davelepka

I'm not sure if that's funny at all. Pond swooping a tandem? A Golden Knight, who as far as I know only does high-profile promotional jumps, is attempting to pond swoop a tandem? In front of, what I can only assume, is a crowd of some sort? If the pax was an experienced jumper and willing participant in a 'stunt' at a DZ for fun, then it is funny and cool all at the same time. If this was business as ususal for the GKs, then it's not funny.

Ok, that's fair. An SL I who follows a student out on a long delay is working with a current student who has proven their skills on the previous jump, and been passed to the next. This is why it's acceptable to have an SL I jumping in freefall with a student, it's based on the premise that this student is moving through the progression, and couldn't do that without 'proving' themsleves on the previous jump. An uncurrent jumper needs a recurrency jump because they haven't 'proved' themselves in awhile, and they need to do so before being released to self supervise. So on a jump where the possibility of needing to dock, stabilze and pull for the student, you need an instructor who is trained, rated and experienced in doing so. Nit picking the way the regs are written is one thing, and that might tell you how much you can 'get away' with. Using common sense, even if it creates a situation more conservative than the regs might permit is another way to proceed. I vote for the latter.

This where interpretation of the 'letter of the law' and common sense create a fork in the road, and which one you want to follow is up to you. I know, let's take an uncurrent D license jumper who doesn't perform well on a recurrency jump and pair them with a USPA coach. According to the 'letter of the law', that jump would be allowed by the USPA. I wonder how that would turn out?

Sure, if all they intend to do is SL jumps. If they want to do freefall jumps, then they need a freefall instructor.

If you read the passage you quoted, the last part is the most telling. It states the jumper must 'demonstrate the ability to safely exersice the privileges of that license'. All of the USPA licenses that I know of include the privilege of making unsupervised freefall jumps, so if currency requires demonstration of that, and a freefall jump requires a freefall instructor, then no, you cannot use an SL I to establish currency.

I'm not sure what you mean. An SL instructor can supervise an SL jump, not make a one-on-one freefall jump in an instructional capacity. With that in mind, I'm not sure how an SL jump with a practice pull would be an adequate indication of currency for a jumper intending to make freefall jumps with an extended delay. Just like you need to select an appropriate instructor for recurrency jumps, you need to select an appropriate skydive. If the jumper is looking to do SL jumps, or 5 second delays, then yes, maybe an SL I and an SL jump with a dummy pull would be appropriate. If the jumper wants to do freefall jumps from full altitude, that what that need to do in the presence of an instructor rated to teach that type of jump.

290 of them were made 30 years ago.

What sort of assumptions would make if a jumper needed more than one re-currency jump? Would those assumptions point toward pairing such a student with a coach who was not trained, nor expected to catch, stabilize and pull for a student? How is it hindsight when the instructors were well aware that this jumper was not ready for unsupervised jumping? That's what it means when you require more than one re-currency jump, after the first one you were still not proficient enough to be considered 'current'. I don't blame the coach for the overall situation, that responsibility falls to the instructor who handed the student over. Coaches are intended for, and trained for, jumping with current students who have made a satisfactory skydive within the proceeding 30 days. Does that description match the student in this incident? The instructor put the coach in the bad spot, plain and simple. The coach had no way of knowing how the student would perform beforehand, but the instructor did, as they were the last to jump with them. Again, I like how I'm the asshole for pointing out the significant and dangerous mistakes that others made. I never claimed that I was perfect or imperfect, but either way my actions are not the topic of conversation here.

He's the real Slim Shady.

Keep pulling. There should be a 'barb' sticking out of the kill line way up near the front. This barb will pop out and prevent the line from being drawn back into the slider. You may need to hold one hand on the trailing edge of the slider pushing forward, while the other hand pulls the line rearward. Another trick is to grasp both lines at once, and pull them outwards so they pull against each other, as this will also provide the neccesary tension to extract the barb from the slider channel. Have a look at it on the ground before your next jump, and become familiar with it down here where there's no pressure. If you're already packed, wander into the packing area, and check out the slider on any unpacked PD canopy, it should be the same as yours.

I tend to shy away from giving skydiving related gifts, organizing people to jump, or encouraging people to jump. You can be seriously injured or killed skydiving, and I'm not intertested in pushing anyone in to that. If they want to jump, they can do it without my help. That said, your intentions are good and maybe you could offer her a choice of gifts, with one of them being a tandem. Perhaps offer her the choice of a tandem, a spa day, or a cooking class. You could put together three cards, each containing a brochure or something from each activity, and present them to her so she can make her own selection. It put's the tandem up on the table, but also gives her a way to decline the jump without declining the gift, she can simply choose one of the other gifts. You end up getting to reward your friends for her efforts on your behalf, and she gets a gift that she really wants. The thing about jumping is that it's not for everyone. If you give it as a gift, the recipient is now faced with either jumping against their will, or declining a very generous gift, and that in itself is not much of a gift. Give her an easy way out with some more 'pedestrian' choices. All that aside, it's a nice gesture on your part.

That's the problem right there. If you're working through a network of people, how can you blame Airtec for the delay in service? How do you know where the delay comes from? Maybe Airtec is servicing the unit in an acceptable amount of time, and the dealers are the ones who are holding up the process. Why not just put it in a box and ship it directly to Airtec? As one of your chief complaints against Airtec, it seems like such an easy fix. Just cut out the middle man and deal directly with Aritec.

Is this the standard turn-around time for a Cypres service from Russia? Are you basing this a one-time experience, or is this something that happens on a regualr basis? To that end, do you have the shipping info to prove how long the unit actually spent at Airtec? They cannot be held responsible for long shipping delays, either inbound or outbound. What about the unit itself, Airtec fully admits that if a unit does not pass the standard service, it will be subjected to a more in-depth maintenance/testing procedure. Might this have been the source of the delay? I ask becuase the time of the service itself is very short. Like I mentioned earlier, I can get a Cypres serviced in less than two weeks, but a big part of that is the shipping. I live close to the US service center, and even when paying for regualr shipping, the unit gets there the next day. So if you include shipping both ways, and the weekend in the middle, they service the unit and ship it within 7 business days. So where exactly do you get this figure of 2 months for a standard service?

That's not entirely correct. You have to pass a recurrency jump in order to be 'good to go'. With regards to the incident you referenced, that jumper should not have been turned over to a coach. An experiecned jumper who was there that day and familiar with the situation admitted that the jumpers recurrency jump was 'less than' stellar. To then turn that student over to a coach is doing both the student and coach a dis-service. A coach is not trained, or expected, to catch, stabilize or pull for a student. With that in mind, no student should be handed over to a coach until they have proven that they are capable of exiting, freefalling and pulling solo and stable. Any less is putting the coach in a very bad situation, as evidenced by the video of the incident in question. For the record, I don't know of any DZ that would take a jumper who had been out of the sport for several years and just put them up on a recurrency jump. Depending on the individual, how much experience they had before the layoff, and the length of the layoff, DZs can choose to put them through the FJC, give them a one-on-one review with an instructor, and I have seen some of them give the FJC written exam to get a handle on what the jumper remembers and what they don't.

That's where you're making a mistake. If the Cypres senses an odd pressure change, and it shuts down, that does not kill you. You still have the ability to make a safe skydive on your own, and not require your AAD to be involved in the jump in any way. If you are involved in a mid-air collision and are knocked out after your Cypres is switched off, it's the collision that kills you (or the impact with the ground that follows). For example, if you drown at the beach and the lifeguard does not run out and save you, did the lifeguard kill you? The Vigil on the other hand, could kill you by firing when you don't want it to. In the door, in the middle of a jump, etc, all times where the firing of the AAD can be cause of a fatality (or several). This is where the Vigil's lack of filtering can lead to firing when you don't want. The number one job of any AAD, as proven by years of shitty AADs and nobody jumping them, is to 'do no harm'. By that I mean it should not activate until the very last second, only after the jumper has had every chance to handle things themselves. Due to the infinite number of circumstances a jumper might find themselves in, the AAD needs to be able to sit still and wait until it's really a desireable time to fire, and not jump into action when it 'might be' a good time to fire.

I know that the student didn't recieve a proper gear check prior to exit, or those legstraps would have been properly tightened. I know that the coach gave a useless thumbs up when the student didn't deserve it, was too far away, and was looking down. I know that the coach was wearing a baggy suit, and unless he was a very big guy, he didn't dress for success, as evidenced by his inability to stay with the larger student. I know that the coach failed in his responsibility to track away at break off and pull at a safe altitude. Don't get mad at me for simply identifying mistakes that were made. I didn't create these problems, I just pointed them out. If you want to get mad, how about start with the AFF I who passed this jumper to a coach after an admittedly unsatisfactory re-certification jump. The correct move would have been to keep the jumper with a qualified instructor, one that was taught to catch, stabilize and pull for a student, until such time that the jumper could display control of themselves in freefall. Then get mad at the coach who got in way over his head, and made several mistakes it the process. Getting mad at the guy who simply points these things out might make you feel better, but in the end it does nothing the solve the very problems that guy is pointing out.

Gear dealers need to make sure their customers are aware that the minute the order is placed, they own the gear. There 'may' be a grace period for very busy manufacturers, where changes or cancellations can be made before fabric is cut or components go into production, but that's a case-by-case situation, and not something the customer should ever count on. Just because you don't take immediate delivery, or in some cases, have to make immediate payment in full, the gear is yours and is being built for you, to your specifications, and all involved are expecting payment in full and for you to take delivery of the item upon completion. I am in a business where I sell built-to-order equipment to businesses, and in addition to a deposit, I always require the customer to literally sign the order form in it's final state indicating their approval of what's being built for them. I get a copy and they get a copy, so there can be no question as to what they ordered and what they should recieve, and in this way, both parties are protected. This has no effect on the customers ability to seek satisfaction in the case of a manufacturing error or defect, but it does prevent them from changing the story after the fact, and trying to use that as a stepping stone to further action, such as trying to return the equipment. Another trick I use to protect myself when offering payment terms to anyone is that I ensure that my cost for the equipment is paid in full prior to the completion of the equipment. I'll take a small deposit to place the order, then a larger payment that covers my cost just prior to completion of the equipment, and a final payment upon delivery which is my profit on the deal. In this way I make sure that I'm not out-of-pocket $1 at any time during the transaction, and that I have the balance in the bank to pay the manufacturer before the ship anyting to me. In cases where the customer defaults on the large payment, I've found that manufacturers are far happier sitting on a custom order whithout payment when it's in their warehouse, not mine. As a custom equipment dealer, as much as you want to 'help a brother out', your 'bro' would never screw you on a deal, or even ask to be 'helped out'. Keep the business fair, above board, and business-like, and anyone who can't operate in that fashion isn't someone you want to do business with anyway.

This explains why the colors were such an issue. Seriously, you guys had a deal (dare I say, a verbal contract) and he breached when he didn't pay on time. You forgave the breach, and renegotiated to suit the customers new payment terms. The gear arrives, customer accpets the gear and remits payment. Right there he owns it, plain and simple. If he found a defect or problem with the gear, he is entitled to have it rectified, but returning the gear is not an option. Legally, you are on solid ground to return the gear to the customer, leave his money in your pocket, and tell him to take a hike. Morally, in my opinion, you are also on solid ground to follow that course of action. Even if you subtract the customers breach of contract, being a pain in the ass, and battery with a deadly picture, this is custom made, built-to-order equipment, and in truth, the guy owned it the minute he signed off on the order form and instructed you to submit it to the manufacturer. This isn't off the shelf gear that can be returned to inventory, he ordered what he wanted, and that's what he gets.

You're not looking that hard. Google 'Jump for the Cause'.

Actaully, you're the with the problem, and the problem is that you have your facts wrong. Airtec never said that the unit would not fire during a swoop, they said they didn't believe that canopies at that time were capable of meeting the firing parameters. If you as a jumper were pushing the limits of canopy performance at that time, it's your responsibility to ensure that your equipment was suitable for your actions. Before speed skydiving or freeflying, nobody ever went faster that 150/160mph in freefall, and that would have only been in a brief dive to a formation. If a pair of goggles or helmet that was made then was to fail during a speed skydive where the jumper is doing 250mph+ for an extended time, is that the fault of the helmet manufacturer, or the fault of the jumper for choosing the wrong equipment for the jump they were going to make. Here's the other mistake you keep making. Nobody is claming any AAD is perfect, just that the Cypres is the best bet when compared to the Vigil. When Airtec had problems, their reposnse was to take action and improve their product so that it would server the community better. They acknowledged the problems publicly, and made corrections. When Vigil had problems with misfires due to aircraft door openings or car trunk closings, Vigil's response was that the unit worked 'as designed' and that was the end of the story. They did not admit that there as a problem, or seek to repair it. In the case of all the documented problems that Airtec found, they fixed them and those problems don't exist today. When Vigil discovers that there is a way for their units to fire when you open the door of the plane, they do nothing but tell you, 'That's the way it is'. When Adrian Nichols Cypres fired during a swoop, the unit worked 'as designed', but since jumpers had found a way to make the Cypres less suitable for some jumpers, Airtec developed the Speed Cypres so people swooping like Adrian had an option. Any idea when Vigil is releasing the AAD that will not fire due to the aircraft door opening?

Now you're taking a problem unique to Russia and using it to advise others about which AAD is best. How long it takes you to get the unit serviced should not be a factor in determining which AAD is best. For example, I live 2 hours from Aitec's US service factility, and have gotten a Cypres back from a service (including shipping time) in less than two weeks. However, I do not claim that an adavantage to the Cypres is that the service only takes 10 days because it's not 10 days for everyeone, just those that live close to a service center. Beyond that, even if did take everyone two months to get it back, for some that might be a reasonable time, so again, the time of service for you in your part of the world cannot be used to answer the bigger question of which AAD is best.

You're right, I worded that wrong, and should have written it differently. How about this - I added the bold portion to clarify what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that everyone should jump an AAD or not jump, my suggestion was that if you choose to jump an AAD, the added cost and effort of ownership of a Cypres over a Vigil should hardly be the decieding factor. IF you are going to jump, and IF you deciede that you require an AAD to jump, then you should easly be able to manage the cost and effort of owning a Cypres over a Vigil. It's not that much money, nor that much effort.

I don't get it. Do you agree or disagree with my post?

Granted, so let's stop playing the game where one person points to an issue that one AAD had, and another makes a coutner argument that another brand also had an issue. Given that none are perfect, all we can do is look at the rate of failures or misfires as we know it. Out of documented failures or misfires, I contend that the Cypres has had fewer than the Vigil. If you look at the rate in terms of failrues or misfires per number of jumps on the brand, than Cypres is a hands down winner based soley on their time in the market and the number of years they were the only game in town. Just the time in the marklet alone puts the number of Cypres out in the field at 10 times the number of Vigils (at least) and the number of jumps at far more than that. Beyond that, I'm almost sure that even if you figure it at overall misfires or failrues, not compared to the number of jumps, the Cypres still comes up fewer than the Vigil. Let's consider what I believe to be the largest occurance of Cypres misfires, that being years ago when radio signals 'seemed' to fire Cypres units. Airtecs response was to issue radio resistant (or something) sleeves for the control units, and later adjust the manufacturing to make the sleeves unneccesary. Airtec admitted to the problem, admitted that it was a problem, and came up with a solution. The biggest problem with Vigils is that they don't filter the pressure info very well, and have fired due to aircraft door openings and car trunk closings. Vigils response was that the units worked as designed, and that jumpers should 'live with it'. They did not admit that the design was a problem, and seek to change it for the better, they just said it worked the way it was supposed to. I guess it was supposed to fire when you open the door of the plane. Of course Argus takes the cake when their cutters fail, and lock containers shut, and then they essentailly disappear off the face of the earth. In the end, between the lower failure rate, and the better way Airtec handles problems, I can't see why a few bucks or the need for regualr service is enough for people to go with an alternate product. I think some people are just wired to always go for the 'under dog' or the 'off brand' just because that's how they roll. If you can't handle the expense of a 4 and 8 year service, and cannot schedule those two events into a 12 year period of your life (in which your rig will need to be down for 24 repacks) you shouldn't be jumping. It's not that much cash, nor that much time or trouble.

Done deal. Give him his gear back and keep the cash. Never do business with him again.