jimjumper

I loved my 901's! They were paired with a DBX-BX3 power amp and were the only thing with enough power sound to recreate a close to live performane of Kodo, (a Japanese Taiko drum team). Got to know the local police real well on some Friday nights! Had a Technics turntable, Akai reel to reel, and a Nakamichi casette. Upgraded to a Sony DAT recorder in 1990 when they were first released in Japan but the instructions were in Japanese so I preferred the Akai for taping. The base exchange's in the Phillipines and Japan had all the latest and greatest for stereo technophobes!

I've paid good money for a whole lot less!

I stand corrected. I misunderstood how final motion approval works. First BOD meeting I've attended.

I posted a number of comments in this forum a while back about the requirement for an S&TA approval for a “B” license. I attended the BOD meeting yesterday held in San Diego and would like to report the results of the discussion on changes to that requirement. The Board voted to also allow Coach Examiners, Instructor Examiners, and Board Directors to approve “B” license applications. These people can also designate individuals allowed to conduct the Canopy Discovery Drills training required to complete the Canopy Proficiency card. One of my personal gripes with the new card was the requirement that the Canopy Instructor must be approved by the S&TA signing the card but I was told by the Board, that now, once a person is approved by any of the above that that designation will be accepted by all persons authorized to sign the final approval. This eliminates the need for Instructors to get individual approval from each S&TA in their area. The second gripe I had was a lack of a formal instructional rating path for an average Instructor to get a rating that allows him to sign the license app. With approving CE’s and I/E’s to do this that eliminates that problem also. I realize that there will still be a lot of argument about the actual implementation of this new program but the Board made at least these changes pretty easy. (I personally didn’t speak much at the Board meeting. It appeared that there had been a lot of feedback from the general Membership.) While I still feel that this has relegated the Instructor role back to being a Jumpmaster maybe someday we’ll return to Coaches coaching novices, I’s teaching students and I/E’s teaching Instructors.

I know I'm replying to the wrong person but for the sake of putting out information, the 2009 PIA Symposium had a lectue by Jim Cowan titled "Dual Canopy & Entanglement Emergency Procedures." If I recall he was researching this very topic and was planning on doing some 100-200 dual canopy jumps to get some data on dealing with this type of problem. I will try to find the actually lecture notes later (sorry but I'm taking my wife to lunch and a movie today.) If I find it I'll post later the data that it contains. Maybe someone with those notes will reply before I can. I think all attendees were given a disc with all the lecture outlines on it.

Jim Wallace was the one that jumped the malfunctioned canopy and Dan O'Brien was camera. They used Spectre canopies with monofilament holding the lines to the connector link and indivdually released each line to look like the lines were breaking. He only rode the malfunction for a short time because of the violence of the spin.

I've packed mine, a Warp III with a 28' Phantom, a few times during my rigging course. After the diaper change, then the kevlar lateral band mod, I found out that it also was in the batch that might have acid mesh. It's what convinced me buy a suqare reerve! With all the tests and checks needed on the rig it's a great packing training aid. The drawing shown looks pretty much what my Warp III packing manual shows.

We had one at Lakewood NJ for a few months. Slow climb, we only went to 7.5 with it. The door lip was literally a pain. We would usually talk the novices into taking the door slot and as the piece with floaters left they would scrape the meat off their shins on it! We only used it because the owner wanted to try and get someone else to pay the maintenance and was willing to be paid per load. Also Ed Mackay, out here in California, used to use one for jumping but mostly for demo solo jumps. Not a great jumpship.

I went through his rigging school 15 years ago when he was still in California. It's the best when it comes to rigging info and the skills learned far exceed what a "usual" rigging school offers. He's one of the most knowledgable and fair in the business.

Just to throw in another 2 cents, you might check out a bungee pilot chute. I use one and it doesn't need to be cocked and if the bungee fails your left with a regular pilot chute anyway. No window, no cocking, and the same effect as a kill-line pilot chute.

The PI is were I got my SCR/SCS patches made. They could sew or embroider anything as long as you had an example. The dropzone at Clark was interesting after they plowed it up all over the place looking for unexploded ordnance. You also had to avoid the Negrito village on takeoff because they would shoot at the plane! I wore out my last double zipper sliding in tandems. They were great for that job.

As far as gettng the profiecency card signed off it shouldn't be to hard in my area even if I won't be. I just checked the USPA website for S&TA's and in my area there are 14 at 3 different DZ's, 5 at large in the local area, and 1 specialty S&TA for Demo's only. I had no idea there was that many S&TA's around. Of course a couple of them haven't jumped in years so maybe they wouldn't be the best to teach canopy flight. Seems to me there won't be much need for an "I" to sign the card at all.

When the Coach rating was first incorporated into the Instructional system, Kevin Gibsson traveled the country in just that way, teaching and rating Coach Course Directors. It's been done before and can be done now. But before anybody can do anything it must be decided what will be taught and how. One of the basics taught to any new instructor is "Define a standard and then teach the student to the standard." What is to be the current standard?

I thought about it overnight and I believe what I am going to do is when a student/novice comes to me for their "B" or "C" license I will just pass them on to the S&TA and inform them that I am not qualified to sign off their application or profciency card. This will place the responsibility on the S&TA. It is obvious that USPA wishes to have final authority for "B" and "C" licenses vested with the S&TA's and by extension the DZO's. If, (or when), USPA decides to let Instructors have the authority to complete the license application, I will then attend what should be (by then) a complete, USPA Endorsed, Advanced canopy piloting proficiency course for the purpose of being current at instructing a basic course. In the meantime I will still teach to the "A" license as USPA hasn't placed me under supervision to teach to that level. I'm afraid after 12 years as an AFF Instructor, "I don't try out." However, the suggestion of getting designated by my RD as an S&TA is an excellent one that I intend to pursue. Thanks for listening to my opinions and I hope I was clear in my thoughts.

Still doesn't answer the question of how to get an S&TA designation without kissing the butt of the DZO or how to keep it! When I got my "I" one of the priviliges was being able to approve "B" and "C" licenses. Now I have to have approval from a possibly unqualified and unknown indivdual with no recourse in the event of a dispute. When the USPA makes the S&TA an open to all position and not a "good ole' boy" appointment I might be willing to change my opinion.

The USPA has said by virtue of the S&TA signature requirement that it must be approved by said S&TA. Again where do I go to get my S&TA rating? USPA and DZO's are separate entities for a reason. I think USPA should develop a canopy course syllabus that can be taught to Instructors for use by their students and can be signed off by those same Instructors at any DZ they work at. What if I work at multiple DZ's? Do I have to "try out" for the benefit of the S&TA at each one? By the way, according to the 1998 SIM, "The S&TA is a local jumper who is available on your dropzone to provide you with administrative services and information. The S&TA is appointed by your Regional Director." I'd submit that the position was never intended to be an Instructional supervisory position but evolved that way over the years. I still feel that if it is to be used in this way, a path to obtaining an S&TA rating should be outlined by USPA prior to it's adoption rather than after.

In light of some of the responses I’ve received/seen I thought I would clarify my opinions on this subject. I think that using the S&TA’s for this purpose is contrary to how the USPA outlines it’s instructional hierarchy. S&TA’s may be assigned without regard to their individual skills and are not required to demonstrate any skills as is the case with Instructor ratings. For that reason I believe that Instructors should be the primary authority for verifying skills demonstrated for the purpose of qualifying for a license. In the past, there was a constant friction between AFF Course Directors and qualified Instructors wanting to be Course Directors which took years to fix. The same path appears to be the direction taken here. Instructional ratings should have a definite path from the bottom to the top with definitive performance and evaluations for each step. The position of S&TA does not have any performance definitives or a USPA pathway for individuals to achieve the designation. I would prefer to not have to suck up to my DZO to obtain an arbitrary designation to evaluate the performance of students in my perview. I agree that canopy flight safety needs to be addressed but I would submit that it needs to start at the top and work down. Statistically the largest fatality sector in canopy flight are the most experienced. How about requiring a canopy flight course starting with Course Directors and then working down to Coaches over a 2 year period? For Instructional rating holders a requirement to get a Canopy Flight Instructional endorsement in 2 years I don’t think would be excessive. I have also heard the argument that some Instructors would try to get around the new requirements, hence the S&TA endorsement. I personally have seen way more abuse of the system by S&TA’s than by Instructors. S&TA’s are beholden to the person that appointed them and the designation can be taken away when the S&TA doesn’t cooperate. A previous post said that Instructors aren’t being maligned by this new requirement but I would submit that they are. It’s just being implemented in a polite way.

I'd believe that if DZ's were required to have S&TA's that actually had some qualifiactions. I've seen S&TA's that had never jumped much less had any instructional ratings.

Not to hijack this thread but the other thing that I notice is that the signature requirement on the proficiency card is S&TA only. I assume that this means Instructors can no longer sign off "B' or "C" liscenses? If so, our S&TA's are gonna keep even busier than they are already.

I would almost prefer a rigger that is willing to admit that he is unfamiliar with something. Riggers have ego's too and there are many that would never admit to not having knowledge of some types of equipment or the skill to maintain or repair the same equipment. Look for a rigger that is conscientious and willing to put his ego aside when confronted with something new or unusual. I got my rigger's ticket 15 years ago and don't do any rigging anymore simply because I haven't kept up with the latest equipment designs. Gear changes and riggers are usually the first to see new things and the last to be told how to maintain them and keep the system working.

Every time I check the drogue handle on a Strong tandem!

I usually just give them a "Wait" hand signal. You can do it behind the student so they don't notice and just go on wih your routine. And keep on being OCD. After you see a few things and catch a few things you realize how aware you have to be while still paying attention to your student.

Dick Spates, Joey D'Afflisio, Charley Cantalupe, Bob Young, Wayne "Smitty" Smith and Joe Leach. '80's Lakewood crowd!

My list in order of owning: Heavyweight Delta Cloud-3 cutaways Cruiselite XL-0 cutaways Nimbus-0 cutaways Nimbus XL-0 cutaways 2 Raiders-0 cutaways 175 Triathlon- 1 cutaway 170 Spectre- 0 cutaways Tandem Canopies: Strong 500-0 cutaways Strong 425-2 cutaways Strong 400-2 cutaways Strong 360-0 cutaways

We actually use a small tag with the connection points and have the passenger read it back to us as the instructor verifies each connection point. While it's not really neccessary it re-assures the student and also forces the TI to check each individual connection. The tag gets stuffed into a pocket or the jumpsuit for reuse. I've seen at least 2 video's of the uppers not connected. If it takes an extra 20 seconds for the student to verify that all the connections are made it's worth it.