Hooknswoop

Excellent question. A class II is required for commercial operations, which should apply to paid tandem jumps. Another thought is what level of health and often the physical should be passed to act as a TI. Is a class III sufficient? Has there been any issues caused by the TI having a medical issue a class II or I would have caught and/or prevented? I don't have any good answers to this one. Derek

I don't see anything beyond; "(iv) Has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute system used in the parachute operation or a course acceptable to the Administrator." For example, I could still legally act as a Parachutist in Command. I have been trained, etc. I do think TI's should have a Class III or better medical and I always had one when I did tandems. But I don't think it is an FAA requirement. Derek

The FAA require you to be trained by the manufacturer "or a course acceptable to the Administrator." The manufacturers require you to have a medical, once you have been trained, the FAA doesn't require the medical. The BSR's don't mean anything to the FAA. You don't need an AFF rating to do AFF in the U.S. You don't even need an Instructor to learn to skydive in the U.S. Derek

Technically, you don't need a medical; §105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems. (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless -- (1) One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system is the parachutist in command, and meets the following requirements: (i) Has a minimum of 3 years of experience in parachuting, and must provide documentation that the parachutist -- (ii) Has completed a minimum of 500 freefall parachute jumps using a ram-air parachute, and (iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and (iv) Has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute system used in the parachute operation or a course acceptable to the Administrator. (v) Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used. Derek

Not at all, since I consider myself one of those contributers. That doesn't mean I have the right to tell HH how to run his site. That doesn't give me the right to break the rules. If I am banned for this post, that is his right. If I don't like that I can be banned anytime for anything (which he is nice enough not to do), then I am free to not click on www.dropzone.com. Posters have not earned anything, giving them any rights. The site is what it is. If you want to use it, go ahead, but understand you are subject to the owner's will. You aren't owed anything by HH. You have no rights on DZ.com That being said, the Moderators do a great and difficult job, for free, to make this site a good place. If you disagree, offer up a suggestion, but don't be under the illusion that that suggestion has to be acted upon or that you are owed something. I don't know who you are talking about, but he must have over estimated his value to DZ.com if he is banned. Writing articles doesn't put you above the rules. The articles, etc I have written doesn't mean I won't be banned if I deserve it. And that is being nice, I could be banned even if I don't deserve it. I simply can't believe people are wining about how DZ.com is run. OK, I think I've said everything 3 different ways now. Read my posts on the subject and draw your own conclusions. Derek

Huh? That is where we disagree then. I don't feel DZ.com exists because of my input. I like learning, discussing, etc. This forum is the nicest place for me to do that. If I felt that I was getting screwed over, I would leave. And I would come out ahead, since I didn't spend anything. I could also just read and not post, basically getting something for nothing. I don't call up Yahoo and complain that sometimes normal e-mails go to my Spam box or sometimes e-mails take more than .2 seconds to arrive. I don't think I have any position bitching to Yahoo because their free service isn't always 100%. If Yahoo was that bad, I would buy an e-mail service and then have the right to complain about any problems to whoever I bought the service from. But as long as it's free, I'll count my self as ahead of the game and take what I can get. I simply cannot understand why people would complain about this site. I can see offering suggestions for making it better, as I'm sure anyone appreciates a good idea. But if they say, thanks, but no thanks, I'll either decide I can live with it or not. I don't think Yahoo would give a damn if I quit using their free e-mail service. Derek

I got asked to see my 'credential's one time and was impressed the student thought to ask instead of just blindly jumping with me. I proudly showed them everything I had at the time, AFF I/E, TDM I/E, S/L I/E, Rigger, and pilot. I figured showing them everything would reassure them. Derek

Sounds like a good idea. How hard would it be to impliment it? For those that think DZ.com Moderators aren't fair. Here is an example of how fair they are. More work for the same pay ($0) to ensure fairness. Derek

I missed them. If you wouldn't mind re-posting them for me? Bear in mind, I can't do anything, I'm just curious. It will also be a hard sell since I don't see a problem that needs fixing. For agrument's sake, let's say the Moderators are unfair. So what? No one has to log on. Show your dis-satifaction by not logging on and go somewhere where it is fair. Derek

Not at all. You made a big deal of learning from others mistakes and made one yourself because you didn't do exactly what you said you are doing, research. I agree there should have never been a static electricity problem with the Vigil. I personally wouldn't jump one. I think they have a ways to go to prove themselves against a proven AAD. But it seems as though they have fixed the problem and there haven't been any problems with them for awhile, which is encouraging. I am not sponsored by anyone. I agree and discount sponsored jumpers opinions. I think if a jumper is sponsoered, their opinion is almost worthless. If the person had offers from several different gear manufacturers that had the some compensation and they made their choice based on which gear was best, then I would put stock in sponsored jumper's opinions. But that isn't usually the case. Your post would have been recieved better if you had been clear and had your facts straight. You made a very simple mistake and lost credibility because of it. I misunderstood your post about the mounting of the unit to mean it wasn't a Vigil, because it wasn't very clear. So now that Vigil has the static electricity issue fixed, what issues to you have with the Vigil? Remember, that the Cypres had the same issues and have had misfires. And if you haven't heard of this, you haven't done your research as the information is readily available. I'm curious, what are the differences and simularities between the Cypres and Vigil, in your opinion? Derek

I don't think that is a fair statement. More airspeed means you are descending faster. Less airspeed equals a slower descent rate. I think it doesn't make a difference. At higher airspeeds the toggles have more effect, but because of the secent rate, it takes the same amount of altitude as a slower sirspeed would because of less response but a slower descent rate. Toggle hook turns are bad because the wing slows down i the turn with the majority of the energy for the swoop coming as a result of the pendelum effect. Front risers gives a faster diving turn for the same amount of pendelum and dive angle. Just to clarify, recovery is with the toggles only. Rear risers shouldn't be used to dig out of the corner. Derek

This I completely agree with. Derek

You have to be kidding me. With my old canopy I could bring myself into a vertical dive with either toggles or front risers. 45-degrees with either toggles or risers was child's play. Hell, I could get past 45-degrees with only harness input. Doesn't matter when you pull toggles. Pulling a toggle at 2000 feet doesn't cause the canopy to lose lift any more than pulling them at 10 feet. Pulling a toggle down increases the camber of the canopy, increasing lift and drag. Derek

Then leave. DZ.com is what it is. Don't like it? Leave. Feel the Moderators are unfair? Leave. Don't like that DZ.com ain't no damned democracy? Leave. Wan't a democratic DZ.com style web page? Leave and go build it. Try using Rec.Skydiving as a model for your anarchy-governed site. DZ.com not good enough for you? Leave. I have seen both sides of the fence. I don't see an unfairness or any way to make DZ.com a better site. I hear griping, but no positive ideas. In reality, DZ.com is run extrenely well. That is why there is so many people registered. I think is very disrespectful to walk into a free site where Moderators work hard to be fair and enforce the rules and whine that it is unfair. It is like a homeless person bitching that the free soup isn't the kind they like. Do you want the soup or not!?!? Don't want the free soup? DON'T EAT IT AND GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE PERSON WHO DOES!!!! Derek

Lose lift? How do you gain lift in the landing flare? It isn't by pulling down on the front risers. You can swing out 45 degrees with the toggles or front risers..... Derek

You can swing out from under a canopy the same amount whether you use a toggle or a riser. The difference is you get a lot more speed with the front riser, allowing you to iniate the manuever higher than with a toggle. Derek

Right, I agree that farther you swing out from under a canopy, the more altitude is needed to recover to level flight. TAke the same statment and substitute 'vertical' with '30-degree'. A canopy in a 30-degree dive at 40-mph require x number of feet to recover, regardless of how the canopy got to that dive angle and airspeed. I agree that toggle whipping is very bad. Front riser snap hooks are bad except for very small, highly loaded canopies. Derek

I don't think he is deluded, he just realizes he is pushing the limits of the rules with this thread. Believe me, there are several people I would have banned if I had let it get personal. Oftens times the Moderators will remove themselves from a banning decision if they are ihnvolved in the discussion or have a 'history' with the person in question. You do not realize the effort that goes into being fair. Derek

I think the number of participants and how it is increasing prove me right. If they were treated unfairly, there wouldn't be anyone one the site. Clearly they think things are OK or better because they are here and participating. The views of the participants are taken into consideration, but the site is run how HH wants it run. If someone feels that he isn't running it how he should, they can express that opinion, but HH is under no obligation to change anything based on that person's opinion. This ain;t no damned democracy Derek

I got one in the other day with limiting tapes. The bungee could stretch out to about double the length it should have been able too. I couldn't believe it worked at all. Derek

This site is still free. I wouldn't call it a business. The business side has no effect on me. If I do something the Moderators don't like, they will kick me off the site. Simple. I din't pay to be here, it is a priviledge. I can be banned for absolutely no reason at all. Moderators don't do that. They do their uptmost to be fair and keep the site an joyable place for all. In doing so, they are going to piss some people off, there is no way around that. You cannot make everyone happy. Just like a court verdict, the loser is going to think the judge was unfair and the winner will think the judge was fair. The judge's job is to be as fair as possible, following the rules, not keep everyone happy. I think there is a perception that HH owes us something. He doesn't. Nothing. Don't like the site? Don't click on it. Don't want to contribute? Bye bye. Derek

People's opinion of the Moderators fairness doesn't mean they are or aren't fair. It is a lot dofferent on the other side of the fence. Take any court case and ask the loser and the winner if the verdict was fair. Too bad you can't bet on those results in Vegas. Derek

NNNOOOOOOO!!!!! The Moderators don't play favorites and go to great lengths to be fair. You (not anyone in particular, just a general 'you') have no idea. Thinking otherwise simply isn't fair to the them and the job they do. Derek

My point is, at the time, it wasn't tested against anything else in it's class, like the Vigil. Scott was saying that it is the best because it was the best when the Army tested it. Now there is a new competetor. Chucky- I think he sort of admitted he was confused about what type of AAD had the misfire. It was an Astra. Derek

Regardless of how you got to that dive angle and airspeed, recovery is the same. For the same canopy, conditions, WL, etc, if you are diving at a 445-degree angle at 55 mph, the canopy will recover the same regardless if you toggle wipped it, or did a long 360-degree front riser carve. More airspeed means the control surfaces will have more affect for the same amount of deflection, I agee. But in a dive, the more airspeed you have, the faster you are descending. So a faster rate of change swinging back under the canopy will take more altitude that a slower, larger canopy. At 100 feet a larger canopy that is in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy will recover to level with less altitude lost than a smaller canopy at 100 feet in a vertical dive with the pilot putting in max effort to get back under the canopy, all other things being equal. I think the larger the canopy, the smaller the window is that has to be hit. Plus with larger canopies, they tend to recover to level flight, or even climb without any input. This tends to cause the pilot to constantly be in the bottom of their window, digging out a little on every swoop. This cuts the already smaller window in half. With a smaller canopy, this doesn't happen, the canopy doesn't plane out w/o input. This means the entire 'window' is availale to the pilot. It is a trade off. A smaller canopy won't make you a better swooper. There is a lot to be learned on larger canopies that must be learned before downsizing. A little bad habit that is barely noticeeable and doesn't cause bad landings on a larger canopy will get you hurt/killed on a smaller canopy. An Indy car can be driven with amazing precision at speeds that are incredible. In the right hands, it is easier to drive at 100-mph than a Ford Taurus is to drive at 80-mph. In the wrongs hands, it'll kill you at 100-mph. The same ability that makes the Indy car as Safe as the Taurus at much higher speeds makes it deadly in the wrong hands. It will do exaclty what the driver tells it to do, immediately and preciscely. The pilot must be able to handle that prescion or they will drive themselves into the wall. Derek