davelepka

Tracking dives can get 'complicated' when it comes to the planning and execution. The best advice I can give is to ask around the DZ and find out who is a good 'leader guy' and get with them for a couple of one-on-one type practice jumps. Tracking dives aren't always 'tracking', but a toned down version of tracking, with more a medium speed and angle. This allows the jumpers some manuverability, and to 'fly' with the formation. If the tracking dive is moving at 100%, and you're 50ft out of the group, you'll never close the gap and be stuck 50ft out. If the dive is moving at 75%, you can just 'turn it up' to 100% to catch up and close the gap, then settle into the same 75% that everyone else is flying. Anyway, do a couple of one-on-ones to make sure you know what to expect, and that you can maintain control and be able to handle yourself at break off, and then just get on some of the regular tracking dives. The nice thing about tracking dives is that if you're not 'up to speed', you end up getting left behind, which is good because it creates seperation between you and the rest of the group. On an RW jump, if you can't handle yourself, you end up in everyone's way, but not on a tracking dive. In terms of all your other quesitons, all of that stuff will become clear as you get on some tracking dives. You need to be 100% reliable to be able to lead your own tracking dives, so that's still a ways off. If you make a mistake in leading a dive, you run the risk of flying yourself and your group into the regular jumprun and creating a collision hazzard.

Rigth. I love it when people try to equate the skydiving gear industry to the microwave industry, or a fast food. When products are lower cost, mundane, and not all that 'personal', delivery time may play a role in people's purchasing decisions, but when it comes to rigs and canopies, not so much. Maybe one of out 100 rig purchases are time-driven, where the jumper 'has' to have a rig by a certain time, but even then, most manufacturers aren't willing to make a delivery time commitment, so those jumper are still left to take their chances or just buy used. It's not like this backlog or delivery times are a new thing. It's been going on for years, and even a 'good' delivery time for a rig is 2 or 3 months. The way I see it Bill Booth (and the others) are right on the money. They hire and retain good, skilled workers, and keep them busy 5 days a week, all year long.

In this case, having zero skill and experience probably helped both of these jumpers. If Mr Backfly was able to stick the transition, and actually stay in his slot (backflying under his buddy) the main would be been in his buddies face. It is cute how he tries to collapse the reserve slider. It's another example of newbies completely missing the point. Do he really expect to stow the slider? Seeing that he just had an accidental deployment that literally split a canopy in two, is the reserve slider really the first thing on your mind? How about a minunte to shit yourself and think about what just happened? Not a clue, that one. Not even close.

Make up your mind, hoss. Upthread your exact words were - Several posts later, with most of them pointing out areas of concern with your plan, you've changed your tune to- Which one is it? Whatever happens, make sure you explain to this guy that he could lose his license if he let's you jump with non-certified gear (BASE gear is not certified for jumps out of aircraft, unless it's a BASER, and even then you need a tersh reserve to keep it legal). If this guy is commercially rated to fly a helo, he has a shit ton of time and money invested in that license, and I'm sure he doesn't want to risk it over you and your buddies having some fun. Making a helo jump or an off-DZ jump isn't a big deal, for a reasonably informed and experienced skydiver, and at this point, that doesn't sound like you. People can get hurt, killed, sued, and licenses lost based on making mistakes when doing these types of things if you don't know what you're doing, and that is most certainly not awesome.

Back to the FAA business, I'm not sure the BASE rig is going to cut, unless it's TSO'd and has a TSO'd, in-date reserve. Your buddies commercial license (actualyl his whole license) will be on the line if you get caught. It's technically the pilots responsibility to make sure everyone is jumping a legal, in-date rig.

Did you try to sell it locally first? Craigslist is free, and you can repost it every day in a few minutes time to keep it on top of the list. It's local buyers, and you can get cash in hand, or meet them at the bank to make the transfer there. You get the title notarized and they withdraw the cash all at the same time. That's REAL protection. Aside from the scammy-ness of the whole thing, keep in mind you're going to lose a chunk to ebay and a chunk to paypal with this deal. Paypal might also 'hold' the funds until three days after the car is delivered. I'd cancel the auction and avoid ebay or any deal where you have to ship the car.

You're going to have spotters on the ground, right? Spotters who know what to look for, and can find you or your gear in the case of a cutaway? Spotters with cell phones with the numbers for the nearest EMS, and the address of the 'middle of nowhere' so you can get help in case of an incident, right? Spotters with an aircraft radio so they can be in touch with the helo pilot, right? You're going to set up a windsock or windblade on the field, right? Your going to overfly the field and make notes of outs and obstacles that could create turbulence for the given wind conditions, right? It's not impossible, but it's also not that 'easy' to make off field jumps like this. People take for granted a lot of the 'services' provided at a DZ full of experienced jumpers, instructors and jump pilots, but they are there when you need them. If everything goes right, there's no problem. If you have a double mal and go in at 40 or 50 mph, your going to need first aid, and someone on the phone to the right people with the right info NOW. If you have to lie there for 20 min while your buddies land, and then find you and figure out who to call and where to send them, that could be your last 20 min. Just plan ahead, and remember that you're not on a DZ, and everything is up to you.

I'd take that wager based on the idea that 'most' DZs aren't large DZs overflowing with staff. Most DZs are smaller, with less resources to work with, and as such are willing to take anyone they can find who is 'legal', and a rating is a rating. In terms of being paid, I would be very surprised to find a 'majority' of coaches go so far as to pay their own slot. Even if there's not a 'profit' in the deal, their slot will covered and that's a free jump. I addressed that. It's simple, no cameras under 200 jumps, and no cameras with students without 20 camera jumps to your name. Again, I feel that the 100 jump coach is a turd, and you can polish a turd.

I disagree. Even if you make the coach rating requirement 200 jumps, that's still less then half the jumps needed for the next closest rating, that being 500 jumps for a tandem rating. An AFF rating is even further down the road. The idea is that anyone looking to get into instruction of any sort have to realize that this is a long term goal, and they should also realize the benefit of experience to an instructor. Thinking that if you can't hook a jumper into the 'fold' at 100 jumps you've missed the mark just doesn't make sense. Anyone serious about the sport and about instruction in the sport has to accept that 100 jumps is a drop in the bucket, and not a 'deal breaker'. My solution? OK, the ground portion of the coach course can be completed with 100 jumps, and that clears the coach to teach (or assist) the FJC, do reviews with returning students, and help in gearing up students, but no jumping. Those coaches then take an air skills course/test once they have 200 jumps, and they are cleared for the 'normal' privledges of a coach. Jumpers content to wait for 200 jumps can take the existing course as-is, and be immediately cleared to full coach privledges. Guess what, you'll see a SHARP decline in the number of sub-200 jump coach course candidates. I'll come right out and say it, at least half of the coach course candidates care more about the money (or free jumps) and the prestige of being an 'instrucotr', then they care about actual instruction. Take away the idea of being paid to jump, and being able to walk out to the plane with 'their own' student, and you'll see who's really in it to 'teach', and who's not. In reality, because the USPA is never going to go back and admit they were wrong, is to simply make coaches with under 200 jumps fly without video. Beyond that, it wouldn't be a bad idea to require, say, 20 jumps with a camera and licensed jumpers before using one on a coach jump. Up to that point, the DZ either needs to accpet that those coaches cannot provide video, pay or outside video, or simply use a more qualified coach. Isn't this discussion a little absurd anyway? We all seem to agree that 200 jumps is a good benchmark for jumping with a camera, but somehow it's OK for a guy with half that experience to jump with an unlicensed jumper? Let's keep in mind that while you and I may know the limits of the coaches responsibilites and abilities, most students to not. There is no time, that I am aware of, when a student switches to working with coaches that it's explained to them the differences between coaches and instructors, and what they can expect (and not expect) when jumping with a coach. They see coaches as instructors, and have the same expectations from them as they had from their instructors. They expect them to the 'experts', when in reality the coach is far from that. I'm just not sure how a guy we won't trust with a camera is the same guy we trust with a student with 9 jumps to their name.

I'd wouldn't put it on the list for a 10th jump ground school. There's too much 'detail', too many 'what ifs' involved in letting a broken steering line stand, and just rear risering it. However, I would certainly put it into the trainng for a 20th or a 24th jump. Note that both of those numbers are within the requitrements for an A licesne, with the idea being that it should be taught before a jumper is licensed, but it would certainly be later in the training. The idea is that as a student gets closer to an A license, the training should be become more and more serious. They are showing that they are dedicated and moving toward being a 'real' skydiver, and as that day comes closer, they should be trained to be a 'real' skydiver. Getting the A is a significant shift in that it represents a jumper moving into true 'self supervision', into an area where they can jump, and travel to other DZs to jump, without the involvement of anyone else. Yes, making 10 jumps is a big step for a student, but getting to jump 10 is still less than halfway to a license, and that student still has a good deal of 'supervision' in their future. There shouldn't be a licensed jumper out there who doesn't know 'in theory' how to do a rear riser landing. They should be familair with both toggle and riser stalls, and have practiced both at altitude on more than one jump.

I was the one who mentioned the idea of renting it out, but you seemed to have missed the point. YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE A BUTT LOAD OF MONEY ON THIS CONDO. So the idea is to figure out the way to lose the least. The one idea was to sell it, and pay off the balance. Yes it will suck, and yes it will take several years, and yes you will have to downsize your life during the process, but in 3 to 5 years, it will be over and done. The other idea was to rent the place out to offest the cost of the mortgage. Let's say you sell the place, and just pay off the balance at $1000/mo, that's one idea. I don't know what your mortgage is, but if you can rent the place for enough that the mortgage minus the rent equals less than $1000/mo, you're out less per month with that plan. If the market recovers, let your tennant stay out their lease, and then sell the place for break-even or maybe a profit. If the market doesn't recover, you're paying down the mortgage the whole time, just keep it up until the balance is equal to the value of the condo, and sell it then and walk away free and clear. In the end, Spence was right, you're a tool. All of your problems are ones that you create and you nurture with you refusal to act. No matter what good advice you get, you have a reason why it won't work and why you're still 'stuck' in your situaiton. It's tiresome to read about, and has to be tiresome to live. So let's review your 'problems', you have an education, a good job, and a place to live that you can afford, with a new BMW parked in the driveway (which you can also afford). You know what, I take back all my advice, and want to replace it with FUCK YOU. Between your whining about your 'terrible' life, and your bullshit about women and the 'szie 6' deal, you really do seem to be a giant asshole.

What do you want to bet this in response to the gap between the requirements for a Coach rating and the reccomendation for camera flying? If you can be a coach with 100 jumps, but are not supposed to jump a camera until you have 200, there are a bunch of coaches out there who aren't able to video the jumps they do. Many DZs like to offer POV video on coach dives, and the GoPros have made it fairly inexpensive, but then you have the problem of coaches who lack the experience to meet the USPA reccomendation. If I am correct, the worst part about it is that DZOs are lobbying to have the reccomedation reduced for the purpose of putting jumpers with less than 200 jumps in the sly with unlicensed jumpers while wearing a camera. As if the idea that a jumper with 100 jumps should be coaching anyone isn't bad enough, now they want them to fly video too.

Whatever, dude. You should see the freefall skills you're trained in before getting an A license. Those guys can float/sink, they can do center point turns, and even swoop down to a formation. They are awesome, and let's face it, if the rigger hooks everything up right and the packer does their job, who would ever need to rear riser flare anyway?

Sounds like you've carefully considered your gear when choosing to pull at 2k. Three cutaways with under 200 jump, and 2 of them due to gear failures. Something isn't right there.

So you were 8, and probably had little to do with the household finances. If your father is still alive, ask him how he turned $500 into a life in the US, and follow his plan. You have $500, right? I hate to sound like a line from the Shawshank Redemption, but you have to make a choice, start living or start dying. You're alwfully focused on the financial aspect of this deal, but if staying there is ruining your life, is it really worth it? It's pretty simple, you have to make the choice between financial health or emotional health (for right now). I don't know what you do for a living, but you seem to be some sort of educated professional of some sort, and make a decent wage. Downsize your 'lifestyle' for a 5 years, and dig your way out of the mess. Sell the condo at a loss, and pay that down while living in a less expensive situation. Rent it out to offset the losses, even if you have to 'fire sale' the rent to get and hold a tennant, if it helps you pay down the loan while the economy recovers or your emotional health recovers, then so be it. The long and short of it is that you're probably going to lose money on this deal. What's killing you is trying to figure out some way to not lose money, but you have to let that go. Figure out a way to minimize your loses, rip off the proverbial band-aid, and get on with your life.

First off, on a main canopy, anyone can inspect it as the inspection is not a condition of airworthy-ness or use. It's up to the jumper what they feel is safe to put in the main container, and what they want to jump. Of course, most people trust a rigger to do a pre-purchase inspection on a used main, but it's not a requirement. A reserve or harness/container, on the other hand, is a different story. They require an I&R (inspect and repack) every 6 months in order to be 'legal' to jump in the US, and this must be done by an FAA rigger. Technically, this is different than a pre-purchase inspection, in that you can feel free to buy anything you want, inspected or not, but then you run the risk that it will not pass the 'I' part of the I&R, and without passing the 'I', there's no 'R'.

The number of jumps on a canopy is, 9 times out of 10, an estimate. If the canopy has had more than one owner, it's generally a poor estimate. Seeing as you're coming back from an injury, don't take the chance with an F-111 canopy. Look for a newer Manta or PD Navagator, both are built with a zero-porosity top skin, and will perform much like a full zero-p canpoy, and the number of jumps will generally only effect the line set, which can be inspected and checked against a line trim chart. It might cost a couple hundred more dollars, but it's well worth it, and you'll get it back on resale. There's not a ton of difference between the price of a Navigator with 600 jumps or 700 jumps (for example), so you can expext to sell it for most of what you paid for it. With an F-111 canopy, you run the risk of jumping the last of the 'life' out it and leaving it worthless. It might take more out of pocket to get the better canopy, but at least you know you can get it back when you're done. Don't be cheap when buying skydiving gear, especially canopies when coming back from an injury. Think of the cost of re-injuring yourself, and why you want to upsize. You're looking to stack the deck in your favor that you won't re-injure yourself, and upsizing is a point in your favor, while switching to F-111 is a point against you, for a zero sum gain.

I don't think it's odd at all, but some considerations remain. Even if newer jumpers aren't pulling low, they're not going to be newer jumpers forever. They will still be jumping slow opening, higher perofmance, higher loaded canopies, and will still have come up in the sport under the impression that 2k isn't 'low'. The other effect, which I mentioned previously, is that even for people who don't make a habit of pulling low, the idea is still in their heads that anything above 2k isn't all that 'low'. Even if their equipment and experience say otherwise, they may not percieve that they are getting low until they're past 2k, and that's not good. The idea is to shift the perception of 'low' up a notch to account for the changes in skydiving that have taken place since 2k became the 'bottom line'. If we can get people to feel differently about what being 'low' really is, we can improve the odds in terms of reducing people going in partially inflated reserves, low cutaways, and two outs. All good things. Again, effecting change in this sport is a long term process. It takes years for ideas to really take a 'set', and become accepted as the new 'standard'. As we can see with the canopy control situation, if you wait until a problem is rampant, and an obvious trouble spot, you've waited far too long. Even if you could change peoples behavior overnight (as-in with canopy control and selection) there have been countless fatalities and injuries up to this point that could have been avoided. If you factor in all the things that will go wrong while we 'work on' the problem, it's that much worse.

If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say. It's like Ron said above, he knows guys that still pull at 1500ft. It's not prevalant, and it's not popular, but it happens. So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft. The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK. Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around.

Of course, the above is true, but let's keep in mind that AADs are required by the USPA for all student jumps. This student was not provided an operational AAD, and therefore was not equipped as per the industry standard, and does that not constitute negligence on the part of the DZO/rigger? If it does, your claim that this lawsuit will invalidate the waiver is incorrect. The waiver is there to protect the DZ from lawsuits stemming from accidents, the type where everyone does everything correctly, and something still goes wrong. No waiver anywhere can protect you from being negligent, and in this country the measure of if you were, or were not, and to what degree is settled in a court of law. I'm not a fan of lawsuits, but this case is troublesome. The student was not equipped properly to make the jump, and it's all because of a stupid mistake. Not a mistake that occured during a jump, where every armchair quarterback pointed out what they 'should' have done, not an obscure rigger error that 99% of riggers would miss, but a stupid, basic mistake that was made in the peace and quiet of a rigging loft. Do you find that to be defensible behavior? That's really what the waiver is for, if a DZ can 'defend' their behavior, in that they did everything right and to the industry standard, then yes, the waiver should stand and protect them. Do you really feel that standard was met in this case? Do you feel that the DZ afforded this student everything that a student should be able to expect when jumping the US?

Where did you get this? A TV report? How trustworthy are those? I've probably grunted under canopy many times, and it was never to keep the blood in my brain. A hard opening, or even trying to kick of a line twists on a diving canopy. I was grunting because I was putting out a lot of effort, not because I was trying to stay awake. There is no 'as you realize'. By the time you know the shit has hit the fan, you're already off to the races. The type of spin that would create g-loc problems, and the size of canopy that you would need to be jumping would not add up to a gently developing situation. It adds up to you getting your ass handed to you before you know what happened. Get on the handles and cut away, it's pretty simple. For fun, look up the video of that Penta canopy spinning up in Dubai (I think it was Dubai). Either way, it's a good representation of how fast things go wrong, how little time you have to react, let alone start to modify your breathing etc. There was another thread on this subject not too long ago, do search for it. There's a video linked in there to another HP canopy mal, where can you see how quickly they develop.

Two points to keep in mind here, the first being that larger canopies (anything over 100 sq ft) are unlikely to produce the type of Gs that will put you out. The other, is that any mal producing a spin that feels like it could put you out, needs to be cutaway well before you would have a chance to worry about blacking out. If your main comes out and throws you into a violent spin, response #1 should be to quickly initiate your EPs. I'll give you credit for thinking about things, and in a technincal sense, you are correct. If you feel a G-load building, say in an aircraft, it's best to prepare yourself for it before you begin to grey out. Under canopy is a different scenario, because if anything close to that is occuring, your having a nasty malfunction that's going to be eating altitude at a high rate. It's a mistake to interject other steps in the process, you need to go directly to a quick and vigorous execution of your EPs. Additional steps require additional time, and all that does is consume altitude you may or may not have. Remember that deciding to enact your EPs, and actually doing them are two different things. Making a quick decison is a good idea, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to complete the action just as quickly. You may not be able to find one or both handles, you may not be able to pull one or both handles, and one or both handles may not trigger the desired operation immediately. 'Most' of the time, things work the way they are supposed, but in case they don't, you want to have the most altitude/time available to work with, hence the idea of getting right down to business.

Therein lies the problem. How many young jumpers are aware that gear has chnaged, or what it was like when the 2k line was drawn in the sand? These are the same jumpers who push WL higher and higher with less and less jumps. They feel great about jumping a 1.4 Wl with 200 jumps, but not realizing that when the rule was made, most people were under 1.0 Wl, and even then the canopies were far lower performance. We can't make rules based on what we know, you have to make them based more on what the 'average' jumper will know. What I said upthread has remained true, most of the people commenting on this are 10+ years into the sport, and 1000's of jumps in the books. The thing to consider is the up and coming jumpers, and the up and coming jumpers 5 years from now. What will they 'know', and what will the landscape of skydiving be like then? How about 10 years from now? Anyone know when the 2k mark was set? I know it's been at least 17 years because it was in place when I started, so consider it's longevity, and think the same number of years ahead of right now.

There are people who do all sorts of stupid things. There will always be exceptions to every rule, and just because you happen to a few jumpers that like to hum it down, the vast majority of jumpers respect the 2k min pull altitude simply because that's whats in place, and what was in place when they started jumping. Maybe I should have included the concept in my reply to you, but it came a few posts later, and the concept is that nobody is going to accept anything 'suddenly'. I wasn't there, but I'm quite sure that the 2k min pull altitude wasn't accpeted with open arms and followed to a 't' from day one. Eventaully, it did work it's way into the lexicon, and has since become a part of skydiving to the point that people on this thread will defend it vigorously. Again, that enthusiasm merely supprts my point. What was once the scourge of of experienced jumpers from coast to coast, a 2k min pull altitude, is now being bandied about as the gold standard, and the idea of changing is sacriledge. The point is that as the landscape of the sport changes, so do the rules that govern it, and this shouldn't be immune. Just above, Butters asserted that he chose 2k on his own as the result of an analysis of the gear and type of jumps he makes, with no outside influence. I suggested that it was absurd, and that the fact that from his first day on the DZ he heard from the experienced jumpers that they pull at 2k had a lot to do with his feeling that it's an appropriate pull altitude. If, without outside influence, you were given the choice of pull altitudes, would you really come up with the one that's 10 seconds from impact, and 7 seconds from being too late to have an open canopy before impact? How close would you get to a brick wall if you were driving straing at it, fast enough to kill you, and there was a chance the brakes would fail and would need to enact a multi step process to use the back-up brakes? It's the same idea, and I have to think that without a professional driver suggesting to you what a 'safe' distance would be, you might err on the side of caution, and start braking well before the professional driver.

Good points from all. This is a fun thread because, to start with, it's all just personal opinion. We're not waiting for a rocket scientist to post, and settle the matter with some facts or figures, it's just one set of views against another. The other reason it's fun is that there's an end. The BOD will settle the matter soon enough, and then we'll have an answer. Of course, the answer we'll have is if the BOD will change the BSR, because the BOD isn't always 'right' in what they do. We can still argue the merits of the rule itself, but at least to the question of if the BOD will change it or not, there is an end in sight. Good times.