chuckakers

Not true. The FAR's are written very vaguely, some would argue intentionally. The regulation says the pilot may not allow the jump unless the gear is legal (TSO'd, in date, etc.). It does not require that the pilot actually verify that it's legal. There is a difference. If the gear is legal but the pilot doesn't verify it, the pilot has not busted an FAR. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Thanks for your sincere friendship and your very positive contributions to Skydive USA and the sport! Blue skies, my friend. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Let's not forget that you need to be VERY considerate when you've landed somewhere other than the dropzone. Mark Klingelhoefer I get the feeling that's not going to end well for anyone. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My Velo 111 was one of the earliest made. It never spanked me too hard and almost always sniveled for a long while. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Of course. Which would mean he wasn't taught about the consequences of improper technique, which would be very disappointing. It's not enough to know what to do. We also need to know why. Of course he could have just asked an instructor at his home DZ. Sure worked when I was a noob. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You were apparently never taught about this during your student progression, which is very disappointing. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well now, that was stupid. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hi Chuck, Let me explain better. What we see on these videos are not skyhook deployments. We see normal RSL deployments on Skyhook equipped rigs. Or if I have to say it otherwise , we see Skyhook failing to do it's job. Now, If I have to be honest I'm not really surprised by the Skyhook failures. We know that they happen quite often. What I'm surprised is that those guys paid 250 $ for a safety system, had a failure on that system and didn't even noticed it . Not only that, but assuming that they had the system performing its best, they've made a comment how great the system was. The Skyhook failures are about 10 %. But those 10 % are estimate on situations where the jumper saw it fail. I'm wondering now based on the videos if this percentage isn't much higher. Or even if I'm wrong, even if those 10 % failures are only in my head and the real percentage is let say 5 % (because I don't believe the factory .2 % estimation ) , the question remain. "How is possible to have a safety system with such a high malfunction ratio, and people still go crazy about it ?" The power of marketing! That's how I have no dog in this fight, as I don't use a skyhook, or even an RSL for that matter. That said, you could call these a "failure" of the skyhook, but I think it's short-sighted not to recognize the possible static-line effect the skyhook has on the pilot chute before it disengages at or near bridle stretch. This presumably does 3 things. It speeds the time to bridle stretch and hence deployment, it greatly minimizes if not completely eliminates the possibility of a horseshoe (at least a horseshoe caused by a lazy pilot chute launch), and... ...it makes Bill a few extra bucks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If you don't have a hook knife when you need one, you will probably never need one again. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Anyone who can't be alerted to an altitude issue at 4500 feet and get a canopy out before getting close the AAD firing window shouldn't be a coach. Even in a head-down position it doesn't take that long to transition to a belly-to-earth position, clear the air above, and pull. Sounds like the guy that was coaching you needed a coach as well. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not sure what you mean by "the power of marketing". Just looks like a couple skyhook deployments to me. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just what we need. Another %#*^@. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Might want to have the pilot read up on the FAR's concerning requirements to drop jumpers. It's a little more involved than just getting "outside the city". He will need to know the requirements for the specific type of airspace he will be operating in. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As I said earlier, I'm not passing judgment as you were the one in the saddle. Only you can make that call. Any additional conversation I have on the subject if of a more general nature. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I may not have made myself very clear in my original post. That does raise a question since it's been a while since I've been involved in student instruction. Are rear riser flare landings as an option after broken line no longer taught for noobs during or after student progression? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Whatever, dude. You should see the freefall skills you're trained in before getting an A license. Those guys can float/sink, they can do center point turns, and even swoop down to a formation. They are awesome, and let's face it, if the rigger hooks everything up right and the packer does their job, who would ever need to rear riser flare anyway? I sense a bit of sarcasm there but to answer you question, anyone who snaps a brake line. Of course that's if they know how to. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Pops - a couple things here. I did not say anything about teaching rear riser flares on the first jump, nor did I say anything about landing them. Let me clarify to be sure I'm understood. I - presumably like most people - was taught during the first dozen or so jumps that a cutaway was recommended if I had a broken brake line. It was in my progression that I was taught that a cutaway might not be necessary for a broken brake line if the canopy was controllable with rear risers. I also was never taught to land with rear risers for practice, but rather to practice flaring with risers at altitude to learn where the stall point was so that in the case of needing a rear riser flare a stall would not be reached. I was taught to practice this whenever possible to become comfortable with the technique, and was also trained to "re-practice" the technique with any change in canopies to learn where the new stall point was. Rear riser flares were NOT taught in the FJC. Not sure what I said that gave you that impression. But I was properly trained on how to recognize and avoid a rear riser stall, and by the time I had a license the accepted procedure for a broken brake line was to land on rear risers if the canopy was controllable and if a partial flare was possible without a stall. One caveat here. A cutaway was always considered an acceptable option if the jumper did not feel comfortable using rear risers for landing. That remains true today at any experience level and is always what I taught when teaching any level of skydiver. EDITED TO ADD: at the risk of being too simplistic in the above description, I was also taught to perform a PLF if landing with rear risers as I was for any landing that was or was suspected to be other than ideal. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Careful there, Chuck. We don't know whether or not he has learned enough about rear riser flight to be able to land rears safely. For you and me, yes. But NOT for everybody. IMO, for jumpers not understanding riser flight, cut and deploy IS best practices. OK...in the big scheme of things... Have first attempts been successful? Yes. Have first attempts been unsuccessful? Yes. I'm in the camp of "you must know about rear riser flight (including, and most particularly, stall point) before attempting rear-riser landings". And yes, I agree that riser flight should be well-in-hand by 200 jumps....but again, we don't know about this particular jumper. I suppose that depends on where he learned. I was taught how to rear riser flare in a broken brake line scenario (combined with a PLF, of course) during my student progression 26 years ago. Maybe things have changed. If so, that's yet another thing I disagree with in our "modern" training. We want people to have all kinds of "other than normal" flying skills before downsizing or moving to higher performing canopies, yet we don't train for a simple rear-riser flare when needed? Seems we would put more focus on the simple and sometimes necessary before the fancy and unnecessary, but what do I know? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As for my cutaways, one was linetwists I couldnt get out of, one was spinning on my back from 9 broken lines and a couple of torn cells and one was a broken brake line that I chopped because it opened hard enough that it rang my bell pretty good and I didnt want to chance landing on my rears with my head fuzzy. I would suggest you have someone watch you pack and supervise your deployments. Anyone can line twist so bad they can't get out of it, but I gotta question 9 broken lines and torn cells. That sound like a major league packing error or something like dumping in a fast delta-ish track without slowing down. In fact, that's about as much damage as I've ever heard of in an exploding canopy scenario. As for chopping a canopy because it hammered you and broke a brake line, I don't get that one at all. A typical response to that scenario would be to visually inspect the canopy for damage and perform a simple control check using risers. I would have to question the pack job and deployment technique on that one as well. Not passing judgment as you were the one in the saddle, but not knowing any other aspects of your progression or skills I would suggest getting together with a rigger for some packing advice and an instructor to review best practices. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I'm with Bill on wingloadings. There's a common and often ill-fated thought in the sport today that jumpers need to get up to a certain "speed" - and hence wingloading - as quickly as their skills will even come close to allowing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even a moderately loaded canopy of today's design will have a healthy forward speed allowing penetration into some pretty stiff winds, so a wingloading needed to jump in 25+ winds isn't really necessary unless you plan to (foolishly) do that anyway. Light wingloadings aren't killing us. Heavy wingloadings combined with a lack of experience and/or judgement are. Take your time and learn how to fly bigger canopies like a champ before stepping down. You will be glad you did. So will your family and your wallet. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

For clarification, Rebecca isn't Ryan's sister. She is his ex-wife and mother of his lovely young daughter. Now if the family could just get Ryan's personal belongings back as they have requested repeatedly it would make things much better for them. Too bad, really. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I wouldn't disagree with that. I remember when I started jumping in the mid 80's there were several older guys that always had mals just as their reserve repacks were due. Oddly, they always seemed to happen on their last jump of the day on Sunday afternoon. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

It wasn't dangerous back then. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already. I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, " Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it. Pops, I agree with you on all of the above. My problem isn't with re-evaluating our current minimums vs license or experience level, it's with raising the minimums for everyone on every jump. There are clearly jumps and jumpers that are perfectly safe doing 2k deployments, so it would seem to me that we need to address specifics like sniveling canopies somewhere besides the BSR's, and should evaluate the experience issue on its own. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say. So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft. The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK. Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around.Quote I think you miss the point. 2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, so it would be overkill and not logical to outlaw doing it for those people. USPA obviously thinks it's not safe for "A" and "B" license holders to dump at 2k, so they have a rule against it. I'm not sure how that isn't working in your mind. There are many many situations where a 2k deployment is perfectly acceptable. A clear and pull from 2,000 feet affords as much reaction time to take emergency procedures as a terminal deployment at 2.5k, so using your logic we would have to raise the minimum even higher than 2.5k if the jumper is at the end of a long skydive vs the beginning of a short one. If you want to argue that 2k is too low for everyone all the time, you could then argue for a 2.5k minimum for all. But here you argue that we have to slowly convince people to accept change, and there we part ways. Rules and laws change all the time. Break the new rule, get the new punishment. As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers. If 2k isn't safe under other conditions - like when a jumper has a long-sniveling canopy and an AAD, that should be addressed somewhere besides the BSR 's, like the "equipment recommendations" or "advanced progression" sections of the SIM. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX