Hooknswoop

http://www.kirotv.com/news/2378675/detail.html Just saw this on CNN. Derek

A thought is that the harness could have very easily been shifted the other direction, making locating and pulling the cutaway pillow difficult/impossible. A small (smaller than is standard) cutaway pillow would be a bad idea in this situation. I have seen these smaller cutaway handles on several different containers. Handle design is a trade-off. The easier manufacturers make it to pull, the easier it is to snag. The harder they make them to snag, the harder it can be to grab and pull. The trick is finding the "happy medium" between security/snag resistance and being easy to find and pull when the jumper actually needs the handle. Derek

The line is finger trapped normally. Then either end (and it looks like taking the loop end through might be a better way to go) is taken through both lines 1/2 to 1 inch from the original finger trap. This locks the finger trap in place, which is normally done by a bar-tack or knot (on toggles). Derek

Most of the usual culprits you have eliminated, leaving only a couple of possiblilities that I can think of. 1. A line stow got through another stow, locking it off, or 2. A line stow got pulled into a grommet on the D-bag, locking it off. Either of these may be the cause, or neither. Derek

The Drop Zones. There is enough surplus to pay for a museum off I-95, we can cancel that idea and use that money. I was thinking more along the lines of annual inspections. Inspect them during the summer. Inspect the year round DZ's in the winter USPA already does that, but without actually either checking if a GM DZ adhere to those safety standards or doing anything if a GM DZ isn't adhering to those standards. It wouldn't be up to what an inspector feels, they would have a checklist that they would follow and leave no room for interpretation. A rig either has a serviceable AAD or it doesn't. If a helmet is required, then it wouldn't be cause for failure of the inspection. The level of bureaucracy is already there, the GM program. But what it is and what it is perceived to be by jumpers and the FAA are two different things. The paper calling a DZ unsafe doesn't mean anything to me. They are uneducated as to what really is safe. What if any DZ that is called unsafe by the media could show the media that they have successfully passed a safety inspection x number of years in a row by a national organization? That would be a good defense against their claim. Derek

1. Levels the playing field. Safety costs money. It would ensure that the competition wasn't cutting corners on safety, allowing them to charge a lower price and win away business, forcing the safer DZ to accept the loss of business, accept a lower profit margin and charge the same, or lower their safety standards and charge the same and have the same profit margin. 2. Prevent the FAA from mucking up skydiving by keeping safety at a level that will keep the FAA out of skydiving. Then why be an USPA GM Member DZ? That is the goal of the inspections, to educate jumpers and students so they can make educated decisions about the safety of DZ's. I agree, USPA is controlled by DZO's. Unfortunately not all DZO's run safe DZ's and even less run safe DZ's all the time. If this doesn't change, we run the risk of the FAA stepping in and making skydiving much more cost prohibitive than an inspection program for GM. If the FAA ever realizes that the USPA doesn't actually regulate skydiving and it is left up to each DZO to decide the level of safety being influenced by profit and bills, they will step in. And what happens if the FAA clues into this? What happens when the FAA realizes that the USPA isn't doing the job they have been led to believe it is? We have been lucky. If there is a rash of accidents affecting the public, they will be forced to take notice. If a King Air crashes into a Congressman's house, it will be national news and the FAA will be forced to take action. We are betting on the safety of the least safe DZ. If the USPA really kept the FAA off DZ's backs, then why isn't the FAA crawling all over non-USPA DZ's? Wouldn't the USPA showing the FAA a mandatory inspection required for GM membership keep the FAA off DZ"s backs? Give them a warm fuzzy that USPA is actually inspecting DZ's and keeping a standard of safety? If DZ's fail inspections and the FAA is forced to look into skydiving, then it is the DZO's own fault. They can prevent their DZ from failing an inspection. And if they fail and are put out of business, isn't that good for skydivers? They may not want to see their favorite DZ shut down, but isn't that a better alternate to allowing an unsafe DZ to continue operations? If an aircraft operator fails to have required maintenance performed on their aircraft and are ramp checked and grounded, isn't that their own fault and a good thing that they were caught? I agree having the FAA step in would be bad, but what is preventing that from happening in the future? What is going to prevent the accidents that would bring skydiving to the FAA's attention? I understand that the DZ's do not want inspections, they don't want voluntary inspections that don't have any repercussions, much less inspections that carry some weight. Why don't they want it? Why would they be against a national standard of safety that all GM DZ's be held to? I don't believe that this is the way it should be. What if amusement parks were allowed to operate this way? The government (FAA) will ensure that there is a certain standard of safety for the public, just as the government does for amusement parks, at DZ's if it comes to their attention that this level of safety does not exist. If there were a series of accidents at theme parks, the government would be forced to step in, investigate, require any improvements they see fit, and monitor the parks. This could also happen to DZ's. If we voluntarily set and enforce a standard of safety, it will be cheaper and easier than having the FAA do it for us. Then who would keep the FAA off their backs, they would cutting their own throats. It would be cheaper to have the inspections and maintain a level of safety than ditching the USPA and going it alone and losing the perception of self-regulation. The FAA would step in for sure if the USPA was not there providing the perception of self-regulation. I think they would, especially if they could tall any prospective student or jumper, either over the phone or on their web page, that they had passed the inspection and their competition hadn't and if you don't believe us, go check out www.USPA.org. If the USPA submits a list of DZ's that either repeatedly failed or refused to take the inspection to the FAA, then the FAA would come down on them. That would give the USPA GM program the teeth it needs to be effective. Isn't that the truth, so we cannot rely on jumpers "voting with their feet" to force a DZ to keep a minimum level of safety. It has to be another way. The USPA GM program is a paper tiger and it would take much for the curtain to drop, revealing the guy working the controls to the big talking head. I don't think that the situation is horrible and I am not amazed when a jump ship takes off and doesn't crash, but there is no standard of safety and to temptation to skimp on safety to increase profit margins is huge and happens frequently. For the most part they get away with it, but not always. There is nothing stopping the situation from getting worse. People assume that because the DZ has a million-dollar aircraft that "of course, they are doing the maintenance." When the DZO has $8,000 in the bank and a $5,000 payment on the airplane due and $5,000 in maintenance due, where does he money go? If he does the maintenance but doesn't make the payment, he loses the aircraft. If he makes the payment and delays the maintenance, gambling that nothing happens before next month when he can get the maintenance done, chances are he will get away with it and keep the airplane. What other choice does he have? And who is going to stop him from not doing the required maintenance? No one. And as long as there isn't a ramp check or incident, he gets away with it. Inspections that ensure aircraft maintenance is getting done properly, gear maintenance and standards are where they should be, etc do not limit what a jumper or DZO can do, it sets a minimum standard and ensures that standard is met. I also do not want to be too limited in what I can and can't do, but I also would like to be able to look at a list of DZ's that meet a minimum level of safety. And what happens if a DZ goes too far? Nothing. Unless there is an incident, nothing happens, and even then it can be very minor and not discourage the same behavior in the future. If DZ's followed it, but not all do to different degrees. If these safety standards were enforced and met, then this would be a moot discussion, but they aren't being met, again, to different degrees. Is the person that stands to loose the money if it is spent on safety, with no repercussions if they don't (as long as there isn't an incident) spend the money the right person to be making those decisions? What if the airlines were allowed to decide for themselves what maintenance needed to be done and how much they spend on it and training for pilots, etc? Would the airlines maintain the current level of maintenance and training they do today if they were required to and inspected and faced penalties for non-compliance? I don't think they would. Derek

I think this thread belongs in the Safety and Training Forum. Derek

Depending on which side the chest strap is on, you could tie it around the handle several times and tie it in a knot and till wear the rig over your shoulder. Derek

Didn't say you did and didn't mean to imply you did. I figured based on your comment, and , that you do run a safe DZ. I would definitely like to see DZ inspections not cause an increase in fees, for either members or Group Members. USPA could use the museum money for improving the GM program with inspections and do the skydiving community a world of good. It would be a much better use of the funds. How many students go to a "less safe" GM DZ because it is cheaper? If a "safer" DZ didn't lose those students to the "less safe" DZ because that DZ either couldn't pass an inspection or had to raise it's prices in order to raise it's safety standards, how much more money would it make? Could it them afford a small increase in GM dues in order to pay for the inspection program? If an inspection program could be funded without a dues increase, would you support it? How many other DZO's would support it? How many wouldn't? What if the first inspection was done at no further expense to the DZ, but a DZ would have to pay for any re-inspections if they failed? The real benefit would be reaped by the DZ's that could pass the inspection the first time. They could retain the GM membership and any of their competitors that failed wouldn't. Safe DZ's would be rewarded and unsafe DZ's penalized. Isn't this how it should be? From USPA's web site : "No organization rates the relative safety of skydiving schools. USPA Group Member skydiving centers have pledged to follow USPA Basic Safety Requirements, including providing training by only USPA-rated instructors, and using USPA-required equipment." How many USPA GM DZ have broken their pledge to follow the BSR's? How many have used non-rated instructors, against that pledge? How many fail to use USPA-required equipment? How many of these DZ's that have broken their pledge have been penalized for it? What, exactly, does the 'pledge' mean? Students have nothing to ensure an USPA GM DZ is following the BSR's. Are we not letting these students down? Let's can the museum, and level the playing field for DZ's, making sure that all USPA GM DZ"s are held to a standard of safety. Derek

Legally, no, but if you have to ask, yes . Change it out and have a rigger inspect it. If you don't have a clue what you are doing, have the rigger change it out and show you how to do it. Derek

And lowering the safety standards will make it cheaper, allowing more people to jump. Not doing the maintenance on the aircraft, re-packing the reserves, replacing line sets on student canopies, replacing student gear, using old AAD's and not doing the maintenance on them will all keep costs down and allow more people to jump. Is that a viable solution? I don't think it is. This wouldn't be an issue if GM DZ's followed the BSR's they 'pledged' to follow, did the maintenance required by the FAA and adhered to the FAR's. I have seen jump ticket prices as high as $21.00 for a 'normal' DZ. People pay it. The nice thing about required inspections to be an USPA GM DZ, is that the competition cannot skimp on safety in order to charge lass than surrounding DZ's. It levels the playing field. Currently the DZ that spends he most on safety gets hurt the worst. They have to pay for the extra overhead it costs to follow the rules and there fore have to charge more to have the same margins as the competition. The competition can charge less and make the same amount of profit and the uneducated student can't tell the difference between the two DZ's, except that one is cheaper. Seems to me a DZ that endures the added costs that come with following the FAR's and BSR's would be in favor of inspections for GM membership. As it would cause any competition that doesn't follow the BSR's and/or FAR's to either not be eligible for GM membership, which will hurt them, or ante up for safety and have to charge more, again leveling the field. It would cost a DZ that would pass such an inspection little in inspection costs over current GM dues. Small price to pay to level the field and force the competition to pay up or lose their GM membership. Especially if a DZ was found to not be in compliance with the FAR's and was reported to the FAA and shut down. If someone cannot afford to pay the costs associated with a safe DZ, then, I'm sorry, reducing safety and the related costs isn't a good solution. Derek

I think it is unlikely that the FAA will step in, but agree that it would be 'bad' if they did. I don't favor disbanning the USPA and letting the FAA handle it, I favor the USPA doing what they are supposed to be doing. If the FAA believes that USPA is regulatiing skydiving then they are in error. USPA isn't all bad, they do some good too, but they have a long ways to go before I would consider them effective. The APF puts the USPA to shame. See how long a DZ in Australia could get away with using non rated AFF Instructors. Derek

The costs would be passed onto consumers, the way GM dues are now, just like any other business. If the DZ went out of business because they could not pass the inspections or had to pay for multiple inspections in order to pass, then the community is better offf anyway. The current system, with no inspections or enforcement allows DZ's to do as they wish. It is the ignorant students that pay the price. They don't know what to look for in a DZ and are taken by the "We are an USPA GM DZ" line. Derek

Because you dollars aren't necessarily going to help a beginner find a safe, rated DZ, they could be going towards helping a beginner find an unsafe, USPA GM DZ that uses non-rated Instructors. A GM that doesn't follow the BSR's gets the same representation from USPA as a GM DZ that does follow the BSR's. If you want to donate to the GM program, you can. I don't think jumpers should pay for a DZ's marketing with their membership dues, especially if GM DZ's aren't held to a standard. Derek

I completely agree, the budgets should be seperate, with one not paying for the other. That would raise the cost of being a GM DZ, which won't be tolerated by DZ's. Exactly, DZO's run USPA. Nothing I can do, execpt whine a bit here, and that isn't ging to change anything. Derek

I would definitely consider this method experimental, especially in load bearing applications. I think it might see the best use in making loops for attaching toggles without a knot. With a fid, it can be done quickly and w/o a sewing machine. This makes it a lot easier to adjust the toggle setting on a new canopy. I thought about that and not only might it result in a stronger line, but is probably easier to do it that way. Derek

Not to play down the effort that is being put into finding stuff in Iraq, but don't we have ground penetrating radar that would help us find this stuff fairly easily? Derek

Jump Shack has only tested the 'No-Sew Finger-trap' with '525 Spectra'. I used the method on a piece of 725# Spectra, with the inside part painted black for clarity. Derek

How USPA can fix the Group Member Program. Change GM membership requirements from a pledge to follow the BSR's and a check to USPA to include a mandatory drop zone inspection. There was a voluntary DZ Inspection program, but only 1 DZ was inspected, and it failed. Successfully passing the initial DZ inspection would be a requirement to GM status. The DZ would also be subject to random DZ inspections. Failure of a random DZ inspection would result in their GM status being revoked, without any refund, until they pass an inspection. Who pays for these inspections? Drop zones. Why would they pay? The same reason they pay now, marketing. If a first time jumper calls up DZ "A" and DZ "B", and DZ "A" tell the prospective jumper that DZ "B" is not a USPA member and therefore doesn't have to follow the Basic Safety Regulations that 'we' do, where is that jumper going to go? Even if DZ "B" is safer that DZ "A", the new jumper has no way of knowing that and assumes that being a member of the 'parent' organization makes it the safer choice. This happens all the time. In reality, being a GM DZ does not ensure that it is a safer DZ than a non-GM DZ DZ. The non-GM DZ may actually follow the BSR's closer than the GM DZ. The inspectors would have to be unbiased and not from the region that they inspect DZ's in. Their travel and fees would be paid by USPA from the GM funds. Written complaints of BSR violations, that were non-anonymous, would have to be investigated by DZ inspectors, being paid out of the GM fund. Unfortunately this will never happen. Why would DZ's pay for an inspection program to make the GM status actually mean something when it already has the appearance that it means something? If USPA did make DZ inspections mandatory, DZ's would simply drop their GM membership, stop requiring USPA membership of it's jumpers and form their own organization. This new organization could be nothing more than a web page that prospective jumpers could visit to find a DZ and check and see if it is a member of the parent organization. From the first jumper perspective, everything would look the same as it does now and USPA would cease to exist. USPA isn't going to cut their own throats, so no mandatory DZ inspections required for GM membership. USPA is a paper tiger with no teeth. Derek

Quade has a great method of securing the reserve handle, wrap your chest strap through the handle and then through the buckle. This secures the handle and prevents you from jumping the rig with the reserve handle secured, which has happened. See: Chest Strap for Travel Derek

How many jumps on the pilot chute? What size PC? What type of material is the PC made of? Is the kill line long enough on the PC, or has it shrunk so that the PC can no longer fully inflate? Were the rubber bands double stowed? What size rubber bands? How big were the line stows? What size canopy? What type of lines on the canopy? Derek

FAR 105 "(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. " The FAA has deemed the USPA Tandem Instructor course "acceptable to the Administrator.". If the Tandem Instructor has a current rating from the manufacturer OR the USPA and a current medical, they are legal. Notice the FAR doesn't say anything about currency requirements or renewal, or membership requirements. If the 'Parachutist in Command" does not have a rating, then it is a violation of the FAR's. There is no FAA requirement for any certification for AFF Instructors. Nor is there any FAA requirement for student AAD's, RSL's, square reserves, minimum training, etc. I do think that if a student believes that they are paying for 2 rated Instructors, or 1 rated Instructor, they should get 2 rated or 1 rated Instructor. If you look at what is legal for student training, it should scare you. USPA has much tighter requirements, but has no authority to enforce those requirements and they don't attempt to when there are BSR violations. Derek

Gee, thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention Skymama. I REALLY appreciate it. As for the bent prop, I can neither confirm nor deny any such activities took place. Derek

PD's Sigma tandem canopies have an F-111 domed slider. The larger the slider, the more air it catches, but it allows the canopy to open more initially( to the size of the slider) The smaller the slider, the less air it catches, but it keeps the canopyreeefed in more. A mongo slider would catch a lot of air, but it would have any reefing effect. A tiny slider would have a lot of reefing effect, but catch very little air. Slider size is a trade-off between how much air it catches and how much it allows the canopy to open initially. Derek

No, I would need to test it. I tried with Vectran because it was the skinnyest line I have. I'll e-mail Jump Shack and ask them what line they have tested the 'No-Sew Fingertrap' with and post their reply. Derek