Hooknswoop

It's their sandbox. If you don't like it, there really is nothing you can do once you express your opinion to the DZO if they don't change their policy. I think this will happen more and more. Canopy control education is not mandatory past the “A” license. Jumpers do not want to be restricted to lower wing loadings until the have proved themselves and gotten some canopy control training/education. The result is people hammering in. DZO’s risk liability and lost business from injuries. Some have instituted their own WL limit policies, with some very restricted and inflexible. More and more DZO’s will no longer want to deal with people jumping too small of a canopy and implement policies such as this. WL limits/ hook turn bans will become more and more prevalent and they will be more restrictive than any BSR would have been. Derek

How many of those people that lost altitude awareness were wearing an altimeter? Wearing an altimeter does not ensure altitude awareness and not wearing one does not mean that the jumper can't be altitude aware. I was recently on my back spinning under a Crossfire 104 after a Birdman jump. I looked over my shoulder at the ground to check altitude as I un-zipped the wings and then harness shifeted to stop the spin. Then I kicked out of the line twists, maintain altitude awareness the entire time. I don't recommend not wearing an altimeter, but they aren't required for altitude awareness. Derek

Sabres (square), then Safire2's (trailing edge tapered/lightly elliptical), and now Sabre2's(trailing edge tapered/lightly elliptical, I believe. It is do-able with the right program, i.e. 3 learning tandems first where the student has an altimeter, does free-fall manuevers, and flys the canopy while the TDM-I teaches themhow to fly the canopy. A tandem can be a flying class room and can be a very effective way to teach canopy control. Then lightly loaded ZP square or semi-eliptical canopies. It can work very well. Derek

A Master Rigger can make major repairs here in the U.S. Derek

I took a BIG guy on his 3 tandems and his first solo. I relealized quickly that if anythig went wrong, there was nothing I could do to control the student. Another Instructor took him on his second jump and it didn't go well and the Instructor refused to jump with him again. The DZO asked me to jump with him and I refused. He got mad and told me that if I was going to pick and choose my students that he wasn't going to give me any students. That was the last time I worked at that DZ. Derek

Yep, too many sweet walls here in CO not too. Derek

I noticed at Eloy how rusty I was from 6 months of not jumping. The longer I am not around a DZ, the more I forget things and the farther the sport progresses without me. I think currency is important and I would rather step down now, than start to post incorrect/out-of-date info later on. Derek

Just a theory: When you turned with the rear riser, you increase the G" load on the canopy and yourself. And asymetrical loading of the harness will be compounded. For example if you have 10 more poundds on the right side of the harness than the left and pull a 2 "G" turn, now the difference is 20 pounds. This can keep the canopy turning. This sounds likely since you said you had difficulty harness shifting out of the turn. Derek

Thanks everyone for the kind words. I'd rather not get into my reasons in the Forum. Feel free to PM for the 'why'. My rig is up for sale. I intend to lean into rock climbing with Kelli and snowboarding, with some BASE on the side. Lastly, a big thank you to Sangiro for everything he has done. [Oh ya, Cloudseeker2001- I don't know anythig about a blanket and Mercedes I do remember sleeping a lot in the back of the Cessna with no door] Derek

Yes, they expired. No one took me up on the offer. Interesting. Derek

The Eloy boogie marked the end of my involvement in skydiving. I will still do rigging work, but I suspect that I won’t get much work since I don’t go to the DZ’s anymore. I am also stepping down as a Moderator here on DZ.com. I feel it is better to go out now than wait until I have outlived my usefulness. Thanks to everyone. Take care all, Derek First skydive: 24 June 1995 Last skydive 2 January 2004 3333 skydives 1574 jumps on canopies under 100 sq. ft. 900 tandem skydives (Eclipse, Vector II, and Sigma) D-18847 AFF I/E TDM I/E S/L I/E PRO rating Senior Parachute Rigger, Back and Chest 450-ish reserve re-packs 30-ish saves PPSEL Not a bad skydiving career

I saw that once. I asked the owner who packed the reserve, innocently. Then talked to the rigger and told him he had closed he flaps in the wrong order. He said he didn't have the manual. I didn't think that was the best excuse in the world. He said he would take care of it. The next week, same jumper, same rig, same closing squence. Derek

No, of course not. If they had claimed that the Concorde can run over metal debris on it’s take off roll with no damage resulting to the aircraft, then yes, they would have been negligent. Derek

By pulling down one toggle then the other to match it, you had caused the canopy to begin to dive and swung yourself out from under the canopy. Try pulling down both toggles, one a bit more than the other instead. The idea is to keep the canopy over your head instead of diving. Glad it worked out for you w/ only minor injurie(s), it could have been a lot worse. Derek

If those systems were designed properly and they still fail. That is the risk you take. If the tail falls off at 130 knots, even though the manufacturer says you can do 160 knots with no problem, then the tail was not designed properly. Especially if the manufacturer has since beefed up the design of the tail and, after your crash, issues a SB that says the tail must be strengthened on those aircraft that had been built before they changed the way the tail is built at the factory. If I had a hard landing and damaged the tail and then it fell off, all bets are off and I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer. If the aircraft is old and the tail falls off, I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer. If the tail is corroded and falls off in cruise, I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer. I have about 75 hours in a T-34A. The aircraft was 55+ years old. If the tail fell off at cruise, I wouldn't have a problem with it, it is 55+ years old. I did wear a parachute while flying it because of the risk of a structural failure, and I was aware of that risk. Derek

I got a PM and, with permission, I'm posting it: "He was jumping within the placarded weight for this reserve, he was doing a RW jump (I think a 4 way) he had a P/C in tow, he cutaway 1st then deployed his reserve, the reserve did have some burn damage from his main which did deploy as the reserve was coming out. The P/C in tow was a worn out p/c that he knew he needed to replace, he commented that it had been giving him some trouble. His medical Ins did have something to do with the lawsuit. As far as his injuries well he was f-uped for a long time, has had a ton of surgeries and did about die a few times in the begining. As far a long term I am sure there will be lasting affects but he is lucky cause he is walking and talking and for the most part you can not tell he was ever injured. " This PM changes everything for me. The main deployed as the reserve deployed, and the reserve was damaged. At that point all bets are off. I can't expect a reserve to hold together if it is damaged by the main. The other big point, for me anyway, was; "His medical Ins did have something to do with the lawsuit.". Derek

If a good design fails, well that is the risk we take. If the design is flawed, then that isn't fair to jumpers. To, me that is a big difference. A good design can fail, but I shouldn;t have to fear that I have a reserve with a design flaw on my back. I don't care if a manufacturer admits there is a problem with their product, issue a recall and fix it. I admire them when they do, as RWS recently did withtheir Skyhook. They stood up, issued the SB and offered to pay for the inspection and, if necesary, the fix. This is not what happened in this case. Derek

I would highly recommend sending the rig to RWS to get that done. Derek

That is a risk I am willing to accept. I would be more pissed if they didn't fix the problem. But there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. A reserve should not rip apart when it is deployed within the TSO'd limits. A malfunction is different from failing from a design defect. Nor do I expect the gear to work 100% of the time, but I do expect it to hold together when within the operating limitations. I also expect a manufacturer that finds a problem with their product to recall them and fix them. The design was changed long before the SB came out. Derek

Absoutely true. But the design should be able to do what the manufacturer says it can do. If the max speed of the aircraft is 160 knots and you have never exceeded that and the tail falls off while cruising along at 130 knots because of a design defect (i.e. the tail isn't strong enough to stay on over 120 knots), then there is a problem. I don't ecxpect perfect designs, I expect the tail to stay on below 160 knots. I don't expect the tail to stay on at 161 knots or more. Derek

He signed a waiver that stated that flying was a dangerous activity and agreed not to sue the airport in the event of an incident. Derek

I agree, but I do expect my reserve to hold together if I am within the operating limits and there are no other circumstances. If my reserve fails and I am injured and then the company releases a SB because my reserve was defective, I'm gonna be pissed. If I fire my reserve into a horseshoe and it gets damaged and I'm injured in the landing, then no problem. I think the big difference here is that the reserve design had a problem. I do believe in people taking responsibility for their actions, but (if he was within the operating limits of the reserve) then it wasn't his fault or no one's fault. It was the manufacturer's fault. If it was a manufacturing defect, not a design problem, that, again would be different. Derek

I think of it like staffing a DZ. If you have enough Instructors to handle the busiest day of the year, then the other 364 days, there isn't enough work for the amount of staff. Instead you staff to a level where there is enough work for the staff and students end up having to wait to jump. For manufacturers, instead of students waiting, the wait times go up. If they hire enough people to keep the wait times low at the high-demand times, then they will either have to lay people off or pay people to do nothing when it is slow. Then they can't hire people because they are constantly laying people off and no one wants to work for them, or they have to charge more per rig in order to pay people when it is slow. Then they don't sell as many rigs and don't make as much money. It's a balance between staff and wait time. Derek

No, and if he was outside the TSO limits, he had no business suing. If he was inside the TSO limits, then I'm not sure. I do know that 2 reserves within TSO limits did fail, per the SB. Same as above. Shouldn't matter, the lines are longer than the PC bridle and should not affect reserve deployment. Ron- I never had to sign a waiver from a manufacturer. By the time I jumped a Stiletto, the waivers were gone. The article says that he signed a waiver. I bought an affected -M in 1998 and didn't have to sign anything. A label is not signing a waiver. Derek

You misunderstand. If I was outside the operating limitations, no I would not sue. If I was within the operating limitations and the manufacturer knew about the flaw before the incident, I would sue. If the manufacturer did not know about the flaw before the incident, I don't know what I would do. Derek