Hooknswoop

What do you mean? Personally, the exact altitude while tracking doesn't matter to me. I track until I am clear of other jumper, then I wave off and pull. If I am not clear of other jumpers, I keep tracking. I can see the ground and get a good idea of how high I am from that. I stopped wearing a wrist altimeter years ago, never looked at it except in the plane. Just have an audible set to 5,000 feet. Derek V

Googled and just got some NSL results. Derek V

Has anyone ever seen a reserve pc entangle with a freebag during a skyhook reserve deployment? I do not see how this is possible. The Skyhook is not in the center of the bridle. From billbooth; " 1. Bridle Length With the Skyhook, timing is everything. In a partial mal breakaway, the Skyhook must pull the main out of the container after the pilot chute is launched and "out of the way", but before the pilot chute begins to open and produce enough enough drag to release the Skyhook connection, like it would in a total malfunction situation. To make this equation work out with our particular pilot chute, we found that locating the Skyhook hardware 5 feet below the pilot chute, and 7 feet from the bag, gave the best results. Add these numbers up and you get 12 feet overall bridle length. "Standard freebag bridles are much longer. " How would the PC get to the freebag when it has 2-feet shorter bridle length from the Skyhook than the freebag has? Derek V

Correct. From Head Down, you turn 180-degrees from the center and transition to a back track. This allows you to see the airspace you are going through before flying through it. Then immediately half barrel roll to your belly and track. The back phase is just long enough to clear the airspace you are flying through. Derek V

Flying a parachute require that you have at least a bit of a plan. You cannot decide which direction you want to face for landing at 50-feet and expect that it will happen. The knowledge of how much altitude is required to complete a turn and return to stable flight is one of the key elements of making your plan. Another element is the ratio of how much ground you can cover for how much altitude lost. You cannot form a plan to land somewhere if you have no idea how far the canopy will or won’t fly. You also need to understand how the canopy will respond to small, medium, and large toggle input (1 or both), rear risers, etc. When you plan your flight path, you knowingly or unknowingly take all these (and more i.e. environment, traffic, etc.) into account. Usually this results in a drama-free flight and landing. If you do not yet have a good understanding of how your canopy responds to different inputs, you are vulnerable to not being able to change the plan quickly enough once you realize it is not working. In other words, the opportunity to change the plan and still be successful has already passed by the time you realize your plan is failing. When you can plan just enough that you are one unforeseen change away from failing, you will still have good, injury-free flights and landings. The danger is hidden, until you recognize your plan is going to fail, attempt to fix it after the opportunity to fix has already passed. The result is panic and usually, making the situation worse. Getting behind the point to make fixes or respond to changes in your plan means you have no options. The question, “How do I bleed of altitude if I am high on my final approach” perfectly demonstrates they were behind on their plan. If they were high on their final, they were high on their base leg, and didn’t realize it. They were high on their downwind leg, and didn’t realize it. They started their pattern too high and didn’t realize it. That were too high only become apparent when they got on their final approach, where it is too late to fix. How does a skydiver evaluate if they “have a good understanding of how your canopy responds to different inputs”? How can a skydiver estimate they are at 50% of where they should be if they don’t know where 100% is? Bill Von Novak’s article, “Downsizing Checklist” is a good place to start. A qualified canopy coach and formal course is another resource. You must be brutally honest with yourself and admit you are not as good as you think you are. We rarely are. Derek V

Big wave off to get their attention and hope they are not barreling rolling to look above that and are doing their job and loooking where they are going or continue to track out from under them if they have stopped. If they have stopped they should be pulling quickly thereafter. If everyone does their job, the system works. Derek V

What you are the higher jumper? You are barrel rolling looking above you, only to hit the jumper below you because you are not looking where you are going. I have seen videos of extremely close calls following this logic. No solution or "rules of the road" is perfect. Lower jumper has the right away and waving off work very well. The barrel roll takes away from this. Derek V

-Don’t miss break off altitude. If you do, you can either track less and deploy closer to other jumpers (bad), or track to get sufficient separation and pull low (bad). -Track 180-degrees from the center of the formation. Tracking is a survival skill. Learn to flat track. Speed is not important in tracking. The relative angle to the ground is what is important. The more horizontal distance you cover for the least amount of altitude lost is what creates the maximum separation from other jumpers. Always strive to improve your tracking, the better you can track, the safer you are. -The lower jumper has the right of way. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to ensure you are not above someone. A glance over your shoulder is OK, but you should be primarily looking where you are going and ensuring there is no one below you. At 110+ mph, spotting someone below you in the ground clutter is difficult. Taking your focus off where you are going to perform a barrel roll takes too much time away from your primary focus or is so quick you cannot effectively scan the airspace above. There is the added risk of not maintaining a heading during the tracking barrel roll. -If you aren’t tracking because you are clear of all the other jumper in the air, pull. If you are not clear, keep tracking to get clear. Getting clear and then stopping your track to wait for pull altitude is wasting valuable altitude. -Perform a big wave off on every skydive. Our eyes naturally are attracted to movement. A big wave off while slowing down from the track can make you much easier for another jumper above you to spot. Derek V

I don't think anyone gave you a good answer; S-turns are not a good idea and there are no good alternatives. If you are high on final, you have already made your mistake(s) and passed the point where you can fix them. You are landing long. If your accuracy skills don't meet or exceed the size of the landing area, you are going to miss. Improve your accuracy skills or find a larger landing area. S-turns are not a good idea. If you are on a 6-lane free way, doing 65-mph and are 100-feet from your exit ramp, you could swerve across 3 lanes of traffic and make your exit, but that is not a good idea. Basically, you missed your exit. Derek V

"The strike was made by a US ally" Derek V

I have. About a dozen of them. Changed the way i think about reserve pilot chutes. Initially, I agreed with your idea, the Pc that pulls the hardest wins. After watching the wind speed come up with 2 PC's attached to the net, I completely changed my thinking. The first PC to inflate wins. I have video somewhere. Derek V

You didn't answer how a rigger is supposed to figure out the FAR's when the FAA can't get it right. How is a rigger supposed to know to use the written test as a guide instead of the FAR's? Is there a copy of the test with the correct answers riggers can use instead of the FAR's? Is this the guidance from the FAA, use the test in place of the FAR's and AC's? What would happen if a rigger was questioned by the FAA and their answer was they used the test instead of the FAR's? Would the FAA accept that answer? So a gear manufacturer that has been in the business for 30+ years cannot be expected to get the FAR' right, but a rigger with 2-weeks of experience can? This is completely unrealistic. Derek V

The conflicting and vague regulations the FAA and manufacturers cannot figure out. If the FAA and manufacturers cannot get it right, how can a rigger be expected to outperform the experts? Derek V

So you are saying; -The manufacturers do not understand the FAR's. -The FAA publishes incorrect and/or conflicting information. But Riggers should be able wade through all the manufacturer's instructions and guidance as well as the FAR's, AC's, etc., and get it right when the FAA and the manufacturer do not. Not a realistic expectation. Derek V

And if membership was voluntary and USPA offered the lowest cost for the required insurance, I am sure I would pay to be a member without it feeling like extortion. Derek V

I am not saying to eliminate the USPA. I am saying the system is broken and needs to be fixed. 1. Eliminate the GM program. Or require the Inspection Program for membership. 2. Eliminate the mandatory membership 3. Eliminate the maintenance reporting system. 4. Return the AFFICC standards to the pre-2001 level. And I'll add one; -Add a performance standard to rating renewals. Derek V

So if someone had a license and insurance, but their membership wasn't current, they would be OK to jump? I am not saying this is a better system. I have advocated voluntary membership. It may be that providing proof of insurance not through USPA may be difficult, more expensive, and even not possible to get. But it would allow for voluntary membership. Even if nothing actually changed, removing the requirement for mandatory USPA membership form the GM Pledge, but adding either USPA membership OR requiring proof of proficiency and insurance would be better than requiring membership. Because you said; Just demonstrates that a rating doesn't necessarily mean anything. The recent tandem rating fiasco also. To be clear, USPA membership does have advantages. Especially to DZ's. Derek V

So you were concerned about the insurance, not the membership? If a jumper could show proof of liability insurance, would you have let them jump without being an USPA member? For Instructors, what are USPA's minimum performance standards for an AFFI to renew their rating each year? Derek V

No, my argument is that USPA does not primarily serve its individual members. The best example is the one you ignore, the GM Aircraft Maintenance program. The next best example is lowering the AFFICC standards in response to the instructor shortage. Not if I want to jump at USPA GM DZ. Not if they want to be sanctioned by the USPA. I want USPA to put their skydiver membership first. You know, the people that are paying them. Derek V

I haven't seen mandatory membership put to a vote yet. I would like to though. Derek V

Not the same thing at all. USPA says they are a voluntary organization, but require USPA GM DZ's to require membership. Derek V

That really isn't the question. The question is, "Are they worth it?" Seems to work for AOPA, the FAA, and AOPA membership. You are saying AOPA does less and does not require membership and seems to attract enough members to survive. Again, the question isn't is USPA worth it for DZ's. Is it worth it for the individual members? Derek V

"The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary non-profit membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving" "GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE Require introductory or regular individual USPA membership of: 1. all licensed U.S. skydivers (a skydiver is considered a student until licensed) 2. non-resident foreign nationals who do not have proof of membership in their national aeroclub" Hmmm. 'Voluntary' but 'require membership'. Derek V

AOPA doesn't require membership. Their membership voluntarily sends in their membership dues because they feel they get their money's worth. Why can't USPA do the same? Derek V

Looking at what the individual member gets and doesn't get, is USPA membership worth $55+/year? Obviously it is an individual decision. Most of the points raised in favor of membership are DZ benefits, not individual member benefits. Personally, what do I get for my $100 (Membership, PRO rating and AFFI rating) per year? Want to find out if skydivers really think membership is worth the cost? Eliminate mandatory membership. Derek V