davelepka

There's a degree of hardliner there, but I'm not a full fledged member of the dark side. I'm all for encouraging people, and I'm all for giving people an opportunity to be people. People make mistakes, and people learn at different rates. However, when it comes to not using the F word to describe what is, in actuallity, a failure, I think does more of a dis-service to the student than not. These are adults were training here, and they are being trained to operate in an environment where there is real danger and real consequences for failure, and they should be treated as such. Part of being a skydiver is knowing how to 'act' (physically) like a skydiver, arching, pulling, flaring, etc. The other part is teaching people to think like a skydiver, being alert, organized, disciplined, and managing risk. Anyone who would react poorly to being told they failed a level is not the sort of person I want in between me and the door of any jumpship. If you cannot accept the use of the correct term, 'fail', how can you be expected to deal with the other, far more harsh, realities of skydiving? How do they react when their canopy 'tells' them they are having a malfunction? How do they react when their situation 'tells' them they are getting backed up into the treeline? There's no 'soft sell' when it comes to things going wrong in skydiving, so there shouldn't be one when things go wrong during skydiving training either.

Right, which is why I advocate proper training for all skydivers. But even if you start today, and train every skydiver to be alert, aware, and self sufficient, you still have a generation of jumpers who are 'less than'. We promised these jumpers Disneyland, and until they quit the sport, we have a responsibility to provide that. They were 'brought up' in an environment where everyone was reminded to keep their arms and hands inside the car at all times on every jump, and we have to continue on that way. Change is good, and chnage should happen, but it's not instantaneous. It will take time to implement change, and even more time for it to 'trickle down' (up?) and leave a nice even coat on all surfaces.

Of course I would love to have confidence in every other jumper on board, but that's just not the case. My hopes and dreams don't help some dumbass to make the right choice when push comes to shove. With that in mind, I look for the methods that will produce the highest rate of success, with success in this case being defined as safe skydiving. The problem with modern day skydiving, is that it's not what it used to be. Skydiving used to be more of an 'outlaw' sport. For a long time there was no specialized gear, it was left over stuff from the military, and even after that gave way to sport skydiving gear, there was very little standardization. There were all sorts of rigs that all worked in different ways. There were no turbines, very few twins, no GPS, no reliable AADs, and a very 'relaxed' attitude about rules and regulations. That environment attracted a certain type of individual. Actually it attracted all sorts of individuals, but if you weren't confident and self sufficient, the sport would either scare you off, or kill you. It was litterally Darwin at work, thinning the herd. Survival of the fittest. Fast forward to 2010. Now we have standardized gear with RSLs, Skyhooks, AADs, very reliable mains and even better reserves. Big turbines are everywhere, with GPS, load organizers, and packers to back it all up. Making 6 or 8 jumps per day is the norm, all using $5000 worth of gear and wearing a $300 suit. On top of it all, you have the ever PC instructional machine that believes 'anyone can skydive', and works to make that true. Nobody 'fails' a level, they just 'do not pass' (don't want to hurt their feelings), and it's not unheard of for jumpers to repeat levels over and over again, yet the instructors support them, hold their hands, and tell them everything will be OK. This environment attracts a much wider scope of individuals. The sport is more open and accessible to people who could have never cut it a generation ago. It took a real man (or woman) to tough out the static line jumps with a round and a belly wart. In today's world, virtually anyone can make a skydive. Even if you seem to be having trouble with the FJC, they'll still hook you up and tandem you. Most of the time they have 'demote' an AFF student to tandem, they turn around after the tandem and say, 'Well, you did pretty well on the tandem, come back nest week and give the FJC another shot. You can do it, and we will help!". In the end, the skydivers out there today are not all the same as they used to be. If you want the market to be what it is today, you need the volume to support the planes and gear manufacturers. If you want to 'thin the herd' the whole sport will have to thin out as well. So here we are, and now we have to deal with what we've created. There is a segment of our population that is not up to the par of days past. The only reason they survive is because of the system that created them. If you want to change that system, great, I'm all for it. Until that happens, we have to support the 'children' we created. Al Frisby, in an interview with Skydiving magazine, once said "We're promising them Disneyland, but we're delivering Death Valley'. This was right around the time Point Break came out, and the business was booming. You had every shithead who saw the movie showing up at the DZ so they could back out of the Otter and say, 'Adios amigo!', which was fine, but the sport wasn't set up for every shithead who could buy a movie ticket. That's what Al was talking about. Now we're set up for all of those shitheads, and as long as they're on the DZ, we have to account for them. By all means, try to train everyone to be the well informed, self sufficient, thinking skydiver that you want to have between you and the door, but as long as the skydiving environment remains 'friendly' and 'PC', that training isn't going to stick to all of them. I have no idea how to fix this, by the way.

Look brother, I can't do this anymore. You're full of shit, and anyone reading your posts can clearly see that. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to point out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain. I'm not talking about your viewpoint on the issue at hand, or mine, the subject of who is correct on that point remains to be seen, but the way you attempt to refute anyone elses viewpoint, and the way you seem not undertand the concept of making a 'comparison' or giving an 'example' makes you a real chore to communicate with. Good luck with your 'black death' you seem to be so fond of, I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys. You continue to reference the way it should be, while I am referencing the way it actually is. It would be nice if every driver on the road took responsibility for themselves, but they don't, and you have conduct yourself accordingly to avoid accidents. Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving. Come on now, I don't care who is sitting in the back of the plane, I only concerned about the guy at the helm. I jump with an orthopedic surgeon, who I'm sure has for more training than the pilot, but he's not up there performing surgery, so it's of little value. In terms of what people are doing on board, the pilot is clearly the most qualified of the bunch. It called an example. Handling a two out is something jumpers are taught, but since they rarely use that training, they quickly forget the details. Even if you train people to exit properly, you are at risk for them forgetting that as well. I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir). You expect jumpers to pull both handles in the case of a malfunction, but you give them as RSL anyway. Why? Because even though you want them to follow through with their EPs, there is a device that can meet them halfway and help them out. So you do both, train them properly and equip. them with the RSL. Same for the AAD. You teach them to save themselves, but in the case they fail, you also send them up with an AAD. Same for the low pass. You teach them to exit properly, and in case they fail, you raise the tail anyway. No way. No way in hell. The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up. It's a low pass. The pilot can keep climbing until right on top of the spot. Cut power, level off, and throw the light. An exit or three, add power, and get on with the climb. No pilot, and no DZ for that matter, loads, fuels, taxis, or climbs with enough precision that anyone is going to notice an extra 30 seconds. Even then, liek you said it's a business and when costs go up (like for an extra 30 seconds), prices go up. If the consumer wants the product, they will pay the price. If they don't want to shell out the extra buck, then you, me, and everyone else on the thread has nothing to talk about because nobody will be getting out low.

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway. With that in mind... That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly. If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait. I have far more faith in the pilot's ability to do that, than I have for EVERY jumper performing correctly on EVERY exit. I'm all for training new jumpers about different attitudes and airspeeds on jumprun, to include practicing the techniques needed to safely exit on a climbing pass. I'm also realistic about those jumpers ability (or willingness) to absorb, retain, and recall that information at the crucial moments. Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught. Yes, give people the oppertunity to learn and be responsible for themselves. When it comes to aircraft safety (for the sake of the remaining jumpers on board) pass the buck to the most highly trained person in the plane, el pilito.

Good point, but I still think you're reaching. In order for that to happen, somebody with an understanding of a climbing low pass would have to be scouring Youtube on the part of the plantiff, and even then they would have to spot the climbing low pass, and make note of it even if the lawsuit was not related to a climbing low pass. Let's remember that this would be a successful climbing low pass, so spotting it on Youtube would be very tricky. Keep in mind that you can make a poised exit from many low tail AC on a climbing low pass without incident, you just can't jump up. So you mean to tell me that the plantiff is going to hire a skydiving expert to review Youtube videos, and that person is going to spot a low tail on a successful low pass exit? Even then, I still maintain that would not be the basis for a label of carelessness on the part of the DZ as a whole. Just like the plantiff could hire an expert witness, so could the defense. It wouldn't be hard to explain the hazzards of the climbing low pass, and that they only exist for inexperienced jumpers. The position of the USPA would be shown as a 'safe bet', in place to ensure that low time jumpers don't slip through the cracks and end up on a climbing low pass.

A DZ is just a business. As much as we might like to attach more sentimental feelings to a DZ, it's a business just like a pizza joint, or a book store. Every business needs a 'whip'. There needs to be a guy (or girl) who stays up late at night thinking about ways to make the place better, and spends all day putting those plans to work. Generally, this motivation comes from the need for money, to eat and provide for your family, but with a DZ there also needs to be a dose of love, due mostly to the balance of lots of work for little profit. Either way, if there is another 'whip' to take the place of the DZO, you're all set, but only if the DZO doesn't mind being an absentee owner, and doesn't try to step on the toes of the new 'whip'. The truth is that most DZOs will have a problem with that, and will try to co-manage, or just annoy the shit out of the new guy. The 'teamwork' idea, where no one person is in charge rarely works out. The team might do really well running the place, until 6PM on Sunday when everyone wants to go home, and figures one of the 'other guys' will finish packing the tandems and lock up for the night. When there is a DZO, or single person in charge, everyone knows who's staying late on Sunday night. Unless you can find an outright buyer, it's not a good situation. The DZ will slowly wind down while the owner realizes the love is gone. By the time you find a buyer, the DZ has lost the momentum, and that takes time to get back.

Yes, those are examples. They are examples of specialty jumps that require additional equipment, training, or other interaction with more qualified jumpers in order to participate in and still remain in the good graces of the DZ. As we all know, anyone can chuck a skyball out of the plane, or bust a 180 on short final, but we're not talking about renegade jumpers here. The low pass does not require interaction with anyone except the manifestor. We would hope that other jumpers would intervene, and remind jumpers on a low pass of the orientaiton of the jumprun, and the danger of a tailstrike, but that's just a 'hope', and in my opinion, not good enough. Even then, much like the Lodi incident, the reminders of other jumpers does not guarantee the correct performance of the jumper. I disagree with your assertion that making any climbing low pass, even one done by the request of a qualified jumper and that proceeded without incident, would leave the DZ open to an accusation of carelessness in a case not involving a climbing low pass. My primary reason for this is that there would be no record of such a pass, and no way for it to be introduced into a lawsuit. Without an injury, damage to the aircraft, or a lawsuit as the result, the nature of the pass would not be of note, and quite frankly very hard to prove. I do think that all jumpers should be properly trained to recognize and handle exiting from different aircraft attitudes. I think it's important enough that it should be an item on the A license proficiency card, but I stand behind my position that the SOP for all passes should be a full cut and level off, and that the USPA wouldn't be wrong to back that position.

I don't know man. I thought that my theory, that is was a backhanded way to set the standard for all jumpruns to be flown with a full cut and level off, was a little far fetched, but yours is a downright accusatiuon of a conspiracy against Bill Dause. If you're right, it would make for quite a story to hear how it all came about, who was involved, and how much effort went into it, but I don't think you are. I'm not even sure I'm right. The simplest solution, which is often times the correct solution, is probably that they were just trying to point out a valid safety concern, with no backhanded legal positioning or conspiracies involved.

Just to put it to rest before I proceed - we all know that anyone can exit any aircraft in an unsafe manner if they so desired. Let's set that fact aside for the purpose of this discussion, and assume jumpers wish to exit in a manner that is generally accepted as 'safe'. But with appropriate diligence, a climbing low pass presents no particular additional danger to anyone. If it is done correctly, it is simply not a problem.*** You're making the argument for the climbing low pass, however you have included two key words in your statement, "but" and "if". Both of those words imply that certain conditions have to be met for your argument to be valid. If that's the case, a failure to meet either of those conditions would lead to an unsafe situaiton. In order for a jumper to meet both of those conditions, they would have had to been exposed to a low tail AC, at a DZ that offers a climbing low pass, and they would have had to exited on such a low pass. You have to admit that's quite a list of criteria for a jumper to meet in order for them to be 'safe'. A lack of any of those factors would lead to a jumper who is not preparred for a climbing low pass from a low tail AC. Again, let's play the flip side, and assume that every low pass from now on is flown with a full cut and level off. Now every jumper who has a license has been trained in the skills needed to safely exit the aircraft. No matter what DZ you learned at, what method was used, or what aircraft you're accustomed to, you have the training and experience to safely exit an airplane in that jumprun configuration. So the USPA draws the party line, and it says that you have to level off and cut to provide a safe jumprun. Now every DZ has to make that type of jumprun the SOP in order to avoid the legal trap that you're concerned about. At this point, I'm just not sure what the problem is. When I used to low passes at my DZ, the SOP was a full cut and level off. Myself and another highly experienced jumper pulled the pilot aside and told him not to worry about the cut or level off for us. Just fly over the DZ and we'll hop out when we're ready. I even took it a step further, and used to get a high speed pass at 120 knots, just for kicks. However, the SOP remained a full cut and level off, and unless the pilot was told directly by myself or anthoer staffer to deviate, that's what he did. Just because the SOP is one thing, doesn't mean that you can't make a special request when it's appropriate (like when all jumpers on the pass are qualified for the alternate jumprun). I'm not going to comment on your alternate wording because I don't think the current wording is a problem. I think that putting the onus on the DZO to make the full-cut level jumprun the SOP for all passes is a good thing. It seems like a free point of increased safety by taking the 'conditions' out of making a safe exit.

The more important measurement is the length of the harness, which is related to your height. If you can find a rig from a jumper about your height, the harness should work for you. You may have to tighten the legstraps more than the last guy, but that's no big deal. In any case, you will need to have the gear inspected by a local rigger before you buy. This will include you trying it on, to see what's what. The rigger can tell you if it needs any alterations or adjustments and what they will cost, and you can factor this into your purchase price. Do a search on DZ.com for how to buy used gear in terms of paying for things, shipping things, having things inspected, returning things, and when the sale is really 'final'. There are ten different ways to handle the situation. In terms of the canopy, call PD and request a demo Sabre2 170. They will ship you one for a very small fee ($30? $35?) and I think you get it for two weekends. Either way, see if the DZ will hook it up to the rental rig that usually holds the 190, and jump it for a day. If you like it, and feel confident, buy the 170. If it's too fast, buy a 190. You'll never know until you try, and from the outside it sounds like a reasonable downsize between your weight, and an endorsement from your instructor.

What if that was the intention? As an organization, the USPA has an official 'position' on many different aspects of skydiving. Often times, what the USPA backs becomes the 'standard industry practice' just because they back it. In wording it this way, maybe the USPA does imply that a 'standard' configuration jumprun for a low pass is essentail to jumper safety, and that the pilot/DZ is responsible for providing such a jump run. As you correctly stated, if the USPA does indeed take that position on the issue, a lawsuit as the result of a tail strike on a climbing jumprun would be an easy win for the plantiff. "The DZ, and pilot, went against the reccomendations of the USPA, and this accident is the result." It wouldn't be hard to imagine that the USPA would lean that way anyhow. While you correctly argue that you can exit almost any aircraft safely on a climbing jumprun, some aircraft require a specific technique not always in common practice when exiting from full altitude. As such, some jumpers may not be familiar, proficient, or comfortable with that type of exit, and might be more likey to perform poorly in the door. The flip side to this is that if EVERY jumprun was flown in a configuration where any exit that IS commonly found on a full-altitude jumprun would be safe, then you can be assured that ALL jumpers will be able to exit the aircraft safely. By allowing a climbing jumprun, you are requiring the jumper to perform to a higher standard than they are used to. The safer bet, of the two, is to provide the level jumprun with reduced airspeed, and count on the jumper only to perform to the same standard to which they are accustomed. That said, jumpers do need to be properly trained on how to identify a climbing jumprun, and how to safely exit from such a jumprun. Pilots forget, emergencies happen, and jumpers need to be informed and capable of exiting safely. If the USPA lightly draws a line in the sand, and the good side is where everyone gets a cut and level-off, then so be it. I guess if you want a climbing jumprun, you should be able to get it. but barring any special requests, let's pull the power and lower the nose. Any DZ operator who has a problem with this, just raise the price of a hop n pop by a buck. Nobody is going to stop jumping over a buck (they might say they will, but they'll show up and pay the extra dollar when it's warm and sunny).

The weather is an issue everywhere, some places it's just more often than others. Keeping this in mind, here's a universal rule of skydiving that you should always follow - Never put off jumping on a day when you have the money, and the weather. Don't save up for next week, or even just plan on making extra jumps tomorrow; if you can jump today, do it. Worry about jumping tomorrow, tomorrow. Maybe the weather will close in, or the plane will break, who knows. If all the pieces are in place on one day, jump that day. So, your answer about starting to jump is to refer to that rule. As soon as you have the money, the weather, and are old enough, jump. Figure out the next day's worth of jumping when that day comes. It all happens one jump at a time. Worry about jump #2 after you're safely down from jump #1, and so on, and so on, and so on. Get video. You can probably talk your parents into paying for it.

It's simple. Sooner or later, every single one of them became aware of the Skyride situation, and yet they continue to patronize, or directly work for, the crooks that are responsible. Here's a thought, did you ever consider that all of the money the Skyride crew made was money that would have gone into the pocket of a local DZO in a state where Skyride did it's thing? The Arizona court system did, and they came up with the number $6 million. I guess it's one thing to rip off a consumer, charge them extra for the 'big plane'. Ok, I can see that. Most tandem students are one-time-wonders, so whatever money you can squeeze out of them on their one trip to the DZ is more cash in skydiving and less cash in the rest of the world. Worst case scenario that tandem student becomes a dedicated skydiver. If the guy calls you on it two years later, you admit your guilt, and buy him a jump to pay him back. Here's the thing, though, the Skyride money was made on the backs of other DZOs. Every DZ in Smalltown, Iowa that lost out on customers because their competing DZ over in Littleville was in bed with Skyride. Even the Littleville DZ took a hit because Skyride always got their cut of the profits. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now - Skyride didn't do anything to bring new customers to skydiving, they just found a way to intercept existing customers, and wedge themselves in between those customers and their local DZs. The money Skyride made was money that would have went to these local DZs, and to their staff, and to make improvements for all of their dedicated fun jumpers. You wonder why anyone who supports these people have a bad name in the sport? Really?

There's also a chance he just misses any conversation with the woman he thought he was going to spend the rest of his life with. This hot 20-something might be perfectly intelligent, but if she's into Kant, and your buddy and his ex dug Plato, the younger woman will always be fighting an uphill battle. Back to reality, it's just a bright spot in the horizon for a guy who might be in a dark place right now. Hopefully he'll meet a nice person who he connects with both physically and mentally, but until then he should enjoy his time with younger ladies, most likely drunk and exhibiting poor judgement.

All of that can change very quickly. Try and make it official before she has a chance to change her mind. This is why you need to knock out the paperwork ASAP, as in before you get the raise. Aside from the formalities, it may feel like the end of the world some times, but it's really just the beginning of a new world. A world where you keep all the money you make, come and go as you please, and are free to spend as much time as you want with much, much younger women. Enjoy.

Why don't you and your girl slow down a notch, and see if you even like jumping to begin with? Even then, give it a few jumps to see if it sticks, or if your brain gets the better of you and scares you away from the DZ forever. If you make it past that, then yes, you will have to choose skydiving or your girlfriend.

You should print out this post, and hang it up at the DZ. There has got to be at least three local jumpers who can help out with all or part of what you're asking. There's a good chance one of them can get you hard goods at a discount, and 100% chance that they'll all be willing to work for jumps. In truth, they would probably do it for free, but give them some jumps anyway. On every meduim to large DZ, there's a jumper somewhere who can help you out with anything you need to get done. Legal, illegal, right or wrong, things can get taken care of.

I'm not sure who you are, but all of your crazy talk makes me think this isn't your first lap of this racetrack. What do you do, register for new accounts online at the library so they don't pick up your ip address? Maybe go to a friends house?

Among who, other local jumpers? Remember what I said about different 'circles' of riggers? You might be surprised to see how jumpers pack at certain DZs, or what gear looks like in other countries. On both counts I think you'll find practices or equipment that is considered 'black death' at your home DZ. It's a big world out there, with a lot of jumpers (and riggers), and for you to assume that you know enough that you're ready to make a final decision about any of it is extremely arrogant. There's a chance your guy is the best rigger in the world, but only a chance.

Based on what? I'm not picking on you, just asking a fair and legitimate question. How many riggers have you spoken to, or observed while they worked? - You might be surprised to learn of the wide range of opinions, styles, and training among riggers. How many different brands, or even types of rigs have you seen these riggers work with? -You might be surprised to learn that some riggers are very well versed in the type of equipment that is popular in their part of the country, but only marginally familiar with other rigs. How many riggers have you spoken to and observed outside of your geographic area? -You might be surprised to find out that different 'circles' of riggers have different levels of services and SOPs in different parts of the country. A DPRE (Designated Parachute Rigger Examiner) in one part of the country may teach things one way, and so most riggers in his regoin will do things that way, while another DPRE has a different take on things. I'm glad you're happy with your rigger. Just remember not to 'drink the kool aid' and figure that the first guy you use is the best, and everyone else is just playing catch up. There's alot that goes into being a rigger, from training, to further education, to their very philosphy on the job. Keep your eyes open, and ask questions about everything.

Maybe I should have specified, but I was talking about civil court. The real trick in defedning a skydiving incident in a civil trial is convincing the jury that it was indeed an 'accident' that came from unforeseen circumstances. You need to be able to show that all reasonable precautions were taken in order to avoid an incident, and among these precautions is follwing the standard industry practice (FARs, BSRs, and mfg. reccomendations). The problem you have is that between Youtube and this thread, it's public record that the rules were broken for a period of several years, and that you are currently aware of that. Turning a blind eye is no longer an option for you, at least in terms of a legal defense. As far as the FAA goes, that's a meat grinder I wouldn't want to get anywhere near. You may come out of it OK, you may not. You have to admit that if given the choice, you'd rather not test those waters. Again, I don't have anything against you or any of the staff at STC, I'm just commenting on the situation at hand, and some of the 'what if's'.

The more I thought about it, I can't see just the flare making you sore. You only do it three or four times total, and I'm not sure that would do it. I'm willing to bet that it's everything put together. All the dirt dives, if you're in the tunnel that's a real killer, the jump itself, even carrying the rig back into the packing room can be a chore with a bulky student rig a small student. Just keep at it. I don't jump much in the winter, so my first weekend in the spring when I do 5 or 10 jumps is a real bitch. I wake up Monday morning feel like I got hit by a truck. By mid season 10 jumps a day is a breeze.

30 years and that's what you get. How long have you been a member of the USPA? The whole time? Even half of that should be enough to get you a badge. I'm qualified for a 12 hour badge, but never put in for one. I've got my 'D', and if you want it I'll get a bagde and send it to you, no license required. I'd be happy to recognize your achievement.