davelepka

In an earlier post, and under the assumption that they have seen an actual reduction in open canopy incidents in the Netherlands following the implementation of their WL rules, I asked this question - I'm interested in your opinion of what he downside is to a WL BSR that states 1.1 to 100 jumps, 1.2 to 200 jumps and so on with a limitation on HP canopies before 500 jumps. I understand that you're doubtful of the existance of hard numbers showing that Netherlands did indeed experience a reduction in incidents, so maybe you could give me two versions of what you see as the downside- One assuming that the NL is proof that the concept works, and one assuming that no proof of the concept exists. So what is the downside?

Maybe, but you should be sure to not wear shoes because you just stuk your foot in your mouth. As much as you try to make a joke of it, gloves have been directly linked to more than one fatality. The gril in Perris last year who was a no-pull whiel wearing multiple pairs of gloves, and I recall a camera guy who put swoop cords under his gloves, and couldn't free his hands in time to deal with a problem (brake fire, I think). In both cases proper training in the selection and use of skydiving gloves could have prevented both fatalities. Just like gloves, there are guidelines surrounding the proper selection and use of a camera in skydiving. Just like jumping in gloves is different then walking in gloves, jumping with a camera is different than filming your kids B-day party with a camera.

Of course, but as your experience shows, developing in a implementing a well-supported and effective instructional program is a pretty big hill to climb. Even after you 'seal the deal', the instructors need to be rated and distributed across the country, and then you run into the age-old problem of the varying quality between instructors. In truth, the two should, and practically do, go hand in hand. You can't develop one or the other without contributing directly to the other. If, for example, you outline the minimum jump requirements to be eligable to jump with a rated 'coach', you have the first line of the BSR, or vice versa. The difference is that as soon as you 'seal the deal', the BSR goes into effect, while it will take another 6 mos. to a year before rated coach #1 hits 'the street'. Figure another year before there are enough of them around to make access 'nationwide'. I'll give you an example of why both would be the way to go. Already at my DZ we had to turn away a jumper with 140 jumps who showed up with a wingsuit, based on the BSR. Without the BSR, it would have come down to the DZO making the call, and the DZO doesn't even jump a wingsuit. The coutner point is that he went to a non-USPA DZ and lied about his jump numbers in order to jump the wingsuit, and now has returned to my DZ with 200+ jumps and his wingsuit. If there was a coach or instructional program involved, he would still be on the hook for completing that on top of his 200 jumps. While it's true he's managed to jump the suit without incident thus far, it would be nice to know that he had some sort of training and guidance.

Right off the bat I want to say that something is better than nothing, however, the problem with creating a rating is the burden of administering the rating and then the application of the rating (generally involving direct cost to the 'student'). In creating a rating the BOD will spend time hashing out the details such as the exact requirements, ratings course materals and structure, and the scope of the rating itself. This would be similar to the time spent hashing out the details of the BSR. Beyond that, now you have the problems of rating the actual instructors, and the costs involved there, and then the students have the problems of getting access to the instructors and the costs involved in doing so. Not every DZ in every state will have a wingsuit coach or canopy coach, so jumpers in those states will have to add travel cost to the cost of the coaches time/jumps. Compare that to a BSR, where after the BOD is done doing it's thing, the only step left is to add it to the SIM, done deal. No added cost to the USPA or jumpers, and uniform coverage for every DZ in the country. As to the effectiveness of a BSR, consider all the other BSRs (wingsuit BSR aside) and how often you hear of intentional or blatent violations, not that often. While on the surface (in the begining) BSRs seem to lack effectiveness, after a couple years of 'cooking' they become a part of everyday life on the DZ, and are generally followed without complaint. The PRO rating is a good example. Before the PRO rating we used to do any demo that came up, and it was just a matter of who was on the DZ when the plane left, and this went on for years with no problems (at least where I was jumping, I guess the DZO was a good judge of ability). Then the PRO rating was invetned, and now the guys who did a certain demo for years running could no longer be on that jump without this new 'rating'. I'm sure the rumbling and grumbling could be heard on every DZ in the country from long time jumpers used to doing a string of demos every year who were suddenly 'unqualified'. Fast forward to today. The list of jumpers getting the PRO rating each month in Parachutist is substantial, and jumpers don't even blink when you mention needing a PRO rating for a certain demo, it's common knowledge, and everyone knows that that's the deal. Within a few years of the PRO rating being created, the older jumpers who were serious about demos got the rating, those who weren't serious stopped doing demos, and a generation of new jumpers graduated AFF with the PRO rating being the SOP on the DZ. Once you factor in the time needed to develop a rating, the certification courses, and creating enough actual instructors to provide reasonable coverage to the country, creating a rating would take the same amount of time to develop as a BSR would take to be accepted by the masses, but at a lower cost to all involved, and with more immediate results. Even if the general population isn't happy about a new BSR, the majority of DZOs will enforce it from day one. I guess the ultimate solution would be a BSR and a rating. Why not wait untill 200 jumps to fly a wingsuit or jump a camera, and then have seek additional training on top of that? Either way, doing nothing implies that nothing needs to be done, and that's clearly not the case.

Your experience is incomplete. First you have to make it to 200 jumps incident free with your camera before you can claim success at being 'ahead of the curve'. How can you claim this, but have already hit the 'fast forward' button on jumping a camera? How can you claim this, but have already hit the 'fast forward' button on jumping a camera? If skydiving safety was really important to you, you would follow the USPA reccomendation, realizing that people who know far more than you wrote things down for a reason. You're in a very dangerous position because you think you're taking it slow and being safe, when in reality you are not. You may feel as if things will be OK, but the 'proof is in the pudding' as they say, and your pudding won't be ready until AFTER you have survived your 'accelerated' behavior. As of right now, your success remains to be seen. How is it that you have managed to compartmentalized your jumping such that you can both bust the USPA reccomendation, and claim to be taking it slow and safe? Is it some sort of denial? Are you choosing to ignore the obvious contradiction or your actions vs your words?

The opposition, at least here, seems to either just be playing devils advocate or is playing the 'personal freedom' card, and neither of them is acknowledging the fact that this type of regulation has been implemented, with success, in other countries. Unlike many of the issues debated here, this one does indeed have real-world proof that it is effective in reducing the number of open canopy incidents. The opposition in the USPA, well that's anyones guess. I'm not sure how follwing a proven method to reduce the number of open canopy incidents, the biggest catagory among US fatalities, is helping anyone, but I'm sure the BOD has their reasons (however stupid or self-serving they may be). In terms of people being annoyed, I'm annoyed by the security at my local commercial airport. I flew for years without taking off my shoes for anyone, but now that's not the case. Things have changed. Things will always change. The reality is, only a small group of people for a short period of time will be 'annoyed' by the existance of such a BSR, those being the people with between 50 and 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented. Seven years since this thread was started. IN seven years, an entire generation of jumpers has come and gone. There's a 'goodbye to skydiving' thread in the bonfire from a guy with 5 years in the sport. He began jumping, had a blast, was on the wingsuit world record, and quit jumping all within the last 5 years, That's a guy who would have begun and ended jumping with a WL BSR simply being a part of the skydiving landscape. He wouldn't know what life was like without such a BSR. How many AFF I's and TI's have less than seven years in the sport? 100's I would guess, and every one of them would be teaching and mentoring with a WL BSR as being just another part of skydiving as they wouldn't know skydiving without it. We can add to those people, all of the jumpers with less than 7 years in the sport who would have learned that WL and canopy control are important enough to be 'on the books', and that fudging the rules can get you busted by the S&TA or the DZO. Just for kicks, let's consider the group most likely to be 'annoyed' by a WL BSR, those jumpers with 50 to 500 jumps at the time the BSR is implemented, and let's wonder how many of them are still in the sport? Half? A little less? A little more? I seem to recall a study, or poll, or something a few years back calling 5 or 6 years the 'average' time spent in the sport. So you take all of those 'effected parties', and figure they all would have already had 1 to 3 years in at the time the BSR was implemented, the bulk of the 'effected parties' aren't even jumping anymore. The whole thing would just be a speed bump in the road of skydiving. Within 3 years of implementing such a BSR anyone negatively effected by the BSR would be far enough along that the BSR doesn't apply to them, and everyone who started jumping within that 3 years would just think it's business as usual. It's a proven way to reduce open canopy incidents, and represents almost zero cost to anyone, be it the individual jumper or the USPA, to implement. Where's the downside?

Look hoss, you said you wanted an intellectual debate, so I offered you one - You made this point - To which I made this counter point - - and thus we have the makings of an intellectual debate. This is the part where you defend your position, to which I will reply in defense of mine, and so on. Do you know of a different format of debate? Maybe that's the miscommunication?

Buying new vs. used is 100% a money issue. If you have the money, buy everything new, and get gold plated hardware. However, if paying for a rig will in any way limit the money you have to jump with, and you are on the ground when props are turning at the DZ, then you are making a mistake buying new anything. Gaining more experience in the sky is way more important than what rig you do it in.

Ok, debate this - I contend that you, with your canopy piloting experience, are in no position to comment on a learning progression and it's effectiveness when the ultimate goal, and in turn the very measure of the success of the progression, is a level of skill that far exceeds your current abilities. Without having succesfully completed the progression, on what grounds to base your assumption that your method will be more successful than the more conservative, more commonly used progression that many here are suggesting would be more appropriate? Have you given any thought to the idea that the people backing the more conservative approach have actually completed a progression of learning in canopy piloing, and therefore have the real-world experience on which to base their assertions?

I try to avoid using jokes on camera. They're either at the students expense, or just taking the focus away from the student making the videographer the 'star' for that moment. I stick with basic questions that can't be answered wth a 'yes' or a 'no', so it forces them to speak a few more words. If they're the more talkative sort, I just let them go, as it's their video. Keep in mind that even though you do it several times per day, each video is new to the customer. You can come up with a 'script' that works for you, and is complimentry to the student, and use it every time. The customer will never know that you've repeated the same thing 500 times. I'll joke around with the students and make small talk off camera, but when the camera is rolling I try to keep the focus on the student, and paint them in the best light possible.

There are no manufacturers who finance anything. There were a handful of manufacturers, and a few gear stores, who partnered with financing companies to help jumpers get loans for rigs. In the end, it was a seperate deal between you and the finance company, so you still needed good credit and still ended up paying an 'average' interest rate on the loan. You could just as easily secure your own financing through a bank or credit card. But reall, if you can't swing the purchase price, why would you want to spend more on then that by adding interest to the total? Just buy used stuff for half of that amount, or less. If you already have a rig, you could sell it, or just build off of that. Maybe you could carry over your reserve to the newer rig, and you just saved $1000.

I'm still not 100% sure you figure he hurt his employees with his actions. They can't be held accountable for his not paying the monies he withheld. It's not as if the IRS is coming after them personally to satisfy the tax debt, that lies squarely on Hart's shoulders. So what is this 'damage' he inflicted?

That's what I would have thought as well, but they did specifically include the skydiving activities and country club dues in the lawsuit. Maybe he did pay for those things directly through the corp., and those expenses (which would be considered 'non-standard' expenses) were what created the shortfall that left the payroll taxes unpaid. On another note, you use 'providing assistance to terminally ill children' as one of your examples, and I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not, but Hart did do a lot of work with the Make a Wish Foundation, providing tandem jumps to terminally ill people, some of them being children (waivers were usually granted for the under-age tandems).

No middle finger? How will you signal me in freefall? This is becoming a problem.... False alarm on the jump n dumps. Business as usual at the DZ. Maybe skip the DZ all together, and have a Dr check out that middle finger, and your arm situation in general.

No, it really is. Passing a test, or a rating course only show that performed well at that time, under those controlled circumstances. When set loose on the rest of the world, all you have to prove your worth is the day of ground school and the half-dozen jumps you did at the ratings course. Look at other ratings, they all have jump number minimums, so even if they did create a camera rating, it would start with a 200 jump minimum, and go from there, so your net gain as a sub-200 jump guy would be zero. The idea is this, buy the time you have 200 jumps, you have shown the ability to at least survive 200 jumps, which is pretty good. Much less then that, and you're still in the 'newbie' phase, leading up to 100 jumps. The time between 100 and 200, the classic '100 jump wonder' phase is where you prove your worth, and gain some real experiecne. People start to treat you like just another jumper, not the 'new guy' or the low man on the totem pole. You have to fend for yourself, and once you get used to that, you're a step closer to being able to 'walk and chew gum'. If this is the impression you get from your local buddies, you should check if they wear their helmets all of the time, and not just while jumping. Let's realize that the 'official book' is the same book that was referenced when ALL of your local peers and mentors learned to jump. They're still alive, still jumping, and are skilled enough to have your respect, but not the book? How about the same book that was used when EVERY instructor on your DZ, who taught you and everyone else there, became an instructor? The book seemed to work out just fine for them, and in turn for you when they made you a skydiver, but now the book just sucks, right?

You're leaving out the part about being a professional piano player. Between wake boarding, and posting this, how many hours did you spend playing the piano? So you burned up your forearms trying to wake board, no big surprise. How many people have had sore legs for a week after a logn weekend of skiing? Then you followed that up by playing the piano for hours, and doing how many tandems over the weekend? How many fun jumps? Did you guys do any 'evening' climbing mixed in there? How about just giving your guns a rest? It's been a couple of days, how are you healing? Any interest in making a dozen jump and dumps tomorrow?

I think it's clear from the situation that the deductions were made, and that the employees were led to believe that this was the case. That's the reason that the IRS went after Hart and not the employees. If the deductions were never made, then Hart would have paid the money out to the employees, and it would fall on the employees to pay the taxes. If that was the case, Hart simply would have produced employment contracts showing the rate of pay, and paycheck stubs showing that 100% of that pay was remitted to the employees. If the deductions were made, and the monies never paid to the IRS, then the IRS could simply pull tax returns from the employees showing that deductions had been made, and then demand proof that Hart did indeed remit payment to the IRS with those deductions. In the absence of proof of payment, they have a case against the guy. Seeing as he was charged and sentenced, you tell me which way you think it went.

Your basing your entire argument based on the use of the term 'collect' in various media outlets, but we all know how unreliable the media can be when you try to analyze every single word. What they all seem to agree on is that his company did not pay Medicare and Social Sec. on the employee earnings for a period of several years. They all also agree that he has plead guilty, and the courts have accepted the plea. Now, if the paychecks didn't reflect any withholdings, the employees themselves would have been on the hook for making those payments as their 'take home' pay would have included the money normally witheld for those payments. We can see by the outcome of the court proceedings that the burden of repayment has fallen to Hart, indicating that the employees were under the impression that all payments were made, and for the purposes of this matter, the IRS was satisfied that they (the employees) all filed their taxes in good faith durng that time period. Furthermore, if the employees did recieve the money that should have been used for those payments, Selection.com woud have only been on the hook for violations of the tax code, most likely related to paying people classified as 'employees' as if they were 'contrators'. So we can glean that the employees paychecks were marked as if all witholdings and payments were made, and that there was no wrongdoing on their part. This leaves the ball sqaurely in the court of Selection.com and Hart. This is where it starts to look bad for Hart. If the money was held internally, or used for the purposes of maintaining or growing the business, it seems the IRS would be going after the business itself, and not Hart personally. I have no facts to back this up, but I would have to take a guess that the business was a corp. of one sort or another, set up to protect the interests of the business and the prinicpals alike. That said, the fact that the IRS has put this burden squarely on Hart personally, and went to the trouble to site the counrty clubs and skydiving activities in perticular is telling in itself. However, to the guy accusing Hart of 'ruining' people lives and retirements, I call foul on those points. For starters, the time period in question is only a few years, and nobody's financial future lies in the work and benefits they earned in just a few years time. Furthermore, and more to the point, the $680,000 the IRS wants from Hart is the sum total of all payments, interest, and penalties not paid in a timely fashion. Once that money is collected, the interest and penalties will be a 'windfall' for the IRS, but the principal will be applied to the payments that should have been made in the first place. The Medicare and Soc Sec. accounts of all the employees will be made 'whole', and they will recieve the full benefits of the payments made commensurate with their earnings, even if those payments were made several years late. I'm quite sure the IRS factored in any lost interest or benefits on the part of the employees due to the 'late' payments, and rolled that right into the $680,000 figure. Those guys aren't known for missing an angle or loophole.

From what I've heard, the patterns for cutting the fabric don't change from year to year. The line trims or slider sizes may vary if they stumble upon an improvement, but for a canopy like the Spectre which has never had any problem areaa, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's the exact same canopy ten years later. In the real world, a ten year old canopy has been jumped, and a reline is a good idea and will take care of any line trim updates. If they've updated the slider size, an extra $100 will get that updated as well. In the end, much cheaper and easier to pack than a brand new one.

The SV650 can be fitted with a lower fairing so it looks more like a 'full' sportbike, if that's your style. Also, the V-twin is an easier motor to ride than an inline-4 in the 600 size. The four bangers will redline at 12k or 14k, and won't make much power at all below 9k or 10K, so you have to wind the shit out of it to make it fly. The v-twin is desgned to make power at lower RPMs, so it's more accesible. Whatever bike you get, have the suspension tailored to your weight and height. Like Hook mentioend, a lowering link is available for the rear of just about any bike out there. It's a much better option than just backing off the preload until the back end drops down. The lowering link gets you the lower ride height, and retains all the performance of the shock. For the front end, have lighter springs installed in the fork to suit your (light) weight. At this time, the shop can install a shorter preload spacer to drop the ride height. Moving the forks up in the clamps does work, but doing it right with new springs is the way to go. Have a shop do the lowering work for you, and make sure they lower both ends the same amount. Dropping one more than the other will effect the balance of the bike, and screw up the handling. Make sure you save the old parts off the bike so you can return it to stock when you go to sell it. A cut down seat is an easy lose an inch or two. Try to do a shorter seat combined with a slight suspension drop. The closer you can leave the suspension to the stock height the better, so use the seat for the first inch or so, and do the rest via the suspension. Really, if you have a bike you can comfortable reach the ground with, and that has suspension tuned for your weight and height, just about any bike would be fine.

Nine times out of ten, here's how that happens - After the toggle is stowed, is jammed so far into the keepers that the two keepers actually get closer together. Now the riser inbetween the keepers is slacked, and the load is actually being taken by the toggle, which is fine on the ground during packing but it becomes a problem on deployment. On deployment, when the riser takes the load it spreads the keepers back to their original distance apart, and as the lower keeper moves further away from the upper, it pulls the nose out the toggle out of the keeper. It's funny you mention Mirage in your story, because I first saw this years ago on a set of Mirage risers. I've been jumping Infinity risers for the few years with no problem, but then again I know what to look for. After you stow your toggles, you can test them by grabbing the riser above and below the toggle, and giving it a good sharp 'tug' to see where the load is. If the toggle moves at all, it was too tight in the keepers.

What's interesting is that if any one of those 'frustrated' jumpers would just apply themselves to something more appropriate to their skill level, they would find plenty of excitement and reward participating in jumps they are ready for. How many of the 'mad skillz' can actually launch a four peice out of the door? Consistantly? How many can turn pieces relative to other pieces? How about vertical moves, how many can do those without crashing down on the other peice? Can any of the 'mad skillz' guys exit stable in a sit and on their haed? How about with grips? Can any of them keep up with a fast paced tracking dive? On their back or belly? How about go 10 for 10 trying to land with 2m of a target? All of the above are appropriate skills for any jumper to work on, and all challenging as hell. If you sought out some no-cost ground based coaching in any of the above skills, you could occupy an easy 20 jumps working on any one of them. Once you have a goal in mind, and a method to achieve that goal, you suddenly install purpose and reward to your jumps. But no, everyone wants to leapfrog over those things right to the next 'big thing'. As soon as they strap on a video camera, it won't be long until they want a still camera. Are they flying the video well, and producing consistantly good footage? Probably not, but all they want is that next big step. Once you start doing 90's to final, everyone starts talking 180s or 270s. Are the 90s clean, and with accuracy? Hell no, but onward and upwards. Even if these guys manage to go the distance, and stay in the sport and out of the hospital, all you have is a buch of guys with 1000 jumps who suck at just about everything.

Not everyone can give themselves a pin check. New jumpers with large rigs cannot always reach that far back. 'Bigger' jumpers, who also jump bigger rigs and may have reduced flexibility cannot always reacj that far back. Older jumpers with reduced flexibility cannot always reach that far back. Jumpers with shoulder injuries leading to reduced flexibility cannot always reach that far back. Additionally, there's a difference between being able to slip a fingertip under your pin cover flap, and being able to reach back and grab a dancing pud bridle behind your back, which is why I suggested being able to place your palm flat on your pin cover flap. This ensures that you have the reach to get back there, and actually make the grab when the time comes (and it will come, because puds will float).

Yep, that's just you. You make this statement based on your own experience, and possibly that of a few people around you. I make my statements based on watching literally 100's of people come and go through this sport, and the common mistakes that prevail with those people. So you strapped on a GoPro, and did some jumps with it. A helo jump is a poor example, because the jump itself it quite unique, and likely to command your full attention (aka repect). Put yourself at the DZ on any Sat or Sun, and imagine your mindset going into your 6th or 7th jump of the day, the 3rd or 4th you made with same group of guys. Your comfort level goes up, and that's when your brain starts working (or not working as the case may be). The types of scenarios I outlined are not the first, second, or even tenth jump with a camera. They creep in once you get 'comfortable'. The errors on those early jumps surround gear checks and overall awareness on a skydive. To a guy with 100 jumps, 20 jumps with a camera seems like a good hunk of 'expereince', and that's when they start to get 'creative'. I'm not sure why you persist in arguing this point when high-time jumper after high-time jumper freely admits that they all made these types of mistakes early on when jumping a camera. Some of them even cop to having 500+ jumps at the time they acted like an idiot. Why would they admit to the world that they fucked up, and that they are apparently 'average', and made some common, rookie mistakes if it wasn't true? Why would the USPA take their time to establish any sort of anything with regards to shooting video if the problem is non-existant? (Keep in mind that creating an actual BSR is a nightmare of red-tape and paperwork, involving several committees, votes, and all sort of other BS. Creating a 'reccomendation' is 10x easier, and faster and gets it on the books ASAP). You are 100% correct that there are jumpers with the capacity to safely shoot video of any kind with 100 jumps. Those ultra-bright, super talented jumpers do exist, but the problem is that it's really hard to know who fits that description, and who will go full-retard when the shit hits the fan. If you send people up and hope for the best, the guys who go full-retard will eventaully hurt themselves or someone esle, so the answer is simply to not send anyone up until they are well into a 'safe zone'. Maybe you're ready at 100 jumps, and Biff is ready at 150, but Skippy needs 175 and Jimmy needs 225, so if everyone waits until they have 200 jumps, 3/4 of you will be fine, and Jimmy won't be jumping anymore in a year or two.

I vote for the GoPro. Doing an RW two way jump is a basic skill that, thanks to the coach jump requirements, every A licensed skydiver has experience with. There's is a VERY good chance that beyond their own coach jumps, most jumpers go on to participate in various RW jumps of one size or another, so the concept is not foriegn to them. Even a die hard freeflyer who seeks a coach rating will knock out a few practice RW jumps leading up to the coach course. By the time you have earned a coach rating, a basic RW two-way jump is well within your skill set. All of the activities you named directly involve both parties, and both have reviewed the dive flow, and completed the dirt dives to their own satisfaction. They are both paying attention to each other, and both on the same page. Take the guy with the GoPro. What's the plan? Fly outside video? OK, during the entire skydive, that jumper is ignored and left to his own 100 jump devices. He is doing a 'job', and that job is Camera Flyer (intentionally capitalized). Nobody is paying attention to him, and he is paying very close attention to his 'job', not his 'jump'. OK, forget outside video. Maybe he just wants to film from inside. Great. Now he is part of the jump, but he also has his own little jump going in his head. He's front floater on the exit, but this time he's going to look back up at the plane on exit, not toward the center of the formation, you know, to get the shot. Or maybe he's a diver and he figures he can just hang above the formation until everyone else is in, and then he'll just 'grab his slot real quick', you know, to get some footage (everyone has a Youtube video in their head they would love to make a reality). Then comes break off, where in either case the new guy is likely to do just about anything you could imagine, you know, to get the shot. See? The coach jump is structred and contained. It's a two way, and the coach has a very specific job - exit tight, stay relative, break off on time, pull on time. No matter what happens to the 'student', the coaches job does not change. Some guy with a camera, on some jump, with some number of people, doing some type of freefall skydiving aptly describes a 100 jump wonder set loose on a DZ with a GoPro. It could be anything and everything, and I don't think a guy with 100 jumps has the accumen to handle that wide open of a situation.