davelepka

You're using a pack job that involves inducing a line twist, then reversing it before closing the container. What did you expect? Playtime is over. Stop blaming the canopy for your problems and learn how to pack.

It's not a matter of being cheap, it's a matter of being honest. If the guy can legitimately afford to drop $7K on a ring, then it's a good deal and worth it. If the $7K is going to create a financial hardship, keeping in mind there's a wedding and honeymoon still left to pay for, then it's a shitty deal. I didn't suggest buying a 'fake' ring to see what she says, I suggested buying what he can realisticly afford. If she wants to marry a guy who can drop $7K on a ring, and the OP isn't that guy, then it's not going to work out anyway. Even if he manages the ring, how does he pay for the wedding, honeymoon, house, car, and lifestyle the girl is going to expect as follow-ups to the ring? If he buys what he can afford, and she wants to marry the guy, realistic financial outlook and all, he's a lucky guy.

It depends, how much you got? Expenses like the ring, wedding, and honeymoon are the same as just giving the money away. Yes, you get the experience and the memories out of the deal, but there's no asset left to liquidate when all is said and done. Keep in mind that the ring is hers to keep once the marriage actually happens, and that if you split up she could sell it, but she'll get pennies on the dollar. Either way, if you have the money to give away, than it's worth it. If you have a home, car, savigns, and retirement, and can still afford the ring, wedding and honeymoon, then buy it. Otherwise, in a tough economy, that's a lot of scratch to blow on a ring. If you lost your job, how long could you pay your living exspenses on $7000? I know the cut, color, and clarity are the key factors in pricing a diamond, but can you tell the difference between them? Can she? Think of how many products you own where you bought one that was 'good enough' for you, but far from the best. Maybe a watch, what kind do you own? It's probably not a Rolex, but you like it, how it looks, and the job it does. If you can't tell the difference between one or the other, why do you need the Rolex of diamonds? It's great that you think she's worth it. If she thinks you're worth it she'll be willing to accpet any token of your feelings you present with a marriage proposal, and she'll happily say yes.

More than you think, I'm one of those people. I pass work jumps on to the other guys all the time becasue I'd rather make a fun jump. However, as a DZO if you have to choose between a guy who is willing to work the whole day provided he can stay busy, and a guy who only wants to do a few work jumps, you have to go with the all day guy. Again, this is a business, and you have to be able to take advatage of the weekends when the weather is good. There's a limited amount of time available to make the money that keeps the doors open, and you can't survive with a group of instructors who 'might' want to work or 'might not'. I don't think it's at all uncommon that the guys who are willing to commit to the whole day are the guys who get first dibs on the work, in fact I would say that this the norm at the majority of DZs. Full timers get the first shot at work jumps, and then the part timers, with the senior part timers coming first over the new guys.

Got me, that's not my call. Every student with two instructors will have one of them working with the student before the jump, with no time contraints. The secondary, on the other hand, may be doing a back-to-back in order to make the load. Since they have another rig, there's no need to rush, just drop off one rig, grab the other and meet the plane. Video guys are likewise. We have a non-jumping editor, so there's no hassle there, and if you have another rig ready to go, there's time to swap tapes/memory cards, grab a rig and go. Single instructor students and coach level jumps are never conducted by an instructor/coach on a back-to-back. It would be nice to have unlimited rigs, instructors and slots, but we both know that's not the reality of it. With a limited jumping season here in Ohio, rated jumpers are hard to come by, and those that you do have also have families and 'day jobs', so they can't be at the DZ all day, every weekend, all summer long. Even if you had mroe staff, you reach a point where it's too much, and then the rotation takes so long to come around, everyone gets 2 ro 3 jumps a day, and that's not enough to keep people interested. The reality is that staff, slots, and rigs are expensive commodities. If you can get every tandem, student and video done by sunset, you've planned correctly. If you finish them all with hours of daylight to go, you have too many of one of them, and that hurts the bottom line. Again, this is a seaonsal DZ in Ohio, so in order to get everyone to work two jobs all summer long, you have to do it right. If the bottom line isn't right for anyone, DZO, instructors or video guys, you may not get them back next year. In the case of the DZO, that means no DZ. In the case of the staff, if you overstaffed to make it 'better' one year, you'll lose some of them based on the reduced work load per instructor, and you're right back to keeping the pace up until sunset becasue of a smaller staff.

How about fess up, take your lumps, and do better on the next dive? Nobody is saving lives or feeding hungry children by doing fun jumps. It's supposed to be fun, and unless you took out the skydive on purpose, you just made an honest mistake, and everyone should continue to have fun. Yes, there are some safety considerations to think about, and you can discuss those with the organizer. Even if you know them already, touch base with the guy so he knows that you know. It will go long way toward getting you invited on the next one. Then pack up, get to the dirt dive on time, and in freefall just smile, relax, and take your time.

In writing? This is between the staff, and if I wouldn't trust them with my gear, I'm not about to make a working skydive with them. Essentailly you're saying you have the same arrangement at your DZ. We ask first, but only once, and at the beginning of the season. When the time comes that you need to borrow a irg, it means that everyone is busy, so instead of hunting down a TI or calling a guy who's not there that day, right in the middle of the madness, you just grab the rig and go. Well, check the manifest and make sure the owner is doing tandems for the next few loads and go, but you get the idea. Again, this is among the staff, and all of us have been working together for years. There is a new guy with fewer jumps, and he knows that the rig with the 84 Velo isn't for him, but he's welcome to anyting appropriate to his skill level. In the end, it's all in the name of making sure that every tandem, student, and video gets done before sunset, so we work this way in the name of teamwork.

That's different. If the DZO was jumping it themselves, and were presumably qualifed to jump the rig and care for it, that's one thing. I would have trouble refusing that type of request. For them to loan your rig out to another jumper, regardless of who that other jumper might be, is not right. Add in that jumper being a lower time jumper, and your canopy being higher-performacne, and it's completely out of the question. You should have been pissed, and not shy about it either.

If the situation was such that the DZO was qualified to jump that rig, and was in a pinch to make a back-to-back load to get a student up in the air, and this was the last rig left on the rack, I might have some more understanding for the DZO. If the DZO had asked to jump the rig in a more casual circumstance like, "I might like to jump that harness/container", and the owner said, "I'd prefer you didn't", again, I could side with the DZO as this was a different circumstance that when the owner (barely) declined the request. The other thing is, and I asked this, was why was the rig available to jump when the owner was not there to supervise it? Fun jumpers tend to take their gear with them, or put it in a locker when they're not around. Staff members, on the other hand, sometimes just keep their gear on the rack in the instructors room or video room. If this guy was a DZ employee, it would just seem odd to me that he would refuse the DZOs request to jump his gear. If I knew the exact reasons why, I could make a better assesment of the situation. In terms of one fun jumper to another, I would agree that it's a 'hands off' policy unless given the direct permission from the owner. When you get involved with DZOs and DZ employees, who should have qualifications to jump and ability to care for the gear, I have trouble seeing why you would decline a request to jump your gear. It seems like there might be more to the story. For the record, we have an 'open door' policy at my DZ among the staff regarding our personal rigs. Anyone is welcome to any rig if they need it, or even just want it. As long as the owner doesn't need it, and it's packed for when the owner does need it, anything goes. On busy days it's a huge help when you can do 3 or 4 back to backs in a row using TIs sport rigs, or gear of staff members not at the DZ that day.

Why did the DZO need to jump your gear, and why did you say no? The circumstances surrounding this would make a difference in the way I might react. Also, how is it that your gear was available to the DZO when you were not there to control it's usage?

No, you may 'know' how to pack, but suck at it. In that case, you are the only one who realizes your shortcoming as you are the only one with your hands on the entire pack job. In a technical sense, a main parachute needs to be packed by a rigger, under the supersvision of a rigger, or the person who is going to jump the parachute. Packers who are not riggers use the excuse that they are under the supervision of a rigger even if said rigger is just on the DZ somwhere, or even off-DZ but available to show up and supervise if need be. The reason they get away with this is they are comptent packers, and the issue of them being suopervised never comes up. In the case of a sudent packing a rental rig, this would not be the case. Being new to packing, they would require actual, physical, one-on-one supervision to ensure that everything is done correctly. The other angle is that when you pack a rental rig that is going to be hung up on the rack, you're packing that rig for the next paying customer who has a right to expect a properly packed parachute. I'm not saying they have the right to expect a successful opening, but a pack job that was done properly by a skilled professional. This is why DZ who rent rigs for the day generally allow the jumper to pack for themselves aside from the final pack job. When you're done jumping, and the rig is headed for the rack, a DZ packer has to do that pack job.

Packing is by far the easiest of the three. Howvever, at a year round DZ, a spot on the packing mat might be hard to come by. Packers the best paid people on the DZ, and if there's a DZ where you can pack year-round, 4 or 5 days a week, being a packer becomes a 'legitimate' full time job. Your best bet is just to ask at the DZ and to start with whoever seems to be in charge. If the DZO is hands-off, there has to be a DZ manager somewhere. It might actually help if you explain that you're new, and probably a slow packer, this way you're not going to be eating up all the work. In terms of being a pilot and camera flyer, you know that it's waaay easier to become a camera flyer than a pilot, right? You can fly camera with a few hundered jumps, and $1500 worth of camera gear. Total invenstment is less than $10K. With minimal jumps and basic gear, you might not get a slot at a premiere DZ, however. Figure another couple hundered jumps (at least), and another $1000 or so on gear to get a slot at a top DZ. Becoming a pilot will run you about $8k to $10k, just to get your private with 60-ish hours. You'll need another 200 hours plus a commercial rating before you even get close to flying jumpers in a 182. You can get the hours for about $20k, and the additional training and rating will add on another few thousand. Good idea to start as a packer. Even if you don't get fired from your new job, stick with the packer idea. It's even easier to get a spot on the mat if you're slow and part time. Packers get paid by the pack job, so a fast, full time packer can easily eat into their income, and often times are not welcome. As long as you're not that guy, you should be able to pick up a few extra bucks, and you'll be at the DZ so you won't miss anything cool.

There's this - http://www.boneheadcomposites.com/m8/504--universal-top-mount.html - there's always just looking at that, and cuttng one out of some aluminum sheet. The great thing about the CX105 is the size and light weight. That's what allows you to mount it on a flimsy helmet like the Gath. It also means you don't need a heavy duty mounting plate, so making one should be easy. Have you considered drilling a 1/4 hole in the top of the helmet, and installing a bolt with a big washer and just threaded it into the tripod mount hole in the camera? You really don't need a plate at all. Just bolt it up, and if you need to shim the front or back for the correct angle, just find something to jam in there.

I'd be interested to know is those people were aware of the maintenance situation before the FAA released the statement? If they were not aware, then they (and you) might want to rethink your choices. They elected to jump there presuming the aircraft was properly maintained, and you have elected to continue jumping there based on those people being at the DZ, even though they made an un-informed decision to jump there. If they were aware, those 'good' people you're siding with allowed you to consistantly make an un-informed decision every time they watched you board the plane without sharing their knowledge of the lack of maintenance. Either way, this isn't about good people. All the good will and happy thoughts in the world will not keep the aircraft alot if the control cables should break, or a wing should fall off. It's simple nuts and bolts mechanical stuff. If you never change or check the oil in your car, sooner or later you'll toast the motor. It might be a month if your car burns oil, or you might make it 2 years if you're lucky. In any case you're mechanically heading down a road with a definite and catastrophic (for the car) end. Ignoring control cable life limits and corrosion inpections is the same thing. Life limits and corrosion inspections exist because control cables have shown a limited life span and certain areas have been prone to corroding. In the 40+ years that the Twin Otter fleet has been flying, these ares have [proven troublesome. Ignoring them does not make these factors go away, and if you ignore them, you've essentailly started the clock ticking until one of them fails, with catastrophic results.

I think people forget how fast they're going, and how thin the aluminum is around them. The ride is generally so smooth, and so friendly, it's seems hard to understand how something so easy going can kill you. Maybe all jumpers should be required to ride along during some stall/spin training, just to get a an idea of how fast things can go wrong. One second you're mushing along on the edge of a stall, and a second later you're pinned to the wall as the plane is spinning toward the ground. It's a good illustration of how bad it can get, and a spin is not even that bad. A couple of heavy-handed zero G's might help to. Get pinned to the ceiling, then smashed down to the floor on top of, or under, other jumpers and you get an idea for how un-friendly an airplane can be. Keep in mind that afterwards while the jumpers are tending to their various injuries, the zero G manuvers were well within the limits of the plane, and it barely broke a sweat kicking everyones ass. An actual emergency involving a departure from controlled flight can be expected to be much worse. An emergency involving any sort of landing where the plane doesn't stay up on the gear can be expected to worse yet. As evidenced the in the other Lodi thread, the seat belts in jump planes leave a bit to be desired, so the best protection against an aircraft crash is to not be in one. In this country, the best protection against that is to fly on a plane that is at least kept the FAA minimum standards for maintenance. Some operators go above and beyond that standard, and I applaud them, but it's really in their best interest becasue it avoids down time and airframe destroying accidents. In the end, you have to have a standard, and smart people at the FAA have studied the available data and provided a standard they believe in to the point that they're willing (and able) to fine Bill D $664,000 for not following it.

Depends on the size of the plane. In a 182, you could go with anything you want. You'll be the only group exiting, so the spot should be close to home and you'll make it back no problem. Bigger plane means longer jumprun, and a longer ride home for workers. Most AFFs and tandems (and tandem videos) get out last, so you might be at the end of a long jumprun. AFF students have 250+ sq ft canopies that they open a 5000ft or above, and tandems have even bigger canopies open in the same area, so they have no problem getting back from a long spot. AFF Is and tandem video guys have to wait for the student/tandem to dump before they get to dump, so you'll be limited in how much altitude you have to get home on. Add in another AFF I and possibly a video guy for the AFF, and you have a busy little area down below the student, further limiting your ability to pull 'high'. Somtimes you can get your tandem to exit as the first tandem, and that helps, and sometimes you can get your AFF first in the AFF line up, but that only works sometimes. There are loads with lots of fun jumpers and one tandem, and you're the video guy, you're out lasty last. I shot tandem and student video on a Velo 90 at about 2.4 for a season, and landed off more than I would have liked. Even when I made it back, too many times I would just barely get back, and not have the altitude to swoop anyway. Remember that you need to get home at 1000ft up to still be able to set up and throw a good turn. You're obviously jumping at 2.6 for the swoop, so getting over the field at 200 ft leaves you time for a flat turn, brake surge, and flare. For the past few seasons, I've been on a 103 at about 2.0 (I lost 10 lbs), and generally make it home with time left for a 450. I've got a buddy a little lighter than me who jumps a 90 on AFF jumps, and after borrowing my rig, he wished he had a 103 becasue it made it much easier to get back. Howvever, there are plenty of guys working under 2.3, or 2.4 and up, so I guess anyting is possible.

How's that? You realize the problem with any piston engine jump plane is the descent, right? With hot running turbo-charged engines, managing the engine temp and avoiding supercooling is going to be key to keeping the bird happy and the props turning. Even if you could wrestle it down in 7 or 8 minutes, that only leaves you 12 or 13 to land, load, and climb back up to 10K for 20 minute turns (3 loads per hour). Have you looked into the fuel situation? The last piston twin I jumped, which was a quick climbing super-charged Twin Bonanza only carried enough for one load, requiring a shut down and refuel every load. If you're thinkning 40 gal/hr per side, that's probably about 15 per side, per load, or about 250 lbs of fuel. Even to run two loads back to back, you'll be hauling over 500 lbs of gas on the first round, and that's not going to help your turn time. Provided you have a good A&P on site, and a pilot who knows how to manage a turbo charged engine (and take it easy on the turbos), you could probably get 2 loads per hour, provided that everyone was geared up and ready to laod as soon as the fuel was in the tanks. Truth is, you'd be better off with a pair of normally asperated 182's. You could run 8 tandems an hour, and have increased reliability due to simpler airframes. On top of that, if one goes down, you can still run 4 tandems per hour out of the other one. If one engine (or any part of the 402) goes down, you're stuck running zero tandems per hour. I'm pretty sure that every jump plane that is practical, reliable, and afforable is already in widespread service in the US. If there aren't a dozen of one model in current jump operation, there's a reason (Casas and Skyvans being the exception).

Granted, and were those people born with 400-500 jumps, or were they, at one time, new and impressionable jumpers? Were they introduced to, or trained in, a skydiving environment where canopy skill, usage, and selection was viewed as being a 'big deal', or was it more of a relaxed attitude where the training was minimal, and the oversight in terms of gear selection non-existant? This is a long term problem we are trying to solve. It's been well over a decade in the making to get to where we are right now. There may not be any solution that will produce 'quick' results, as you may not be able to fix a long term problem quickly at all. If we start today, and train each student in a different environemnt, where we explain importance of canopy piloting and selection, we back that up by mandating meaningful training and conseravtive oversight in terms of gear selection, and in 4 or 5 years, those students will be the jumpers with 400 or 500 jumps, and they will have been introduced to a skydiving environment where it's 'cool' to have a reasonable WL, and to stay at that loading for a fair number of jumps. Minimum pull altitudes come to mind as a fair comaprison. Low pulls, what used to be considered a plain old 'good time', and was seen as a right of any jumper to partake in or not, has now become uncool and taboo on the DZ. Jumpers who engage in low pulls are looked at as reckless and a danger to the community. Just like the status quo of low pulls has shifted completely, so can the status of jumpers who ignore safe canopy piloting practices, and rush into high WL or high performance canopies.

I currently jump from two aircraft. One is a Part 135 maintained Caravan operated by a cargo/air taxi operation who also runs one of the premiere maintenance shops in the area. The other is Part 91 C182 and I know both the owner and A&P personally. On top of that, I take it as a very good sign when the owner is willing to put the seats back in and use the plane to transport his family to fly-ins and pancake breakfasts. I have, in the past, jumped at many DZs where I had no knowledge of any of these things. Now that I am more informed, I take some interest in my safety, and that extends to the aircraft I will fly, fly in, or jump out of. Just because you may be less discriminate with your safety does not mean that I have to.

You realize that tacking a smiley face to every resonse doesn't make them any less stupid. Yes, BASE jumping is one solutuion to not being involved in a plane crash. Maybe I mistook the intelligence of some readers when I assumed that the other obvious choice, in light of my comments about aircraft being maintained to the standard set forth by the FAA, was to jump from aircraft actually maintained to that standard. My mistake. Just like I realize that a skydive is taking a risk, regardless of my abilities or equipment, I realize that riding in an airplane is also a risk. Based on my knowledge of the FAA standards, it's a risk I'm willing to take provided that aircraft is maintained to to that standard.

That's exactly why it's a bad idea. You cannot expect any sort of consistancy when you have a pass/fail type scenario. Beyond that, you have the problem of administering the testing and certification of both the testers and the students. This is why my vote is for a greater focus on canopy control in the formative training, instilling the knowledge and skills to pilot a canopy as well as the idea that canopy piloting is a serisou skill worhtwhile of dedicated time and energy. In terms of more advanced jumpers, that where a jump number based limitation of wing loading and canopy type into play. If you can keep jumpers on a conservative WL and canopy type through 400 or 500 jumps, they will have time to develop the experience to better handle higher performance canopies and make better choices while doing so. Jump numbers may not be a perfect metric, but it is consistant and easy to administer. Your jumps are your jumps, end of story. What one S&TA thinks at DZ 'A' as compared to the S&TA at DZ 'B' is of no consequence, if you have 350 jumps, the chart says this is what you get. What you end up with are jumpers who are instilled with the idea that canopy control is an important area of study, and then are limited to a reasonable course of downsizing if they so desire. By the time a jumper has 400 or 500 jumps, they are ready to be 'cut loose' and make their own choices. The more complicated you make a solution, the less the chances that solution has of making into practice and actually succeeding. A simple pre-A license canopy control course, which can be taught by any reasonably knowledgable jumper, followed by some limitations as to what size and type of canopy you can fly is about as simple as it gets. It's a two hour class with a few hop n pops, two of which are required for the A anyway. A Wl chart is just a click of the print button from being hung up at every DZ in the country.

Regardless of your opinion, what I stated is correct and factual. A person operating an aircraft in the US is legally bound to abide by the regulations set forth by the FAA. It is well within reason for a jumper to expect that an aircraft operator is working within the confines of the law.

Sure, provided that the state of the aircraft maintenance was public knowledge. In that case, jumpers could make their own choices. Much like the uninformed tandem passenger would assume that instructors are properly rated, a jumper in the US would make the assumption that the aircraft is maintained to the standard set by the FAA. Poor MX and unrated instructors are one in the same. They are both undisclosed risks to paying customers. Who the customer is, or what the nature of the service may be is of no consequence, people are unknowingly being put in harms way. Am I there to make a jump? A dangerous, life threatening jump? Yes, indeed, but I am confident in my abilites and the performance of my equipment such that I can survive a parachute descent. I have no confidence in my abilites to survive an airplane crash.

When a DZO takes the seats out of a plane in order to carry more jumpers, this is clear to every jumper boarding the plane, and they can make an informed desicion to accept the risk of flying in an airplane without a seat. When a DZO allows you to exit their aircraft, it is clear to every jumper that they are exiting the aircraft, and they can make an informed decision to accept the rick of making a skydive. When a DZO operates an aircraft in the US, it is implied that the aircraft has been maintained according the standard set by the FAA. If they choose to ignore that standard, and operate an aircraft maintained below the standard set by the FAA, this is not readily apparent to any jumpers outside of the DZ staff and maintenance personel. Jumpers jumping from such an aircraft are subjected to increased risk without their knowledge or consent.

Shoot for Eloy or Perris based on the on-site tunnel. It saves you the time of driving into Orlando if you go Deland or Z-Hills, and even if you don't mind the drive, you still end up in Orlando. Perris has Elsinore right over the hill, which is a plus becasue you can get to two world-class DZs without getting killed on travel time. You could walk from one to the other in about 90 minutes, but if you have a car or can get a ride, it's like 20-25 minutes. LA or SanDiego is also within 60 to 90 minutes (by car) if you're looking for off-DZ entertainment. Eloy might have better weather, but there is no other DZ over the hill (or really a hill, for that matter), and no big city within reach for any reason.