davelepka

You got that backwards. You want to start off with a smaller set-up, and then add to it as you learn to manage the weight and size. That aside, the DVD cameras are not skydiver 'friendly' for the reasons already stated. PC cameras are extremely inexpensive these days, look for a used PC-5 or PC-9 on ebay. The other alternative is a CX camera, and the CX-100 can easily be found for under $300 used on ebay, closer to $200 if you're patient. Another alternative is a non-high def Sony built on the same frame as the CX line. They are also tapeless cameras, very small and light, and should be available for less than $200 on ebay. Here's what you do, in this order - 1. Research the camera options above, and see what's available. 2. Consult a local camera flyer before buying anything. 3. Buy a camera. 4.Consult the local camera flyer, with your camera and helemt in-hand, and get advice on the best way to mount it. 5. Mount it 6. Consult the local camera flyer to confirm the mounting is 'safe' and to get some tips on how to start jumping it.

I know of an instructor who spent $30k on legal fees trying to explain something to a jury. He was the 'shallow pockets' of the lawsuit, and the gear manufacturers were the 'deep pockets' and it's my understanding they spent quite a bit more then that defending their part of the suit. In any case, all of them made an offer to settle the lawsuit at the outset, looking at their potential legal fees, and then offering a cash settlement of about 75% of that estimate. In this case, the plantiff declined the settlement, and ended up with nothing, but naming extra names on the suit certainly brought up the sum total of the settlement offer, so that's another reason to name everyone under the sun when bringing a suit. The best way to avoid being named is not to be involved in any way. I wasn't named on the suit because I wasn't a part of the skydive in any way. For Sunpath, banning the Argus is the way they can be sure they won't be involved in an Argus based fatality. Beyond that, if the fatality was shown to be a result of a faulty cutter or cutter design, and other incidents had shown it might be a problem, and Sunpath did nothing, allowing the continued use of a possibly faulty AAD would certianly be an extra burden when it comes to defending the lawsuit.

If you want to admit to being a carnival ride operator, that's up to you. When did I ever suggest that you treat the student unfairly (which is think is an apt description of making one feel like an idiot for not wantng to participate in the skydive)? I think the tone of my whole post was one of giving the student more than they expect. In some cases it's providing the service of training, and the experience of being an active part of the jump. In other cases it's being professional enough to understand that not everyone has the desire to participate in the jump. In either case, offering the opportunity is the right thing to do as you never know who is going to be interested. Sometimes it's the middle-age housewives who are all about pulling handles, and the burly construction workeers who would rather leave things to the 'professionals'. Even if the chance of them coming back is nil, the 'bucket listers' deserve the consideration of understanding all of their options when it comes to their jump. After all, it they're only going to jump once, you can't put off things like pulling a 'ripcord' until the next jump. If you're going to choose for them, before even offering, in my opinion that's taking away their right to make up their own minds, and poor customer service on your part.

The paint job is one thing, but moving the wing from the top of the fuselage to the bottom is the really cool part. That aside, using slow-mo to make up for so-so footage is an old trick. If you can get 2 seconds of tight video, slo-mo can turn that into 5 seconds of dramatic tight footage. It doesn't change the fact that it's still only 2 seconds of tight video. It is a nice effect, and I would like to see it put to use with some top quality footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEewo8M---Y&NR=1 Edit to add - If anyone isn't clear on how a freebag works, the slo-mo portion of the video is a good illustration of the process.

The mods seem to disagree, and since it's 'their' sandbox, they get to make (or interpuret) the rules. So you test their motivations by abiding by their rules, stopping the discussion here and starting a dedicated thread. Their reaction to that will tell you if you're right or wrong about the mods being 'in' on some sort of Airtec based cover-up. Of course, you could just keep banging your head against the wall in this thread, and eventually getting banned, at which point you'll assume that you were right all along, but never really put your theory to the true test of starting another thread.

You seem to have no shortage of things to add to so mnay threads, but then you turn around post in this thread like you can't add 2+2. You're hell bent on pointing fingers at Airtec for concealing problems and convinced that when the mods tell to you to keep in topic (which is the Argus investigation) that it has nothing to do with keeping the thread on track, and everything to do with the mods being in bed with Airtec and keeping anything anti-Airtec off of the site. There's an easy way to test this theory, and this is where you seem like you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground, just start a new thread dedicated to the issue of Airtec and their big cover-up. If that thread gets deleted or edited or you get banned, then you know that you're right, and the mods are on the take from Airtec. If the thread is left alone, then you know it's not the mods, and the thread might shed some light as to the validity of your theory.

..and in that spirit, let me make a blanket reccomendation to everyone. The best thing that every jumper of every skill or experience level can do is to e-mail the DZO and S&TA, and ask them what can be done at their DZ to improve everyone's safety under canopy. Offer to assist in any way from brainstorming, printing flyers, organizing a canopy control class, or even serviing coffee at a canopy control class. Not everyone is in a position of influence at their DZ, nor has the technical knowledge to even offer up their own solution to the problem. What they can do, is express their support of additional efforts in the direction of safety under canopy, their willingness to abide by and help promote additional structure in that area, and offer to help the cause in any way that can be of use. The DZO and S&TA can ignore one person, but if they get ten similar e-mails, that amounts to a public outcry. If jumpers follow up on those e-mails in person next time they're at the DZ, it pushes the issue even further. The point has been repeated over and over that if DZOs would get tough, jumpers will have no choice but to toe the line. Well that's a two-way street, because the jumpers have a degree of control over the DZO in that if they band together, and insist on a community-wide change to include stricter rules on the DZ, real sanctions for breaking them and then those jumpers stand behind those rules and make it 'that way or the high-way' something could be achieved. It's going to take an effort and commitment from everyone. Nothing will change unless the DZO puts their foot down and stands behind it, the jumpers accept the new way of doing things, and don't hesitate to 'out' anyone who doesn't want to play by the new rules.

I disagree. A solo jumper leaving after a tandem, while wearing a camera, and he puts his hand on the tandem rig as the instructor rocks for the 'ready set go'? That's lurking behavior if I've ever seen it.

Where would you suggest they get these pictures if the DZ is just opening this week? I don't know one thing or another about this DZ, but if they're opening this week, a lack of 'authentic photos' or details on the website might be excusable. My vote would be for the OP to call the DZ and see what he thinks. Ask questions as an experienced jumper investigating the place for his friends. If that doesn't pass muster, send them to an established DZ. Normally, yes, the fake website is a huge red flag, but if the doors are just opening this week, they might deserve a phone call.

I hate to say it, but it's just like rich kids/poor kids. If you give a rich kid a car, let's say a Mustang, they're going to race it, beat on it, do burn outs, nto wash it, more or less treat it like crap because they didn't have to do anything in order to get it. If you take a poor kid, who cuts lawns for five years and earns a Mustang, even a 10 year old Mustang, they're going to treat it differently then the rich kid would treat his. Years spent pushing a mower around other peoples houses is the most realistic illustration of value you could ever put on a car. Again, back in the day, an AFF rating was a point of pride, and instructors held themselves and their performance to a higher standard. They were the best, they knew it, and they had the grit and determination to maintain and consistantly prove it. True story- I was filming an AFF lv 3 a few years back. On one side was an old shchool guy, as solid as I've even met. The other side was a new guy, who I didn't have a strong opinion of one way or another (yet). The new guy was, however, a good 50lbs heavier than the smallish student. Good exit, good release, the new guy drops out due to fall rate issues, never to be seen again. I took up a slot just outside of where the new guy used to be, just to cover that side for the other instructor, who of course, didn't need my help in any way. After the jump, I commented to the new guy that maybe he should have worn his baggy tandem suit due to the size of the student, and he might have been able to stay with it. His response was 'I knew that (the other instructor) could handle it, so I wasn't worried about it'. Another true story - I know of a DZ where they were trying to organize an AFF intructor course. They met the minimum number of participants (barely) but shortly before the course, a few of the out-of-town candidates had to drop out. The DZO walked around the DZ and picked jumpers out of the blue in order to fill out the course. These were jumpers who were aware of the upcoming course, never thought about taking it, never practiced or studied one lick, but two weeks before the course, signed up. One failed, but the other passed. This wasn't a high time 'diamond in the rough' or a natural whiz-kid, just a low time, average jumper who is now a full fledged AFF I.

Why do we have 'bad' instructors in the first place. I know there will always be 'better' instructors, but those should simply be better than the 'good' instructors, 'bad' ones shouldn't exist in the first place. How about, like so many other things, we stop making it so easy. Here we go again, but, back in the day, the AFFJMCC was a mountain you had to climb. It was a real challenge, and prospect of being one of the 75% that FAILED the course is what drove you to practice, practice, practice before even shpwing up in the first place. IF you managed to pass, it was a badge of honor that you earned with your blood (literally) sweat (literally) and tears (literally). I have seen all three of those bodily fluids present in the old AFFJMCC. Aside from evaluating the skills of the candidate, making the course such an undertaking showed the maturity and ability to follow through of the candidate. It's like the idea of a college degree, you might have a degree in science but are appliying for a job in marketing, none the less, the degree itself demonstrates to the employer that you can embark on a four-year program and see it though to the end. The new system is a joke. They teach you to be an instructor, and give you as many chances as it takes. They used to do that too, it was called jump your ass off with your local AFF Is until they said you were ready. Then you show up a week early for the AFF pre-course, and jump your ass off with the evaluators, and they tell you how and why you suck. Once that was all done, you were TESTED on your skills, with the very real possibility of FAILING in the fisrt three jumps. Game over, you go home with nothing. The idea that the most difficult form of instruction we have in no way requires you to perform in order to get the rating is absurd. There are no re-jumps in real life, and there should be none in the rating of instructors. Come to the show ready to play in the big leagues, or don't come at all. It's not just the skills you lose when hand out the ratings like candy on Halloween. You lose the desire and determination required to pass a difficult test. You lose the ability to work under pressure you need to get through a course that most cannot. You lose the ability to weed out those without that certain 'something' it took to go up against the best, and meet or exceed their expectations. If you want to make it easier in order to keep the instructor ranks filled, you need to establish a mentorship program. Pass the new version of the course, and you're a JM, cleared to jump with an AFF I on two instructor jumps only. After a year or two in that capacity, you're required to attend the 'I' course, where it's do or die (not literally) and you have to perform, on the spot with no re-jumps, and you earn the 'I' rating. If you fail, you remain a JM for another year or two, and so on, and so on.

Of all the things you listed, the only one that has consistantly created a problem is behavior under canopy. By in large, in-date rigs and aircraft MX have not been a significant problem for DZs. There is no easy solution to this problem, and much as I appreciate the efforts of the OP, this idea is no part of the solution. This idea provides an after-the-fact enforcement of rules, and after-the-fact sometimes means after-the-incident. The solution here is going to be centered more around prevention than after-the-fact enforcement. Educate the jumpers, shift the attitude about canopy flight in the community-at-large, put procedures into place to better seperate different canopy sizes and types. This is how you 'solve' the problem, by getting the participants to make better choices and having a system in place that lends itself more toward safety.

I would, but that still wouldn't cover it. $25 x 30,000 (uspa members) = $750,00 $750,000 / 348 (number of US DZs listed on DZ.com) = $2155 per DZ. What do you think you're going to get for $2155? At a year-round DZ, that's $180/mo. Seasonal DZs would have more like $300/mo, provided they don't pay the guy when the DZ is closed for the winter.

Where are you going to find a qualified S&TA who is willing to be at the DZ whenever they are jumping, and not jump themselves so they can monitor the activities? Just ballpark, what do you think this would cost per DZ? How much would it cost to have an S&TA on call 7 days a week? What about seasonal DZs, would they still have to pay the S&TA during the 5 months they're closed, or would they have to find temporary employment during the winter time? Now multitply the cost times the number of group member DZs. Still think this will work?

Who ever said anything about not having fun. This is all supposed to be fun, tandem, AFF, static line or otherwise. There's no reason that fun and learning cannot go hand in hand. Tons of jumpers will admit to being scared on their first jump. Some will even admit to being scared on susequent jumps, sometimes to the point of riding the plane down. In the end, they managed to overcome that, and become licensed jumpers. Just because a person is afraid doesn't mean they shouldn't be informed. In fact, the accomplishment of simply reposnding to a pull signal and releasing the drouge is even more so for a student who started off unsure if they could even leave the plane. To then make the jump and open the parachute is twice the accomplishment. The TIs who get bashed are the ones who don't take the time or put out the effort to treat people the way they should.

If you take a passenger who thinks they're going to the circus, and you teach them a little something about jumping, and allow them to participate and achieve some sort of success, all while taking them on the curcus ride they were expecting, you have given the cutsomer what they wanted. You've also given them something more, which is even better business. If that something more was a free t-shirt, good on you, and the customer would be even more satisfied than without the free T. In this case, however, the something more is information and the accomplishment of participating in a skydive. If the leads to them making a second jump, or an AFF jump, or even just being more enthusiastic about sending their friends, then the DZ wins too due to the increased revenue. Let's face it, one more tandem, an AFF jump, or a referal will more or less double the revenue from that student. That's a big increase, and not something that should be taken lightly. If your DZ does 50 tandems per week, and you get one additional 'come back' based on treating them like students, you're looking at close to an additional $1000/mo in revenue, or $7000/season for a seasonal DZ. Unless you DZ is so strapped for time that you cannot take the extra 5 min to treat someone like a student, than you're just throwing that money out the window. If your DZ is that busy, they should have a dedicated tandem dresser and trainer on the ground taking care of that end, leaving the instructors time to drop off gear, pick up gear (including a full gear check) and taking care of 'personal business' like lunch, drinks, pissing or shitting.

Let's just be clear that Bram Clement, owner and operator of SkydiveRatings, and present in the third photo posing in front of his classroom, is NOT present in either of the two photos of the camera guy riding the tandem student, and would never teach or endorse that behavior. I have worked with him in the past, and he has a zero tolerance policy for safety violations of any kind.

With reference to this, and the other issues you stated, how hard have you tried to improve in these areas? If you have put out a significant effort, and still haven't seen any improvement, then maybe jumping isn't for you. If you have just plodded along, without really putting out much effort, just sort of taking 'whatever comes your way', then maybe you should actually try to learn above and beyond just fun jumping, and give yourself a chance. Do you spend time in the landing area watching canopies land? Have you studied the different types, sizes and shapes, and see how they react to the conditions of the day? What do you know about winds aloft? Do you check them every jumping day, and then compare your exit and opening point to that information, looking for correlation between the two? Have you read Brian Germains book? Have you studied with a rigger to learn more about gear? Have you thought about any of the insructional videos available? Have you considered taking the coach course? Have you worked one-on-one with a coach, preferably one who can coach you in spotting, exits, freefall, and canopy control, all at the same time? There's a lot you can do if you want to improve, but some of it will seem like work. However, if you do the work now, you'll be better preparred, and perform at a much higher level later on.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, becoming a skydiver is too easy to compare it to becoming a pilot. To earn a PPL, you need to have money (about $10k), time, and more importantly, the maturity to study, pass a written, impress a CFI, and survive a check ride. To become a skydiver, you need money (about $1500), a little time, and only to pass a few levels to the satisfaction of an AFF I. Nothing about the process is challenging, or requires much dedication on the part of the student. No part of brings into question you judgement, ability to plan ahead, or overall maturity. If you plan it out right, you never even have to jump in anything but the most ideallic conditions as a student, and then are deemed a 'skydiver' and granted the full privledges of a licensed jumper. If you make it easy, you'll attract people who are only interested in easy. There may be other types as well, but if the slackers see it as something they can do, you'll have them waiting for your at manifest before the FJC. If you make it easy, you never weed out those who really shouldn't be up there, the bolwing speech isn;t used nearly enough. Skydiving used to be harder. Gear was heavier, less comfortable, less reliable, less easy to land, pakcers were non-existant, planes were slower, and all of these things made it hard enough that you really had to be 'cut out' for jumping, or you just wouldn't last. If you make jumping available to everyone, flying in the pattern is going to be similar to driving on the freeway. How safe is that?

That's all well and good, however, on the subject of I/Es, and instructors they're turning out, here's a quote from another post where the poster, a US based TI, was commenting on worknig conditions at one DZ - Somewhere along the line this TI got the impression that treating a tandem like a carnival ride was the 'standard', and that teaching the student was above and beyond, and worthy of additional pay. Who taught this guy to be an instructor? Why wasn't it made clear to him that each jump is a learning opportunity for the student, and that by not teaching them, you robbing them of that opportunity. In the 'old' AFF course, if you had your hand on an evaluator for one nano-second longer than it takes to stabilze them and throw a corrective hand signal, they would dock you points for infringing on the students opportunity to learn. I don't know what the standard is at the 'new' style course, but it appears that the tandem course has no standard in that area. I guess it's OK to remove any opportunity to learn from the entire experience, and let a perspective student flush $200 down the learning-progression drain.

How is that even possible? If the price of a coach jump has not gone up, and there are more coach jumps required, then how is the profit less then previous? Is it the fuel costs? Upthread somebody mentioned that the slot prices have gone up. In that case, requiring more coach jumps would indeed require more slots, and multiply the profit loss. However, the end result to all of this is increased cost to the student. There is no way to justify making it more expensive to enter the sport. It's been gone over several times, but even if you try to do it 'on the cheap' you're looking at $4k+ to gety an A licesne and a 'cheapo' rig with no AAD. Some people have compared that to the cost of dirtbikes, ATVs or, jet skis, but there is a huge difference between those sports and skydiving. Once you buy a dirt bike and trailer, your cost of participation is quite low. Gas to get you to your riding spot, maybe $20 to get in, and then a couple bucks set aside for maintenance, tires etc. On top of all that, you can drop the sport at any time, and recoup a good portion of your investment by selling the bike and trailer. In skydiving, once you drop your $4k to get a license and beater rig, you still need to spend $100s of dollars a month on jumps. Keep in mind that at this point $200/mo. only buys you about 8 jumps or 2 jumps per weekend, not exactly setting the world on fire. If you get licensed, buy a rig, and make 50 jumps, and then have to get out of the sport for some reason, you can sell the rig, but you're only going to get back $1500 of the $5k+ you invested. The costs are just too high across the board to saddle potential jumpers with even more costs. If the DZO is making less now that with fewer coach jumps in the past, one of two things is happening - either the DZO is paying the coaches more, and lining their pockets on the backs of students, or the DZO is trying to make for what would be even greater losses if they left the coach jump requirement the way it was before. In either case, it's transfering the economic load to the student, and that hurts the sport. Of course you don't think it does, but you should see if the DZO would share the books with you, and let you see the decline of the return rate for students as the jump levels get higher. Every one of those students who made 5, 6, or 7 jumps and never came back might have been due to cost. The money just runs out, and they don't call to say that or negotiate for a lower price, they just stop scheduling jumps. You see this all the time in flying, where it's $125-$150 an hour for a student to fly, and when they can't swing it any longer, they just stop coming. Much like skydiving, flying takes a flow of cash both during and after the initial training, and once that really sinks in, and people realize they can't keep up with the demand for cash, they move on to other things. I'm going to assume that since you have had a personal discussion with the DZO that you are both a Mile-Hi jumper and somewhat friendly with him. Keep in mind that he will tell you what puts him in the best light, and yes, he does have the 'inside' info on what's really happening, but that doesn't mean he's going to fully or accurately share it with you. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and this deal looks and sounds just like some sort of economic factor is being pushed right down the line onto the students shoulders.

Based on what? The problem with not wearing a jumpsuit is that your street clothes were not made to stay put during freefall. Your shirt can come untucked, and blow up over your handles. The tail of your shirt can wrap around your hackey. Pants/shorts pockets have turned themselves inside out and tangled with hackeys. Belts have come undone, and beat the shit out of the jumper. Yes, these problems can be overcome, but it requires proper clothing selection, and configuration. You have to waer it the right way to keep it 'in check' in freefall, and then means adding several point to your equipment check right before you leave the plane. The last thing you need right now is additional responsibilites in order to make sure your shirt doesn't try to kill you. Suck it up cupcake, and put the suit on. Unzip the front, roll up the sleeves, and strip down to a t-shirt and boxers underneath, and you'll be comfortable in the heat. As others have mentioned, even a minor roll or slide on landing can be a non-issue with a suit, or a couple weeks of healing after you pick gravel/grass/twigs or whatever out of your leg. Knock out another 15 or 20 jumps, and triple your experience, and then talk to an instructor about how to jump in shorts and T.

Post #55 is relevant to this case, the one you quoted was a reply to another post.

Provided that the SOP at the DZ was to pay the coaches for their work, and this was the understanding when jumpers made the investment of time and money to get the rating, in that case it isn't fair for them if you offer the same service at no cost. However, and this is a point that occurs to me everytime a jumper complains about not being able to jump with newbies without a coach rating, and that point is that jumper don't cease to be newbies when they cross jump 25, or are granted an A licesne. They are still very much newbies, and would benefit greatly from additional coaching/mentoring. The truth of the matter is, you could probably do more with a fresh A license jumper than one still on student status. While attempting to complete the A license proficiency card, the student to limited to the skills required by the card, and the need to get them signed off. Once a jumper has their licesne, they are free to work toward whatever goal interests them, and the specific skills that will help achieve that goal. So to all the D license holders who cry 'foul' because they shouldn't need a coach rating to jump with newbies, the news flash is that you don't. You need the rating to jump with student jumpers who are in the process of full-filling the requirements of the USPA, the same body that certifies the coaches, and in that respect, it's logical that coaches be the ones to administer the requirements of the body that certifies them. Beyond the A license, however, these jumpers are still new, and still need just as much coaching and mentoring as ever. I strongly suspect that many of the complainers have simply had their ego bruised because a kid with 125 jumps can jump with these students, but they cannot.