chuckakers

The problem is USPA does not have the horse power to do anything about this type of situation. If the FAA gets involved the back lash could affect everyone. As for RD that jumps at Bill’s place he is a lackey that gives Bill a vote on the BOD without even being a member. Sparky I don't believe FAA involvement would create a backlash on the rest of us. It's pretty well demonstrated that Lodi is a bad apple. The feds - like them or not - seem pretty good about separating unsafe operations from everyone else. For as long as I can remember people have feared that enforcement where it's warranted would lead to harassment where it's not, but that has yet to happen. How many times have we heard "if we don't clean up our act the feds will?" Every FAA official I have worked with - and there have been many - asked that we follow the rules as written, nothing more, nothing less. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So I guess it was ok for Dause to have an unrated TI on the payroll take a tandem passenger up in an aircraft that didn't receive mandatory inspections without belting her in for takeoff? Yeah, ol' Billy sure runs a tight ship alright. New gear or not, IMO Lodi is an ongoing nightmare waiting to happen. The unrated TI almost proved it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

At what point will someone run Dause and his ilk out of town? And this is the home DZ for the USPA Regional Director for that area. Even though The Parachute Center isn't a USPA DZ, it seems to me that a Director jumping there is a pretty ringing endorsement of the place. That's as "unfuckingbelievable" as anything else in all of this. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

To the DZO - where's the y-strap mod? To the TI - how many times does she have to say no? To the camera guy - you put this on Youtube? Bingo! We have a winner. The DZO would be Bill Dause of the Parachute Center in Lodi. The same place that has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the FAA for failing to perform mandatory aircraft inspections and where seat belts in airplanes are there only for appearance. As for the Y mod, it's tough to pay for stuff like that when you only charge a hundred bucks for a tandem jump. I'd love to hear some Lodi jumper's opinions on all this and more. I would especially like to hear from the USPA Director who jumps there every weekend! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Call me stupid and unimaginative. I can't think of a productive motive for it. The only one I could come up with was if he was hoping to get asked to leave the airport and could negotiate a lease contract settlement on his way out like Larry Hill did at Coolidge. Vance Brand is the closest airport to the front range cities between Boulder and Denver which is out of DIA's air space so you can get 12,500 AGL without permission from air traffic control. Moving would be a pretty dumb business move. I can easily picture Jeff Sands sending out the bumper stickers; maybe Frank was channeling his spirit. As I understand it, Frank admitted to sending the stickers out as a joke. I wasn't thinking about Mile High moving. I was just suggesting that if a DZO wanted to move OR close up shop (which I am NOT saying is happening) he or she could make waves in hopes of getting paid to go away through a negotiated lease termination. All purely hypothetical, but it's a strategy I've seen in other types of contractual relationships with municipalities. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Call me stupid and unimaginative. I can't think of a productive motive for it. The only one I could come up with was if he was hoping to get asked to leave the airport and could negotiate a lease contract settlement on his way out like Larry Hill did at Coolidge. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Agree with you but if someone is jumping at a 90 only DZ or only has 90 only DZs near them, who/how are they going to get this training? Without being able to do larger turns, how can they safely downsize? Unless the 90 only DZ allows larger turns on low passes the only way they'll be able to get more speed is to downsize There is no necessary connection between downsizing and bigger turns. Any canopy a person has the skill to handle can be landed safely using a straight-in approach. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe, maybe not. It certainly exposes the "Quiet Skies" dipsticks as loudmouth whiners who complain about everything -- including getting a bumper sticker in the mail. I think Frank ought to do a follow-on to the bumper sticker gambit and pull a Rush Limbaugh* on them: Form a "Quiet Meetings" group dedicated to reducing noise pollution at city council meetings by whining weasels with nothing better to do with their time (and those of others at the meetings) than bitch about businesses that pre-date their residence near-to by years and decades. 44 * Rush Limbaugh created "Rush Babes for America" to counteract the National Organization for Women, and in 48 hours far exceeded the NOW membership rolls. Regardless of your feeling towards the guy and his politics, it was a brilliant move and Frank should see similar results because I think there are far - far - more people in that community who are much more sick of whining weasel noise than they are of airplane noise. As a 20-year veteran as on-air talent in the radio business, I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that your assessment is incorrect. Rush's success is predicated on such moves as an obviously controversial media personality. In that game controversy spurs listenership on both sides of the argument and can't put you out of business as long as there are sponsors waiting for their turn to write checks - which Rush has truckloads of. In the case of a DZ with pissed off neighbors, stirring controversy has no positive outcome. The whiners will only see the DZ's actions as rubbing the issue in their faces, prompting a predictable reaction. Some folks in town may see that response as whiners just whining louder, but to those who matter - airport board members, city council members and city management - the whiners are citizens of the community who vote. The primary goal of city officials is to dispose of the issue and hopefully make everyone happy - or at least not angry - in the process, which the DZ's actions are not helping them do. Even if city officials agree with the DZ in this case, they are extremely sensitive to the wishes of the voters, and the squeaky voting wheel gets the municipal grease. Also remember that many if not most of the jumpers live outside the city and don't vote in city elections. ALL the whiners are city residents that vote for city officials. Rush is in the entertainment business where sponsors can be replaced with others salivating to buy a finite amount of commercial airtime. Mile High is in the skydiving business on a municipal airport managed by people who need to ride the political fence for their own self-preservation. Two totally different creatures with nearly polar opposite tactics for success. LOL... that's why I prefaced my response to "stupid move by Mile high....." by saying "Maybe, maybe not." Can't quibble with a thing you said and after briefly pondering what you said, I still won't say the Mile-Hi move was stupid, but you make a very sound argument indeed that they should have just let lying dogs sleep. Thanks for the insight. 44 I guess whether or not it was a stupid move depends on the DZO's motives behind it. As a former DZO on a muni, I learned pretty quickly that the one thing board and council members hate are irate calls from constituents. I got the best results when I stood my ground when I knew I was in the right, but did so as politely as possible - at least when speaking to anyone who might repeat my words to the other side. I can't imagine what the reaction of the city leaders was when they heard what Frank did. My guess is they thought "what the f*ck did he go and do THAT for?" Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe, maybe not. It certainly exposes the "Quiet Skies" dipsticks as loudmouth whiners who complain about everything -- including getting a bumper sticker in the mail. I think Frank ought to do a follow-on to the bumper sticker gambit and pull a Rush Limbaugh* on them: Form a "Quiet Meetings" group dedicated to reducing noise pollution at city council meetings by whining weasels with nothing better to do with their time (and those of others at the meetings) than bitch about businesses that pre-date their residence near-to by years and decades. 44 * Rush Limbaugh created "Rush Babes for America" to counteract the National Organization for Women, and in 48 hours far exceeded the NOW membership rolls. Regardless of your feeling towards the guy and his politics, it was a brilliant move and Frank should see similar results because I think there are far - far - more people in that community who are much more sick of whining weasel noise than they are of airplane noise. As a 20-year veteran as on-air talent in the radio business, I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that your assessment is incorrect. Rush's success is predicated on such moves as an obviously controversial media personality. In that game controversy spurs listenership on both sides of the argument and can't put you out of business as long as there are sponsors waiting for their turn to write checks - which Rush has truckloads of. In the case of a DZ with pissed off neighbors, stirring controversy has no positive outcome. The whiners will only see the DZ's actions as rubbing the issue in their faces, prompting a predictable reaction. Some folks in town may see that response as whiners just whining louder, but to those who matter - airport board members, city council members and city management - the whiners are citizens of the community who vote. The primary goal of city officials is to dispose of the issue and hopefully make everyone happy - or at least not angry - in the process, which the DZ's actions are not helping them do. Even if city officials agree with the DZ in this case, they are extremely sensitive to the wishes of the voters, and the squeaky voting wheel gets the municipal grease. Also remember that many if not most of the jumpers live outside the city and don't vote in city elections. ALL the whiners are city residents that vote for city officials. Rush is in the entertainment business where sponsors can be replaced with others salivating to buy a finite amount of commercial airtime. Mile High is in the skydiving business on a municipal airport managed by people who need to ride the political fence for their own self-preservation. Two totally different creatures with nearly polar opposite tactics for success. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes, it means we've gone nearly 2 months without a swoop fatal. Nothing more, nothing less. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I have many fond memories of hanging and jumping with Mike. He was a great guy and a terrific friend. I'll never forget our jump into the Texas Tech stadium. What a hoot!! Blue skies, Mike. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Although funny, maybe not the best move to do the direct mailer. These folks don't believe in letting Mile High Operate and will use this to help make more enemies for Mile High. Matt +1 I operated a DZ on a municipal for a few years and found the climate to be politically charged on every issue all the time. A move like this could serve to put some airport board members or city council folks on the other side of the argument, especially given that the DZ has some very vocal opponents. We've all seen what happens when the right people decide a DZ isn't worth the perceived hassles it brings, so I'm not sure why Frank would want to feed that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You sound like a 15-year old who "was just holding it for a friend". Split hairs all you want. Anything that flies that is capable of carrying a "passenger" will be regulated accordingly. And your post still doesn't address a jump outside the skydiving regs. Intentional jumps require TSO'd gear with an in-date reserve blah, blah, blah. Get back on the porch before you get bit, puppy. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So what happens if you send your money and it doesn't happen. I'm sure you'll get your money back....suuuure you will. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For your "falling out" theory to be legal, the rig in question would have to contain a certificated reserve packed by a rigger, sealed in accordance with FAR's, and have a data card. Additionally, the rig would need to be TSO'd as an emergency parachute system. I doubt the deceased was wearing one of those. Nice try, though. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My bad, I must have been going off my military experience. Those guys spent buttloads lot of time in the sim, especially before being certified in a new plane. My argument stands. Knowledge means next to nothing without skill, and skill can only be gained through repetition. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Been jumping the same one for12 years. Great helmet, works as advertised, and takes a beating well. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots. Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident. Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group. The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'. The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300. Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'. I agree with your assessment for the most part, but in my mind the training is far less important than simple jump numbers. Training can accelerate the rate at which jumpers can learn to use any variety of techniques, but nothing can replace repetition as a means of improving performance, especially when pucker factor becomes an element in the real-world environment. This is why airline pilots spent countless hours in sims. Knowing what to do does not translate into proper action. Practice does. Flying too much performance with too little experience is our biggest problem, and the one that few seem to be focusing on. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It seems more & more that the margin of error grows increasingly smaller as the canopy size decreases and the wing loading goes up. That's nothing new to aviation, ya don't see a lotta X-15's toolin' around the boonies...damn tough to land 'em. As I mention in one of these threads, I think if there was a full accounting available of not only the fatalities but also of the life altering injuries caused by pilot error on the HP canopies, the situation would be given a lot more scrutiny than it is even now. I would also like to add, it looks to me like things ARE changing a bit. There have been numerous threads of this type over the last several years, some less productive than others. It's seems to my untrained eye anyway that the discussion has been turning more toward acknowledgement of a problem and and finding workable solutions that ever before in the past. That's a good thing, this isn't a battle between swoopers and non, it's a crisis in the sport that needs to be dealt with by all. It's a 'process' arriving at a safe middle ground, it's unfortunate that it takes us so long to get the wheels rolling, especially when lives are at risk. I keep thinking about the Y mod and the speed at which it was implemented...a couple people died because the gear though safe when utilized properly, 'could' be unsafe if 'human error' was allowed into the equation in a small measure. What was it...a couple weeks and that whole end of the sport was changed forever...surely there is SOMETHING we can do to slow the HP canopy carnage? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As I pointed out earlier, all canopies are lethal when improperly handled. Pilots don't get hurt because their little canopy just flew them into the ground on its own. When a pilot smacks the ground hard it's because of something they did or didn't do. It is not the canopy's fault. It's the pilot's. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Are those US fatalities alone?. If not, I'm sure the world wide figures would paint a slightly different picture.... And the figure for "maimed" would I'm sure would show the inexperienced dominating. What makes you say that? Stats are stats. If you want to talk about them, don't assume. Just go look them up. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Your first statement is a correct one, but that's where it ends. The canopy crashing problem IS one of pilot error and we definitely should question the training and/or appropriateness of jumpers and canopies. As for the conclusion of outside regulators, blah blah blah. They will have an uphill battle sticking their noses into a sport they don't understand. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So if you REALLY want to stop this, the answer is to reduce or eliminate access to HP canopies. The ongoing incidents prove that a ban on -- or severely restricted access to -- HP canopies is the only thing that would be effective. People keep talking about training and mentoring, but that alone is not working. It's just more talk. The time for talking has come and gone. It's time to DO something. . Well then what do you propose? You are talking about banning hp canopies. That will never happen and it shouldn't. Everyone has a choice. Yours may differ from those who are qualified and choose to jump hp canopies. If you want 100% guarantee nobody will get hurt or die this isn't the right lifestyle for you. So your answer is to just accept the collateral damage. It's just a cost of jumping HP Canopies??????????? You've had twenty years to stop this little problem and despite all the efforts of those that can be bothered sweet fcuk all has happened. I've said it so many times in this thread: Stop the carnage or someone else will do it for you. Time for a reality check here. As I have said concerning just about every aspect of skydiving, this is a matter of local regulation and enforcement. If a DZO wants to eliminate HP canopy crashes, he or she can limit wing loadings, ban performance turns, and make any rule they want concerning which canopies people can fly and how they can fly them. It's really that simple. If there is a "put your money where your mouth is" gun to be pointed, it is to be pointed at DZO's who scratch their heads over the problem, yet continue to allow HP canopies and HP flying techniques on their DZ's. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with HP stuff. I hook my Postage Stamp on nearly every jump and have a son that competes professionally. My point is that individual business owners are the people with the control over this issue. If enough DZO's get tired of scraping little Johnny off the beer line, they will stop the so-called carnage through local regulation and enforcement of that regulation. If that happens on a large enough scale there will no longer be a market for hotrod canopies and manufacturers will stop making them. Will banning HP flying cost the DZO business to the guy down the street? Yep. Can they do it anyway? Yep. Will it fix the problem? It will on that DZ. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If you want to be pedantic about it, yes that could be said to be true. Generally. But some are definitely way more lethal than others, and a lot less forgiving, when mistakes are made..... Variations in size give variations in consequences when an error is made. Indisputable. He is simply saying, that once a canopy has opened correctly, and saved your life by stopping your FF into the ground, there is no real excuse to then die, especially as a result of a small error on landing. "Parachute" literally translates into "safe fall", so in the case of death on landing a good one, the exact opposite has happened, with increasing frequency. What was once sort of logical, about "parachute", has changed, and that old logic has gone out the window, for no apparent good reason. Its easy to see how people reach that conclusion. Its not that unreasonable, Nor should it be surprising. Nor can it be ignored.... HP death/injury stats provide the stick with which that drum is being beaten. And that is all he is doing, and warning that others may see it the same way, with even less understanding than a retired jumper who is fully cognisant with the risks we normally accept, and take for granted. Its not rocket science, but you already know that..... We don't fly parachutes. We fly canopies and all of them are lethal when handled improperly. Hook a Manta too low and you'll end up just as dead as you will hooking a Velo too low. HP canopies don't kill canopy pilots, canopy pilots do. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All canopies are lethal. What's your point? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX