Hooknswoop

"§ 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry -- (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration; (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and (3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen. Jumpers don't have to use the O2, it simply must be available. Here is CO, jumps are made all the time from 17,500 MSL and no one uses O2. Derek

"NTSB Identification: MIA97FA173 . The docket is stored in the (offline) NTSB Imaging System. 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Sunday, May 25, 1997 in HOMESTEAD, FL Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/6/98 Aircraft: Cessna 205, registration: N8214Z Injuries: 6 Fatal, 1 Uninjured. A passenger-parachutist stated she had exited the cabin and was on the jump platform preparing to jump from about 3,500 feet when the left wing and nose dropped and the aircraft entered a spin to the left. After an unknown number of revolutions she jumped from the aircraft and deployed her chute. She observed the aircraft continue in a spin until ground impact. She stated the engine sounded normal prior to the aircraft entering the spin. She also stated that the aircraft appeared to be flying at a slower than normal speed as she exited the aircraft based on less wind forces acting on her. Postcrash examination of the aircraft structure, flight controls, engine, and propeller showed no evidence of precrash mechanical failure or malfunction. A review of the pilot's logbook and flight training records from the university where he attended showed no record of his having performed spins or spin recoveries in an aircraft. The records did show that he received ground instruction in spin entry and spin recovery techniques. FAA regulations require that a private or commercial pilot have received ground instruction in spin entry and spin recovery techniques but does not require the private or commercial pilot to have performed spin entry and spin recovery techniques in an aircraft. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot-in-command's failure to maintain airspeed as he slowed for a parachutist to jump from the aircraft, and his failure to apply spin recovery emergency procedures prior to ground impact. Contributing to the accident was the pilot-in-command's lack of training in spin recovery emergency procedures in an aircraft, and the FAA's failure to require that a pilot demonstrate spin entry and spin recovery techniques in an aircraft." "NTSB Identification: IAD99FA043 . The docket is stored in the (offline) NTSB Imaging System. 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Sunday, May 09, 1999 in CELINA, OH Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/2/00 Aircraft: Cessna 205, registration: N8157Z Injuries: 6 Fatal. The airplane departed on a parachuting flight with 5 parachutists on board. Several witnesses reported hearing the airplane during climb out. Each witness described smooth engine noise, brief 'sputtering,' and then a total loss of engine power. The airplane descended straight ahead at the same pitch attitude, then the nose dropped, a parachutist exited, and the airplane entered a spiraling descent. Two more jumpers exited the airplane before ground contact. A review of jump logs and conversation with the operator revealed the pilot flew three lifts of jumpers to approximately 10,000 feet. Each lift was approximately 30 minutes in duration. The accident flight occurred during the fourth lift. The airplane departed on its first lift with 30 gallons of fuel. No fuel was dispensed into the airplane between the first and fourth lift. At the scene, 8 ounces of fuel were drained from the selected tank, and a leak test revealed no leaks. Examination revealed that all fuel system components were operational and there were no pre-impact anomalies. A request for a jump club SOP revealed that no such document existed. The club operator reported that club operations were at his direction. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: was the pilot's failure to refuel the airplane which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a loss of engine power. Also causal to the accident was the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control after the power loss. A factor in the accident was a lack of published operational or safety procedures for the parachute club and the operator's failure to verify the pilot's medical qualifications." Derek

Not really. I would love to get my hands on the old and new Course Director paperwork……. I did compare the old AFFI pre-course card (May 98) to the new one (IRM edition 3). After removing similar requirements, here is what is left: Old card: Personally prepared written lesson pans for level 1-7 Demonstrated competence to gear up student, give gear check, and calibrate AAD Received personal instruction on the following areas: in aircraft, in freef all, equipment, landings Demonstrated knowledge of all seven levels of the AFF program and performed mock dirt dives for all. Received personal instruction in climb out, exit, and free fall problems Demonstrated competence to JM AFF students by performing as JM on nine release jumps using an AFF-rated person as a student, including stabilizing an inverted student, catching and stopping a spin, and pulling for the student (to be signed only if satisfactory) Demonstrated ability to exit two seconds after and pin an AFF-rating holder safely. Must be reflected in candidate’s logbook. Received instruction in post-jump critique, corrective training, logbook entries, and DZ records. Demonstrated the ability to teach spotting. New card: Correctly taught free fall stability and basic free fall maneuvers, including free fall turns, backloops, barrel rolls, and tracking. Derek

Doesn't matter to me if someone psycho packs or PRO packs, just as long as they set the brakes. That is all I'm saying. The pictures that were being questioned showed a canopy being packed without the brakes stowed. That is what I was refering too. Derek

Sounds like you learned a good lesson cheaply.

Just to clarify: You can psycho pack and set the brakes. What I don't recommend is either PRO or Psycho packing without setting the brakes. I tried it after it was recommended to me (not setting the brakes) and after one line over and then almost dying in 4 jumps of packing this way, I didn't do it anymore. Derek

RI lists 275 as the pack volume for the V0 and V00 and 300 for the V0. They list the MR-109-M and the PD-106R for both the V0 and V00 reserve containers and the PD-113R for the V0. I agree that the 106 and 109 pack up about the same size, with the PD maybe a bit more volume. A PD-113R would be a tight fit into the V00, if it fit. I think you are looking at the issue backwards though. Instead of thinking “How large of a reserve will this container take.” Think, “What reserve can I safely land in poor conditions”, probably up that a size, demo it that size, and then find the container that it will fit into. Decide on the canopies first, then thee container size. Small F-111 reserves are a different animal, and there are no second chances. What is the smallest reserve you have landed? What size main are you looking for? Derek

It is a matter of risk vs. reward. Risk: As a recent newer jumper said “ When you're a student, you don't even know what you don't know ”. Newer jumpers tend to underestimate the risk and over estimate their abilities. Reward: I think the attraction of the “cool” factor for up and coming is huge for a lot of people. It is difficult for a 2000 jump skydiver to identify with the 50-jump skydiver that wants so badly to be seen as cool by their peers. To achieve ‘coolness’ is a big reward to them. They can be willing to take huge risks (though they don’t perceive the risk as high as it is) in order to achieve the reward of being cool. In reality the risks are large and the reward small. Derek

I don’t want to go through the mired of Eloy threads, so forgive me if the answer is in there somewhere. Who is going to be organizing at Eloy, bigger-way RW? Is there a sign-up sheet? Derek

Being around for 3 years means you have seen different issues with students, heard or seen students do odd things, seen different ways to teach the same thing, seen different styles of teaching and the results of different techniques and styles. In short you have seen more of what works and what doesn’t. So instead of figuring that out with a real student, you have some experience to know that if the pull signal is a finger, don’t point at something in free fall. You learn less lessons on the students dollar. Free fall skills is only half the battle. If you are good Instructor, you will rarely, if ever, need to catch a student on their back spinning, passing through 2,000 feet. Given the choice between two people that can pass the course and same jump #’s, the better Instructor is going to be the one with 3 years over the one with 6 months. I don’t think I would argue with 2 years experience instead of 3, but there should be a minimum. Derek

I definately agree that IC status could be easily challenged. I've seen a DZ make their IC's sigh non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements, after they had been working there for over a year. The non-competes said they couldn't work at another DZ within 60 miles of that DZ, which meant that they would have to move to work somewhere else. They do it to save money. Give the IC a 1099 at the end of the year, save on taxes, worker's comp, etc. All my AFF jumps, I made either $25 or $30, then had to pay the taxes on it with no benifits. I didn't even get to jump for free if there was an open slot. Derek

The pictures show the steering lines being individually put into rubber bands. In these pictures the brakes are not being set for deployment and to help prevent a line-over they are taking a couple of folds of steering line a putting it in a rubber band. I have tried this in the past and highly recommend you do not do it. Best thing I found was after tucking the nose, pull the center cell out a little to prevent the canopy from opening folded foward with the end cells touching. I had that happen a couple of times, very strange opening. Derek

I've seen indentured servitude in skydiving. The DZO pays for the rating and works for free until they pay back the DZO. Derek

Full time Instructors are not employees, they are independant contractors. Saves the DZ money. Yes it's true. When I was a full time jumper, I saved enough money that I could survive if I broke my leg. of course, but if an Instructor gets injured and can't jump, the DZ just hires someone to replace them. This really sucks when the injured Instructor can jump again and now there is one more staff member to split the students between. I didn't vote yes Derek

Very nicely done. Thinking of downsizing? Read this article. Derek

To be backing up, in gusty winds up to 20 mph on your 3rd jump is unacceptable. No student should be put in that position. Derek

SKYHOOK PRODUCT SERVICE BULLETIN 3 DECEMBER 2003 Re: All Skyhook equipped rigs – General Caution Although it is clearly noted in the Skyhook packing instructions, it would like to reiterate one special caution. Riggers (and owners) please be sure that the Skyhook hardware is sewn to the white freebag bridle correctly. There is a drawing of the correct installation and set-up sewn right next to the Skyhook on every rig, and the Skyhooks themselves are labeled. However, if the Skyhook hardware were sewn on the bridle backwards during manufacture or subsequent repair, (with the pointed end of the hook facing the pilot chute, instead of the bag) then you would tow your reserve pilot chute if deployed in response to a main total malfunction. As the instructions state, this pilot chute in tow can be fixed by pulling the yellow RSL tab. Remember, this situation can only be caused by an installation error at the factory, or during a rigger repair of a damaged bridle. It cannot be caused by a packing error. Immediate Mandatory Inspection of Skyhook equipped rigs shipped between October 12 and December 1, 2003 Although a lot of care was taken to insure Skyhooks were properly sewn to the bridle at Relative Workshop, one improperly sewn Skyhook did get through, and was caught by a rigger at assembly. This manufacturing and inspection error seems to have happened in the confusion created after our primary inspector was injured in a motorcycle accident on October 12, 2003, co-incident with a new person putting the Skyhooks on bridles. So, any Skyhook assemblies shipped after October 12, and before December 1, 2003 are suspect. Your rig(s) falls into this category. Skyhook inspections at Relative Workshop have now been revamped, and doubled, to make sure this never happens again, but if one bad one got out, there could be others. We feel confident that a rigger would (and indeed one did) catch this error during initial set-up and packing, because of the rig labeling, and the warning in the packing instructions. However, just to be absolutely sure, we feel that another inspection of each of these rigs is called for. Inspection criteria are attached to this document, are included in the Vector/Micron/Sigma packing instructions, and are available at WWW.Relativeworkshop.com. Relative Workshop will pay for a rigger to open and re-inspect your rig. A complete repack should not be necessary. Just have your rigger send us the bill. Please notify us as soon as the inspection is complete. There is a picture attached, but it is too big to attach here. The picture shows the correct installation of the Skyhook, which can be seen here: Skyhook packing Instructions Derek

What is the source of the 20 mph gust info? Is the DZ a USPA GM DZ? Does the DZ have a waiver to exceed the BSR maximum winds for students of 14 mph (with a square reserve)? If yes, does the waiver allow students to jump in 20 mph winds? Gusty winds and turbulence can cause what you describe. Derek

Too far off topic, too many buttons being pushed. Derek

If you are backing up in high winds, flying into them is not going to help. Front risers or spiral to get out of the high winds. Kallend did some calculations in the swooping and cc forum that you might find helpful. Sounds like the DZ did send a car to go after you and you weren’t aware that it did. Chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding and move on. Derek

Evaluators have a written scenario they must present and a written criteria that they must follow to grade on. The standard is written to ensure uniformity across the board. New system: Candidates must pass out of 4 dives to get the rating. Each dive is Pass/Fail. You can completely fail 25% of the dives and barely pass 3 dives (75%) and get a rating. Old system: Candidates had 6 dives to get 12 points. Each dive the candidate could get from 0 to 4 points. To get a 4, all evaluators at the course must agree that it was a 4-point dive. If you scored a zero or one, you must demonstrate superior skills in order to get the rating. This allows for a good candidate to have a bad dive, but make up for it. If a candidate gets a zero or one and is only an average candidate, scores of 2 will not earn them the rating. Let’s say a candidate on their first dive scores a Pass under the new system and would have gotten a 2 under the old system. The next dive, they get a ‘Fail’. That is a zero under the old system. They Pass the next 2 dives. Under the new system, they would be granted a rating and under the old system, they would have 6 of 12 points and only 2 more dives to get those 6 points. The pressure is up and they must score 2 "3's" to get their rating. A 2 on either dive means they don't get their rating. So under the new system, the candidate is done and is awarded their rating. Under the old system, they must prove themselves and make up for the failed dive with two superior dives. It was much harder under the old system. I got 2 two's and 3 threes, for 13 points in 5 dives at the course I went to. 7 of 15 people passed the course. At 1000 jumps, I think I was the least experienced candidate. The course has changed, and it got easier. I believe it was changed by USPA under pressure from DZO's that wanted to ensure there is plenty of Instructors. To keep their profits high. That is excellent, but your DZ is in the minority. Yes, it is. I have seen a recent graduate, on an AFF level one let go on exit and were never seen in the video again. It was an average sized student too. That is great, but the course standards were lowered. Why? The AFF course director I spoke with agreed that it was pressure from DZO's. Of course not. That would not be fair to the candidates. Like I mentioned, there are new instructors tha would have probably gotten all '4''s at the old course. But there are new AFFI's that would not have passed the old course. Derek

Let's keep this civil. Derek

When I first started doing AFF, the big claim was zero AFF student fatalities. We can no longer make that claim. The AFFCC director I spoke with said flat out that he awards AFFI ratings to people that would not have passed the old course. the course I witnessed, acandidate could not catch the evaulator if he was on his back. They kept going up and every thrid jump, the evaulator would present a back to earth scenario and fail the candidate. Eventually, by passing 2 out of 3 dives, the candidate got his rating. This would not have happened under the old system. I agree, but the initial certification standard has been lowered. I am not trying to harsh on new Instructors, nor pull the "back in my day" crap. There are some outstanding new Instructors out there that would have easily passed under the old system. There are also some Instructors out there that wouldn't have. Derek

I wholeheartly accept your generous offer. I would love to get together in Eloy and you will have my undivided attention. PM me any ideas you have for where we could work and what day. Thanks, Derek

At the 2001- PIA, Don Yaryling had a presentation entitled something like, "The Instructor shortage, Fact or Myth?". Then shortly thereafter USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI. (This has been confirmed to me by an AFFCC Director and my witnessing of a AFFCC since the changes were made)DZO's do not want to pay any more than they have too. One way to keep pay low to ensure a surplus of Instructors. If they pay the Instructors more, they have to charge more, this lowers volume and lowers their profits. The less DZO's can pay, the more they make. Derek