to jump anywhere, regardless of WL. Derek Derek

No, it means that the proposal will affect everyone that starts jumping after (and if) it is put in place. Education and training will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is a no-brainer. That will affect a jumper even when they have 10,000 skydives, because they learned good basics from the start. Keeping people off canopies they aren't ready for yet will reduce injuries and fatalities. That is also a no-brainer. The test-out clause allows the exceptions to the rule to not be held back by it. Currently, there is no rule that says someone with 50 jumps can't jump a Stiletto 97 loaded at 2:1 when they can't land a Sabre 150. That is stupid. I fail to see how training and education and keeping people from jumping canopies they shouldn't be jumping, unless thy really are an exception tot he rule is a bad idea in any way. The current system of the S & TA saying "no.", doesn't work. They don't have a uniform policy, like the minimum deployment altitude BSR to go by. I'll address questions and criticism of the proposal, but just debating for debating is silly. If someone would like to discuss improving or adjusting the proposal to make it better and work out of the box, great. If someone wants to take the attitude of "It's their idea, they have to prove to me we need it and it'll work", lose the attitude. This isn't an ‘us against them’ thing. This is a skydivers thing and skydivers are all in it together. It won't affect me in the slightest, I don't jump anymore. This is my last little crusade. I don’t have to pick up the pieces anymore. So instead of asking, “Does that mean you didn't bother to find out?” Find out. Don’t let everyone else to the work for you. You are in this too, whether you realize it or not. Be a part of the solution. Present evidence, not just arguments. Present solutions, not just debate. Present ideas, don’t just shoot down others’ ideas. Derek

All of them that had a "B" license or higher. All of them that exceeded the WL chart. That is not the only people that this proposal will affect in a positive manner. Derek

Definately a big step. Steve's done good Congrats. Derek

You probably induced the 720 left when you stopped the right turn. Instead of harness shifting to steer the opening, try just keeping your hips level with the ground. Just like a swing set, that will bring the canopy back on heading without the over shoot. If after opening you have spinning line twists, just make the links even, since the canopy won't turn if the link are even and you can then kick out. Once I figured that out, I never had to cutaway from spinning line twists again. Derek

I see what looks like fuel on the deck. Could be turbine oil though. I see 3 either input or output fluid lines. The control arm. I can't tell if that is for input, like controlling pump output, or if it is for output, for controlling, say prop pitch. I see what looks like a filter housing and a spline shaft for driving a pump. I don't see anything electrical about it. I really don't think it is an 'egciter box' or an exciter box either. I'll still go with a fuel control and pump. Derek

Looks like a fuel control/pump. Derek

My main point, is if Mirage were to pay Master Riggers to do the SB, then Mirage wouldn't have to do them and wouldn't have to pay return shipping. That saves them money. Not having to send it in or pay for their rigger to do the SB saves the owner down time and money. Everyone wins. That isn't whining. It is an elegant win-win solution. You didn't address this in your reply. Derek

They are doing the SB for free and paying return shipping. My point is they should either pay shipping both ways or Mirage could save the owner and themselves time and money, and pay Master Rigger to do the SB. If the money is such an issue, then this would save them money........ From the poll, I'm not the only one that thinks the same way I do. Derek