Hooknswoop

There is a bracket on Twin Otters that allows you to get away with that, but they were exiting a Caravan. I wouldn't do that on a Caravan, bad for your fingers and the flap. Derek

From the discussion below the download button: "As the tandem instructor in that video I would like to set things straight. This was my 1000th jump. The student was not an experienced jumper. The plan for the skydive was to build a simple 4 way round with the student and break off at 6000 feet. We explained the jump plan with the student and gave him the choice to have others in the air with him or not. I even spoke with him one on one and let him know that if he was uncomfortable in any way that we would go alone. I also explained that the other jumpers were all tandem/AFF instructors and that I felt safe jumping with them. The student had seen a similar formation created in the Relative Workshop tandem video and thought the formation idea sounded great. He was also stoked to be involved on my 1000th jump. We discussed the dive as a group prior to leaving the ground. The two jumpers who touched my drouge deviated from the plan without my consent. You will notice that there was a third jumper in the air who decided that what was going on was unsafe and maintained his distance. After the jump I worked with my local tandem examiner and submitted a full report to Relative Workshop. The two instructors who touched my drouge were spoken to and were disciplined for their actions. One tandem instructor no longer conducts tandems at our drop zone. The other instructor was suspended for the rest of the year and had to sit through the tandem instructor ground school before resuming tandem instruction. I firmly agree that my safety and the safety of my student were compromised on this jump and believe me when I tell you that I was not happy, nor did I take it lightly. Even if the passenger was an experienced jumper this sort of action would not be ok. Messing with a drouge in freefall is dangerous and should not be done. Period. I would appreciate it if the description were updated to reflect the truth." This doesn't explain why someone was hanging onto the front of the tandem for exit or the TI's lack any attempt to stop their actions by waving off. It really looks like it was planned with the TI's knowledge. Clearly the exit was. Derek

By far the most important lesson is swoopers can fire their AAD's even though Airtec said they couldn't. This incident has forced them to admit that. I see a lot of discussion about AAD's and swooping, but none about reaction time to a downplane/biplane/SBS...............Wonder why that is? Derek

They don't enforce their own rules. Seems to me it is because of a conflict of interest. GM DZ's are listed on USPA's website, giving the impression that they are 'endorsed'. They aren't, but from the wuffo's perspective, it looks that way. GM DZ's use that to their advantage in advertising, "DZ xyz isn't a GM DZ which means they don't have to follow the BSR's" I took a turn at bat. Example: Me: "XXX/DZO is doing AFF w/o a rating, I have video." RD: "What do you want me to do, take away a rating he doesn't have?" USPA doesn't care. Like you point out, they know DZ's treat the 'pledge' as a joke and they don't care. Just send'm a check. Who is looking out for the student's interests? No one. By the time they figure out that the DZ was violating the BSR's, it is too late and the cycle continues. Prime example: USPA lowering the standards to become an AFFI. "I'm invoking the 'take your turn at bat' rule." is a copt-out. You wanted on the BOD, so did the other BOD's. Do your job and fix it. Quit making weak excuses why a DZ doesn't follow the BSR's/FAR's. Derek

OK, so we agree that it wasn't Adrian's fault for not reading the manual or knowing his descent rate under canopy. We also agree that Airtec made a mistake. Airtec knew the Cypres could fire an open canopy whent hey wrote the Cypres2 manual. They didn't release a statement until after Adrian's death. I think Airtec is partially responsible for Adrian's death. Derek

And which one of those did Adrian fail to get the information he needed from? Derek

How? By asking nicely? Are you saying they signed the gm 'pledge' knowing full-well they were in violation of it? Seems hollow to me. The latest revision is 5 years old now. Not really an excuse anymore that the regs were changed. Just because it used to be OK and legal, doesn't mean it is OK to do it now. Actually, it does. In the latest revision, the FAA added the word "direct" preceding supervision. This is to clarify that the rigger isn't just supposed to available, but actually supervising. "(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of its use of a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certification parachute rigger." The USPA considers it better to have a DZ violating FAR's and BSR's that is paying GM dues and requiring their jumpers to pay membership dues, than to have a DZ that is violating FAR's and BSR's? Hmmmm, figures. The information is available to bring them out of the nineties, it doesn't take a RD to bring them that information. If they have not updated, and are not updating, it is by choice, not ignorance. Derek

Adrian didn't have the benifit of the knowledge his death has provided. Being told he can't fire the Cypres under canpy, which was released long after Airtec was aware that was false, and not having a way to accurately measure his rate of descent, set him up for failure. He wa mislead and didn't have enough information to make a good choice. This is still true today. What information do swoopers have to make a good choice about their risk of firing their AAD under canopy? Derek

Which manuevers, what gear, what WL? How was Adrian supposed to make a good choice given the information available to him at the time? Derek

I haven't been to one that isn't. Derek

What is your descent rate under canopy? How do you know that you won't fire your Cypres in a hard spiral? How does someone that jumps a slightly smaller canopy than you know, what about a little smaller than that? What are jumpers supposed to base those decisions on? Derek

How far you can pull down a toggle is dependant on several things: Size of the canopy WL Where the toggle is attached to the lower steering line. Derek

But I would like to know for next time why it happened and how to avoid it. - Did I pull the toggle too far down ? Sounds lke you stalled 1/2 of the canopy. - What is the safe limit to pull the toggle down to ? Just before it stalls - Was it because I did more than one 360° spiral ? No, had nothing to do with it, you can do unlimited 360's with a canopy. - Or was it the combination of all of these ? Nope, just pulling a toggle down too far. - Or is it to do with my wingloading (under loaded or over loaded ?) No. Derek

There is nothing you can do. The FAA doesn't care. The USPA is paid by the DZ's and doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it. (The fox is guarding the henhouse). As you discovered, talking to the DZO just makes him mad. This is because DZO's aren't 'policed' by anyone and are used to doing whatever they want. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (ego and money) Your peers either don't want to know (apathetic), don't want to make waves and keep quiet, or got sucked into the whole 'dropzones are a family' b.s. and wouldn't believe a FAR violation if they saw it firsthand. (It's like a cult mentality) You have 2 choices: 1) Live with it the way things are and keep quiet, or 2) Quit skydiving. I made my choice. Derek

All the regular demo jumpers are enlisted..... Derek

You can offset ground elevation to account for higher terrain. Derek

I have seen it before, someone buys DRMO gear that isn't airworthy and sells it as being "in good condition". Derek

I may have missed something, but according to your first post, you are talking about downsizing. Derek

Why were the Instructors unable to catch the students in time? Derek

For all the good it does. Not true. The Cypres2 came out long after the Velocity 97 and other much smaller canopies. These aren't niche canopies, they are popular. I agree. I disagree. I can't say it was Adrian's fault for exceeding 78-mph when he kad no way of knowing he was going that fast. To expect everyone to know their descent rate is silly, since very few actually know or have the equipment to find out. He wasn't 'set-up'. he was set up for failure. Told it can't fire under canopy and given a speed limit he can't measure. I disagree about being a test jumper on a proven canopy. A xaos-21 pilot is a test jumper, not a Velocity 97. Really? I did? Where? I think swoopers should remove their Cypres's since they can't be sure they aren't close to firing it. Derek

Following the analogy then, people shouldn't jump a Cypres. Of course the problem with the analogy is you know that you have a good chance of walking in the wrong direction. Adrian probably didn't have that benefit. The only information available was the manual, with it's 'you can't fire it under canopy' and 'it fires at 78-mph'. Given that information and nothing to guage your speed by, you have nothing to tell you that you may fire it. Again, he was set up for failure. Led to believe he couldn't fire it and no way to know that he was getting close to the activation speed. Derek

"If a pilot tears the tail off an airplane because he flew it faster than the red line on the sirspeed indicator, he doesn't have anyone to blame but himself." My last post proves that there are a lor of cases where the person is at fault. I listed an example, quoted above. I'm saying that I give it very little credit since jumpers can't know their descent rate. If I tell you to walk north, blindfolded, is it your fault I blindfolded you or didn't give you a compass. How can I expect you to walk North if I withhold the tools you need to accomplish it? Derek

I am well aware of the manual, but I don't give much credit to the 78-mph activation speed. This is because it is very difficult to know how fast you are descending. If a pilot tears the tail off an airplane because he flew it faster than the red line on the sirspeed indicator, he doesn't have anyone to blame but himself. If the manufacturer states in the operating manual that you cannot exceed the redline in the airplane, even flying acrobatics or diving as much as you want, but doesn't put an airspeed indicator in the airplane and the pilot rips the tail off from going too fast, who's fault is it? He was under the impression that he could fly the airplane any way he wanted and the tail wouldn't fall off. He didn't have an airspeed indicator to tell him that he was exceeding redline, and he ripped the tail off. Sure the pilot in command is always responsible, but given misleading information and a redline not to exceed without a guage to tell him if he was getting close, how can the pilot ensure he doesn't exceed the redline? As for your reserve, j/k, I would pack it with the upmost care as I do every reserve

Hmm, wanna send me your rig for a reserve re-pack?. I feel differently than you do. Airtec made a mistake in not including a warning in the new Cypres2 manual and not putting an amendment to the Cypres1 indicating the possibility of a fire under canopy. They set Adrian up for failure. Derek

And how are you supposed to know if you approaching these speeds? I asked in Swooping & CC if anyone knew their descent speed and only got a couple of responses. I would hardly call a Velocity 96 pushing the limits. How could Adrian have known? The manual tells him he can't fire it under canopy. the 78-mph speed doesn't do any good unless you know your descent rate, not an easy thing to know. What warning(s) did he have? What assurances did he have that he wouldn't fire it? Where did he fail in his deciscion making process? At the time. So they knew it was possible. Thew knew it was possible with larger canopies too, hence the new swooping model. Derek