chuckakers

What he said. And again I ask - does it make sense to practice something that might hurt you just so you don't get hurt when you do it later? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

+1 Spence, the jumpers you're talking about don't even understand how their gear works, let alone the science behind it. Understanding is the foundation of safety. Too often that understanding is absent these days. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The problem is, Trying to get back from a long spot and running out of altitude is not an emergency. And lets be honest, if this is happening on even a semi regular basis, that is whats happening. Someone else has the answer. Put up an overhead pic that is marked with land here as a last resort and be done with it. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go talk to the guy and tell him that is what you are telling everyone and if it happens it is an emergency. I'm betting he has had his fill of lip from jumpers. Like someone else said, If it were a prison how often would you land there? How about a prison with those high voltage fences? Nothing in that defense requires an emergency, only a necessity. That's subjective, of course, which is why we have courts. Better for the sport and DZ to avoid the courts.

As I read it, an "emergency" as defined by aviation or any other standards is not required under the "private necessity" defense. "Necessity" is a very broad term. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The problem is, Trying to get back from a long spot and running out of altitude is not an emergency. And lets be honest, if this is happening on even a semi regular basis, that is whats happening. Someone else has the answer. Put up an overhead pic that is marked with land here as a last resort and be done with it. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go talk to the guy and tell him that is what you are telling everyone and if it happens it is an emergency. I'm betting he has had his fill of lip from jumpers. Like someone else said, If it were a prison how often would you land there? How about a prison with those high voltage fences? Nothing in that defense requires an emergency, only a necessity. That's subjective, of course, which is why we have courts. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

This is a point I made in another post in which many people encouraged riser landings for practice. Other than swooping, I have landed on rears only twice, both times on an Excalibur with broken steering lines. I had never even steered with my rears, let alone landed with them. All I did was what riser landing proponents say should be done for practice. I made several practice flares up top to be sure I wouldn't stall the canopy, then repeated the same action for landing while performing a PLF. Being able to land on rears is definitely a useful skill. So is being able to muster up a PLF good enough to land a streamering reserve and live, but we don't practice it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

See "private necessity". BTW, the voluntary nature of our activities has nothing to do with it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/private_necessity Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

How is the emergency landing argument not valid? The OP already said landings on McNasty's property are rare, so by definition it isn't happening "that often". However, even it did happen fairly regularly "in the eyes of non-skydivers", McNasty's perception isn't the one that the law has to evaluate. If the skydivers take reasonable steps to avoid landing on McNasty's property - like adjusting the exit point and flying patterns to minimize the chance of a forced landing there - they do have a valid argument when it occurs. In tort law there is a defense called "private necessity" that allows trespassing on private property if it is necessary to protect the accused or other people or property. Under the private necessity defense the accused is still liable for damages caused during the trespass. If the jumper lands on McNasty's property because it was the best option or only choice to stay safe and/or avoid property damage, a private necessity defense would be a valid argument. However, if the jumper causes any damage to any of the owner's property, he/she would be liable for it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There is no reason to practice or perform rear riser landings. Broke a steering line on opening, landed on rears rather than cut away. I have too - twice, on an Excalibur. Landed both on rears without ever having practiced it. Well technically I had practiced once when it happened the second time. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There is no reason to practice or perform rear riser landings. A friend of mine had a toggle come off below cut way altitude, She had been on a canopy control course where rear riser landings were taught. She landed (with PLF) just fine. According to her, she was very pleased to have had the opportunity to practice rear riser landings so she could perform them when required ... Good for her. Odd though. Teaching rear riser landings is a fairly new thing, yet we've had squares for more than 30 years without a single incident that I know of where someone was badly injured or killed because a toggle fell off. Of course if a toggle just fell off, maybe she should be a bit more focused on maintenance and inspection. Or does she know how to do that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I can't speak to how well USPA is handling this particular issue, but I completely agree the rest of your comments. If the feds get to carve this one into stone, it will be yet another way for them to restrict us on federally funded airports. Not good. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Really? Which portion was it? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There is no reason to practice or perform rear riser landings. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't really see the point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As long as the exit altitude is high enough for a low-time jumper to get stable and deploy at their "legal" altitude, there's no reason to place minimums on chopper jumps. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I hope you're joking. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No, you said they sent you the actual videos. From your post... "And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month. " Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My observations are from my 15+ years (yes a youngster) and 100+ DZ's jumped at. And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month. We are a self policing organization, we are not well liked at small airports who think we "take" business from them. WE need to address this amongst ourselves and as an Organization. This landing area issue is one we should work WITH the FAA to address.Quote You are speaking out of turn here. There are 300+ DZ's in the US, many on public or private GA airports, and most of those are getting along very nicely with airport management. I think you have decided for yourself that we are not "well liked" by airport management. The truth is skydiving operations are perceived in a lot of different ways across the country. The fact that the vast majority of them are NOT in significant disputes with their hosts kind of blows your argument out of the water. And by the way, "we" ARE working with the FAA on the landing area issue. We have no choice. If the FAA decides to make something an issue, we have to deal with it. What you don't understand is that if we allow landing area sizes and margins to be carved into stone with the feds, it becomes one more RESTRICTION, not a way to protect us. Your government will always see regulation as the best way to advance a mutual cause. Unfortunately the mutual cause is seldom real. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A very good point. What are the consequences for violating a BSR? A verbal slap on the wrist - maybe. While that may have worked fine 20 years ago, it doesn't work so well today. I know this is a slippery slope, but I'm betting this is just the beginning of much, much more FAA oversight of skydiving. I think you are over-thinking the fed's motives. The FAA folks aren't nearly as educated nor interested in us as many imagine. The feds could care less how well USPA or DZO's are enforcing BSR's. Most couldn't even tell you what the term "Basic Safety Requirements" means. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The FAA guys aren't always as bad as we make them out to be. Remember, most of these folks really are motivated to accommodate ALL airport users and don't have an inherent problem with jump operations. My guess is that there is an established pattern of airport management in access disputes using landing area margins as a reason to knock skydiving. "Crowding" is the easiest argument when no real argument exists. For the record, I am against regulating landing area size, location, or margins. History clearly demonstrates it isn't necessary. On the other side of that coin, if we can parlay the situation to define an acceptable PLO as being the size of a postage stamp surrounded by a hi-rise skyline, it would put a stop to municipalities using landing area margins against us. It isn't the subject that matters. It's the outcome. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe where you jump. I've jumped at dozens of DZ's and have never experienced any of that. BTW, I noticed that every infraction you mention had nothing to do with USPA. Every "we" you noted was about individual jumpers or pilots acting inappropriately. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Me too, brother. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It can help new TI's if a few hand signals are communicated to them. I used to turn the TI to the correct angle to the sun by pointing in the direction I wanted him to go while sliding that way until I was happy with the shot. The same thing can be done to tell the TI that the spot is long (as in "don't suck me down or I'll miss the landing shot"). I nice letter "L" with a hand works nicely for that. A thumbs up by the TI says he understood and the whuffos back home just think it's a thumbs up for the sake of a thumbs up. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You mean the guy with the red-and-white canopy? (BTW: Must have been another videot from a tandem that exited later, so he must have overtaken the first videot and the solo jumper who exited first...) Yes. That was a really stupid move. Accident waiting for a report. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If used in the same context I always taught, it's the area upwind of the target where the jumper should stay and play until reaching an appropriate altitude to begin a landing pattern. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX