Hooknswoop

We were getting close the 3 minutes at the NBL, very un-offical contests. Breath-holding was forbidden. I think breathng 46% NITROX made the difference, plus practice, lots of practice. The first part is working past that 'I gotta breathe' feeling. That hits long before you actually NEED air. Sometimes near the end of a run if you mis-calculated your air, or used a bunch right before the end, you would really have to conserve whatever you had left. On more than one occasion a diver would be putting the subject in the donning stand without any air in the tanks. We would hide the fact we were empty by popping up to talk to topside, getting a breath, and finishng up putting them in the stand. Then make sure you broke down your own tanks so no one would notice. Hook

I don't think a DZ being a GM makes a difference in the safety of it's operation. There are very safe non-USPA GM DZ's out there (safer than some USPA GM DZ's) and some not-so safe USPA GM DZ's. It seems to me that the DZO determines the level of safety at a DZ, not if it is a USPA GM or not. A GM DZ will use non-GM status of a competitor DZ against it. To a whuffo that doesn't know any better, "There are not a GM of USPA and therefore don't have to follow all the safety requirements that we do" sounds very convincing. I think this is the biggest reason that DZ's are members. Otherwise they could follow the BSR's and save the due's money. Even a GM DZ can do whatever "bandito" stuff they want, who's gonna call them on it? The line "USPA GM DZ's are safer that non-GM DZ's" simply isn't true. It depends on the DZ and how it is run. So skydiving operates under the illusion that USPA keeps the FAA off our backs by regulating skydiving. Skydivers and the FAA subscribe to this illusion. I don't think it would be a good thing for the FAA to step in and regulate everything. I do think it would be a good thing for the USPA to actually regulate skydiving. Unfortunately it will never happen. Follow the money. DZ's require USPA membership from it's jumpers and pay a yearly fee for Group Membership. If the USPA steps in and begins to enforce the BSR's and steps on the DZO's profit. The DZO's will no longer require individual membership and will drop their Group Membership. There goes the funds that pays for USPA. USPA won't step in and enforce the BSR's because it won't bite the hand that feeds it. Hence, skydiving in the U.S is not self-regulated by the USPA. Hook

Right, wing-tip to wing-tip. Hook

In Skydiving magazine, there is an article about the incident. It says "John is covered by USPA's directors-in-office liability insurance". So no only did USPA not do anything, they are defending him. I have seen it over and over. USPA does not enforce the rules. I once showed a RD video of illegal AFF. Their response was "what do you want me to do? Take away a rating he doesn't have?". Nothing was done. Who is going to enforce the BSR's? The S & TA? All the DZO has to do is ban the S & TA from the DZ. Each DZ is a mini-kingdom, and the DZO is the king. If they don't follow the BSR's, no one can or does stop them. I am not saying all DZO's violate the BSR's. There are some very conscientious DZO's out there. But the system is broken. I was told by a former RD that skydiving was almost stopped in the U.S a while back, and USPA saved the day by presenting the SIM's and GM program to the FAA and telling them we would be 'self-regulating'. Then, later in the discussion, he said we aren't self-regulating. That when he went to DZ's he didn't 'play policeman'. DZO's are bound by a 'pledge' to observe and follow the BSR's. Hmmm, so when the pledge gets in the way of profit, which one wins? What happens to GM DZ's that don't follow the BSR's? Who enforces the BSR's? Are the BSR's being enforced? Hook

http://www.apf.asn.au/apf_services/publications.asp Check out the APF's newsletters, they report EVERYTHING over there. Maybe we can learn from how they handle accident/incident reports? I think we can learn from them in other ways too. Hook

You shouldn't lurk, blow by are exit anywhere near a tandem unless: 1) You have the permission of the Instructor and the video person, if any. 2) You have been briefed and understand the differences between jumping with another person and jumping with a tandem. 3) You have the ability to fly relative to the tandem, which may be backsliding, changing fall rates and generally not holding still. 4) You understand that the tandem cannot avoid you and therefore collision avoidance is the responsibility of the lurker. 5) You understand what is expected of you and can execute the plan exactly as the Instructor requests. I have seen videos of people lurking tandems and crashing into them. Tandems are not just another skydive and adding a lurker complicates an already complicated skydive. You ambivalent attitude towards lurking tandems is dangerous. If you make a mistake, you can kill two other people and yourself. Do not take lurking tandems lightly. Think hard about a jumpsuit to compensate for your "space shuttle" fall rate. You couldn't care less about RW? Lurking a tandem is risky RW. Hook

I have someone strapped to me, I have to get stable, throw a drogue which makes me a sitting duck, and then my passenger is usually changing body positions, which I have to counter and adjust for. That makes us speed up and slow down and move around the sky a bit, all randomly. Add in someone I can't see above me, that can't match fall rates, attempting to fall close past me. I would feel like William Tell with an apple on my head. If you miss, we get hit. You don't see the big deal because your on the other side. With your abilities and attitude (taking it so lightly) I wouldn't let you lurk (or go zooming past). No offense. Why can't you match fall rates? Hook

What would your recommendations for minimum experience/qualifications, etc., be for videoing tandems? BTW- I've never video'd a tandem, always been on the other side of the camera. Also, will RWS be out of the tandem regulation business before me renewal is due in July? Hook

From what I have seen, the USPA injury report system is broken. There are fears of confindentiality, other DZ's using reports against them in marketing, etc. USPA is trying to fix the system, but it also take a willingness on the part of S & TA's to fill them out. Seems there isn't any motivation among a lot of S & TA's to fill them out. How often have you read of a 'reportable' incident here, but didn't see it appear in parachutist? Hook

It can vary, but usually 400-600-ish. A 1 inch differnce wouldn't be notice-able on a 300 sq. ft. canopy, but very notice-able on a 79 sq. ft. canopy, so that makes a difference. If you pro-pack, checking the line trim is easy. You don't have to hang it up, just make sure the links are even and put all the "A" lines in one hand and compare lengths. Get a friend to hold the rings for the steering lines even to check the steering lines. Hook

I agree with the Aggie. A tandem gets them through the sensory over-load of jumping out of a plane without the added stress of having to perform and then fly the canopy by yourself. Once under canopy, the tandemis a flying classroom. You can talk to them, show them what is happening and they can see it, and they learn faster and better than standing in front of them trying to explain canopy flight to them. Following up the 2-3 learning tandems with 15 jumps w/ and Instructor (preferably wearing video), then 2 H & P's is the best system I have seen for teaching people to skydive. Hook

You are right, sorry for impling/saying you hooked it. My point was turning front riser landings under big canopies isn't a good idea. Toggle turns are even worse. Again, sorry, you are right, anything can be swooped. My point is I think not everything can be hooked safely, toggles or risers. Hook

There are a lot of camera flyers filming tandems out there without an AFF or tandem rating. As a Tandem Instructor, am I suppose to refuse to allow a camera flyer that has filmed hundreds of tandems to accompany me on a tandem? I agree that the video flyer needs to be experienced and understand what is going on, but the requirements aren't enforced by Tandem Instructors or DZO's. If I were to say (at some DZ's), "that video flyer doesn't have a rating, he can't video me", the answer would be, "fine, you can only take tandems w/o video,and we don't have any of those today, goodbye". The Tandem Instructors can't enforce the rule if they want to do tandems, DZO's don't enforce the rule. Hook

Check your line trim. Compare the length of the lines that attach to the nose (the "A" lines). Also compare the length of your steering lines with the brakes set and make sure there are no twsits in the steering lines. When new they are all the same length. Spectra shrinks from the heat generated from the friction from the slider grommets. Eventually the line set is too far out of trim, resulting in un-desired opening/flying charateristics and the line set has to be replaced. Hook

True, I've seen people hook tandems, at ridiciously low altitudes. I feel that the margin for error is less on, for example, that Navigator 300. The recovery arc is too short. How high did you hook it? How much lower coud you have hooked it and still pulled it off? How much higher could you have hooked it? You have hook turn experience, on a different canopy. How did hooking the Navigator differ from you Heatwave? Again, you are right, anything CAN be hooked, but SHOULD you? Hook

First, slow down. Learn to fly the canopy you have in normal flight. Second, After you have become proficient with the canopy (Bill Von has a great list of tasks you should be able to perform under a canopy before even considering downsizing), you can learned straight in, double front riser approaches with it, or small heading changes, front riser approaches. Third, I would discourage you from aggressive front risers turns with this canopy. Fourth, Why do you want to downsize? Are you aware of the risks involved in learning high performance landings? Do you accept that an incident is possible? Are you willing to put in the effort, money, and time it takes to learn high performance canopy flight? Lastly, I cannot over-emphasize the need for patience and careful progression in high performance landings. Do not take this goal lightly. Do not underestimate the amount of effort it would require to reach this goal. People make them look easy, after hundreds, or even thousands of these landings. Similar to an experienced packer making packing ZP look easy. The first step is to learn what you don't know. By that, I mean learn what you will have to know to become a good canopy pilot. Then, preferably with solid coaching, begin to learn good canopy piloting techniques. Equipment knowledge goes hand in hand with flying high performance canopies. Do you know what riser inserts are?, etc. High performance equals high maintenance. I think you will be surprised how much there is to learn, and leaving out any of it can cost you. Hook

I've landed a few very small reserves. All were standing up, on target. It was very tricky with very little margin for error. I was definately focused on flying the canopy. On the first ride, I did a practice flare and almost stalled it, with the toggles at my shoulders. There is a reserve offered with a ZP top skin, but I have only seen a couple. Hook

Has anyone said different? Hook

Congrats Jim! Hook

My Reserve is TSO's under TSO C-23D, and is certified to 220 lbs. at 150 kts. My container is under TSO C23B Standard Catagory max shock load of 5,000 lbs, for which there is a chart. I am well within the placarded limits of my container and reserve. Why do you ask? Hook

L & B's customer service is incredible. Always has been. Hook

If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid. Definately I'm in Hook

I think we pretty much agree, well close anyway, and would agree more if I could actually write down what I am thinking. It is hard to put into written words. Definately in 100% agreement here. The early part is, if anything, more important. And in 1000% agreement here. Hook

Fair enough Hook

Of course, expose them to a very slow, 45 degree-ish carve, or double fronts. But not a turn that really brings the recovery arc of the canopy into play. I think that is where we are missing. Sure do anything you want on larger canopys (and they should), except aggressive turns, either carve or snap hook with them. I am not saying downsize and go hook. I am saying I don't think hook turning large canopys is a good idea. Work down to a 1.5:1-ish wing loading, get very proficient at that loading, (or even a bit higher and upsize to begin work on more aggressive hook turns), then work on double fronts (that you worked on under previous canopies, getting the control motions and reactions of the canopy down), then move up to slow, carving turns. Then and only then, the more aggressive hook turns (carving or snap, chose your flavor, and I think the canopy has to be very small for snap hooks to work out well). Hook