davelepka

This question has come up many times. Some will say no tip needed. Most of them are not working skydivers. Some will say just buy them a beer (or a case). Most of them are not working skydivers. If you're the tipping sort, and feel as if you have been well taken care of, then tip your instructor. How much is up to you, but for reference, most instructors make about $30/$35 per jump. So maybe $10/jump on the low end, up to whatever you can afford. I have jumped with people who clearly had 'lots' of money, and they tipped their instructors and camera guys $100 each. The last thing to remember is that you'll probably do at least 2 or 3 jumps with two instructors, than another 3 or 4 with one, so that's about 10 chances to tip, and it won't always be the same instructors. You may get the same one multiple times, you may get different ones every time. Tipping after every jump is probably the easiest, but that's up to you. This isn't like a restaurant, where the tip is 'expected' and is around 15/20%. There is no standard time, amount or occasion to tip in skydiving. Keep the above in mind, then do whatever feels right at the time.

That's your answer? You really think I believe anyone is suggesting that I jump a beeper for flying the pattern, and that my opposition exists because I don't want to? Much like your outlook on canopy selection, your viewpoint on this issue is awfully shortsighted. You do realize that every move made in skydiving today will set the stage for what will be the 'norm' in skydiving tmorrow, right? I never thought of it this way, but after 15 year of jumping, I ralize that I've been jumping longer than the vast majority of jumpers. There are plenty of guys who have been in longer than me, but out of 30,000 USPA members, I've got more years in than most. What that means is that every change to training or procedures I saw come to pass, has been the only thing that most jumpers around me at the DZ know. If they started jumping after said change, to them the new way is the only way. What this means is that if we start using beepers for the simple act of flying the pattern now, soon enough that's going to be the 'norm', and that's not good. So I don't need to jump a beeper, right? What I do need to do (and you if you keep jumping) is jump with others who will be jumping with beepers. Soon enough we'll be jumping with people who can't jump without one, and that's not good for me, you or them. People talk about pilots, but the same things happen to them. Guys with too much money spend their time in planes loaded to the gills with bells and whistles. They quicly move up to complicated airplanes, and as soon as something small goes wrong, they're lost. Without the basis of 'stick and rudder' to fall back on, the shit quickyl hits the fan. I;ve got a pilot/jumper buddy who flies a privately owned Pilatus PC-12NG. He tells me you can't even start it without entering all of the flight plan info into the flight management computer. It's that device dependant that the plane won't fire up unless it knows all about the flight, and is ready to assist the pilot. Soudns great, until something goes wrong with the FMC. However, my buddy learned to fly in a 65 hp Taylorcraft (jumped it) in between jumping with students. He would hand prop that sucker (no starter) and do a couple of touch and goes in between students. He always said 'Stick time is stick time, and that's what I need, even 15 min at a time'. He went on to tow banners in the biggest POS 172 I've ever seen. He even had control cable jump a pulley and lock up in flight. He managed to get the thing down in one peice, but it wasn't pretty. After that is was off to Fed Ex to fly boxes in a Caravan, which he did for years. Day, night, rain or shine, he was hauling the mail (for the most part). Then he did a couple years in a Beechjet 400 flying doctors, patients and organs where ever they needed to be. So when he gets into a plane you can'y even start without telling the computer everything you plan to do, I don't think twice about it. Whatever the computer does, it's just helping him out, not doing his job for him. Whatever happens, I have confidence that he can keep the plane flying and get it down safely somewhere. Maybe in a field somewhere, by thanks to puddle jumping the Taylorcraft, he's been there and done that. The point is that technology is OK for someone who doesn't need it to simply reduce the worklaod in a high-pressure situation. Technology is not OK as a replacement for trainig and experience, and for low pressure situations (like flying a a basic pattern) when the pilot should be able to fly manually with no problems.

So if you don't learn to fly without the beeper, what do you do when the beeper goes off and you shouldn't turn at that time? How do you know an alternate course of action if you never learned to 'fly solo' in the first place? If you did learn to 'fly solo' in the first place, what are you doing with a beeper? (For the record, when I say 'learn' to fly solo, I don't mean you made it through AFF without a beeper, I mean you made it to the point that you were a 'skilled' canopy pilot without a beeper. After all, you need to be a 'skilled' canopy pilot to be safe, so that should really be the goal of every jumper, and should really eliminate the need for beepers under canopy. The obvious exception would be pro-level swoopers, for whom differences of 50 or 75ft can make a big difference. These jumper already know how to fly without the beeper, and use it to refine their performance to a level beyond the limits of the human eyeball. No such level of precision is need in the pattern where 50 or 75 or even 100ft does not make the difference. The tolerance limits in the pattern are will within the confines of the human eye)

No. There's no way a guy with 15 jumps gets to sneak anywhere. Without a licesne, without a rig, and being a new guy on the DZ (he must have been, or every instructor would have known his experience) there's no way he could sneak anywhere. Something doesn't add up. Either the guy is telling you stories, or the DZO needs to be informed of the situation. If your pal is telling the truth, the DZ in question is severely lacking in oversight in terms of un-licensed jumpers and their rental rigs. The DZO needs to be informed of what was allowed to happen, or spoken to for he allowed to happen. Put the name of the DZ out there and the date this occured. First and foremost, someone from that DZ will read it and can confirm if indeed they were flying that day, and if the winds were what your friend reported. From there we can figure out if it happened for real, or just in your friend's imagination.

This is where this should end. You have your answer, recieved in-person as is appropriate. Lock this thread.

There are lots of differences. Aircraft have two sources of data, the static port and the pitot tube, so if one fails, the other will still provide information. Aircraft also have two power sources for their instruments, electric and vacuum, so if one of them fails, the other will still provide power. This is why pilots can rely on their instruments, double redundancy built into the airframe. All that aside, pilots are first trained for non-instrument flight. The basic private pilot certificate does not involve relying on the instruments for safe flght. They are limited to flying in conditions where they can see where they're going. Instrument flying, where the pilots rely on the instruments, is another story. It's another rating for a pilot to earn, and it's a bitch to earn. It takes a significant amount of study, and some pilots feel it's harder to upgrade to an instrument rating than it is to earn a private pilot certificate in the first place. Beyond that, the aircraft itself requires additional equipment above and beyond the double redundant intruments I mentioned above for a pilot to be legally allowed to fly it in conditions where they can't see where they're going. Pilots and skydivers are two different things. There are some similarities, and some cases where comparisons can be made, but this isn't one of them. Flying a parachute is stone-simple in comparison to flying a plane, and if you need an instrument to do it safely, that's not a good sign.

Indeed. Using an audible for freefall is one thing. There are indications that you're getting low, or to break off altitude in frefall, but they are suttle; the passage of time, and the earth getting 'bigger' (and yes, that is suttle until you get musg closer). Also, when you factor in that freefall itself has become an 'activity' and that most jumpers are with others and invovled in 'something', it's easy to see how a jumper could become distracted, and how an audible could be of service. However, under canopy is another story. There's nothing to do but fly your canopy, and between the wind and much easier to process sight picture, it is easy to learn to fly your canopy without the aid of a beeper. It does require thought, planning and practice in the early days, but that eventually gives way to habit and instinct. In this case, I think the ship has already sailed on people doing it manually, and I think Brian Germain has picked up on this. Now we're to the point where it's either everyone does it poorly, or they use beepers. I don't think his siggestion is based on the thought that beepers are the 'correct' way to go, just that beepers are the 'correct' way to go for us, in the situation we're in now. Let's face it, Brian is a smart guy, and has been teaching canopy control for many years. If he thought a beeper was the way to go from the start, he would have invetned one (or got someone to invent one) for that very purpose. Freefall beepers have been around forever (Paralert anyone?) and making the mental jump to using one under canopy wouldn't have been that hard if he thought it had value. Beyond that, under canopy beepers have been out for a couple years now, yet he (Brian) hasn't come out to endorse them until now. Like I said, it all leads me to believe that this is a reaction to our current situation, not him endrosing this as the best way to go if all other things were equal. All things are not equal, and with the minset and abilities of the jumpers already among us, he seems to think this is an answer, and even though I dsiagree with the idea of the devices all together, on the grounds that I presented, combines with Brians intelligence and experience, I'll go along with his idea.

Let's be honest here, with 75 jumps there is a lot you haven't seen before. Instead of posting about it on this website, how about asking someone at the DZ what's going on? Really, if anything concerns you, make a habit of resolving those concerns before you jump. This time, it would have been explained that light (or non-existant) upper level winds equals a very high ground speed, and so the time between groups is reduced to maintain the overall length of the jumprun. Maybe the next time you have a concern, it will prove to be a real concern that could have lead to a comprimise in safety. In that case, speaking up before you jump is what would prevent you from falling victim to that safety oversight. Even in the cases where the concern stems from your lack of understanding (by no fault of your own), having nagging fears about possible problems with the skydive is never going to help your performance. So even if your concerns turn out to be unfounded, at least you're not going into a jump thinking about the 'what ifs'. You're the only one watching out for you (that you know of). Speak up when you're not sure, and make sure you're sending yourself into a good situation.

From the sound of the video, there isn't much wind. if you look at the canopy right as the video begins, it looks like the guy was runnuing just to get it up overhead, and it surged ahead of him and folded under. In my limited experience with foot launching, I was always told to get the canopy up and stable overhead before beginnig your run to launch. I was always launching with wind, of course, using it to help me take off. It appears this guy had no wind, and figured that jumping off the cliff would provide him with all the wind he needed. Without the wind available to kite the canopy, and get it stable and controlled, he was asking for trouble running off the edge with the canopy in that state. The first time I saw that video, my thoughts and the camera guys words were exactly the same at exactly the same time, 'Oh fuck'.

Start with 2" and see if that helps. If you still cannot stall it, then try another 2". If it stalls too soon, let them out an inch. PD says 2" so you don't change them too much at once. Different sized people, different sized harness, and different length risers will move the stall point around, each jumper needs to fine tune it. They just don't want you changing to too much at once. Work in little steps and 'sneak up' on the right setting for you. Also, remember that to stall your canopy you want to be able to hold the deepest brakes possible for a few seconds before it stalls. You don't want it so as soon as you hit full arms extension the canopy stalls, that's how you get hurt on landing. It should be toggles ALL the way down, 3 or 4 second delay, then the canopy should stall. Anything faster than that is asking for trouble.

In that case, Mary is wrong, and you should be annoyed. Now, we figure out how to get her back. How about a rattlesnake in her mailbox? Maybe advertise for a garage sale at her house at 7AM on a Sat morning? Maybe advertise her as a hooker with her home phone # attached? Did I mention the rattlesnake yet?

Just to be fair to Mary, unless you were specific that the items were intended only for the womens shelter, it's hard to get mad when she used the items for another charity, especially when donating that charity would benefit her, and that you knew she was somewhat self-serving from the start. Also, unless you were specific about the womens shelter, and your motivation to help them, it's hard to blame her going through the stuff to see if there's anything she wanted. For all she knew, this was stuff you needed to 'off' because of your move, and that you dumped it on her because she had a contact in the 'charity' community. Don't get me wrong, I see how and why you're annoyed, but I also see how it might not have been just 'bad behavior' on Mary's part, she might have been acting in a way that seemed OK from her point of view.

Excellent quote. Applies euqally to swoopers, non-swoopers, new jumpers and old jumpers. In anything to do with aviation, more or less, this is the 'way of the world'. Accept it, or accept the consequences of your arrogance. Along the same lines, one of my all time favorite aviation quotes, from one of the worlds greatest aviators (and 'swooper' in this video). The quote is from 1:15 to 1:55 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE

No. What we learned is that a student rig weighs way more than 20 lbs, closer to 30lbs, plus your helmet, shoes, etc. We also learned that you'll be given more canopy than you're going to need for your first jump. With no idea how you're going to do, err on the side of caution. Really though, your instructors will just give you whatever they feel like. Everything else is moot at this point, because it all depends on how things go on your first jump. Thinking about anything beyond when to schedule the second jump is getting way ahead of yourself. Sure, when you have 10 jumps, and developed a pattern of success over the course of a few jumps, you can start to 'forecast out' a little furhter in your jumping life, but before that is just a crap shoot. Just make a jump, and then plan the next one according to how the first went.

I think you're mistaking the omission of those jumpers plans if the altitude started to get scarce for their willingness to land in a crippled aricraft just because the pilot didn't say 'jump'. Nobody said they would ride it into the ground. They said that if time and altitude permitted, they would wait for the pilot's instructions before taking action. Your hypothetical is pretty far fetched, that the pilot would glide the plane for over 10 minutes without giving one thought to the jumpers behind him, or even responding to their questions about what to do, but if that did happen, as the poll supports, people would do what needed to be done when the time came. Hell, in the other thread I even said that if time was short, and it was jump now or go down with the plane, you should probably jump, pilot's consent or no. I'm a fan of being a team player in these situations, as long as my life isn't on the line. Anywhere above 2k, I'm still well within my comfort zone being in the plane. Once we dip below 2k, much like freefall, it's every man *(or woman) for themselves, and by 1500ft, I'm out the door.

You're refrencing the recent Caravan engine out in MI, and you're misunderstanding what the DZO said. His problem was with the jumpers who left immediately, with no word from the pilot of any kind. There was never the suggestion that anyone land with the plane after an engine out at a safe jump altitude, just that the jumpers should wait hear from the pilot before exiting. In that case, the pilot did call for an exit, after gliding over the DZ at 9000' and giving them the light where they were expecting it. Keep in mind that an engine out is a big problem, but if it happens at 10k and you're wearing a parachute, it's not that big of a problem. If the pilot pushes the nose over to maintian best-glide speed, and manages to seucre the engine, you as a jumper have at least 10 min before the plane gets so low that you don't want to jump. The descent rate at best glide with an engine out would be around 500 to 700fpm. The idea is to tailor the jumpers response to match the situation. The one that you describe, like what happened in MI, calls for the jumpers to exitlower then they thought, and without a climb out and grips on exit. Nothing more, nothing less. If there was a control problem with the plane and it was spinning out of control, that requires a different response, that being get out at all costs. If the engine quit at 3k over rough terrain, that requires you to get tough and sit still for a minute. Give the pilot a chance to handle things, and if you're approaching 2k with no word form the cockpit, maybe to do just up and get out. Nobody ever suggested landing with a stricken plane when the aircraft failure happens above a safe jump altitude. What they said was that you need to follow the procedure of waiting to hear from the pilot. In extenuating circumstacnes, like a departure from controlled flight, or when altitude is short, you may need to make up your own mind, but when altitude permits, and the pilot seems to be 'piloting', sit still and repsect the chain of command.

You have me confused with someone who provides links and references to support my posts. Either you believe me or you don't, I couldn't care less. Beyond that, the SIM is far from a 'complete' guide to skydiving, it's more like an outline of the world of skydiving according to the USPA. It's far from a definitive resource for rigging, and if that's where you're looking for rigging info, you're going to be under-informed.

I think Don does log his jumps. Also, he has been at it for 40-some years, he owns a DZ, and freely admits that many, many of them are hop n pops. Let's face it, if you own your own plane and have a pilot handy, you could do an easy 2 or 3 hop n pops every day. If you have 3 rigs, it would take less then an hour. If you did that five days a week, that's 15 jumps/week or 780 jumps/year in addition to the 'regular jumping you did on the weekends. It does seem like a lot, but Don and Bill Dause are two of the guys I don't doubt their jump numbers. If you jump and own a DZ for 30 or 40 years, it's entirely possible.

Years ago, somebody (I think PD) put the word out they were looking for reserves that had been packed for years so they could see how time effected the openings. I know they came up with some 5+ year old pack jobs, and found no appreciable increase in opening time or performance based on having been packed for years. Of course, this says nothing about the rest of the system, and these were reserves, so F-111 with no Z-po coating on the fabric. There have been stories of Z-po mains being packed for long periods of time (years), and being stuck together due to some sort of breakdown of the Z-po coating. These were all found during manual unpacking however, I cannot recall any stories of mals where a long-packed main came out like a brick and never actually opened. Who knows, there may have been several deployments of 'bricks', but they just 'un-bricked' themselves once in the airstream. The good news is that every rig needs to be I&R every 6 months, so nobody should ever have those types of problems in the sky. If you do have to go 6+ months without jumping, spring for the extra couple bucks to have your rigger I&R your main as well as your reserve, or just stop being lazy and do it yourself (some riggers actually include the main in a standard I&R). I have also seen some 'long time no see' jumpers roll into the DZ with a packed rig and take it right to the packers to have to unpacked and repacked (the main) before they jump, but that's just embarrasing.

I'm not sure if this is still accurate, but I think he's also made at least one jump every month since he started.

I concur.

Unless you pull your slider down past your links, slider flapping accelerates the wear on the lines just above the links. This was one of the original reasons for collapsable sliders (and noise abatement), and they came out long before anyone considered them (or was looking for) performance enhancement. Surprised you didn't know that, what with your experience and time in the sport. Guess not, huh? Really think a collapsable slider won't help on the new Sigma tandem rigs (much bigger than a 280)? Bill Booth seems to think it will....

I don't know if it's a wedding, but someone got flowers at work for sure. Short of a birthday cake, there's no better way to halt productivity in a workplace than for someone to get flowers. They're like an attention magnet, people just sit and stare.

That's a negative ghostrider. The main problem is that they don't lie flat, and have a tendency to half-hitch around themselves or other stuff. Ever heard of a tension knot? Short lines are easy to live with, just watch out for the stall on the bottom end. Tension knots are a slightly bigger problem.

Relax pal, I'm on your side. My post was a sarcastic response to a guy who responded to my post where I outlined the maintenance issues and the fines levied against Bill. All he replied was that to his knowledge, the fines were never really paid. He made no mention of the reason for the fines, just that they hadn't actually been paid. So I replied that the fines should be the least of his worries, implying that the maintenace problems should be of greater concern. Did you read the rest of the thread? I think my position is pretty clear.