davelepka

Yes. Have the Tony Suit altered to fit you better, and buy a freefly suit. Now you have correct fitting suits for different types of dives. When you have your Tony Suit altered, be sure that you are wearing your rig with the leg straps tightened when you get measured for the alterations. It makes a huge difference when setting the length of booties.

There's nothing healthy about Spam. Edit - I was just guessing when I posted, but it seems I'm right - http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1472/2

FYI, Lodi is 400 miles from Elsinore. California is a big place. If you figure 7 hours drive time, it's 14 hours round trip. If you figure on 13 galons of gas each way, that's 26 galons at a cost of about $125. Perris, on the other hand, is 20 min from Elsinore and you could probably bum a ride from any one of the many jumpers who drive back and forth between Elsinore and Perris everyday.

Whatever you want to call it, the reason that a medical is required at any level is because there is a passenger involved. No other jumper or instructor is required to have a medical, but a TI is directly repsonsible for the delivery of the student to the ground, and is therefore required to have a medical. Why a thrid class only? My guess is that because it's limited to one passenger (in the US), and the limited scope of a tandem parachute system. Let's keep in mind the original intent of the FAA was to protect the non-flying public from the aviation community. I don't think it's unreasonable to view a tandem parachute system as less of a risk to the non-flying public than a powered aircraft, so the lower medical requirements fit the bill. Passenger or student, the purpose of the medical is to protect the paying non-slydiver and the non-flying public.

You just answered your own question, but between you, me, and the wall, I think the line is when you offer your services as a professional to the general public. A PPL who only flies solo, or with friends and family, there is a chance that those passengers are aware of the pilots situation, and even if they are not they are aware that they are flying with a non-professional, private pilot. The argument could be made that the PPL might be endangering people on the ground, but given the number of airplane crashes that involve fatalities or injuries to people on the ground, I put that level of risk about the same as being involved in a car crash. When you get into offering your services as a 'professional' pilot, you cross the line. People are putting their lives in your hands based on the safety of the system in place in the US, and part of that system is the FAA flight medicals. Like it or not, a TI is essentially the same as a commercial pilot in that they are transporting the general public in exchange for revenue.

I think there's a difference to smoking pot at some time in your past, and currently being on a daily dose of a perscribed anti-depressant. I think there's also a difference between a PPL who may or may not be flying with passengers, and a TI who is providing a service to the general public who are under the assumption that all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure their safety. Would you apporove of this for a commercial pilot flying revenue passengers for a living? That's essentially what a TI is, they just fly them one at a time.

Bigways don't generally involve a 'ton' of jumps. It takes time to organize and dirt dive 100's of people, and they generally only make a couple jumps per day. The rest of the day there are 5 or 6 (or 10) turbines just hanging around to fly all the fun jumpers. You can always bum a ride over the hill (20 min) to Elsinore anytime Perris gets too busy.

As mentioned many times before, those numbers reflect fatalities only. A jumper can be paralyzed in an incident, but it wouldn't appear in any existing statistics. Ditto for less severe injuries. Furthermore, I would suggest that the majority of 'highly' active jumpers would be D licensed anyway, so that group has a greater exposure to an incident. I would also suggest that D licensed jumpers generally jump faster canopies than other license groups. Additionally, I would think that that among swoopers, the majority of them would be D license holders. The end result is the greatest exposure at the highest levels of risk for D license jumpers. It only stands to reason they would top out the list. I've already 'given up' on the current crop of jumpers. Whatever will happen with them will happen. The sooner we institute some kind of change, the sooner all the new jumpers will move through the system and begin to shift the situation. If it takes 5 years, that's not the end of the world considering that this problem is 10+ years old. Given the scope and longesvity of the situation, it's going to take time to shift the tides. The thing is, I suggested these same things 7 or 8 years ago. If action had been taken then, we would be well past the couple years it would take to see results and we would be better off. Just because it won't provide an instantanious result doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. Overall, the two main ideas floating around out there are required continuing education and WL limitations. Both are currently in practice in other countries, with some of them combining the two and utilizing both. The way I see it, neither one of them is going to do any harm, so the only way to make sure we make the right choice (if there is a singular right choice) is to simply choose both, and implement both ideas concurrently.

There's a chance he had 750 jumps and 4 years in the sport when he registered in 2005. With only 2 posts in the last 7 years, I can't imagine he updated his profile since day one. I'm guessing he's made a few more jumps since 2005.

Just a quick PSA for those who don't know - Discount certificates from manufacturers have become the de facto boogie door prize, and they are happily accepted by all. However, there are some jumpers who turn around and try to sell said certificates, which is their right (provided the certificate is transferable). The thing to keep in mind for anyone considering purcahsing such a certificate is the exact nature of the deal. Most every certificate is for a discount of some sort, let's say $300, off of the retail price of the item. The trick is that in the skydiving gear industry, nodoby pays reatil for anything, as all dealers offer a discount off of the retail price. This isn't a discount for friends or people with 'connections', it's just the way the industry works (friends and 'connections' do get a bigger discount). So that '$300' off certificate might only save you $50 or $100 of the discounted price of the item. If the winner of such a certificate tries to sell it for $200, claiming you'll still save $100 off of your purchase, that's incorrect, and a good way for a guy to lose $100 or $150 on the deal. What to do? It's simple do your due dilligence. Get a photo of the certificate in question large enough that you can read all of the fine print. If the certifiacte is indeed tranferrable, then you need to call a dealer or two, and ask them for a quote on the piece of equipment in question and ask them the actual savings the certifiacte will provide. For many of you, this is old info and almost 'common sense' but for some of the newbies looking to buy new gear, the idea of saving a couple hundred bucks can be very attractive, but I just want to make sure they know the 'real deal' and can be informed consumers. Caveat emptor.

Your anonymity, or others reluctance to post are probably due to the fact that lying or omitting info on an FAA medical form is a federal crime with potentially severe consequences. Funny story, I did a quick google search to see just what the consequences would be, and I happened upon this article - http://www.iflyamerica.org/truth_or_dare.asp - which has an example of a pilot on an anti-depressant who thinks that it's OK to omit that from his meical form becasue he thinks it makes him a safer pilot. Sounds familiar, no?

Any reason you want to do this in Florida? In July? The weather will be ride-able all over the US in June and July, so why not take it in your home state where you will be licensed?

Technically none. How many instructors will stand there and watch the jumpers actually perform the required skills? The at-altitude skills are almost impossible to watch, and I just don't think that many go out of their way to watch the low altitude stuff. "Did you do some stalls and flat turns up there?" "Sure, I did them all" Even in the case the student is honest about their performance, there's no guidelines for how to teach the manuvers. Simply describing the mechanical motions required is not teaching nearly enough. Jumpers need to understand why the canopy responds to inputs the way it does, and more importantly, how to apply the manuvers in the real world and use them to their advantange. It's like teaching a kid to parallel park in an empty parking lot without the use of cones or painted lines. You can show them the combination of backing up and cutting the wheel to and fro, and even get them to do it a couple times. However, just becasue they know how to get a car to side-step in reverse doesn't mean they know how to parallel park. You need to set up cones or lines for them to work within so they can accurately park the vehicle, and then take them on the road to try it in a real situation. Is including this stuff on the proficiency cards progress? Sure it is, however, there's something to be said for developing a complete program all at once, as opposed to introducing things peicemeal and hoping they all fit together in the end. I just can't understand why we can't get any action in this area that matches the magnitude of the problem. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. A very cheap, plastic butter knife to a gunfight.

Have you ever questioned the pull altitude BSR? I don't mean the exact numbers of the BSR, but the idea of a pull altitude BSR in general? I'm guessing no, as it seems like a pretty good and reasonable idea. Well, you and me both entered skydiving post pull-altitude BSR, and both of us knew from day one that the BSR was in place and that's the way it was. When it was introduced, there were plenty of jumpers who thought it was bullshit, and they didn't need no 'stinkin' BSR. Just like you and I accepted the BSR, so will new jumpers accept the WL and canopy control course BSR. Another example, when I learned to jump, AFF was 7 jumps and you were done. You could do anything you wanted on jump 8, solo or otherwise. Once you hit 20 jumps, you could get your A licesne. Now it's a different story, with much more time, money and work involved, but when was the last time you heard a student balk at that? They're told from day one what's involved, and they go along with it.

I hear what you're saying about the 'backwards' training system we have, but the problem is that it is what we have. Much like the modern and HP canopies that we're trying to learn to deal with, such is the freefall based training we have. The cat is already out of the bag, and it's what the masses want, so we need to learn to deal with it. There's no reason that quality canopy contol and freefall based training have to be mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to simply shift the focus of portions of the training to meet the goals you're after. The FJC, for example, I think is fine as it sits. Let's face it, people want to freefall and people expect instant gratification, so being able to offer that is a draw. Given the level of oversight between student wind limits, student rigs, radios and multiple instructors, I don't see any shortcomings with the FJC. It's very 'babysitting' intensive, and that's why anyone and their brother can make an AFF lv. 1 jump. Given the massive amount of info presented to a FJC student, it's best not to add to it. What should be done, however, is for jump 2 or 3, start to shift the focus to canopy control/aerodynamics/theory. If the FJC is 8 hours, I don't see any reason that the prep for jump 2 could be a 2 or 3 hour ground school on canopy flight. Students would know the freefall stuff, have experienced a freefall, and get to freefall on all their subsequent jumps, but the main learning points would occur after opening, not before. It gives the students what they want, a fun freefall, and provides them what they need, knowledge and skills in the area of canopy control. What would I say to student pilot who wants to do aerobatics? Well, if I had a 150 Aerobat, or some other plane rating for aerobatics that was also suitable for student training, I'd say, 'Great, first get us off the ground and out to the practice area. We'll work on some level turns and slow flight, and then we'll do a couple rolls and a spin just for kicks, and then you have to navigate us back home for a couple of touch and gos, and than a full stop'. There's no reason you can't give the student what they want and what they need at the same time. The obvious benefit is training the students properly, the secondary benefit is that students right from the start get the impression that canopy control is important, worthwhile, and a 'legitimate' part of skydiving. I think it's a sound plan, but it's an easy 5 years from happening, and that would only be if the USPA went to work on it tomorow. As it sits, you have to get the idea on the table and then accepted, only then will they start the process of rebuilding the training system. What do we do now? This is where I come back to my idea of taking existing 'technology' and applying it to the situation. WL charts already exist and are in use all over the world, let's put one together and make it a part of skydiving in the US. Canopy control courses already exist, let's take the sum of all the info presetned, and chop into 4 equal parts, and then use those parts to create 4 seperate canopy control courses and tie them to the licensing system we already have. My plan requires the 'creation' of almost nothing, just the 'adjusting' of existing concepts, and could be put to use in short order. There's no reason not to implement a basic program like I'm suggesting, while at the same time devloping a more comprehensive revamp of the whole system, but in the end, I think the days of doing nothing are (or should be) long past. I know I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I finally got around to leafing though the March Parachutist. I found it intertesring to read Ed Scott's 'Gearing Up' where he summarized 2011, and highlighted some of the USPA's accomplishments during that time. All of the money they made, spent or saved was neat, and good to hear. Any success in keeping DZs on (or from getting on) airports is a benefit to all of us. These things are useless when comapred to giving some attention to the problem with open canopy incidents: -Providing an online training resource? DZs should be training students, and the UPSA shouldn't be in the business of providing online training. You want to jump? Go to a DZ and pay them to train you, that's what they're there for. -Increased media coverage of anything skydiving realted? Again, we have internal problems to deal that should come well before worrying about media coverage. For what it's worth, I can't say I noticed any sort of increase in media presnece. -Sisters in Skydiving? Come on girls, make your own friends, again, USPA has bigger fish to fry. The list goes on, and as much as I'd like to shoot down all the other points, I'm just sick of typing. I'll sum it up by saying the rest is bullshit too when compared to dealing with open canopy incidents to some sort of significant degree. I do have a point in bringing 'Gearing Up' to the conversation, and it's this - Ed does mention that the USPA issued 5,944 licenses last year. Each one of those licensed was an oppotunity lost to make skydiving better overall. If each one of those license had a canopy control course required to go along with it, imagine the increase in the collective knowledge. He also states that 5.959 new skydivers joined the USPA in 2011, again that's 5,959 chances we missed to bring jumpers into the sport where canopy control has some 'teeth' and is taken serisouly by all involved. If from day one you understand that there are limits as to what you can fly, and that you need continuing education in canopy control to progress in the sport, it makes the impression that it's important and worthwhile. Likewise, when you start jumping and find there is no guidelines or requirements ongoing in that area, it makes the opposite impression. 2011 = 5.959 opposite impressions. Good work Ed.

Just to be clear, B Germain's WL chart, which many use as an example of how to structure these things does include adjustments for DZ/density altitude and for lighter weight jumpers who might otherwise end up on 120 or 135sq ft canopies right after student status. It was recognized, considered, and accounted for. Funny thing is, about your position on this, is that you always come back to education and then make the comparison to private-pilot level aerodynamics. At the same time, you resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications, even though that's the example set by general aviation. You need specialized training and instruction to be involved in the more complex areas of general aviation, both in terms of equipment and it's use. Some of those areas don't have a minimum experience required, and some do, however, the ones that don't are designed as such that it takes a fair measure of skill to achieve them, so the experience 'requirement' is built-in. If learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that. On top of that, you lose the ability to provide dual instruction on a canopy like you could in an aircraft. To sum it up, with extensive classroom and book study to go along with actual dual training, general aviation still sees fit to structure the movement of a pilot up the ladder of performance and complexity. With a MUCH lower level of classroom and book training, and no dual instruction possible, you still think that education is the only thing we need? Not education and structure for the advancement of pilots?

Research should have been done already. The problem is that nobody is collecting data to do the research with. So what do we do? Start collecting data on all injury-causing incidents, and do this for several years in order to come up with a reasonable amount of data? Fine, let's do that, and in the meantime let's start using a WL chart and requiring canopy control courses to along with each license level. If a few years go by, and the data we collect shows us that the WL chart and education were not helping (or not helping enough) and there is a better way, then by all means let's switch to that. I just don't think that continuing to do nothing should remain a choice. Sure we do, it's every other country that currently uses a WL chart and has lower rates of open canopy incidents. I'm not suggesting anything that hasn't proven itself elsewhere. WL charts are successfully being used abroad, and canopy control courses are held worldwide, and everybody seems to agree they're beneficial. In the absence of any other ideas, why not implement this as an alternative to doing nothing, even if it's just an interim measure while a more comprehensive plan is devised? What's the harm?

At one time, the FAA had some pretty solid resaons to disagree with you. Seeing as all of those reasons were not related to the outward appearance of the aircraft, what leads you to believe that any of the problems have been taken care of? Let's remember that another one of the DZOs aircraft was downed due to skipping a simple required inspection on a fuel pump. However, it appears that he didn't learn anything from that incident, becasue at a later date he also allowed his Otter to fly without the required inspection of the wing attachment bulkheads. You could argue that the failed engine in the King Air didn't bring the plane down, and that it was the pilots mis-managment of the engine failure, but that doesn't change the fact that the skipped inspection was a huge factor, and that the DZO continued to skip inspections after the incident. What sort of pilot action would save an Otter if there was a failure of the wing attachment bulkhead? In my book, the DZO has lost all credibility, and unless he's willing to bring in an impartial inspector for his 100hr inspections, any in-house MX work 'claimed' to be completed will forever be suspect.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Education has to go hand in hand with this type of thing, or it's useless. However, jump numbers do absolutely define the number of times the jumpers has landed a canopy, and experience is a huge part of saving your ass when it needs saving. I agree. I'm just suggesting that it takes a minimum of 100 jumps to 'master' anything on a new, smaller canopy, so that's the minimum interval between downsizes. The concept is sound in that if you are jumping at an advanced rate, you'll blow through 100 jumps in a month and be able to downsize just as quick. Your currency will be your advantage. Likewise, if you're not jumping at an advanced rate, you don't need to be downsizing that quick anyway. The idea of a simple chart to follow for all jumpers is the way to go. If you try to cock it up with exceptions and test-outs, the whole program becoems complicated and cumbersome. It's clear that most people think they're an expection, and so everyone and their brother would be trying to test out of everything, and now you have the problem of adminsitering and tracking all of that business.

What a waste of time and money. The FJC instructor could spend more time with actual students and ditto for the AFFIs who will be jumping with you. Ever notice how busy those guys get near the end of the day, as-in, when the FJC students are ready to jump? Not to mention, you're the only one in on the 'joke', the AFFIs are going to treat you like a real student right through to pull time. What are you going to do, explain your credentials to them after they catch you in freefall? It sounds like a fine way to waste peoples time, and not make a good impression on people and staff at a new DZ.

Have a look at the real thing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUhnfcm8JTw Note the articulatuion of the wing, and the way it retracts for minimum drag on the forward stroke, and then opens up and extends for maximum thrust on the back stroke. Note the active tail, and the way it counters the action of the wing, opening up to bracce against the thrust stroke, and closing down during the retracting stroke. Wasn't there one of those TED talks recently where a group of scientists actually managed to produce a radio controlled, flying mechanical bird? Look up that video and see the genius it took to build a model that could mimic a brids flight, and robotic, herky jerky movement they achieved, but were still revered for due to the massive techincal difficulty. If the 'flying man' is real, let's see him on the Today show, then I'll buy it.

Thanks for the link. After seeing better picutres of the wings, and the joke of a harness he claims will hang him securely under those flapping wings (gee, anyone here have any experience in fitting a harness made to hang a human prone under something???) I'm even more sure it's fake. I just watched three giant hamsters dressed in hip hop clothes doing a coreographed dance routine to some club music on TV. They were selling a Kia Soul automobile. Think that's real? Did Kia breed, dress and teach those rats to dance?

How about the lack of control surfaces on the wings? Are we to believe that they're articulated to flex like a birds wing? How about the lack of a tail surface? How do you control the wing without another flight surface to counteract it? How about the lack of any sort of flare on the landing? Even brids flare. Why is it that he has a 'take off roll' like a plane? The plane takes time to build up to flying speed, you mean to tell me that with foot power alone, that guy is accelerating that whole time he's running? With that rediculous wing on his back? Shit, even the Wright brothers knew to find a hill or slope, and use it for the first flights. This guy wants us to believe that flight A-1 of his wings were on level ground in a city park? What if it was an enormous success, why wouldn't he want to be in a more open area to allow him to really 'spread his wings'? The answer to every question is the same, it's because the video is bullshit.

In the OP, you wrote that the ad said '200 jumps, I bought the canopy new'. Given what PD is reporting, there's no way it has 200 jumps. I would stick to your original request of a bigger refund, even if he has to make payments. He says he bought it new? Ask for the name of the dealer he got it from to prove it. I don't think he can because there's no way he did. Better yet, ask PD which dealer sold the canopy originally and when, bet it doesn't match the sellers story. Imagine what would happen to PD if canopies went that far out of trim in 200 jumps. Nobody would ever buy their stuff because they couldn't afford to keep them in trim, and the service dept would be backed up for over a year.

I vote for 'no'. It looks fake.