davelepka

OK, it is correct that tighter is better than looser in terms of closing loop tension. It is also true that if you can close the rig by hand, it's not too tight for the purposes of pin extraction, and general safety. However, there is such a thing as 'too tight' in terms of the rig itself. Even if you can close it by hand, it may be too tight and risking damage to either the grommets or the stiffeners in the flaps. Typically, it requires continual use with a tight closing loop to actaully damage the rig, so for one pack job and one jump, you should be fine. After that, consult a rigger or more experienced jumper when you go to close the pack job to make sure that it;s not too tight.

To whom? The USPA? A failure to act on behalf of the members based on a perception of liability to the organization seems a bit backwards. What good is the organization if the members are dead or not jumping due to injury? It's bullshit anyway. Here's the solution, every size on a WL chart is accompanied by an asterisk, and the below the chart you have this - * All wingloadings represent the maximum allowable for the corresponding jump numbers. This chart is not suggesting that there is any minimum Wl for any level of experience, and no jumper should downsize their canopy unless they have achieved a level of proficiency on their current canopy, and are comfortable with the idea of jumping a smaller canopy. Will jumpers disregard this, and follow the max WL to the number? Sure they will, but that's got nothing to do with the USPA. Even then, if the chart repersented reasonable WL values, that plan of action would still represent a reasonable and gradual course od downsizing. How do you think PD gets away with building canopies that poeple use to drill themselves into the ground on a daily basis (I use PD because of their commanding market share)? It's the warning label, which as we all know indicates a very conservative set of circumsatnces that very few people actaully follow. None the less, they establish the company line, and what people want to do with it is up to them. There's no reason it should be any different for the USPA.

Sometimes the 7 will have a slightly steeper glide at full flight. However, this can be overcome with the application of brakes or rear risers (when traveling with the wind). Overall, for your purposes, either 7 or 9 cell would be fine for you. I would be weary of commiting to a rig with a 210 if you have only put a handful of jumps on a 260 thus far. If the container is big enough to hold a 220 or 230, then it might be a safer bet, but if the 210 is the largest it can hold, you're locked into that size, even if you find that a 220 or 230 is more your speed. Also, what size is the reserve? Again, if it's a 190 or 200 sq ft reserve, and you find a 220 or 230 suites you, you're stuck with a smaller reserve than you're comfortable jumping. If anything, you want to go the other way with it, and a have a reserve bigger than the main you feel is right for you. If I recall, the last rig you were trying to buy was a 280 or 290, and you were in a panic because the pickings were slim in that range. Now that you have 'come to your senses', and are considering a more conventional sized canopy, the assortment of applicable used rigs has expanded exponentially. Even if you target anything in the 210 to 230 range, they're out there, and all of the harnesses will be built 'man size' as there are very few ladies or lightweights on a 200+ sq ft canopy. The end result is that you can take your time, and not be strapped down to this one rig. Work your way down through the student rigs until you are comfortable on the 240. Another advantage you have is that a student rig that holds a 240 will aslo hold a 230 or 220, so when you are ready you can demo canopies in that size by putting them in the student rig. You'll pay for the demo, the rig rental, and to have a rigger swap out the canopies, but it's worth it. To be able to actually jump what you'll be buying, and make sure that it 'feels' good to you is priceless. The universal rule in skydiving is never to buy anything you are not qualifed to jump, or that doesn't fit you at the time of purchase. People have all sort of 'plans' to lose weight, or pound out jumps, or develop skills, but all of those things may or may not happen. When you are ready to buy a rig, look at your skills and needs at that time, and find a rig that works for you then. It will save you time, money, and headaches later on.

Not accurate at all, given all other things are the same. If you're talking modern Z-po 9 cell to modern Z-po 7 cell, there is no 'conversion factor' needed.

Two things to keep in mind, in terms of the available data, all we have is information on the fatalities under open canopies. Any injuries under open canopies are either unreported, or if they are reported the details of those remain unpublished. As far as I am concerned, both fatalities and injuries are unacceptable, and anything we can do to avoid or reduce the frequency of either has become a necessity. On that same subject, one reason you may see more fatalities in the mid time jumpers over the newbies is due to canopy size. You have to make a monumental error to kill yourself under a 210 or a 190, canopy sizes common to newbies and their first rig. Once you progress to more of a 'sport' canopy, say a 150 or 135, the magnitude of error needed to result in a fatality goes way down. The other point is that the current student training program, the ISP, has been in place long enough that many mid to hign time jumpers were trained under that system. When they advance to higher performance canopies, and then are involved in an incident, I feel safe making the assertion that improved training and increased focus on canopy control during their 'formative' years might have made a difference in both their abilities and desicion making. Beyond all that, the undisputed fact is that there is a very real and very severe problem in skydiving with regards to canopy control. I cannot see how starting at the most basic level, initial training, and tailoring it to include increased focus on canopy control and it's importance in making a safe skydive, can be a bad thing. Even if it turns out not to be the keystone of the effort to reduce open canopy accidents, it will improve the knowledge and outlook of new jumpers, which are both good things. I have never stated any sort of objection to additional, concurrent action in terms of reducing open canopy incidents, just that I feel improved student training should be a part of that effort. If you have additional ideas about the source or solution to the problem, by all means, speak up. To just roll in and protest an idea, which in itself will 'do no harm', without making an alternate suggestion is a waste of everyones time. In a technical sense, if the hole was big enough and I had the airspeed, yes. I have flown my canopy into and then out of a ditch, which is similar to a hole. In a literal sense, it was not meant in a literal sense. It's a play on the cliche, 'He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground'.

I'll second that....

You're kidding, right? How long does it take for the USPA to take notice of a problem? What is it now that's suddenly got them all hot and bothered? That 75% of the fatalities in 2010 are under open canopies? Is that what did it? I don't know the exact figures or dates, but I do know that open canopy fatalites have been the #1 killer of skydivers in the US for years, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say it's been a decade. Additionally, before that segment was the top of the fatalities list, there had to be a period of several years where it's percentage was on the rise. That alone should have been enough to wake up the USPA that there was a problem and that it needed attention. Once the upward trend was established, and maintained for 2 or 3 years, this should have been the #1 issue in the area of safety and training. Despite this, we get students who learn all about center point turns, and fall rate control, but who are afraid to exit an aircraft below 10k ft and cannot fly their canopies out of a hole in the ground. I make no apoligies for my attitude about this issue and the USPA. I don't buy any of their bullshit, and never will until they put their (actaully my) money where their mouth is, and produce some sort of results. Not just a plan, but produce the plan, implement, and get results. Then I'll give credit where credit is due, but in the last few years all I've seen are a poster, a DVD nobody watched, and more and more dead jumpers.

Oh, military jump, that changes everything. In that case, I would get live training from a real person, to include dedicated jumps with a long crosswind spot with plenty of outs between the exit point and the LZ. Then, I would avoid jumping over open water until you can land accrately on the LZ within a 5m circle 10 times out of ten. I don't care why you're making these jumps, the techniques used are all the same for any square parachute. Working with the wind is a double edged sword, as sometimes it helps you and sometimes it hurts you, and the same goes for canopy inputs. In some cases they help, and in others they hurt. Learning the in's and out's of canopy flight is essential for knowing how to deal with any situation you might encoutner. Learning how to do one thing, and expecting that the conditions will always prevail making that one thing the right thing is asking for trouble. Doing that over open water is asking to drown. I'll repeat, get live coaching, and learn how to work a canopy in every direction, with every input, and in every wind condition. This way no matter what 'shit happens', you are preparred to fly your canopy to the best of it's abilities.

Here's an idea, don't jump over the ocean unless you are 100% sure in your ability to handle and type of spot or wind shift. Get some live coaching from a real person, and include dedicated jumps with a long cross-wind spot, but with plenty of outs between exit and the LZ. Avoid jumping over open water unless you can make it to the LZ and accurately land in a 5m circle 10 times of out 10.

Because if I stand up and say that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course; nobody is going to listen, and nothing will be accomplished. If the USPA stands up and says that every A license candidate needs to attend a basic canopy control course, and here is the syllabus for that course, everyone is going to listen, and every A licesne candidate will attend a basic canopy control course. I'll expand that last statement a bit - every A license candidate will attend a basic canopy control course before being awarded the A license, and set free to jump along side you and I with little or no supervision.

It's typical for new jumpers to go into a 'hard' arch at pull time. At the same time you are reducing your surface area by reaching back and holding one arm in front of your head. It may seem like you have the same surface area, but it's not as effective as when you're in a symetrical body position in terms of slowing you down. In terms of why your gizmo says you were falling at 3300ft, forget about it. If none of your instructors or coaches have said anything to you about unusual body positions at pull time, don't worry about what the little box tells you.

You can't eliminate the risk of an open canopy incident 100%. Skydiving in itself is taking a risk, and the canopy flight is part of skydiving. However, you have to consider how long the ISP has been in place, and that students who went through the ISP could, by this point, have significant experience to the point of being instructors themselves. Once a training method has been in place long enough to allow a 'generation' of jumpers to be educated in that method and go on to become 'experienced' jumpers, to some degree you have to connect that training method to the actions of 'experienced' jumpers who went through it. Even if open canopy incidents aren't exclusively linked to newbies with under 100 jumps, that doesn't mean that the ISP wasn't a part of what eventaully lead to the incident. I'll just add at this point that the only real data we have is for open canopy fatalities, not open canopy injuries. It's not surprising that the average jump number would be higher for open canopy fatalities becasue, in my opinion, you're much more likely to have a fatal incident once you advance past a 'beginner' canopy. It's just easier to kill yourself, and become a data point, on a 150 than it is on a 190. When it comes to open canopy injuries, what I see are more low time jumpers. Even minor injuries like twisted ankles or tib/fibs due to overshooting a landing area, or a mis-timed flare are things we need to work to avoid. These 'minor' injuries are sometimes enough to stop the momentum of a new jumper looking to become a 'skydiver'. There's nothing like six weeks on crutches to bolster the argument from family members that skydiving is dangerous, and that the student should stop.

Who esle is calliing the shots around here? From my point of view, even when the USPA puts their foot down in one area or another, the actual implementation out in the real world isn't quite 100%. You'll find some degree of implementation, but you always find that each DZ has 'their way', and they tend to stick to it. So when you look at an issue where the USPA does nothing, you can expect the general population to do exactly the same. The bitch of the ISP is that is covers both the subject matter, and the implementation of that subject matter, so a failre of either of those areas represents, at laest in part, a failure of the ISP. The right information presetned in the wrong way at the wrong time is still wrong. My quote from an earlier post - The ISP isn't new anymore. The open canopy fatality issue isn't new either, and hasn't gotten any better since the ISP. Why else would the ISP include a revamp of the canopy control training other than a reaction to the problem of open canopy incidents, which was well established as a problem at the time the ISP was developed? The reason is to address the open canopy incidents problem. That problem has gotten worse every year since, so the solution that the ISP was supposed to be clearly isn't working. How long does this odea have to fail before a revamp is called for? Maybe the scope of the material is correct, but the implementation of the material is wrong. This is why I suggest taking the material, and presenting it in a different way. Don't tack it on to an already action packed, performanced based freefall skydive, give it it's due consideration and hold a proper, focused, canopy control course. Get the information across effectively, and send the message that it's mportant and worthwhile of a student's time and energy. In the end, the ball is (and always has been) in the USPAs court. Any failure of the ISP, in either material or implementaion is on them, as is the responsibility to recognize that failure and take action to correct it. I am still waiting for either to take place.

Maybe so, but the difference is that drivers know how to operate their vehicles. Gas, brake, steering, they know these things, teaching them the rules of the road is the next step. Until jumper know how their canopies work, you cannot expect them to adhere to rules in the pattern. Teach a jumper how their canopy works, what effects the different controls have over the canopy and how the wind plays into the scheme of things, and then you can expect them to accurately fly their canopy in and around the pattern. Until such time you can continue to expect jumpers who cannot make to the pattern entry point at the correct alititude, or properly handle their canopy when it's impossible to make it into the pattern.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

I'm not doing anything, just observing what's really happening. If there's nothing wrong with the training, why are the nuber of fatalities (and injuries) under open canopies continually on the rise? If the system was working, we could at least expect to see a stagnation of the percentage, if not a decline, but that is clearly not the case. How can you continue to defend the system when the very limited data we have shows a clear failure to perform? You're using the USPA model of, 'Close your eyes and push the ISP, close your eyes and push the ISP, close your eyes and push the ISP'.

This is where the bottom falls out of the ISP. Most of that stuff is not taught in the later levels becasuse most of those levels are taught by coaches who never learned those things themselves, and might have as little as 100 jumps. That's one of the problems with the coach system, is that by this point, many actual coaches went through the ISP themselves, and any shortcomings in the program are doomed to repeat themselves becasue the students are now the teachers. How are they supposed to teach things they never learned themselves? Let's face it, it takes an in-depth understanding of the subject matter to be able to effectively teach the material. Not everyone learns in the same way, and part of being a good teacher is being able to present the material in several different ways, and indentifying which of those ways is the most effective for one student or another. Additionally, trying to teach the finer points of canopy control piecemeal alongside of the dive flow for a high-energy freefall jump is a very, very poor course of action. For starters, it's hard to overcome the excitment of a freefall for a new jumper. It's an obvious 'attention hog', and probably the foremost thought on any students mind for at least 24 hours before the jump. To think that you could pepper in some canopy control stuff to the mix, and that the student would give those points their due consideration is just naive. The second problem with the piecemenal idea is that the majority of the information in a canopy control course is cumulative in that learning one lesson is essential for understanding the following lesson, and so on. When you break it down in to tiny little bits, offered up at indetermined intervals, the 'building block' effect is lost. When you train a student for freerfall, you are building on skills they already have, and adding only one or two new things. However, you still review the 'building blocks' of skills they learned on previous jumps, such as EPs, body position, altitiude awareness, and pull time. All of these things are reviewed or covered in the dirt dive, but the end result is that everything gets it's due consideration, except the canopy control portion. When was the last time you referenced past lessons in canopy control when discussing new canopy control goals with a student? I'm going to guess it's very rare that this happens, but the freefall related material gets covered and reviewed for every jump. If you reference post #5 in this 180+ post thread, you'll see that I introduce the idea of a dedicated canopy control course being mandatory for anyone wanting an A license, and that anywhere in the 15 to 25 jump range was the right time for these people to take the course. I provided an example of a new A license jumper I conducted such a 'course' with where I was able to confirm what he did and did not know or understand. Now another new A license holder has taken a similar course at the about the same point in his learning progression, and confirmed that he was largely uninformed, and that the dedicated canopy control course provided a weath of information and the right setting for absorbing that information. How long should be wait until we realize that this is a good idea? Another 175 posts? Should we follow the USPAs lead, and give it a decade to see how things work themselves out? Or maybe wait until the percentage of jumpers killed under open canopies doubles again? I've got news for you, you can't double 75%, it's impossible. It's such a simple proposition. Establish a basic canopy control course consisting of 1.5 to 2 hours of classroom time followed by 3 or 4 hop n pops with dedicated learning objectives on each jump. The ISP requires two hop n pops anyway, so all this adds is two hop n pops to the A license requirement. The material would be remedial enough that any S&TA could either tecah it themselves, or appoint a qualified jumper to do so. It doesn't take a special rating, and the associated ratings course and course directors. It deosn't take days of anyones time or require travel any further than a students home DZ. The calssroom time happens one evening, the jumps are completed the following morning so nobody has to be stuck in a classroom while the props are turning outside. WTF people?

It's under warranty through Toyota, so you can take it to any Toyota dealership to be repaired. The one you have been to several times is obviously not getting the job done, and are probably now operating on their own dime. Toyota will only pay the dealer so much for a certain repair, and getting it done for that price is the responsibility of the dealer. If they botch the job, it comes out of the dealers pocket to re-do it and make it right. Every time you take the car back there, it just costs them more and more, and thus they are likey to try and cut corners, or just hope you'll 'go away'. Make them happy and 'go away', away to another dealer who can just do the job correctly the first time. Then, make the original dealer unhappy by coming back, with a complaint to the Toyota regoinal service rep. about their inability to fix whatever the problem turns out to be.

He's in Canada. The word 'coach' doesn't mean the 100-jump-wonder that it does in the US. The overall learning progression is similar to AFF in the US, but the names of the various levels or stages are different, as are the titles of the jumpers.

If you live right down the street from Skydive Deland, have you thought about taking it down there to see if anyone was interested? Maybe you could hang it up in the gear store, or post a 'For Sale' flyer somewhere on the DZ. It would simplify the selling process for you, as you could do everything in person as opposed to through the mail. To that end, it is normal for a jumper to want the gear inspected by their own rigger. It's like buying a used car, you want your mechanic to look at it before purchase, even if the seller's mechanic says it's great, you want to hear that from your own guy. How you want to handle the issues of payment and inspection if selling abroad is up to you, but just be ready for buyers to want things checked out. That said, look like a nice rig and if everything is in good shape, the asking price seems fair.

No sir, I'm targeting new freeflyers. Without any experience, or another jumper to reference, how does any new freeflyer know if they are going straight down or not? Think about this, a large percentage of AFF level 1 students get the 'legs out' signal at some point in the jump. Now if they were not accompanied by instructors, and they assumed a good arch, but with legs up, how would they know they were backsliding? They are supposed to be belly to earth, they are facing belly to earth and stable, so they must be doing it right, at least in their own minds. A new stiflyer, for example, knows only to try and assume an upright position. If they assume such a position, but happen to be leaning forward or back, even just slightly, this will produce horizontal movement acorss the sky. They don't know this is happening, as they don't know what it feels like to sit up straight in the nuetral position, and without another jumper to reference, they might believe they are doing it correctly, and hold that position for the entire jump. I never said anything about changing the exit order. What I said was the new freeflyers can overcome the standard exit timing because of the possibility of unintentional horizontal movement. Standard group seperation does not account for a geat deal of horizontal movement, and as such does not ensure that a new freeflyer will remain clear of previous or later groups. The solution is for new freeflyers to assume a heading 90 degrees off jumprun, and maintain the haeding at all times. This way, the horizontal movement (which is always forward or back sliding) will not reduce the space between them and jumpers from another group. If they should lose their heading control, they need to return to a stable position, and reset to a safe heading. If they are holding the heading and position well, they can try a 180 turn, so in case there is movement, they will back track their flight path, and not get too far off the jumprun. If there is no movement, the 180 turn is just a good drill for heading control. I don't know you, or where you jump, but I'm trying to offer you some insight to what's really going on out there. It is not a big sky like you might think, and will 100%, for sure, have people freefalling closer to your canopy than you would like if you continue jumping. Being aware of your surroundings and the position of other jumpers will both help you to avoid falling past other canopies, and being in a place where someone might fall last yours. If you want to disagree, I could go on into further detail, but the end result will still be that I am correct in the information I am presenting. Take it for what it's worth, I'm trying to help you out.

Your original point was incorrect. The idea of having RW exit before freeflyers is intended to keep the groups seperate with regards to upper level winds and freefall drfit. For this purpose the plan works quite well. However, that plan is dependant on all jumpers falling straight down with their group. A beginner freeflyer can easily get themselves into a body position that invovles significant horizontal movement without realizing it. With no experience, and no other jumpers to reference, the newbie, if moving up or down the jumprun, could maintain this position long enough to overcome the seperation between them and the other groups. Think carefully about all the factors in a situation before drawing a conclusion. In this case there is no harm done as this is just a discussion. If you had drawn that same conclusion, and went on a solo freefly thinking that you were safe based on the group seperation, it could have led to a collision.

If you set it up as $50 for one, or $75 for both, you can push the add-on as being 'half price'. Another thing that used to work well for us (on outside video, but the idea is the same) is to shoot both on every jump, and go for the after-sell on anything not prepaid. There's always the chance that non-video customers will pick up one or both, or that single option customers will kick in for the other one after the jump. One last idea, if you can figure out a way to do this without too much trouble, dump any unpurchased video or stills onto a hard drive of some sort and save them for a month. Print up a 'flyer' for any customers who didn't buy both video and stills that explains that you save the footage for a month, and that it's available for purcahse at any time during that month, with $5 added for shipping. We did this with stills back when we were shooting 35mm. We shot them on every jump, then tried to sell them after they had seen the video. Any rolls that didn't sell were labeled with the customer name/date, and tossed in a box. Pretty close to half of those rolls were purchased after the fact, and mailed to the customer. Once we transitioned to digital stills, the video/stills package became the only option, so this is not a factor any more, but the idea worked well at the time.

Regardless of the source, is the quote applicable? The answer, unfortunately for you, is yes, it is applicable. If you're uncomfortable with the source, would you prefer that he not try to 'soften the blow' with a pop culture reference, and just come right out and say, "That it is stupid to contiue jumping from a plane that has been documented to have severe maintenence issues, or from a plane owned by an operator who has a track record of poor maintenece procedures, with some of them leading to actual crashes"? Let's keep focus on the issue at hand, and the issue at hand is not the source of quotations used to make a point in this thread.

Just a quick word on this, one of the things you 'missed' in the last 20 years was the evolution of the canopy, and the emergence of fatalities under open canopies as the number one killer of skydivers. Of course, this was a good thing for you to miss out on, but keep in mind that if you follow along with the current fashion in terms of canopy size and selection, you run the risk of negating the benefit of the 20 year break you took. By virtue of some simple math, I'm going to guess you're at or around 50 years old, and with that in mind, you might not want to stray too far from what you're used to. It's true that .9 is a fairly low wing loading, I don't think you would be disappointed or 'missing out' on anything if you kept in the 1.0 to 1.1 range. The performance of a modern day canopy is a world ahead of a Pegasus, but for every .1 up in WL you go, you're giving up some of the safety aspect that the technology can provide. The more responsive and reliable flare and improved glide will all take a hit as you ratchet up the WL. If you keep your wingloading conservative, you have a net gain in the safety and reliability of your canopy becasue of the added technology. In terms of containers and reserves, any of them built in the last 10 years, that can pass a riggers inspection (if you're buying used) will be fine. There are some that are known as 'less than', but if you recruit a qualified rigger to help you locate and inpect possible rigs, you'll be fine. In the jumpsuit department, invest in a new RW suit and if you want to try freestyle (or freeflying), get one of those too. You don't need all the fancy options, but just like back in the big jumpsuit days, you'll get the most out of your jump if you wear what everyone else is wearing.