davelepka

That's just dumb. So if you saw a swooper who turned low every time, and just barely dug out on every swoop, that would be OK because he never actaully hits the ground, right? You would suggest just letting him continue on without saying anything until he actually hits the ground, and then you would let him know that his technique is flawed? Sticking with Rich's definition of a 'near' tail strike, which I think is correct, that being any exit where the jumper inflates their wings too early and comes closer to the tail than a jumper who exits with proper technique, if you see that behavior from a jumper, you don't wait until they hit the tail to mention it to them. It's just dumb luck that keeps them from actually hitting the tail, and I don't think the prudent action would be sitting around waiting for that luck to run out. The simple fact is that anyone using improper exit technique is a candidate for a tail strike, and a danger to the aircraft, the pilot, others in the aircraft and people on the ground near the eventual crash site. If this behavior is recognized as widespread, then there is a problem in the training system for wingsuit pilots. You don't have to actually hit the tail to have a problem, or have an indication that better, or more consistant, training is needed.

...and the biggest asshole jumper award goes to..... Let's see, the guy has up to 3 planes running at any one time, he provides 2 landing areas for the jumpers, and he took the time to both consult with local WS experts and then provide a logical and apolegetic explanation for the choice he made (an explanation that he didn't have to give). Yeah, he sounds terrible. It's not like he flew a couple thousand loads in aircraft with timed out parts, or banned fun jumpers to get more tandems in the air, or killed a dozen students putting them out on mis-rigged static-line rigs, that stuff only gets you runner-up status at the worst DZO awards. What a douche (hint- not talking about the DZO)

Sounds like it might introduce a variety of problems. Blood rushing to the head would be one, and just getting up and onto the 'stand' could be injury causing in itself. A better idea is to tell the students up-front that arching is easier in the sky. You still have to try, and you have to arch, but it doesn't cause the strain and fatigue that you feel when doing on the ground for more than 10 or 15 seconds. Once that is out of the way, you can practice things standing up, or horizontally without requiring a 'hard arch' from the student during the bulk of the practice. They do need to be somewhat arched, and they need to be able to demonstrate a good arch on command, but keep the duration down to minimize stress/fatigue. I get the rationale around 'training exactly what they're going to do', but going through a dive flow with a student straining to hard arch on a creeper isn't what they're going to be doing. Physically, they'll be using different mucsles and to different degrees while actually in freefall, so forcing them to struggle with a hard arch on the ground does nothing but fatigue your student. The hanging harness, or doing climb-outs on a mock-up, that's another story. Minus the wind blast, noise, and general fear factor, the motions are almost a carbon copy of the real thing. When it comes to freefall, you can only simulate so much (without a tunnel), so give the students a break, and ease up on the amount of time they spend arching on the ground. Disclaimer - you want them to be able to arch, and to be able to demonstrate it on command, and you should 'command' them to arch often, and expect them to be able to assume a 'good' arch immediately. That's how you know they understand the concpect and position, but pushing the issue on a creeper for extended periods of time isn't helping anyone.

Look inward to find your answer. The wingsuiting community created it's own instructional program and first flight courses. They set up the rating system and in turn set the precendent that such a rating and structured first flight courses were neccesary for the safe advancement of wingsuiting. That said, you're surprised that the USPA took interest in this when you want to fly wingsuits in the US? Technically, it falls under the purview of the USPA because it's skydiving in the US, and when the experts (the wingsuiting community) set the standard, the USPA is apt to follow. Swooping (or even canopy manufacturers in general) have yet to establish their own ratings systems or required training before using their products. They have avoided that end of the market, but if they ever do set that standard, there's a good chance the USPA will also follow suit in that as well. Of course, the other side of it (as mentioned) is that someone took the initiative to step forward and make a presentation to the BOD. Whatever they said, it was convincing enough to get the idea passed to the next level, so here we are.

I think everyone knows this. The OP wasn't trying to pull his slider down, he was simply pulling on the drawstrings, and it slid down and dislodged a brake. His temporary solution was to unstow his brakes first. While this won't stop the slider from coming down, and possible pulling on the toggle, it will allow the canopy to return to level flight with no other action than pushing the slider up. Either way, it's not a 'good' solution, using slider bumpers is the way to go. Just because you see one thing as being good for you, and your jump, that doesn't mean that others should (or want to) follow your example. For a low time jumper on a larger canopy, it's an added distraction that serves little purpose at this time. One day, the OP will be under canopy, and the idea of pulling the slider down will seem like a good one, and at that time he can lose the bumpers and have at it. Until then, the added risk and responsibility are not for him, and the bumpers are his solution.

It's clear that he adamant about going to Lodi for the jump prices. In his other post about the exact same thing he included the detail that he planning to do 50-100 hop n pops. So what it sounds like is it's Lodi, or making far less jumps elsewhere. I also get the vibe that he's not looking for dedicated one-on-one coaching, but 'some' coaching followed by 'x' number of jumps on his own, then back to some coaching and so on. Given his experience level, the smart thing to do would be to track down an established canopy control course being held during his visit. It doesn't sound like he needs one-on-one coaching on his own, but he could benefit from a group classroom session, followed by jumps with video and debriefs from the coach. It would probably cost less in the end, and benefit him just the same. Of course none of it will be cheaper than buying a block of jumps at Lodi and getting one of the locals to offer some tips every now and again.

Flying a parachute is similar to driving a car in that in a car you have to get used to when to turn the wheel for a desired turn, how much to turn it, how fast to turn it, hard hard to press the gas or brake, and when to press the gas or brake. In the beginning, you're not exactly 'smooth', but with time you get the feel of it, and it's no big deal to pilot the car through town. A parashute is the same way where you just need to get used to the controls, how the parachute reacts to them, and how to turn that into your desired result. Again, much like a car, the enviroment makes a difference. The type of road and the conditions on that road dictate how you drive the car, and so does the weather and wind dictate how you fly the parachute. So with that in mind, worry less about your specific results at this point, and more about what you can learn from each experience. While your combination of inputs on a given jump on a given day might not have put you on the exact spot you wanted, it did put you somewhere. Look at that spot as 'home', and look back on the flight and see what got you there. If you overshot your target by 100ft, what could you do on the next flight to come up 100ft short of where you landed on the first jump? You know what you did, and what the result was, now figure it out another way, and try that. Don't focus on the touchdown point, or see it as a failure or short coming if it's not exactly where you wanted to be. See it as another learning experience. and call it a success if you can walk away from the landing with more information than you had beforehand. Every day will present new wind conditions that will require you to change your game. If you're like most new jumpers, you're going to be jumping a variety of different student/rental canopies, and then your own new canopy, and each time you switch wings, you'll need to change your game. Give yourself a solid 20 to 30 jumps on one canopy before you hold yourself to too high of a standard, it's just going to be coutner-productive to expect anything more. Have a flight plan in place before each jump, pay attention to your spot and pull altitudes so you have a good chance of actually tyring out that flight plan at the DZ. If you're going to land off, make the decision high enough that you can pick a clear open area to land in, and you'll be fine. Much more than pinpoint accuracy what you need is good judgement. 99 times out of 100, good desicion making beforehand will keep you from 'needing' pinpoint accuracy to land in a tight backyard or parking lot. Good choices are easy to make before you get in the plane, while squeaking into a tight LZ while landing off is much tougher to do, but only neccesary when you fuck youself over by being stupid.

Quick programming note: 'Riser covers' are the part of your container that cover the risers. Generally, they are the outermost sidewall of the container, and create a trough for your risers to sit in. The upper portion folds over the shoulder portion of the harness. Some rigs will have a secondary flap that runs vertically along the side of the reserve container, and folds into the primary riser cover trough. What your thread is about are called 'slider bumpers'. For metal links (also called rapide links), bumpers are generally some sort of rubber or silicone tubing that is cut just longer than the link itself. All of the lines are threaded through the tubing, then they are attached to the link, then the tubing is pulled down over the link. For soft links, the most common type of bumper are the PD 'hats'. They're fabric construction and look like little pilgrim hats. The widest part of the brim is too wide to fit through the slider grommets. The lines and soft links (or Slinks, if made by PD) thread through the hat to hold it in place, and that's that. Not a big deal, and easy to see how you would call them 'riser covers', because they do end up covering the very top of the riser, but they're called bumpers becasue 'riser cover' was already taken.

Drag reduction is only one part of collapsing a slider, and not the original reason for doing so. When the slider is open, it will flap and create noise, but the real problem is that with every flap the slider grommets are wearing the fingertrap at the bottom of your suspension lines. This premature wear is the original reaon that collapsible sliders were invented, and the reason you want to collapse your slider even if you jump a bigger/slower canopy. Follow the adivce given, and get some bumpers. It will keep your slider up, allow you to collapse it with no problem. Don't worry about drag or letting your risers spread out at this point, it's just not worh the extra trouble. When you start to downsize your canopy and are looking to go faster, then you can think about pulling the slider down behind your head and simply remove the bumpers to do so. There is an exception to the 'don't worry about drag with a big canopy', that being the pilot chute. Do jump a collapsible PC because the drag it produces is directly on the top skin of the canopy and will deform the wing. The action needed to use a collapsible PC is on the ground during the packing, so it doesn't add to your workload under canopy. Truth be told, the drag from a collpased slider up above the links vs down behind your head is probably similar to wearing a baggy jumpsuit vs a tight fitting one. Anyone who tells you that you 'need' to pull your collapsed slider down had best be jumping only in a skin tight suit, or they're giving up just as much 'performance' as you are by leaving your slider up.

Much like your view points on swooping are limited in their scope, so are your viewpoints on coaching. Do you really think that in your short time in the sport you've had sufficient exposure to much of anything to make such sweeping generalizations? In terms of the coaching you recieved, how exactly did you vet these coaches before you hired them? You want to compare to AFF, great, what I see here is anytime someone posts that they're thinking about starting AFF, we suggest they go to all the local DZs, watch the operations, talk to the staff about their programs, etc, and then compare all those factors before picking a DZ. Did you follow that protocol? Furthermore, we all know there are good DZs, and bad DZs. Some places don't mainatin their aircraft, don't use updated student gear, don't use rated instructors, or will jump students in wind conditions beyond USPA limits. With that in mind, how would you view a student who has only jumped at one location, and it macthed that description, who then went on to call all DZs unsafe and unprofessional? I would say that student was making a judgement with a limited scope of experience, and that they should consider expanding that before making such a sweeping judgement, just like I'm reccomending to you. Keep in mind this thread was started by a guy with many times your experience who was so impressed with his experience hiring a coach that he felt the need to post about it, to the point of self-deprecation.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, in terms of the above, or really anything you wrote in your rediculous post. Check your history books? OK, let's. The people who 'invented' swooping did it with 90 toggle whips on 190 and 200 sq ft F-111 canopies, with very little dive, low overall speed, and not a ton of 'swoop' to speak of. The next step was Z-po canopies, where the big advancement was in WL, but not technique. Even then, those canopies had little dive compared to today's wings, and the range of WL people were jumping was MUCH lower than today. Even when canopy designers wanted to go 'high performance', they first went to high aspect ratios for quick turns and shallow trim angles for long glides. The end result was not much more dive, and not much more WL. Once X-bracing hit the z-po canopies, things changed. WL started to rise, and people caught on that lower aspect ratios could get you longer dives and higher speeds. They also found that steeper trim angles would do the same. This is when 'modern' swooping was born, with big multi-rotation turns and the refined techinques we know today. The people who pioneered swooping were present though all (or most) of those phases, and learned step-by-step, to get to where they are today. It was not a case of coming into the situation as it currently exists and just 'figuring it out'. If you want to jump for 10 or 15 years, and work your way up to the status quo, then by all means foget about a coach. If you want to come in off the street, and get right into swooping as it currently exists, you should be looking for some help. Based on the other crap you wrote, you should really be looking for some help. Professional help.

The only pressure would be from yourself, and your desire to jump or be included on a jump. It's not that others will push you into something you're not ready for, it's usually the jumper improperly estimating their skills and ability. Take weather for example, at what point do you stand down? How much wind is too much? You can't stay within student wind limits forever, so sooner or later you're going to decide that you're ready to jump in conditions with higher wind speeds, but how high? What about when you decide you can handle the winds as they present themselves at the time you take-off, but they kick up another 10% during the climb to altitude? Or maybe the gusts that were blowing from 12mph up to 15mph have increased, and by the time you're under canopy are gusting from 12 to 18? You can't just stop the jump, once you leave the plane, you're going to land, one way or the other. In terms of jumping with others, you cannot always account for anothers jumpers performance throughout the entire jump. You might have several 'good' jumps with a guy, and then he makes a critical mistake on the next jump. Barring that, did you notice the other jumpers on the plane with you? Even if you're doing a solo. one of them could skip a gear check and have their canopy come out while they are in the door of the plane, which can result in it wrapping around the tail. It's taken entire planes down in the past, and even though you weren't jumping with the guy, you still have to ride in the plane with him, Or how about if you do a solo, and the jumper who goes before or after you manages to drift into your airspace. We try to leave enough time between jumpers so everyone has their own space, but shit happens. How can you do anything if that guy comes freefalling through your canopy right after you open? Beyond all that, you might open a good canopy and be 90% of the way to a safe landing, and then have another jumper run into you with their open canopy. This usually results in both canopies becoming tangled, and spinning to the ground. I'm not tyring to scare you, just tyring to educate you. You can do things to mitigate these types of dnagers, but it takes thought, effort, and dedication to learning and educating others.

If you jump modern equipment (less than 10 years old), selected with your experience in mind, and keep it properly maintained, the equipment side of safety is going to be the least of your worries. The other side of safety is the choices you make as far as where, when, and with whom you choose to jump. You can negate the safest rig choice by taking in on the wrong jump, in the wrong conditions, and with the wrong people. A rig, when packed, assembled, and maintained properly, is a highly reliable system, and can provide years of trouble free operation. Other jumpers, the weather, and your own actions, however, are far less reliable. Equipment choices are easy - buy modern stuff and choose main and reserve canopies that are sized for someone of your weight and skydiving experience, and that end of it will be fine. The tougher task is learning to make good choices outside of what equipment you jump, and then sticking to those choices.

Overall, in terms of your performance, consult your instructors. I'm sure there was a debrief, and go with what they told you. It's common to feel like you're going left-side low on an AFF exit, but it's just due to how the 3-person formation comes out of the door. You probably didn't go left-side low, you probably turned to the left, and if you were looking up at the plane it felt left-side low. Again, no problem unless your instructos said so. Kicking = common. Not right, but common, Not a big deal, but not really helping either. On to your instructors, dump that Robert guy like a bad habit. OK, maybe not like that, but you should jump with a variety of instructors during your training. You have one jump with one instructor, how do you know that others might not be better, or simply have a different point of view to bring to your training. There's a lot to learn in skydiving, and it's a benefit to you to learn from a wide variety of people. Perris is a good shcool, and I'm sure all of their people are top notch, but they're still individuals with unique qualities to bring to the table.

I think what I wrote is being taken the wrong way, and I really didn't see it as being ambiguous. The OP moved in the middle of his training. He's not travelling, or taking a trip, his residence switched from the west coast to the east coast. Changing DZs in the middle of his training is his reality. The OP offered that he was willing to travel up or down the east coast to seek the 'best' place to complete his training, to which I replied that he should probably not travel to train, he should look at local DZs for what will potentially become his home DZ once licensed, and train there. It removes the pressure from time and money spent traveling from the training, and it allows him to make personal connections with the instructional staff where he will be jumping. On the subject of jumping with different instructors, the OP seemed to think it was odd that it was always someone different, and what I pointed out is that jumping with different instructors allows you the benefit of different points of view and different teaching styles. However, on that same note, I did state that consistancy in the training methods is key. All instructors at a DZ need to use the same dive flows, EPs, hand signals, etc, to allow for consistancy of training. Here's an example - I recall being a freefall student on one of (maybe my first) freefall training jumps (I started with SL, and then moved to a modified AFF type program). In the aircraft, one of the instructors went over the dive flow with me at about 6k ft, and once that was complete, he suggested I relax and for a minute, and think about, 'Beer and tits, and whatever else you're into'. To a 19 year old kid, nervous as all hell, this was the right thing to say. It broke the tension, got me to relax, and got the point across. Since that time, I have seen many nervous 19 year old males on the way to altitude, but have seen very few instructors give the same advice I recieved. Had I been with another instructor that day, maybe I wouldn't have gotten that advice, and subsequently never settled my nervous or was able to perform on the jump (I did pass that jump). If you only jump with one instructor through all your training, you have no idea what else is out there. Maybe your first instructor brings some 'good' out of you, but the guy two seats down the bench jumping with another student might be able to bring the 'great' out of you.

And you would be incorrect in your thinking. There's a difference between strenghts and weaknesses and consistancy in a program. Every member of a DZ staff should be working off of a standard program where all the dives are taught with the same flows and the same procedures from all instructors. This is essential for the very reason you stated, so as not to confuse the students. However, that's not related to the teaching styles or personalities of different instructors. What do you like, funny or serious? What do you respond to, casual and easy-going or more business-like? Who are you more open to take instruction from, a man or a woman? An older person or a younger person? Do you learn visually or more through spoken word? Every instructor will have some of the above qualities and lack others, and what works 'best' is dependant on the student and what they respond to. In addition to the factors I already mentioned, the more people you work with, the more 'eyes' there are on your training. If one instructor miises a clue that you don't really 'get' one aspect or another, the next instructor might be more in-tune to your understaning (or mis-understanding) of one concept or another. I could teach you everything you need to know to get your A license, but then you'll only know what I told you and how I told you to do it. Another instructor may have a different take on things, and that take might 'click' better in your brain, but if you stick with me through your entire program, you'll never find that out. Keep in mind that 90% of the time he first instructor you're paired up with is solely dependent on who's available when you're ready to jump. Billy is doing a tandem, Susie is shooting a video, but Jimmy isn't doing anything on the next load, so Jimmy is your AFF I. Nobody is thinking about teaching styles, learning styles or personality matches, it's just a crap shoot as to who you get. To suggest that you got the best person for the job the frist time out seems unlikely. (An exception to that is very large or very small students, then they're paired up with instructors who match their expected fall rate. It might not be a good idea to put a 200+lb AFF I with a 97lb student, it would be a smarter move to look for a lighter AFF I for that jump).

Good. Everyone has strong points and weak points, so if you learn from one instructor, yours will match theirs. Jump with a variety of instructors and you'll pick up something different from each one. Look for DZs close to home, for several reasons. One of them being that traveling to get your license brings in pressure to get it done while you're there. If you get a couple weather days, or struggle on a jump or two, you start to fall behind schedule and than you have that pressure on your mind. If you jump close to home, you can go home if you hit a snag and retrun the next day or weekend for nothing more than the price of gas. Another thought is that it's good to make some 'friends' at the place you'll be spending most of your time once you have a licesne. By bringing your business to the DZ, you'll get to know the staff and then when you inevitably need help or advice after you have your licesne, they'll be there for you. Instead of being the unknown 'new guy' looking for help, you're 'Bill, who did all his training here, looking for help'. See what the local DZs look like. Maybe take a drive to each of them on a jump day and see what the operations look like. Talk to the staff about continuing your training and ask about their program, pricing, and where you would start off with your previous experience.

Just a quick head's up to anyone nearby, the Skyvan is going to be stopping by Aerohio for a few days this coming weekend and next week. We'll be jumping Friday, Sat, Sun, taking Monday and Tues Morning off, and then back at it Tues afternoon and all day Wed. Check here for details - http://www.facebook.com/#!/AerOhio, even though it looks like they haven't updated to include the dates during next week. Should be a fun time, somebody will be organizing RW and freefly, we've got some skyballs, wingsuits, maybe some tracking, and about 6000 GoPros to get it all up on facebook ASAP.

Your profile indicates a Spectre 210 loaded at 1.0. If you correctly calculated your exit weight to include 25 lbs of gear, that puts you at 185lbs body weight. Unless you're 6' 1" or taller, you're probably just too heavy for a suit that's 'mostly spandex'. Go with your original plan and call Flite Suit. I jump their stuff, and they still build a solid suit that will last you 1000+ jumps. Shoot for a slower fall rate, and then you can either just arch harder when you need to, or if it proves to be way too slow, it's easy enough for a rigger to pinch off some of the baggy material and stich it down to speed the suit up. Slowing down a fast suit requires adding material, and is exponentially harder.

My vote has always been for canopy control courses that coincide with the licensing program. Each time you want to earn a license, there's a matching canopy control course to go along with it. The idea would be that the skills and concepts would advance with each course, so by the time you're going for an expert license, you're taking an expert canopy control course. Of course, to go along with that, there would need to be WL restrictions that would work off of jump numbers and licenses. There would be an allowable downsize with each 100 jumps, and once you reach the min number of jumps for a certain license, you're limited to that WL unitl you get that license (and in-turn take the canopy control course). So if you reach 200 jumps, but never go for your C license (or take the CC course), you're stuck at the allowable WL for someone with 200 jumps. What the WL program does is ensures that jumpers will stay on canopies within their skill set, even if they decide not to persue additional canopy training. If you think your canopy control training you recieved with your A licesne is 'good enough', so be it. In that case, an A licesne type canopy is 'good enough' for you. Take a look at any post about a jumper who attended a formal canopy control course. Each and every one of them remark on how much they learned, and how much their flying imrpoved. These were all licensed jumpers who presumably spent time at DZs, where the 'informal' process is in place, yet they all report on picking up tons of new information or skills during a formal course.

That's a terrible way to choose what device you connect to a knife wrapped around your reserve closing loop. Here's a thought, ever heard of winter? According to your profile, of course you have, you live in Oregon. So what you do is send your Cypres in for service during a time when you're not going to be jumping it. Winter would be one of those times, mid-June, not so much.

Come jump the Skyvan at Aero this Friday, Sat, Sun, and then Tues-Wed of next week. All the cool kids will be there, and we're all going to laugh at you if you don't show up. Actually, we'll laugh at you if you do show up, but at least you'll know why we're laughing at you.

Which is why it would need to be more than just pushing a button. If you have to puch a button, then gournd the AC and call MX to come in and re-set the 'easy' button, then go through a review with upper management where you explain to them why you pushed the button, pilots are going to be far less likely to push the botton unless they really need it. That's why I likened it to declaring an emergency. It's a big pain in the ass for a ton of people when a pilot declares an emergency (we're talking airlines here). Every single time an emergency was declared, it wasn't declared at the first hint of a problem, it was after the pilots checked the book, called HQ for a work-around or solution, and then figured out they need to declare an emergency. The 'easy' button would be the same. Always there, always available, but a last resort.

No, that's different. What I described was a system where the pilots would have to enable the switch from automation to full manual. That step is critical in that is ensures the pilots know the current configuration of the AC. If the automation shuts itself off, even with a light or chime to indicate the switch, there's no guarantee that the pilots will pick up on that. You have to figure that the shit is hitting the fan is the computers give up, so there's a chance that the pilots might not see the indication of the change. If the pilot has to take action to make it happen, there's no chance that they'll be uninformed.

True. There are times where human error is more like human ommision, in that the pilot is not aware of a situation and the computer intervenes before it becomes an 'incident'. However, that automation should also have an 'easy' button that will over-ride the automation a return traditional stick and rudder control to the pilot. The catch is that the pilot has to push the button, meaning that the pilot is aware of the circumstances, and for one reason or another needs a different action then the computer is trying to provide. It wouldn't be tough to make the 'easy' button both literally and figurativly hard to push. Literally, simple filp-up button guard with a twist of safety wire would prevent accidental pushing of the button. Figuratively, make pushing the button the equivalant of declaring an emergency. Not as far as the FAA is concerned, but in terms of the company's internal processes. If you hit the 'easy' button, be ready to explain yourself and the circumstances to your bosses and fill out a stack of paperwork.