davelepka

In some cases I might be inclined to agree with you some of the things I've heard about Lodi, howver in this case, it doesn't appear that Bills way or the highway was the situation. According to the NTSB report- In the wake of this report there were allegations that the quoted skydivers were coached by Bill as to what to say and what not to say. I'm not in a postion to know if this is what happened, however, when I read this statement from the plantiffs lawyer - - it makes it sound as if the plantiff was aware that a no-cut jumprun would result in the tail being low, and require a certain type of exit to maintain safety, and that no cut had occurred. All of this just points to the fact that this was the jumpers fault. It should be no mystery that the plane was not in a jumprun configuration. Especially on a fast climbing plane like a 99, it's not hard to see that it's an uphill walk to the cockpit. According to his own statement, the plantiff knew all about aircraft configuration and different types of exits. With this knowledge in mind, he continued on with his course of action, and was injured as a result.

That doesn't make sense at all. You cannot count on every jumper being able to indentify, and follow a 90 degree off-jumprun heading. Visiting jumpers, low timers, retards, a funnel at the bottom end of a jup are things that will conspire against jumpers correctly identifying 90 degrees off heading. Additionally, it encourages those confused jumpers to spend time at breakoff looking for the heading as opposed to getting themselves to clear airspace and deploying. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the much better solution is to relaize that you are on a two-way, and that you only need to create seperation with one other jumper, and that jumper is also trying to get away from you as well. There's no need for 8 seconds of max track. A three or four second burst from each jumper is more than enough. It's a far more reliable system. You are only counting on jumpers to not 'over track', a situation that can be built into the dirt dive, and is easily applied during the actual jump. By putting the emphasis on heading, and not duration of the track, you create the additional problem that if they fail on the first count (many ways listed above) then the natural insticnt to track long and hard becomes even more of a liability. Even an Otter load full of two ways should have no problem getting everyone home. On a zero wind day (at all altitiudes) if you give 5 seconds between groups, that's 50 or 55 secinds to empty the plane. Figure the Otter will cover about a 1.5 miles in that time, so the first and last jumpers shouldn't be more than 3/4 mile from the DZ. If you're under canopy by 3000ft, you should have no problem making it 3/4 mile to the DZ (let's keep in mind that it's 3/4 to the center point of the DZ, even less distance if you figure on landing on one end of the LZ or another). Of course as the upper wind speed increases, so does the time between groups, but along with that comes the reduction in ground speed, and the increase in winds to assist with gliding back to the airport.

What's really sad is that this thread is right above a thread titled "Skydiving really is a small community" where jumpers go on for pages about how tight this community is. I guess that's everywhere but SW Fla?

Just a few points. I'm sure some of them have already been mentioned. Of course, the RW groups need to go first, and the reason (as mentioend) is the increased drift in freefall. This error was not yours, but the person who selected the exit order. On that subject, a poster had mentioned that 'you might have to leave different amounts of time between different groups' as if it was odd, or a problem, but in reality, that's what should be happening. Let's look at a jumprun. The spot is selected so the first and last person can both make it back to the DZ. If the first group out is a 10 way RW group, you can bet your sweet ass they're going to need a little more separation than a 2 way RW group would need. The ten way will break off higher, and have the jumpers tracking further, and some of them will be going up the jumprun. This doesn't effect the spot, because half (in an Otter) of the plane got out all at once. The remaining jumpers have 90% of the jumprun left to spread themselves out across. There's no reason to rush. Disclaimer - making changes to the group seperation should not be done by a low timer without checking with a senior jumper on the load. There are a number of factors to consider, and getting it wrong can casue a near miss, or hose the rest of the load. Beyond that, the issue of tracking up or down the jumprun is a valid one. However, there are other things to consider as well. You were doing a two way. How far do you think you need to 'rocket man' away from the one other jumper you're with? Granted, if you are heads-up enough to know which direction the jumprun is going, and can get yourself pointed 90 degrees off of it, then by all means, track off into the sunset. However, if you're unsure of the jumprun direction when break off comes, you're only tyring to get away from one guy, who's also trying to get away from you. If you each track for just three seconds, you'll have six seconds of seperation, and only one canopy to avoid on opening. Sometimes going balls out for as long as you can is not the way to go. Try to use as little sky as possible. You need to be safe within your own group for sure, but if you over-do it, and a guy from another group also over-does it, you have another near miss. Moving on, in your circumstance, there's a fair chance that you drifted toward the freeflyers, and a fair chance that the freeflyers had some horizontal movement. On your RW jump, if you turned a few pionts, the chances are you guys were going straight down. Even if you had a slight backslide, your actual horizontal speed would have to be fairly low for you to still turn points. Freeflying on the other hand works differently. if they're not turning points, just flying no contact, there's a good chance they were moving around the sky. Additionally, a slight backsldie in freeflying will cover a good deal of ground horizontally. A severe backslide will produce about the same horizontal speed as a belly track. One last point, freeflyers often cover ALOT of ground in a track. When you take the higher speeds of freeflying, and roll out into a belly track, you can cover some ground. A freeflyer not aware of the direction of jumprun, or even how much ground they can cover, can easily make it into the next groups airspace. All of these factors could have easily combined to cause your near miss, if it was indeed you that he saw. If it wasn't you, the factors are still present, and the risk is still there. I would avoid jumping in these conditions in the future, and if anyone at your DZ has a problem with that, have them reference this thread, and see how they respond. A good number of fairly experienced jumpers commented on the mistakes that were made, and if they choose to ignore that, you might want to take your business elsewhere.

Even if it was getting ready to shut down, you don't want any part of the propwash getting involved in your swoop. That said, I saw a similar thing happen just this weekend. Of course, the jumper in question was 4 years old when you started jumping, and not that bright, but it happened.

Is this the best we can do here? It seems that anytime somebody needs a drinking buddy, or a sleepy jumper to drunk dial, there's ten DZ.commers waiting in line to help out, but we can't locate one person who jumps at Skydive SW Fla, or knows anyone who does? That's bullshit. Come on Fla people, somebody out there knows someone. Even if it's just another jumper at that DZ, who might know the guy, or even just know of the guy. Anything would be a help at this point. Even if it's just a guy that can confirm that the 'buyer' is a dirtbag. At this point, it's been weeks with no response from the 'buyer', and this canopy is starting to look alot like it's been stolen. Let's treat this like any other time one of our fellow jumpers has gear stolen, and see if we can't help out.

Florida where? What city did you ship the canopy too? Did the guy happen to mention a home DZ? Maybe call there, or to DZs near is home town. Just as an aside, I'm all for shipping a canopy for an inspection and test jump (with the understanding that any damage or loss is the responsibility of the jumper), but I would not ship a canopy directly to a jumpers private residence. I've had good luck shipping to a DZ after speaking to the DZO or staff rigger about the situation. I would never expect them to take responsibility for the gear, but if the buyer is a jumper in good standing at that DZ, and you involve the DZO/managment/staff, it becomes alot harder for a guy to pull any shenanigans (or even just flake out).

No, they don't. Generally the top of the rig is always in the same place, and the bottom of the rig gets cut short to make smaller containers (they're narrower too). This isn't so much a problem when the smaller container is holding smaller canopies for a smaller jumper. When it's an average or larger jumper jumping smaller canopies, sometimes the hackey is pretty far up their back. This is one reason that Sunpath is making the containers longer and narrower. Wings has been doing it for years with their EXT.

What are you doing? Looking for a way to legally jump a BASE rig from an aircraft in the US? In that case the BaseR and belly mount reserve are the way to go. Going skydiving? Use a skydiving rig. If there was a better or cheaper way, jumpers everywhere would be doing it. There's not.

That sounds like bullshit. How come I can go on e-bay and find an auction that will calculate my shipping cost for the item based on my location? In that instance, I would certainly be paying less than a buyer who lives further from the origin of the shipment. Calculating different costs for shipping isn't hard to do. I also run a business where I ship all sorts of things to various parts of the country. I go out of my way to find the least expensive way to get my products to my customers. The USPA cannot do the same for it's members? The same members whose yearly dues provide 100% of the funding for the organization? Like I said before, that's bullshit. The technology is readily available to provide that service to the membership. Any member in good standing with the USPA should be charged actual shipping costs to their zip code, plus actual costs of packing materials. Paying your dues should at least get you that level of consideration.

Get over it, smaller isn't always better. I'm sure they didn't change the way make rigs just for fun. There has to be a benefit of some sort or they would not have gone to the trouble to make new patterns. How specific were you when youplaced your order? Did you tell them you wanted the exact same thing, or did you just order the equivilant? I just ordered a jumpsuit, and instead of filling out an order form, I sent them the one I wore out, and said make me another just like this one. Guess what I got? Exactly what I wanted. When I ordered my Inifinty, I had three pages of notes and drawings outlining how I wanted it built. Guess what I got? Exactly what I wanted (for the record, all of my special instrcutions were regarding the function of the rig, not the looks). I've got news for you, I don't even know you, and I can say for sure that the look of your rig is not going to make or break your image.

Check out my first post on the subject, a few posts up from the one you quoted. I outlined a variety or factors (and certainly not a complete list) that will contribute to the way a jumper will face while spinning with a mal. Unless you want to account for each of these factors, you cannot come up with a logical hypothesis as to which way a jumper will face. If you do account for all of these factors, and develop a hypothesis, you may have a valid agrument, but it will be of little use in the real world, as the chances of each of the criteria in an actual mal matching the criteria used in your hypothesis is very, very slim. Like I said, you are daling with a malfunction, where you cannot count on the performance of any of the factors because the very essence of the situation is that one or more things are not working as they are supposed to. If you think a jumper would hang one way or another under a mal, that would all go out the window if say, a tuck tab hang up was the cause of the mal. That would have a jumper hanging in a much different way. Or if the twists were left, and the spin was to the right, which way would a jumper tend to face? How about a right twist with a left spin? What happens when a tension knot makes one line group shorter than the rest? What's the effect then? How about a line over effectively shortening a brake line? All of the above are realistic, and dare I say common (within the realm of spinning mals) situations that one might encounter. Unless you are preparred to account for all of these factors (and all of the ones I left out), then your hypothesis lacks any real world credibility, and I'll stand by my first conclusion which is that the only thing a jumper should be concerned with during a spinning mal is proper and timely use of emergency procedures.

If you read my post, you'll see that I describe the first stage as not pulling the toggles to a certain location (shoulder height, chest height, etc.), I say that the first stage is flaring just enough to get the canopy flying level with the ground. This gives the canopy a chance to plane out, and kill off some of the speed it has from the final approach. Once the canopy has slowed, and begins to 'settle' toward the ground, then the flare is completed to full toggle extension, in oder to eliminate as much remaining speed as possible, while keeping the jumper off the ground. I'm not sure how you can describe this as baloney. This is the same technique I use for everyone of my swoops. I apply just enough input to level the canopy, and fly out the speed I have from my final approach. As the speed decreases, and the canopy cannot maintain level flight, I'll add input to keep the canopy flying, and furhter reduce my speed so I can safely put my feet down. Granted, I'm going fast as hell, and the manuver is extended with the various stages taking considerable time each, but the concept still applies to larger, slower canopies. The time between stage one and two might only be a second or two, more of just a pause, but the two stages are there, and this remains the correct way to land a ZP square canopy. As I stated before, this technique applies to every landing, not just no-wind days. Having a little wind (with a larger canopy) provides enough of a cushion that jumpers can get away with being sloppy in their landings, but these bad habits show through when the wind dies.

A problem that alot of new guys have on no wind days is they put their feet down too soon. On a no wind day, you want to use a two stage flare. The first stage you flare just enough to fly level with the ground. The second stage is where you finish the flare, and this happens when your canopy is running out of steam flying level with the ground. Either way, the first mistake is putting your feet down too soon. People want to put their feet down because they're close to the ground, but if your canopy is still flying, there's no reason to put your feet down. Let the canopy burn off a little speed before putting down your landing gear, so when you do touch down, you're not going as fast. The other problem is not finishing the flare. Along with wanting to put their feet down too soon, newer jumpers seem to want to 'end' the landing too soon. Just like keeping your feet up until you slow down, you need to keep flying the canopy until you have finished the flare completely. A note on finishing the flare, the slower your canopy is flying, the less effect your inputs will have. For this reason, it's important to finish the flare all the way, and make sure you use some 'authority' with your input at this stage. Make sure to fully flare the canopy, and finish it like you mean it. A little bit of wind is helpful for two reasons. The first being the reduction in ground speed when you finish the flare. It makes it easy to manage your speed because even if you do things wrong, the wind means you're dealing with a lower ground speed, and it's no big deal. The other is that when you have a little wind, your canopy has extra airpseed when you're finishing the flare. The extra airspeed equals more response to your input. Even if you don't get a good strong flare, the extra airspeed helps to make your weak flare more effective. No wind landings are just another skill to learn. Getting to the DZ early and being on the first load helps because the winds are lower in the early morning, and you get to practice. Of course, staying all day and catching the sunset load is also another chance to practice as the wind generally tapers off toward sunset. Just hang out and jump all day, that's the real solution to any skydiving problem.

No, I meant it the way I wrote it. The both of you are trying to make sense of a mal, trying to simplify a situation that is anything but simple. Hence, trying to make a simple situation (a mole hill) out of a complex and varied situaiton (a mountain). The reason that people often end up spinning on their back is because spinning mals are generally caused by, or result in line twists. Once you get in to a situation where the canopy is not flying straight, and the lines have crossed, you're at the mercy of chance as to what direction you'll be facing. The reason you here more about people spinning on their back is because it's an interesting and exciting part of the story. In the instances where the jumper ends up facing forwards, the story is much simpler, "I had a few lines twists, and the canopy started to spin, so I chopped it". When it goes the other way, you get, "I threw out, and the next thing I know, I'm on my back, and the canopy was slinging me around like a rag doll, so I chopped it".

I think you both are trying to make a mole hill out of a mountain. There's no easy way analyze a 'generic' malfunction because the situation itself is wrong to begin with. With that in mind, there is no way to suggest that sitting in the harness, or arching in the harness will create one result of the other. There are too many variables to the scenario - Which direction is the spin? Which direction are the line twists? Are the lines all under tension? Are the three rings even? Are the other harness rings even? Are both of the tuck tabs released? Are the leg straps symetrical? All of these things will influence both how the jumper will hang under the canopy, and what result one body position or another will have. I think the more important body position to consider is the one that gives you the clearest line of sight, and physical reach to your handles. This should be the first, foremost and possible only thought a jumper should have in their head during a high speed spin.

No, you did fine. The fact that you didn't let the canopy spin you into the ground is proof of that. Everyone shits a little brick during a mal. Everyone. The fact that you were faced with an unusual situation only adds to that. In the end, you did respond correctly, and took care of business in a timely fashion. You performed above and beyond when you were able to recall the situation (which I'm willing to bet only lasted a few seconds) and accurately indentified a problem, and then reported it here so others could avoid, or at least be informed of it. There's a video on here of an AFF 1, I think somewhere in Europe. The student deploys, and the video guy catches one of the JMs dumping a Velo into a high speed spin. It's a great illustration of just how fast these things happen. Anyone who claims to be clam and composed, and fully aware of what's happening during this type of mal is full of shit. Right up to the rim full of shit.

A legitimate claim, yes, but did he persue it in the proper manner? All signs point to 'no'. Furthermore, it's no secret that the 'rules' are changing, with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the TSA and the FAA all looking at general aviation operations, and any precieved risks it might be creating. Just because a demo AC is only going to overfly the TFR, the skydiver inside will penetrate the TFR, making the entire purpose of the flight one which invovles penetrating the TFR. It's not a far reach to assume that a pilot in that situation might end up subject to a background check. Even if the TSA did originally agree that the check was needed, they did hand the reigns over to the FAA, and they seem hold a different opinion. It appears that the demo pilots were not considered at all during the inception of this program. There was no language either allowing or dis-allowing them to release jumpers into a TFR with or without a background check. I could understand the OPs 'outrage' if there was language specifically allowing the flights without a background check, and now they were not follwing their own written word, but the original omission of the subject alltogether leads me to believe that the issue wasn't even a though to the TSA or FAA in the begining. Even if he recieved a verbal approval early on from the TSA, it's the FAA's ball now, and my bet is that they will put it in writing, and that they will require demo pilots to a have a background check before dropping into a TFR.

First off, I'm not a grasshopper and I'm not your son. I can't stress enough that you would get much better results if you used some clear, plain language to make your point. Beyond that, I don't see the requirement for a demo pilot to have a backgroud check, or even the FAA calling a jumper a 'dropping' as an assult against the skydiving community. What I see is the FAA trying to implement a policy, and that it appears to be fullfilling it's intended purpose for 95% of the people using it. As a small subset of a small group of people, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't work to your own personal satisfaction, but at some point the system has to be deemed 'good enough' and put into service. Let's remember that the point of government is to serve the needs of the majority. Let's take that concept to the USPA - employees of the USPA should be putting the majority of their time into work that serves the majority of the membership. I don't see your issue as being relevant to most of the membership, and as such it recieved an appropriate amount of effort from the staff.

Now you're talking. I'm willing to bet that unleashing a phone and e-mail campaign, which appears to contain threats and inflamatory language, against members of the USPA staff and the FAA to the degree that you were investigated as a terrorist, might fall under the heading 'conduct unbecoming'. Now my question is, who wrote the sworn statement? You or the FAA guy? I only ask becasue if it was you, this whole mess could have been avoided if you had used the same language and tone from the statement to conduct ALL of your business with the TSA, FAA, and the USPA. In regards to your issue, have you considered that it would be easier for the FAA to just change the language so the pilot of a demo ship WAS required to have a background check for dropping into a TFR?

Look brother, I read (or tried to read) your e-mails, and the story in general, and it really looks like you didn't get the response you wanted - -as quickly as you wanted, and got pissed. Got pissed, and didn't handle it that well at all. Also, isn't the online application for a waiver set up by the TSA or FAA (or somebody besides the USPA)? Assuming that it is, why is it that you believe the USPA can just 'have one tiny paramter changed' on a website they do not own or operate? I really think you're a little off base here. It sounds like you think this issue is an intentional shot at the skydiving community, or even if the issue is not, the lack of willingness to address the issue is the shot at skydivers. Let me ask this - exactly how many times per year would you guess that a waiver is needed to over-fly a sporting event for the purposes of dropping a skydiver? 100? 200? I think 200 is high, but even if that was the case, I'm sure that number pales in comaprison to the number of other requests that the TSA or the FAA deals with on an annual basis. In a similar situation, how many skydivers do you think are invovled in demos where they would need such a waiver? 10? 20? I think 20 is high, but even if that was the case, that number pales in comparison to the number of skydivers the USPA is working for on an annual basis. The moral of the story, you're in the minority of the minority, and as such your issue has taken a back seat to the throngs of other people that your 'adversaries' are in place to serve. As far as your membership goes, you must have said some fucked-up shit about some people or the USPA to some other, important people to have your membership yanked. Was it right? Who knows... Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease, sometimes it gets tossed into the dumpster.

Your above story MUST be leaving out many, many details. According to what you posted, we are to believe that you complained to the FAA, and (big surprise) got little result. Then you asked the USPA for their assistance (perfectly reasonable). They replied, and revealed that their official position was not in line with your personal agenda (perfectly reasonable). You got upset, and screamed at them (also reasonable). The Ex. Committee revoked your membership (not reasonable in any way given the details you provided). Here's the thing, you want to keep your membership, and you're looking for help in doing so. I'll be the first to admit that it is possible. There are jumpers here from all over the county, and every board member or RD is either on DZ.com, or jumps at a DZ with people who post here. It's possible to get the board to take another look at your membership status, but before anyone here is going to go to bat for you, the first thing you have to do is TELL THE WHOLE STORY. If you want to go back and fill in the blanks, I'm sure that if you have truely been wronged, the membership at large will get behind you. If you want to leave out big (and I'm guessing pivotal) portions of the story, I wouldn't expect too much sympathy.

"This is better than rejuvination..." RIP

Based on his description, I've run into joints that size or larger. In the late 80's I was at an Eagles concert, a Pink Floyd concert and a Greatful Dead show. At all three, there were joints being passed around the size of the cardboard tube inside a roll of paper towels. I'll give him credit for being the first guy to roll a doobie that size, and have it covered by the local news.

I don't know. I suppose nothing, unless the batteries are old and leakage is a concern.