chuckakers

I concur. 1.3 is about as loaded as one needs to penetrate into any wind that is safe for jumping. Also keep in mind that any wind greater than 20'ish greatly increases the chance for turbulence even if the wind itself is smooth. A 20+ mph wind interacting with buildings, trees, and even changes in elevation can create nasty bumps. Hit one of those bumps when it's time to flare and the game becomes one of chance. Until up-sizing recently I was flying a Velo at 2:1 and still always parked my butt when the winds would go north of 20 or 21, and less than that if they were chunky. Staying conservative in canopy choices will serve you well. Staying conservative in minute-by-minute decisions will serve you even better. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What news on the Rialto? Mark I asked two carriers for quotes. Had to fill out questionnaires about the training from program for instructors, emergencies procedures in the event of an accident, etc etc. Submitted all the paperwork Thursday. Hope to hear something back next week. If you get coverage for liability on the actual skydiving operations you will be the first in the country that I know of to ever obtain it. Not even Lloyd's of London will provide it. If you do get it, be sure to be sitting down when you see the premium. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Couple thoughts. This IS a high-risk sport. This is a sport in which you can do everything right and die. This is a sport in which outside influences beyond your control - including your friends - can kill you. This is a sport in which we must remain constantly vigilant NOT to die, and sometimes do anyway. If you want to fool the whuffos by minimizing the the risks in conversation that's fine, but don't fool yourself. On the risk subject, a lot of people want to compare skydiving fatalities to things like driving fatalities and that's not a good comparison. I hear comparisons of deaths per 10,000 miles of driving vs making ONE skydive. That's not a valid comparison. If one is to make a fair comparison it would be a per unit comparison. 5 minutes of risk exposure on a single jump should be compared to same the 5 minutes of risk exposure on the road, for example. One skydive would have to be put up against a single ski run, a single street luge rip, or a single scuba dive. Those would be fair comparisons and skydiving loses big time in each case to almost every other sport on the planet. I agree with your practice of only taking on a single new change on a jump. The new helmet and altimeter solo jump strategy takes it a bit further than I feel is necessary, but it's important to stay in the comfort zone so if it works for you, charge on. I have always felt it prudent to make a solo with a new canopy, rig, or other major component. I was on a load years ago when a young lady with 50 jumps went in (no AAD). It was her first day at a new DZ, first time jumping at sunset (ok, dusk), and she was wearing gloves for the first time because it gotten cold outside. She was jumping with 2 people she had never jumped with before and the break-off ended up being a bit lower than planned. She never got a handle out. Had the only new thing been the wearing of gloves, it's possible things would have ended differently. I have been ribbed a bit before when I opted for a solo jump instead of FS when jumping something new. Folks would say "gee Chuck, you will be fine. You have thousands of jumps." I would remind them that prudence is how I got them. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Lol. "Shhh, don't tell HQ!" Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes. Look closely and you will see that the left side slider grommet is interacting with the toggle, keeping the jumper from getting a grasp on it. It may have been possible for the jumper to use some right brake or riser to control the spin while he worked on releasing the left toggle, but that's easy to say sitting on the ground looking at a video. The truth is once a highly loaded canopy takes off like that, things can get disorienting fast. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It appears that he was pulling his slider down past his toggles with the brakes still stowed (normal procedure) and accidentally released the right brake causing a left turn/spin. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Re-read the article....he was a she and she was jumping a borrowed canopy that was not compatible with her Skyhook system so it was left unhooked. Sparky Once again - borrowed gear, borrowed death. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Or, alternatively, you may choose not to dick around like an idiot for ages through multiple diving spirals with a high performance canopy, before deciding you might want to cut away. Or both. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Don't know about CA but Skydive Danielson in CT has $14 hop n pops on Wednesday. Best price in New England.

Don't know about CA but Skydive Danielson in CT has $14 hop n pops on Wednesday. Best price in New England.

What conspiracy? http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13067 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Don't know about CA but Skydive Danielson in CT has $14 hop n pops on Wednesday. Best price in New England.

Who would that be? Whose job would be eliminated? (Hint: nobody. DSE is full of shit) Dan, are comments like that really necessary? (Hint: no they aren't) Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Any idea what the opposition is to this or some variation of it? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Rigging Innovations offers a 25% discount to all active duty military. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Some do, some don't and the activities vary widely. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The potential behavior (sound-biting with an agenda) on the part of a few is not a valid reason to turn away a benefit to the membership. Additionally, the video could be made available in its entirety on the USPA website for review at will. That would serve to dispel any misunderstandings from sound bites and create a historically accurate record. Besides, the same argument could be made by those who want the video aired. Members seeing/hearing the discussions as they actually occurred would make them fully informed. What we get now are sound bites in the form of often highly opinionated versions of the happenings at the meetings. I often hear & read summaries of meeting discussions that very widely. Video of meetings would keep things in context and let the viewers see exactly what occurred. As I said in an earlier post, I don't really have a opinion on the video issue. However, a few bad seeds that want to stir up crap for their cause should not be a reason not to do it. The tail should not wag the dog. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't have an opinion on the use of video - live or otherwise - for BOD meetings and it may not change anyone's "behavior". However, giving members easy, free access to the meetings might dramatically increase the size of the audience and that can only be a good thing. It is after all a membership organization. It may also change the way members vote in subsequent elections since many more would know the details of discussions, the positions of directors, the way they vote, and why. Answer me this. As I understand it there is a standing offer on the table to stream video at no cost to the organization. Since this would give access to any member with enough interest to tune in, why would we NOT want to do it? No cost + benefit to the members - minus no downside = why not? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Trust? The board should set policy and INSURE the staff enacts it. Chuck, I think we're agreeing to agree here. They _do_ need to trust their staff, or they run the risk of micromanaging, which is a poison to any organization. Of course, if they are given reason not to trust that the staff will enact policy, the staff needs to be changed. That said, I don't think that's the source of the problem with this current issue or many others that seem to be putting the interests of business ahead of those of the jumpers. Agreed. This thing is about policy, not execution. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Good luck with that. Hell, we can't even get more than a small fraction of USPA members to vote in association elections. I doubt contention over a BSR that affects very few people will spur much - if any - action on the part of the membership. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Trust? The board should set policy and INSURE the staff enacts it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Product liability insurance is a different creature. Unless something has changed (and I doubt seriously that it has) there is no liability insurance available in the United States to cover skydiving activities at any price. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What other donors have contributed more money than this? I stand corrected. I wasn't really criticizing your statement, I was just wondering if anyone else had done more. I don't really know, but can't think of any. Ottley had money, but I recall him donating things like custom trophies, and not this kind of cash. Anyone know of other huge donations like this? No worries, Boog. Not that I know of, unless you want to consider the various money bags who have operated DZ's, for the sake of keeping them open. I've known several people over the years who fit that description. Of course that's different than an outright donation. Mike Truffer = awesome. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Didn't they try it once? http://youtu.be/uTmfwklFM-M Well played sir. :-) +1 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Without respect to any personal feelings I have on the issue (I operated a DZ and put my kids in the air at 16 but now don't have a dog in this hunt), the problem I see here is that an age restriction by USPA rather than by individual businesses is that it restricts ALL minors jumping, including those who are not a liability concern like family members. The aviation standard for as long as I can remember has included minors. As mentioned before, a kid can get a license for a soaring aircraft (glider) at 14 years old, and can be a licensed pilot of powered birds at 17. As far as I know there has never been a widespread liability issue with that. Since you are a lawyer and DZO, maybe you can enlighten us. Why is it so few flight schools have a problem teaching minors yet letting minors jump is a major liability problem? So many high-risk sports are ok with minors participating (hang gliding, motorcycle and car racing, the aforementioned flying, and so many more) what variable makes skydiving so different? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX