Hooknswoop

I prefer Vectran. Doesn't Shrink. Worst case is the PC won't collapse if the Vectran breaks and you get a normal deployment. Worst case with Spectra is a PC in tow because the PC can't inflate completely from the shrinkage. Derek

You never did get back to me with the average peak forces for the Raven-M's that are required to be on the label under 23D......... Derek

Seen it happen. Jumper did a front loop and launched their reserve PC. I would highly recommend NOT tucking the excess cable into the velcro. Derek

I agree that USPA has to be fixed first. Derek

I am not a member. The DZO will sign a waiver before the inspection agreeing not to sue. With that and a very easy defense, a DZO would have a very hard time winning anything. "I asked to see the aircraft logbooks. The DZO gave them to me. The last annual in the logbook was 4 years ago. I indicated this on the inspection report." What can the DZO say to the judge to convince them that USPA screwed him? He allowed the inspection. He signed a waiver. The inspection was 100% true. Nope. What's the matter, you sound like you have something to hide, don't want your DZ inspected? Afraid of what would be found out? Except the report would mean something. The report could be viewed by jumpers. Not just a hollow GM program that doesn't mean anything. There is a huge difference between the GM program and an Inspection program. That is exactly what I am suggesting, people educate themselves. The difference is you want to keep things the way they are with no information that can be used to educate themselves everything is left up to the DZO and they can keep everything hidden. Exactly, look at things and make an informed choice. If there was a data base of inspection reports, then jumpers could look at them and make an informed choice about where they spend their money. Currently they have no way to know what to look for and if the DZO is doing the things they should be doing. DZO's like it this way. Derek

Or option 3, everyone knows that only troublemakers ask to see aircraft logs, pilot certifications, etc. Plus, how many jumpers would know what they are looking at? How often i maintenance done by un-qualified personnel with no paper trail? Skyride demonstartes that tandems will get on the internet and look for a DZ. If there was an inspection program, and it was done correctly, a lot of those web-searching tandems would find USPA's inspection report page and could then make an informed choice about which DZ they should go to. I am envisioning not a pass-fail, but a check list. Anyone could see if the inspector check the box for, yep, they have or do do this, they don't, the DZ refused to show it, it N/A. I think it should be made easy for a DZ to improve their report. For example, if it was raining the day the inspector came out and the pilot wasn't there and the DZO didn't have a copy of the pilot's license, he could just fax it in later and get thee report changed to indicate that the pilot has a commercial ticket. I know I have flown on jump ships that were not being properly maintained. I know jumpers are apathetic,butt I also think that if jumpers could see in black and white that 'their' DZ wasn't doing the things they should be doing, things would change. The GM is taken by the un-educated as a stamp of approval from USPA as it is right now. For example, the USAFA cadets cannot jump at non-USPA GM DZ's. Why? The Air Force thinks that being a GM DZ means something. We all know it means absolutely nothing beyond the DZO cut a check to USPA. Replacing the GM program with an Inspection Program would actually mean something. Would it be perfect? Nope. It would be much better than what is out there now, the GM program. Derek

Exactly what I am saying. USPA could simply post the report on their website. If a DZ refused to be inspected, which is their right to do, that would be posted as well. My guess is that good DZ's would want to be inspected, especially if they knew their competition wasn't up to snuff. What a terrific marketing tool, "We scored much higher than our competition by USPA's inspection program. You can confirm that by going to www.USPA.org and see for yourself." Or, "Our competition refused to even be inspected, draw your own conclusions." Derek

Yes. I don't think DZO's will support it at all. That is what makes it attractive. It isn't for DZO's, it is for USPA members. Not sure how you made the leap from USPA posting the inspection reports on their web page to penis enlargements, but whatever. I don't believe everything on the internet, but I found through experience that somethings are reliable. Google maps has yet to lead me to a penis enlargement facility in lieu of the movie theater I was intending to go to. Ya, I guess you are right, why should USPA serve it's members by providing a service that is sorely lacking right now. Maybe the FAA should do it. Then it would have real teeth, stiff fines, grounding airplanes, putting DZ's out of business. That would change things. Wouldn't cost DZO's or USPA members anything either, tax dollars would do it. Of course the FAA doesn't really know anything about DZ's and are notoriously difficult to deal with. Another solution is the status quo, jumpers have to simply trust that a DZO is ethical. Of course we've seen how that works out. DZO's won't like it, or at least the DZO's that aren't ethical and like the fact that they can get away with anything the way things are now. Members will like it since they can get hard information about a DZ they are thinking about jumping at. Are you against having the FAA inspect airlines? Or would you rather have them follow the DZ model where it is up to the company to decide how safe they want to be? How well do you think that would work out? What do you think would happen to safety standards if the FAA operated on the honor system? Why aren't people demanding that the FAA's airline inspection efforts be stopped to save their tax money? My guess is that people like knowing that the FAA is ensuring that the minimum safety standards are being met, since they cannot do it for themselves. Houses are not a place of business. Restaurants is a much better analogy. The health department inspect restaurants. They must pass to operate. That is tougher that what I suggest. Put the report out there and jumpers can make an informed choice about what DZ deserves their money and can be trusted. Is it a perfect solution? Nope. But I'm sure the health department doesn't catch everything either. Derek

No enforcement necessary. Their inspection report on USPA's website is all that is needed. Then a jumper can make an informed decision about where they jump. If a DZ does not want to participate or scores poorly, then when a jumper checks their inspection report, they can see the results and decide for themselves. DZ's that perform better on the inspection will have that reflected in the report and jumpers will tend to jump at the DZ's that score higher on the inspection. That is the DZO's incentive to do well on the inspection, if they don't they will probably lose business. You inspect DZ's on a surprise basis, chosen randomly by computer, each DZ would get an inspection every few years. They could pay for an inspection sooner if they made improvements and wanted that reflected in their inspection report. They wouldn't have to ask, it would only be a click away on their computer. Exactly why their should be an inspection program, jumpers can't know if a DZO is cutting corners until it is too late. Who is most people? Derek

Because DZO's don't want it and DZO's run USPA. Exactly why it shoud be implemented, so that DZO's get their act together and meet the minumum saftey stabdards. A couple of people were trained as inspectors. You hire them. USPA will save money by dropping the GM, apply those funds to the Inspection Program. Suppliment it with membership fess and now the membership is actually getting something for their money that they can use. The answer is YES to all the above. If you don't do the 100-hour on the airplane, you know that the Inspector will probably find that out and that will be in their report and jumpers will be able to see it. Currently, how do jumpers know if a DZ they go to is doing the things they should be doing? DZO's can and do get away with anything since no one checks up on them. Derek

Then stop pushing buttons. Just leave it alone. If someone brings me a BASE canopy and I replace a line, it is not my responsibility to hook it up to a BASE container. That is their responsibility. What they do with it after I'm done with it isn't my problem. Again, my point is that this is ridiculous Who cares? Derek.

Can't call him up, he retired. Too bad, he was a nice guy. We laughed and laughed on the phone. I haven't spoke with the new guy and don't intend to. I'll just keep altering/repairing all those BASE canopies. Derek Derek

Perfect. Then any non-certified canopy I alter/repair/etc isn't being used for skydiing, it is being used for BASE jumping, as far as I know. If someone puts a BASE canopy into a skydiving rig and jumps it, that is out of my control. Happens all the time. Strangely, I have never heard of the FAA going after anyone for jumping a BASE canopy in a skydiving rig, which may have been altered by someone other than a Master Rigger or the manufacturer. It is even recommended to jump a BASE canopy out of an airplane in a skydiving rig before actually BASE jumping with it. I keep warning people against using small, ZP, elliptical canopies for BASE, but they just don't listen Derek

LOL, he looked up the FAR and said it plainly said almost anyone can alter a main. Derek

All the rambling aside, how would anyone know who altered a main canopy? There is documentation required and you are innocent until proven guilty. Changing how a canopy is packed is an alteration. Mains have been altered by anyone and everyone since they were called mains. Who cares? Has a Senior rigger ever been procequeted for altering amain canopy? MEL called the FAA on me at least once and the FAA Inspector and Master Rigger told me that since it was a main, I could do anything I wanted and that is the industry norm. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that altering a main canopy is manufacturer and Master Rigger territory only. Now what? What does that really mean. If you roll the nose of your canopy to see what it does to the opening, you are in violation. If you replace a line, you are in violation. So what? What will really happen? If I work on my BASE canopy or container, am I in violation? It isn't certified any more than a main canopy is. You can argue till the cows come home, but in the end, who cares? LOL! If the FAA wants my rigger's ticket, they can have it. Derek

LOL, yep, by removing ',or alter' the rule is less limiting. Not that it really changes anything at all. Since there is no documantation required for altering/repairing, or packing a main canopy, anyone can do anything and the FAA will never know know who did what to a main. I will continue business as usual, go ahead and report me to the FAA MEL, again. Derek

Then why would did you say: It's true. You said it yourself. Derek

If someone asked you how many skydives would it take to get that good, what would you tell them? Derek

In the end, a couple of people may not renew their membership out of protest, a few of those may even send a letter/e-mail to USPA explaining why. But nothing will change and since those people won't be able to skydive anymore, their voice won't be heard at the DZ. It won't be enough members to financially impact USPA, so they don't care and would rather have dissenting voices gone anyway. People want to skydive and since USPA hasn't done anything directly to them, they will send in their annual dues and continue to skydive. Making a post here will also do absolutely nothing. Skydivers simply don't care for the most part enough to vote with what counts, money. Therefore nothing will change. Derek

What was the difference in internal pressure with and without airlocks? Derek

C-23 Sherpa Derek

That was not done. Instructor shortage immediately followed by the AFF standards being lowered. I don't think it was a coincidence. Of course not and they won't either. Fact. How much does a full time AFFI make? Why are Instructor housing areas called ghettos? Exactly, wasn't worth your time anymore. I didn't burn out. I got tired of how I was treated and the compensation I received for the work I did. Otherwise I would still be doing AFF. I think after all my tunnel time, some AFF would be an absolute blast. The whole point of the AFF issue was an example of how USPA does not serve it's members, it serves the DZO's. Derek

No, I haven't. I don't think it can be proven either way since no records are kept that someone could use to prove it either way. The difference is jumper retention, the number of AFF student Cypres fires, the number of repeat AFF levels caused by the AFFI, etc. I do know that I wasn't fully prepared after passing the original course. I have seen people pass the new course that should not be doing AFF. Derek

Nothing. I agree. Yep Somewhere above where you can attract and retain enough AFFI's to stay in business. Yep, because just like you pointed out, that is between the AFFI and the DZO. USPA has nothing to do with it. Then you are overstepping your bounds, that is between the DZO and the AFFI. USPA's job is to set the standard, not lower the standards at the request of DZO's. Yep, they should have told the DZO's, the AFFI standards are what they are for a reason. If you can't seem to keep staff, you need to look at why. Instructors are treated like crap. We did, that is where the example of USPA lowering the standards came from, the underlying issue of USPA serving DZO"s and not it's members. The military catches a lot of heat if they try that. Instead they offer enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and other incentives. They are improving housing for the military, etc. Lowering the standards is not the answer, for the military or USPA. You can't have it both ways. Either it isn't USPA's job to keep enough AFFI's rated by lowering the standards so that pay, etc. doesn't have to increase or it is. I think we agree that it isn't, but that is exactly what USPA did. Why? Because that served the needs of the DZO's, not the members. Again, how does lowering the AFFI standards in the interest of the members? Derek

For example, the pass rate for the course went from 50% to 85% overnight. USPA simply lowered the standards to pass the course. For the old course, you needed to earn 12 points within 6 eval dives with a 0 to 4 possible on each jump. The new course you must pass 3 out of 4 with each jump a pass/fail. An example of how it is an easier format: Old course: First dive score a 2. New course: First dive score a sat. Old course: Second dive, score a 0. New course: Second dive, score an un-sat. Old course: Third dive score a 2. New course: Third dive score a sat and earn your rating. You are done. With the old course at this point, you have 3 dives to score 8 more points. You must demonstrate higher than average abilities to recover from the failed Second dive. Old course: Fourth dive score a 2 Old course: Fifth dive score a 2. You must now score a 4 on the last dive to earn your rating, no pressure. Old course: Sixth dive, score a 2 or 3, fail the course. Ask some people that have seen both the old and new course. I had a CD tell me the standards were lower, but that he follows USPA's guidelines and that's it. Candidates that failed the old course would pass the new one easily. I passed the old course in 5 dives with 13 points. I was not ready to be turned loose on real AFF students alone. I needed mentoring and a lot more experience before I should have been a full fledged AFFI. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1135751;search_string=old%20course%20new%20course;#1135751 Derek