davelepka

While that might be true, a picture of a drouge is of no interest to anyone but another jumper. 60 seconds of tight face shots might no be the way to go, but keeping the tandem pair the center of attention ceratinly is. In any case, the attached pic of the drouge is downright dangerous, and not a place any camera flyer should be at any point during the jump.

Keep in mind that putting your arms upawrds after your PC toss can create problems in the case of a PC hesitation or PC in tow. If the PC doesn't catch air immediately, or tows for some reason, now you're in freefall with your arms up and that can put you head-low. If the PC catches air, or the tow clears while you're head low, that's going to suck. It can lead to a harder opening, or just more 'whipping' action when the canopy sits you upright. A better thought is to return to your regular freefall body position, and wait to see what happens. If the deployment begins as normal, then you can move to grab the risers if you wish. However, other problems can arise, like getting your hands/figners stuck in the case of line twists, accidentally unstowing one brake, and I'm fairly certain I broke my pinky once when it got hit with the risers. My suggesttion would be to stay 'hands off' until the slider is most of the way down, just to avoid complications until you have your own rig, and 20-some jumps on the system. By that time, you'll begin to get used to the 'normal' opening sequence for that rig/canopy, and will know better what you should, or should not, be doing during the deployment. While jumping new-to-you gear or student/rental rigs, play it safe and let the canopy do it's thing without your 'help'.

I'm sure it's a natural resonse, and case in point, the OP describes exactly that scenario occurred, as he wrote in the OP- Does that not describe a discussion, an appeal for another jump, and the final decision of the DZO/staff? I think it does, but the guy continues with his post, and then suggests the following- As far as I can tell (or nay of us really, because the guy is short on details), he recieved the very treatment he's advocating for, it's just that his 'appeal' ended with the same result, that he was not going to jump at that DZ anymore. What the fuck more does he want? Should the DZ hire an independent, thrid-party mediator to come in and settle the issue? You can point the finger at me for being harsh, and likewise I could point it right back at you for being soft. Given the info we have, it appears that he was treated fairly, and given the time and consideration of several senior staff members. His beef seems to be that they stuck to their guns and did give him what he wanted, and in my book that called whinning. The way I see it, the DZ passed up on an eager, willing student with money to spend. Show me the DZ that would do that without good cause, and then maybe I'll side with the student. Given the lack of eager willing, well-funded students out there, I have to think that the experienced, professional skydivers who made the choice that it wasn't a good idea to continue jumping with this student made a good call, and unless the guy can prove otherwise, I'll stand behind my conclusion.

I'd say it's pretty rare. Student jumps all pay the same, pass or fail. It seems to me that skydiving instructors are a fairly competitive bunch, and generally don't like to fail. If one guy can't seem to 'crack' an egg, there are two or three others willing to give it a shot. By the time a guy gets the bowling speech, there has to be something behind it. Case in point, whatever it was that got the OP the speech is bad enough that he's not willing to share it with the rest of us. I'm fairly certain that the only thing the staff at any DZ dislikes more than having to turn a willing student away is seeing a student injured or killed.

It's pretty rare, but not a big deal. The pax is generally not supporting all of their own weight, and even if they are, you can yank your foot out from under theirs with no problem. Every now and again you'll get the TI with their left foot on top of yours, and in those cases I tend to just hang out and leave with them. You can throw the TI off balance or yank their foot right out of the door if you try to slip yours out from under theirs. I leared to shoot video out of a Twin Bonanza, which had no steps or handles, so rear floating the door was just how it was done. Truthfully, when I shoot tandems or AFFs out of a plane with handles and steps, I tend to still just rear float the door because I feel like I'm too far away when I out on the step. For bigger formations or fun jumps I like to use them, but for work jumps I prefer to be 'up close and personal'.

Exactly. If you read the OP, he's lobbying for an 'appeal' process, and what that really means is that he wants his opinion to matter, and in this case it doesn't (and cannot). The simple fact that the staff is considering giving a student 'the talk' means that the student is not performing up to snuff, and as such, certainly is not qualifed to comment on his own skills or performance. Of course the student believes they can make a safe skydive, or they wouldn't be at the DZ hoping to make another jump. Asking them their opinion will solict nothing more than what you would expect, they want to continue jumping. It's funny how the OP was willing to trust the judgment of these instructors to guide him through his first 'x' number of jumps, but once they told him something he didn't want to hear, he wants an 'appeal'. True story - student fails several levels of AFF, something on the order of 10 to 12 horrbile jumps, at which point the student is given the bowling speech and refused any further jumps. During the winter layoff, the student goes to Skydive Arizona signs up for their FJC without mention of any of his previous experience. He makes it through the program at SDA, earns an A license and makes another 20-some jumps. Spring arrives, and he returns to Ohio, license in hand and shows up to the DZ ready to jump. Less then 10 jumps later, he goes low on a 4-way, and pulls at break-off altitude without tracking. The deploying canopy and jumper struck a jumper in freefall, breaking that jumpers arm. The deploying canopy was damaged and the jumper under it was knocked out, left to spiral in under the damamged main. The end result was permanent brain damage, and he was left with the mental capacity of a 5 year old, which I'm sure was just great for his wife and kids. You want an appeal? How about an appeal to common sense, and when a roon full of expert skydivers tell you to take up bowling, they might just be on to something.

Just hook your hand around the back edge of the door, and plant your left foot in the rear corner of the door. You don't need steps or handles for filming tandems, AFF, or even 4 way. They're useful in bigger formations where space in the door is ciritcal, but even then, you can rear float the door and have your body well aft of the door with the only thing taking up space is your foot in the door.

Don't be so desperate, it's unbecoming. Call Skydive PA, in Grove City. It's close to Pittsburgh, and probably where you'll end up jumping anyway. I don't even know what they're flying these days, but it's got a turbine and they fly the snot out of it. They have a couple riggers on staff, and one or two who are exceptional. Call the DZ, and see if you can't arrange for a Friday night or early Sat morning pack job, followed by hanging at the DZ and jumping. I'm pretty sure they can hook you up. They might even have a Skyvan scheduled for a weekend or two later this summer.

Ok, so let's say your seatbelt wasn't properly attached to the door pillar of your car, maybe the factory didn't use a structural bolt and the only thing holding the belt in place is the spring-loaded retractor. It appears to work properly, and you can put it on and take it off with no problems, but in the event of an accident, the belt pulls free from the retraction mechanism and doesn't restrain you in any way. Is the manufacturer at fault? No driver is supposed to get into an accident. You're not supposed to crash into a brick wall to stop your car, you're supposed to use the brakes. The seat belt is a back-up device, and in 'normal' driving serves no purpose other than to wrinkle your shirt. The seat belt would appear to be working properly, and you could fasten and wear it as per the laws in (I think) all 50 states, but when push comes to shove, the seat belt is useless. You don't think the manufacturer, the one who assembled the car (and seat belt system) would hold some responsibility?

There was an appeal, it just didn't involve you. Before a student is given the 'bowling speech', their performance is discussed among the staff, and that's the appeal. It's not one instructor who jumps with you and then unilaterally decides that you're out, it's a group desicion made by the staff as a whole. When nobody steps forward and says they're willing to jump with you, you're done at that DZ. Nobody wants to boot anyone from the sport or DZ, but when you reach a point that none of the staff are comfortable jumping with you, it's time for you to move on. If that means to another sport, or another DZ, that's the best thing for you. The last thing you want to do is force an instructor to jump with you when they don't think it's going to end well, that's not a good position for you or the instructor to be in. It's great that things worked out for you, and you found a DZ where you could be successful in your training. Maybe you found better instructors, or maybe you were really ready to 'turn the corner' just before the other DZ gave you the boot, but if it didn't look 'good' to the staff of that first DZ, not letting you jump there was the right move.

You seem to understand that an AAD is a required component for a student jump, but why can't you understand that the rigger who mis-routed the loop is responsible sending a student up without the required equipment. By succeeding in installing the AAD and control unit, and then failing to properly install the cutter in the container, he created a rig that appeared to be properly equipped, but was functionally not able to meet the requirements of a student rig. Furthermore, when said rigger is also the DZO and well aware that the rig he's working on is a student rig intended for student use, the proper installation of the AAD becomes even more important. As mentioned several times, it's required for student jumps, not optional as when it's installed in a licensed jumpers rig. We tell students it's a back-up device, but we also have an AAD as required equipment for students becasue students are an unproven quantity. Nobody knows how they will react to given situations, or how well they will retain or execute their training. That's why they're students, that's why they have lower wind limits, higher pull altitudes, and increased requirements for the equipment (and supervision) they need to conduct a skydive.

Back off Bill, he has a mentor advising him. In Dale's own words - "I love my mentor, he said bite of more than you can chew and chew like f..k".

My response was to a very new jumper asking about trying to steer the canopy out of line twists. In that case, it's ill advised to apply input to the canopy during the opening. In regards to the contraversy, that was in reference to people simply trying to influence the heading on an otherwise 'normal' opening. Some say steer it, and some say leave it be. As far as collision avoidance goes, yes, you should use whatever you need to avoid a collision. Even if you spin yourself in to unrecoverable line twists, I'd rather see you cutaway from that all by yourself than get into a wrap and have to deal with that along with a 'friend'.

Quick correction - WS ski-BASE has been done, and that's where they jettison the skis to allow for WS flight. Regular ski-BASE will sometimes (all the time?) keep the skis on, and just dump from a stand-up. WS ski-BASe is how Shane was killed.

Bad idea. Possible problem areas are - accidentally garbbing and unstowing a toggle when trying for the rear riser, or, if they are corssed, you might grab and pull the wrong riser. FYI - steering through an opening is a point of contention, as some jumpers say yes, and some jumpers say no. All of them are talking about 'steering' with harness input, no riser or toggle input. As canopy size goes down, the sensitiveity of the harness goes up. Where a student type canopy will barely move with harness input, my canopy will spiral at a good rate with nothing but harness input. So at this point just leave it be. You should be jumping a canopy large enough and opening high enough that even if line twists develop, you can simply kick out of them.

Ski jumping skis are different than downhill skis. They are hinged at the toe so the jumper can lean forward into the wind and not have the skis perpendicular to the wind. Those skis, however, are not suitable for downhill-type skiing, they're prupose built for a ski jump. On top of that, the ski jump ramp provides the initial thrust to toss the jumper away from the slope. So if you remove the ramp, and the purpose built skis, you have some problems. In terms of skiing off a cliff, it's called ski-base, and has been done many times. They use a quick-release type of binding so they can jettison the skis right agter take-off, and the failure of one of those bindings is what lead to the death of Shane McConkey.

What canopies are those? Steerable squares? The thread makes no mention of the size or type of canopy, nor the experience of the jumper. To the contrary, we know that he wasn't doing anything more than a 90 degree turn, as anything bigger then that is banned at Lodi. Even a 220 sq ft canopy is capable of producing a descent rate of 40mph + in a 90 degree turn, and a 40 mph impact is more then enough to produce the type of injuries descirbed in the thread. So what is your point then? We go back to rounds? Squares only 250 sq ft or bigger?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4321215;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

You have it backwards. Openings get harder with deeper brake settings, not shallow. Leaving the brakes unstowed is extremely shallow (actually non-existant), but the effect is the same. For example, one reason worn linesets can cause hard openings is that the steering lines shrink over time, and provide a deeper and deeper setting over time. This is also why pumping the toggles can bring down a stuck slider or open a closed end-cell, the deeper the brakes are held, the more the canopy wants to open. All that aside, let's talk about the fact that you picked up rental rig off a rack (I assume) and it was packed without the brakes being stowed. In this case, the opening was OK, but a side effect of not stowing the brakes is that steering lines extend further into the pack job and can create an increased risk for a line-over. Additionally, it means that as soon as the canopy opens it's flying at full flight, and if you open near another canopy, that's not going to help you avoid a collision. I would enquire about the DZ policies regarding who can, or can not, pack the student/rental equipment, and what their qualifications are. Any packer with a couple weeks worth of experience could easily tell that the tail would be hanging far lower during the pack job, and surmise that the brakes were not stowed. If the DZ is in the habit of allowing the renters to pack for themselves, that's great all except for their last jump on the rig. That pack job needs to be reserved for a staff packer as that pack job will be jumped by someone other than the person who packed it. I say this not based on the 'legality' of it, just based on the concept that when you rent a rig you expect it to be properly assembled, maintained, and packed, and you cannot be assured of that just letting 'anyone' pack it and hang it up on the rack.

I'm voting no. The problems are in the orientation of wingsuiting vs. skiing, and that they're not the same. Think about the angle of attack you need to fly a wingsuit, and then think about what position you would need to be to achieve that angle to the relative wind as you ski down a hill. Add in the drag of the skis once you lift off, and you can see that you would need to far exceed the 'ideal' minnimums wingsuiters achieve in 'perfect' conditions. Presumably if you had a hill that was steeper than the glide ratio of the suit, and some sort of detachable skis that you could lean forward on, you might be able to convert a tpo speed, fall line run into a launch, but that would be skecthy at best and dangerous as shit. You would stand a great chance of taking a head-first tumble down a serisouly steep mountain.

26" all the way. "bite of more than you can chew and chew like f..k."

Right. It's a good idea to make several 'practice' jumps with a new camera suit, all without any cameras, and the first 1 or 2 without any other jumpers. Start with a solo or two, and focus on practice touches and the pull squence in general, then do a couple flying realtive to another jumper who is only there to be your 'target', so you can get the feel of the suit and what it can do, all without the pressure (or risk) of cameras, and with a willing subject who is paying attention to you as you learn (it doesn't hurt for them to have a camera on, just not a camera suit, so you can learn to fly your suit relative to others with no suit).

Your budget, and this rig being appropriate for you are not related. You're pushing several fronts by jumping this rig, those being the higher WL for a new jumper, and the aggresive nature of an eliptical for a new jumper, and that's generally not a good idea. Just for reference, the rule of thumb in downsizing or changing planform (square, semi-eliptical, eliptical, or x-brace) is to change only one at a time. You can go smaller while staying on your same planform, or move laterally to a different planform in the same size you're currently jumping. All of this is denpendent on you being qualifed for the downsize or planform change. For additional reference, some countries have an outright ban on eliptical canopies for anyone with less than 'x' number of jumps. While the exact number varies from country to country, they'll all in the area of 300 to 500 jumps. Offer to buy the rig sans canopy, and shop around for a different wing, or buy the rig as-is, and put the canopy up for sale or trade, and then get something better suited to you. Jumping it as-is is ill advised, and asking for trouble. Edit to add- another option, hit the DZO up for an appropriate loaner canopy for 100 jumps or so if you buy the complete rig. There's a good chance there's an older student canopy sitting around you could use while you work your way up to the Fusion.

How many times since then has a student spun or rolled over and remained laterally within a 15ft circle? A big part of the rollover or spin correction is that first you have to catch the student, and 9 times out of 10, that means first chasing them down, and then fixing their problem.

Exactly, where is the standard of care? If I was walking into a building, and an elderly woman was also approaching, wouldn't you stop and hold the door for her? How about if she was 20 ft behind you, wouldn't you stand there longer to wait for her than you would a young, fit person? I know I would. Ditto for a tandem. When a young, fit pax is looking out the door saying, 'Oh my god, oh my god' or even 'I don't know if I can do this, I don't know if I can do this', maybe then you push on through with the exit and leave the aircraft. If the same student has a hand on the door frame to steady themselves (people aren't used to being strapped to anyone), then you pull their hand in and place it on their harness. When you have an elderly passenger who is repeatedly saying 'No', and physically pushing back from the door frame, you have to recognize that and stand down. Even if you take a go-around and see if they want to reconsider, you simply can't just shove them out of the plane. The fact is that elderly passengers are more likely to suffer injury just based on the reduction of strength and flexibility, and the reduction of bone mass that comes with age. Due to this, their complete cooperation becomes even more critical to making an injury-free jump, and a TI needs to take these things into account. Shit, just bouncing her shin off the door frame could have been eough for a tib-fib fracture, and at that age there's no guarantee that it will ever heal. What will leave a monster bruise on a 25 year old could leave an injury on a 75 year old that will last the rest of their days. Ever see a 75 year old on crutches? Most of them son't have the strength to use crutches, so the lady would have been relegated to a wheelchair for the rest of her days. One lesson I learned a long time ago is that skydiving isn't for everyone.