chuckakers

There may be nor requirement to talk to them but isn't it better to let the ATC know when a load of jumpers are going up so they can inform any traffic? What did I miss? Unless something has changed, the pilot still has an ATC notification requirement in uncontrolled airspace before dropping jumpers. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Ah yes. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually EVERY DZ uses them. Even in uncontrolled airspace the pilot is required to notify the nearest ATC before a jump. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Houston has one the very best employment environments in the country. Spaceland is 7 days. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

OK - that's new info as far as anything I have read. Thanks. That's an assumption on my part based on what I witnessed him jumping in the original post. The specifics of this guy and his situation is not nearly as important as the headline. Noobs + Velos = bad. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

"This jumper was flying an ultra-high performance, cross-braced canopy with a wing loading of 2:1 or greater and failed to negotiate a large planet that moved into his vertical path resulting in planetary contact at an impact angle greater than zero. The combination of the jumper's airspeed and angle of contact proved great enough to cause significant injury, but not great enough to cause death. Post incident conversations with this jumper also proved the planetary contact was not of great enough force to cause a significant change in attitude, which will likely result in this jumper providing future lessons to others." Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Depends on what you can do. The Pearland area 20 minutes from the DZ and is growing very quickly so there are lots of opportunities there. Angleton is 20 minutes in the other direction, but it's an older community that hasn't seen much growth for a long time. There are opportunities all over town, but Houston is very spread out. If you are looking to stay close to the DZ I would look at the communities on the south side. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yet. But of course you take that as proof of your skill. Just like Sangi and the guy this thread is about. I wish you luck. So at what number of jumps will I be unlucky to be injured vs. being a dickhead who was going too fast in canopy progression Once a dickhead always a dickhead. You know, when Spence is right, he's right. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Same guy? yes Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I was wrong. He lived. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-skydiver-breaks-leg-in-rough-landing/article/3708577 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No, Houston has a very reasonable cost of living. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Many, many skydivers have asked questions like yours. There are a lot of skydiving apprenticeship programs out there. Apprenticeship in action! http://www.fugly.com/pictures/18898/toilet_cleaning_pain.html Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

C'mon down to Houston. One of the best job markets in the country, abundant affordable housing and LOTS of skydiving at Skydive Spaceland! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So your DZO says a TSO'd "certificated" reserve isn't safe? Nice to see your DZO knows more than the manufacturer who built it. BTW, I made almost 1,000 jumps on a Raven main and was saved once by a Raven reserve - both 1985 models, both worked just fine. I would also want the DZO to be specific about what is unsafe about them. Something tells me he will have a long list of unverified war stories for you. If your DZO also sells gear I would also be suspicious of his motive. You may find that he doesn't sell Precision or has a sweet deal with another manufacturer that has him wanting you to go another direction. One thing I would warn you and every new jumper about is taking anyone's advise that claims a TSO'd piece of equipment is unsafe. Reserves must pass a very tough battery of tests before being legal to sell (in the US), so for someone to just decide on his own that one isn't safe sounds like he's talking out of his arse. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I am switching out my wife's rig from a 2-pin Racer to a 1-pin Curv. Her on-order 1-pin cutter is stuck in Florida due to weather and I may not find one by the weekend. Does anyone know if Vigil allows the use of a 2-pin cutter in a 1-pin rig? I understand that Cypres allows it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hanging from the strut of a 182 by my main deployment bag was a little unnerving. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I've never heard that - and I'm age old. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Clearly the city just wants you guys gone, but I'll bet you could beat that charge. An aviator is allowed to do just about anything necessary in the interest of safety, so if a jumper can see that making it to the airport won't be possible, landing in an open area - including a city park - would not be considered reckless conduct from an aviation point of view. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's not the way the FAA is going to look at. Sparky 105.5 General. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface. Since when does landing in an open, unoccupied area create a hazard to anyone on the ground? Besides, I'm not talking about whether or not landing off creates a hazard, I'm saying I question the city's authority to use a perceived hazard away from the airport to restrict a DZ's on-airport activities. Remember, the only justifiable reason to restrict jumping on a federally-funded airport is for the safety of airport users and traffic at that airport. Landing at a property several miles away from the airport that has nothing to do with aviation simply isn't in the city's jurisdiction. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I never said they did, in fact I quoted (To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".) Yes she can land her parachute next friken door to the airport if she has permission of the land owner and follows all FAR's, and she can take off and land her planes there all day and all nite. Landing on the airport property with out permission under far 105.23b is a violation and people can be held to account for those actions.... is the point. When the airport sponsor tells the FAA the base has told us "can't happen again", and she states she can't control if parachutist get blown off or land off, and the earlier violations make us feel it's unsafe to allow here. (see video) Airport sponsors try this shit all the time, only most times it's lame bullshit and not "hey you pissed off the Navy base, again". Tell ya what, sit back, fetch ya a cool one & some popcorn and see how this plays out. I hate to say it, but my bet is on the Navy winning out and not Kathy. She might have stood a chance had they not resorted to things like the video and then pissing off the base. As it is now the deck is stacked and not in their favor. Some of this is classic case of skydivers being their own worst enemy and not helping the cause any! I think the argument on the other side would be that the order not to land on the airport was bogus to begin with based on a lack of jurisdiction on cause, but I doubt it would win the case. I do agree that the DZO in question sounds like every guy's worst-ever girlfriend pissed off on crack. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think that's too narrow an interpretation. I think that airport-based or airport-involved operations (such as skydiving from and/or onto the airport) which directly implicate safety considerations in the vicinity of the airport (such as landing on nearby properties) might, on a case by case basis, be deemed to be within the scope of the "management of the airport" to grant or deny "prior approval" as contemplated by 105.23(b). I agree that from a purely pragmatic perspective it could be said that skydivers landing several miles from the designate drop zone create a safety hazard - sort of - for the GA traffic in that area, but I think there's a valid argument for the municipality not having cause for their actions. As far as I can see, these jumpers did not cause a danger to traffic at the airport or airport users on the ground. If these jumpers had simply landed off in more neutral territory - as happens all over the country every weekend - I doubt it would be an issue. Assuming that's the case, it's the high profile nature of the eventual landing area that is at issue, not airport safety. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

They have authority under FAR 105.23b to revoke permission to land a parachute on the airport property for reasons of safety concerns... They would be required to contact the ADO airport compliance specialist and submit reasonable and documented safety concerns, like on more then one time, someone landed on a navy base. Then the base people making it very clear "it can not happen again!" The FAA will side with the navy and the airport sponsor. On top of the fact, the city sent the cops out there to revoke the written permission she had under 105.23b and it's on video, the DZ responds by making a clear violation of 105,23b on video and post to fucking youtube as a big fuck you city of St. Mary's after being told by the city cop not to land there. (To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".) Any reasonable person who has taken part in the FAA part 13 or part 16 process will tell you those actions don't win you any favor as a safe and legal operator with the powers that be. With all the pending FAA shit going on right now, this was some of the stupidest actions, remarks and posts by someone facing an enforcement action process. And posting and asking people to email Kevin Willis @ FAA airports..... PLEASE, talk about fucking retarded, go read Kathy's posts. If anyone from that camp did email Mr. Willis like they posted here, they did a lot of damage to their cause. I'm certainly not supporting the clearly thoughtless behavior of some at the DZ, but I still don't see how airport management has the authority to restrict skydiving at the airport under the conditions they site. Unless something has changed, the airport can only restrict landings on airport property due to safety concerns AT THE AIRPORT. They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What authority does St Mary's have to restrict the DZ from jumping just because a couple knuckleheads landed on an unrelated property? I'm seeing a pretty good lawsuit for the DZO here. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Geez, bro. How long did it take you to realize your main left???? Even if you didn't throw out until 2K, I would think you would saddle a bit higher than that if your main left as it deployed. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No, that's what the wave-off is for. Again, if everyone remained focused down and out while tracking, looking for the low man and giving the right of way, the wave-off is enough. If you spend your time doing an extended, quality scan of the area below you, you're going to see anyone who is there. If they wave off, you're going to see that too. You're a pilot, correct? You know the techniques for an effective traffic scan, slice the sky up into sections and scan one section at a time. The reason is that without that methodology, people scan too fast and too much area at once, and tend to miss things. This is the same. You need to spend all of your track scannig the area where you are going if you want it to be effective. We're only talking about 5 or 6 seconds here, so you can see that a quality scan of any area will take the entire time. Trying to split that up between belly, and back tracking, or even looking up and down, will just reduce the effectiveness of the scan. Why are we arguing the merits of doing a barrel roll while tracking? The question isn't whether it's a good idea. The question is whether it's necessary. In most cases it simply isn't. Unless a jumper has severely restricted rotational movement of the head, there simply isn't a need to barrel roll to see directly overhead. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX