davelepka

There's a few problems with your approach to this. Let's just assume that all DZs are created equal, and that you will recieve the same level of training at any of them. The travel cost is a big one. From RI, to fly or drive to Chicago, CA, or GA, will cost you a few hundred bucks. On top of that, even with free lodging (or camping) you can add another $100 or so for 'incidentals'. Next up, the biggie, is the weather. If you plan to finish in a week, one average size low pressure system could shut down the DZ for 2 or 3 days, which is a big hunk of a week. Add to that the busy weekend days, when all the students will be looking to jump, and your 'week' may turn into 12 days, or two weeks. If you have to change a return flight home, that adds to the cost. Consider the human factor. The training program is not 25 jumps, it's 25 levels, all of which you have to pass. If you fail one, you repeat it until you pass. You will pay the going rate for repeat levels on top of your package price. If you're tyring to finish on a schedule, you're chance for pushing yourself and needing to repeat levels only goes up. Here's what you really miss, having a home DZ. Once you are a licensed skydiver, you will be spending two or more day a week at a DZ near your home for 8 months out of the year. If you do your training there, the staff will get to know you and be able to help you well beyond your A license. If you show up with an A, you miss out on that relationship with the staff, and the benefits it can bring. Which brings me to my real point, the package deals are great for local jumpers looking to get a license. You pay for the package up front to get the good deal, and then progress at your pace. If it rains two weekends in a row, no biggie, you'll be there the third weekend (and Wed after work the day the sun shines again). Visit the local DZs, and see where you think you'd like to spend your future as a skydiver. Pick the one that feels right to you, and then worry about the costs. If they don't want to cut you a deal on a package, just pay as you go. It will take you a month to get through your training, and you can just pay per jump. (Hint - this time of year, up the Northeast, even a DZ that doesn't advertise a package would have a hard time turning down $2K or so in cold hard cash. Seasonal DZ don't make dick in the winter, so if you can get them when the cash flow is a trickle, and shove a lump-sum in their face, you may find that they do indeed have a 'package price'. Try to deal directly with the drop zone owner) In the skydiving world, the kind of money you might save by finding a 'deal' and traveling to it, is very little. If you can save yourself $300 or $400, you might think you did well, but that kind on money can vanish in an average weekend at the DZ. Figure $20 for gas to drive there and back, $40 bucks for food/beer, and you have enough left for 6 to 7 seven jumps a day for Sat/Sun (about average for the 'weekend warrior'). Add in a couple of pack jobs (jumpers get lazy), and if you factor in the depreciation on your gear, and the maintenence costs, you just spent all the money you 'saved' in 48 hours, and there's another weekend 5 days away. In the grand scheme of things, you're not going to save much chasing a deal around the country. Stay local, learn at your own pace, make some solid connections at local DZs, and (as previously mentioned) kiss your paycheck goodbye for the near future (once you drop $3k on training, you need min. $3k worth of gear to show up and blow $300/weekend at the DZ). It's worth every penny.

I think so. If the TI exits facing the tail, and completes the back loop into a stable, into the wind position, and then throws the drouge, I call no harm no foul. If the drouge toss occurs halfway though the roll, the TI is counting on the roll to continue on-axis for a clean drouge deployment. If the roll should fall off-axis, the chance for an entaglement occurs. I think one of the mistakes some TIs make when they think it's OK to toss mid back loop is that they're comparing it to the BASE version, or the even the solo skydiving version of the same manuver. The key difference, however, is that when you use that manuver in the case of an actual deployment, you intend to over rotate the back loop, beyond belly to the wind, into being 'sat-up' by the canopy for the opening. Seeing as you plan to over rotate anyway, your 'window' for when you get the PC toss in during the manuver is larger. Even if you toss late, and rotate past belly to the wind, all you've done is sat yourself upright, instead of letting the canopy do it. If a TI over-rotates, or throws late in the roll, they could either loop again or fall off to the side, both moves being across the deploying drouge bridle. None of this mentions the 'student' factor in all of this. Any sort of 'timing crucial' manuvers like these shouldn't be attempted with an unknown quantity like a student. Who's to say they won't start swimming on the hill? Now you're off axis, and the student is flailing their arms and legs around to boot. That said, it's a popular move, and I've filmed many, many TI pull it day in and day out. It's one of things that are fine right up until it's not, at which point it will be very un-fine, and things will start to happen much faster than anyone intended.

Look pal, if you read what I wrote, I said that if I TI had planned to do a roll-over drouge toss, his rating should be pulled. Doing that intentionally is a MAJOR safety risk, and any TI who thinks that risk is acceptable, should not be a TI. Everyone has a bad exit on occasion. It happens once, you're surprised. The same thing happens twice, you need to take a hard look at how and why. If it happens a thrid time, you need to seek some remedial training. I don't know shit about you, but the last line of your post is very telling. You jump a 150, and believe it to be a possible point of contention. First off, I would advise anyone who cannot reasonably defend their gear choices from a safety standpoint to really reconsider those choices. If you're in a situation that others might view as dangerous, they're probally right. Other people have nothing to lose with relation to your equipment choices, so if they should make it their business, that in itself should mean something. Second, the above statement, and lack of info on your profile leads me to believe that you're not a high time jumper. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that what you've seen at your local DZ is the end all, be all of skydiving, Things are done many different ways in many different places, with many of them being successful. It's a big world out there, and there's alot more going on then in your neck of the woods. Be open to that idea. Lastly, I didn't see anyone getting down on Kapowsin. I don't think anyone really got down on the TI in the video. Some errors were pointed out, but the overall (and my) impression seemed to be that the rool-over was unintentional, and unwanted, and most addressed it as such.

The Cypres is aware when a deployment, and the subsequent reduction in speed has taken place. If a student has deployed, and not taken action to keep his speed below 29 mph by 1000ft, the assumption is that he will never take any action, and the Cypres will activate. In the case of no deployemnt, the Cypres will wait until the perscribed firing altitude of 750ft to activate. This altitude was chosen as the last reasonable moment that you could initiate a reserve deployment and expect an open canopy before impact without interfering with the skydive. If a Cypres were to fire in the absence of a deployment any higher than 750ft, you start to get into the area where a PC hesitation, or slow deployment which was jumper initiated at 2000ft may snivel down into the firing altitude, and give the jumper a two-out when it is not needed. Even in the case of a student, we all know that AFF Is can and will chase a student down to 2k if they get loose in freefall. Again, in these cases, if the Cypres were to fire higher than 705ft, you are risking a two-out following what was otheriwse a clean deployment, albeit at a lower than intended altitude. Of course, it is possible to suck it way down, and snivel into the 750ft firing altitude, again resulting in a two out when the main was opening fine, but that's 100% jumper error. The Cypres waited as long as it could to intervene, but the jumper got so low it had to fire. This is what's meant when people say that it's your 'last chance'. It is intentionally programmed to wait until the last second in order to avoid interfering with the jumpers intended actions. This is true for both the expert and student models.

Zero point zero is some funny shit. The truth is, this could have gone very wrong. Rolling over like that with the drouge coming out is just asking for it to get wrapped around something. Not caught on a foot, which could be kicked off, but wrapped, as in never coming off and making for some real trouble later on when handles start getting pulled. We've all seen the video of the drouge wrapped around the jumpers neck. The problem here is that any way you slice it, the TI fucked up. If the guy in the suit was an experienced jumper or a first timer, the plan should have been for a stable exit, hands on harness and legs in between the TI, follwed by a clean drouge throw and then start rocking out for camera. Regardless of who was in the suit, it needed to be stressed that a clean exit was essential, and that any sort of 'antics' were to be reserved for after the TI had signaled that it was appropriate. As for the TI or their qualifications, that should be of no consequence. If your claim is that there is a level of expereince that makes the roll-over to drouge toss OK, then you are way off base. That roll should have been unintentional, unwanted, and a wake up call to the TI. If it was anything but that, the TI, regardless of their experience needs their rating pulled. No circumstance on earth would make planning that manuver acceptable.

They sent you a license that said 'C38000' that was made of regular cardboard? That is a problem....

Yeah, it's a small piece of waterproof cardboard that says 'C38000' on it. You can have another one next year if you cough up another $50. Congrats.

I think the new number is 1-800-GO-FUCK-YOURSELF OK, not you personally, but everyone in the sport market. I'm pretty sure they bailed on the sport canopies, and are 100% military at this point.

Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are better canopies out there for normal fun/work jumps when you have a camera strapped to your head. It's important for working camera fliers (tandem or 4-way) to be able to make the next load. Anytime you fly such a high performance canopy you know the chances for malfunctions are increased. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're probably barking up the wrong tree with the JVX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bottom line; jump a high performance parachute, expect high performance openings. If you have a lot of gear on your head I would stay away from any x-braced. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would not recommend going to a full sail JVX if this is going to be a regular skydive parachute as packing is a pain in the ass, and the pack volume is significantly larger. This is not a regular skydive parachute and should not be treated this way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's because it's not as 'in advance' as he makes it seem. Have a look at the other thread he started earlier this winter - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3753579;page=unread#unread This guy has already made up his mind that he's ready for this, that, and the other thing. I can GUARANTEE you he has no intention of waiting until he has 200 jumps to jump a camera. In fact, I'd be surprised if he makes it to 100 jumps before strapping something to his head. He's the quintessential 100 jump wonder. He's had the winter to sit around and ponder his 'awesomeness' and plot out his next skydiving season, and all the 'rad' things he's going to do. The ironic part is that for how special he thinks he is, he's as average and commonplace as they come. The actual 'special' 100-jump jumpers are the one with their ego's in check, and a realistic outlook on skydiving, and their future in it. Sad as it may be, they are in the minority.

That's Chris Simpson, and please refer to Jeremy as Luke Skywalker from now on, that's what he really wants to be called anyway.

This just in, check with everyone in this thread - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3813144;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread - and somebody will be able to hook you up, or point you in the right direction to get your hands on a rig to make your student jumps. Do you live in Florida? If so where? I can give you some DZs to call about AFF with your own rig. 99% of student gear is only rated for 254lbs, and if you factor in 30lbs for the weight of your rig, you can see why 220lbs or 225lbs would be the max body weight for a student jumper. If you can provide a suitable rig for yourself, more DZs would be willing to work with you as a student.

The tandem rig is there to hold the canopies you would need to make your student jumps. Part of converting the tandem over is generally a harness resize so it will fit a guy who needs the big canopies. Most tandem rigs are built with more average size harnesses, as most tandem instructors are average sized guys. I would look into renting or borrowing a rig for your student jumps. They are out there, and most of the guys who have them are understanding of your situation and willing to help. There's a guy who posts on here under the name Blindbrick, send him a PM and see if he has any info on a big boy rig for rent or to borrow. Keep in mind that any DZ you find will want to have a rigger inspect the rig before they will let you jump it. Buying a custom rig will run you at least $5k and probably closer to $6k, and because of the size will have very little resale value. You really should make sure that you like jumping and want to continue before buying gear. Of course, if you like jumping, the a brand new rig will last for 20+years and 1000's of jumps, so you'll get your money's worth in the long run.

I would need a much better picture to say for sure, but I highly doubt there is a problem there. It appears to be a brand new rig, so it would have to be a manufacturing defect to be a problem. If it was deterioration, it would not be localized to the 1/4 sq in that you have indicated. I wouldn't worry about it too much at all. Have a rigger or instrcutor take a look at it before you jump it, but I think they will reach the same conclusion. Now seeing that you have a brand new rig already bought and paid for, get your ass to the DZ and make a jump. Lift tickets are cheap by comparison.

The first consideration is the equipment. You're going to need specialized equipment to learn to skydive at your weight. Student skydivers are provided oversized parachutes in order to provide soft landings, even in the event of poor student performance. Modern sqaure parachutes require input on the part of the jumper to provide the softest landings, and since a first time jumper cannot be counted on to perform correctly, the chute itslef is oversized so as to make up for the student. At your weight, there is no sport canopy or reserve made that would qualify as oversize for your weight. There are options for larger jumpers, one of them being the military MC-4 freefall rig. These are available for sale, but no DZ I know keeps one on hand for student jumps. Another option is a converted tandem rig, which is origianlly designed for two jumpers, but modified for one. Either of those rig can be purchased for between $2k and $5k. Another option is hunting one down you can rent for your student jumps. This would be a long term rental where the rig would be shipped to you for your jumps, and returned when you're finished. The cost will vary depending on what you find and how long you want it for. You may be asked to provide a deposit of the purchase price while you have the rig. Beyond that, you have to find a DZ that will train you with the 'big boy' rig. A person your height and weight will fall extremely fast, and this is a consideration for the instructors. They will either have to be larger folks, or they will need to wear a weighted vest to speed themselves up, or both. Either case may represent an added cost. Another consideration is the aircraft they use. A Cessna 182 will be limited to three jumpers with a person your size on board. Normally it will carry four, and if you jump at a Cessna DZ, you'll have to cover the cost of the extra seat. A Cessna 206 will have a similar limitation. Your best bet will be a DZ that runs a Caravan, King Air, Twin Otter or Pac 750. Any of those planes are big enough to carry you and ten other guys your size. Once your training is complete, you will need to buy your own equipment. At your weight, you'll need to larger sport main and reserve chutes, and a custom harness. Even then, you'll be right on the edge of the certified weight limit. You will need to buy this equipment new as it is in short supply, and finding a used rig to fit your body size will be a long shot. Figure on spending between $5k and $6k to buy a rig. You can be trained and you can be a jumper. You may have to travel to find a DZ that will train you, and you'll have to spend extra to provide your own student rig. Beyond that, if you're preparred to buy a new rig, and maybe be selective about which DZs you visit, you can be a jumper just like everyone else (broke, with few non-jumping friends, a possible alchohol problem, and difficulty holding down a job). Good luck!

That's an interesting point you bring up. What is the definition of being 'flamed'? To me, it's when you're pointed out to be incorrect in your thinking, sometimes rather 'vigorously', and generally by more than one person. On the average internet forum, I can see where that might be a pain in the ass, and generally somewhat counter-productive to continued discussion, or creating an environment of freedom of speech or thought. You don't know who you're talking to, or what they may or may not know about golf/star wars/growing roses, or whatever the forum may be geared toward. However, in this forum, a posters qualifications and expereince are clearly stated (usually) in their profile, and beyond that everyone here has a few other jumpers from their home DZ who can confirm who they are, and they they are indeed who they claim to be. My point is that if you think you're going to get 'flamed' when you post here, it's not because everyone else is a dick looking to give you a hard time, it's because you're doing something wrong. Let's be honest here, the only way a guy can call you out for making an error is if you make an error. If the other guy is mistaken, then you can just point that out, but if the matter comes down to your opinion against theirs, you have to consider their expereince level and if others are echoing their same concerns, at which point the odds are that you're wrong. None of this is directly related to your situation. I have no problem with your statement about returning to jumping, and not strapping on a camera until you top 200 jumps. Others took it as you meaning that you're going to return to jumping and on return jump 21 you'll be rolling tape. I took it as you'll be waiting unitl you have at least 200 jumps before thinking about a camera. I also think, keeping in mind that you hung up your rig for a few years for sake of your child, that your future thinking about jumping will include some consideration for your child. While you may have scoffed at the 200 jump rule for camera before being a father, your choices as a father so far indicate that you'll be looking at things a little differently moving forward. I hope. Beyond that, I have to wonder why you would use Joe Jennings as an example of a guy who started jumping camera early? If I recall correctly, so did Norm Kent, and he did so in the middle of the jumgle with some sort of aniquated equipment. The problem is that the two of them went on to be two of the most prolific camera flyers in the sport. If anyone would be the exception to the rule, it's those two guys. What you need to do is point out an accident prone, loser of a jumper who started jumping camera at 80 jumps with no ill effects, then you might have an argument counter to the rule, but when you bring up Mr. Tidy-Bowl in the Hole, multi-time X-Games champ Joe Jennings, it's not helping your cause.

That's great, now find a way to tell me who these people are before you send them up with a camera, and we'll be all set. What you're talking about is the classic 'mad skillz' syndrome, where jumpers think that they are gods gift to skydiving, and that all of those rules are for everyone esle. There's a kid in the ICU in Ohio right now who thought that taking it easy on your first jumping day of the season was a rule made for everyone else. He went on to pogo himself into the ground throwing a 720 hook turn on first jump of the year. Where was the harm in taking it easy? What horrible thing would have happened if he had dialed it back and went for the 270? Or even a (gasp!) straight in landing? The answer is no harm, and he would have been able to make jump 2 that same day. He figured he was too cool for school, and went big on day one, and now he'll be lucky if he gets to make a jump #2 in 2010. He might have to hold off until 2011, and you can bet that his first jump next season will be much, much different. Don't look for ways to get around rules or guidelines that restrict your activities based on jump numbers or experience. Simply gain the jump numbers or experience required, and enter the new activity a better preparred, more skilled skydiver.

Just because a test may be comprehensive enough to check the cantidates knowledge and retention at the end of the course does not mean that the test is comprehensive enough to replace the course itself. If a cantidate has completed the course, and passed a test, then the two combined can be taken as reasonable assurance that the cantidate is indeed preparred to act as a coach or AFFI. To only take the test only assures that the cantidate knows 70% of the test material, which in itself is only percentage of the total information covered in the course. In reality, you may be able to pass a written test knowing less than half of the course material. Would you want to send a coach or instructor out knowing only half of the course cirriculum? As a teacher of 35 years, I'm surprised that you don't seem to get my point. Are your classes such that passing the final is the equivilant of taking the complete course? How many of your students would you sign off as having passed a Kallend physics course if they just passed the final? I would assume that your lectures contain more than just the 'book info', and that attending the lectures is an important part of earning a passing grade in one of your classes. Another point about testing out is that the cantidate will miss the unique aspects of each individual course. Every group of cantidates will ask different questions and bring different issues to light thoughout the course itself, and a cantidate who tests out will miss out on all of that additional knowledge. On top of all that, I would like to assume that any jumper with 20 years in the sport and 20,000 jumps would have learned that every area of this sport is it's own animal. Just becasue you're a gold medal 4-way guy, doesn't mean that you know squat about CRW. If you were going to attend a CRW camp, you should be sitting with all the other CRW newbies, learning the basics. With that in mind, any 'overqualified' cantidate who might be able to test out, would be the last person to request that they be allowed to test out. They would relaize their place in the instructional world (which is the bottom of the barrel), and they would look forward to completing the course, and preparring themselves for the new challenge. A jumper who thinks of themselves as 'overqualified', and would request a test out is the exact jumper who should never be allowed to test out, and in fact the I/E should pull them aside and remind them to check their ego at the door. They're at the beginning of a new road, and while they past expereince will be of value, they're still at the beginning of the instructional road, and should conduct themselves as such - eager, open to learning from the course and others, and ready to work hard and earn the rating.

I'm not saying the test is defective. What I'm saying is that when dealing with a complicated subject such as training to be an AFF instructor, there is no test that could cover every piece of information covered in the course. The test would literally have to be the same length as the course for it to be 100% inclusive, at which point the test is simply the course itself. Even if a cantidate could pass a test, that's no guarantee that they know all of the information that would be covered in the course. They may know enough of the material covered in the test to get a passing grade, but that leaves a wealth of material which they may or may not know. The only way to be sure that every USPA rated instructor knows all of the informaiton covered in the instructor certification course is for every cantidate to complete the certification course. None of this is mentioning the false sense of status that waiving a cantidate from the course will instill. You're telling a jumper that they're so good they don't need to take the course like everyone else, when the real truth of the matter is that all instructors have the same number of student jumps the day the I/E puts the stamp in their logbook - zero, and they should all be treated as such. You might be a great 4 way guy, and you might have 20,000 jumps, and you might have ten gold medals, but you have zero student jumps, and as such you have a lot to learn from the kid with 750 jumps total with the last 150 being live AFF jumps with actual students.

Testing out would only cover a fraction of the information relayed in the course. Just because a cantidate happens to know enough info to get a passing grade on a test-out, doesn't mean he knows all of the information in the entire course. If the USPA feels that it's courses are complete, and the cirruculum is well composed, containing all the relevant info an instructor cantidate would need to begin their time as a USPA rated instructor, then you cannot allow anyone to test out. The only way you guarantee that every cantidate knows ALL of the information is for them to do the work, and complete the course. If the course is full of info that you may or may not need to know, and the USPA is happy to put their stamp of approval on a cantidate who may or may not know what's containted in the course, by all means allow a test out option. In the end, however, 20 years and 25,000 jumps without a USPA instructional rating equals zero years and zero jumps as a USPA instructor. As such, the cantidate would have no jumps with AFF students as an instructor or a coach. While he may have extensive experience coaching licensed jumpers, that's not the same thing as a student jumper, and all of those jumps were made to his own personal standards, not those of the USPA. If the USPA wants to ensure that all of it's instrcutor cantidates are on the same page, and operating to the standards of a USPA instructor, they need to establish a complete and comprehensive instructor certification course, and ALL instructor cantidates must pass that course.

Just for reference, you can build a mount with a hacksaw and file to do the cutting, two pairs of vice-grips (or one vice grip and one bench vise) to make the bends, and a drill for drilling. Even if you have your mind made up, I just wanted to point out to others that you can build an excellent, lightweight mount with hand tools and inexpensive materials. I have built many helmets this way for myself and others, and they have all functioned properly and proved to be very durable.

Sabre2 is a PD canopy, so here's what I did the last time I bought a used PD canopy - the seller shipped it to PD, where I paid for an inspection. Once the inspection was complete, and the canopy was indeed as advertised, I sent payment for the canopy to the seller. Once the seller had payment in hand, he instructed PD to return ship the canopy to my address. It's a nice deal for the buyer in that they get the full PD factory inspection, and they really take a close look at everything. The only risk to the buyer is that you accept the payment, then instruct PD to return the canopy to you. However, if you're willing to ship the canopy to PD, it shows that you are a real person, with a real canopy, and that you're willing to stand behind your description of the condition. Maybe even offer to pay for the shipping to PD, as a gesture of good faith, it's what the seller did for me, and the whole thing worked out very well.

For starters, your best result will be starting with a different helmet, something made for skydiving by a company that also builds camera hemets. Various aspects of the helmets design will cater towards mounting a camera, and having the helmet fit such that it will be secure and not shake. Don't underestimate the need for a tight and proper fit to avoid camera shake. Your camera helmet should not be a 'comfortable' fit when it is cinched up in ready-to-jump mode. It may fit well on the ground, or with the chin cup or backstraps loose, but once it's in go-mode, you'll be glad to get it off in 6 to 7 minutes when you're back on the ground. It shouldn't hurt, but it's not there for comfort, it's there to literally bolt the camera to your head so you're in control of every move the camera makes. If you're hell bent on using your ski lid for this, the easy and simple way is to make a flat top mount of some sheet aluminum. You can start by using some stiff single-ply cardboard to make a mock up. Use the carboard to create a mock up that will start off looking like a weird 'I' with the vertical part of the 'I' being the same size and shape you want your flat top to be. Now bend the 'legs' sticking out of the flat top down to form a little table. Set this table on top of your helmet where you want to mount the camera. Now trim the legs of the table until the table is sitting as low to the helmet as you can get, and at the right angle you want your camera to sit. Now you have mocked-up your mount, and when you flatten it out, it becomes the pattern for your mount. You'll need to add an inch or so to the length of each leg. This extra material will allow you to bend it up and make a 'foot' at the bottom of each leg where you can drill mounting holes and run bolts to hold the whole business on. Now lay the pattern on some sheet aluminum, trace it, cut it, bend it, drill it, mount it, and jump it. That's the easy way. If you want to start molding things, and doing layups with resin and fiberglass or carbon fiber, then do yourself the favor of starting with a real skydiving helmet. If you're going to put that much work into, be sure that the helmet itself is going to do the job before you invest the time and money in making a complicated mount. The aluminum job I described above can be done for about $30 bucks, and within 2 or 3 hours. If the helmet itslef turns out to be a dud for camera flying, you're not out that much in time or money.

Not really. Somewhere in those 25,000 jumps, and the years upon years it took to rack them up, the guy should have taken care of the USPA requirements. Every other instructor had to go through the same process, and meet the same requirements, so should he. Look at it from the point of view of a cantidate on the other end of the spectrum. They're working hard, investing time and money making sure that they meet the requirements before they get their rating. What does it say about their efforts, and the validity of those requirements if not everyone has to achieve them. If you want to be a USPA rated instructor, go through the USPA instructor training program and earn your rating. The obvious answer is the guy with 16 years in the sport because he's the guy who's been through the TI course, and has the rating. If you're asking the hypothetical question (which I think you are), I would still take the guy with 16 years in the sport. He may have fewer skydives, but he has the longevity, and the expereince that comes along with it. If you can manage to jump for 16 years, and still be in the sport and still physically able to get a tandem rating, that shows a guy with some degree of good judgement, common sense, and some respect for safety. On top of that, the guy has completed the TI course, has the education it provides, and performed well enough to pass. The other jumper, while he may have more jumps, the fact is that it's not that hard to rack up 1200 jumps in 2.5 years, provided you have the money. Also, with the higher concentration of jumps in a short span, that would lead me to believe that there were many, many 10 or 12 jump days at the same DZ. I would argue that you learn more making 3 jumps per day over the course of three or four different days (on different weekends) than by banging out 12 at one DZ, on one day. I would also argue that you learn more jumping at different DZs with different jumpers than by jumping at the same DZ with the same local crew you see every weekend. I would have to imagine that the other guy, over the course of 16 years would have seen a few places, met a few people, and learned a thing or two that they don't teach at any instructor certification course.