chuckakers

So you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle. I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground. Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really. I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded." Case closed. Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned. Guess I would constantly be in trouble because my Altimaster II will be reading 0' by the time the DZO checks it. Or, with the DZO tracking opening altitudes with "an altitude recording device", does that mandate me buying one so that I can make a jump at this DZO's DZ? Or is the DZO going to provide them thus requiring another jump ticket price increase? My reply was purely hypothetical based on another post about a DZO forcing someone to hand over a device if they had one. The bottom line is easier than that for me. If the problem child is consistently staying in freefall for several seconds after everyone else deploys, it really only requires asking others on the group where they dumped to get a good idea whether a low pull occurred. Splitting hairs with me didn't work at my DZ. I showed more than one person the door when they repeatedly pushed the limits and then wanted to argue about it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Even better Tward, let's just not raise the minimum from a BSR perspective. Raising the minimums shouldn't affect everyone so it shouldn't be a BSR. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The point is that there is NOTHING from preventing you or anyone else from pulling HIGHER. AAD: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Higher WL: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Longer opening: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. This is not even about being able to raise the AAD activation altitude... CYPRES or VIGIL can do that whenever they feel like it. In fact, you can do it yourself now. This is not about Bill Booths (or anyones opinion that higher is safer) I doubt many people would really argue that higher is not safer. It is about changing a BSR so people with an AAD can feel better about pulling higher. But the secret is that if you want to pull at 3 or 4k all day everyday.... There is nothing to stop you from doing it. But that does not mean EVERYONE should or that we need a BSR to make that happen. 20 years ago much lower pulls were very common. Modern AAD's changed that. So, you want an AAD that fires higher? GREAT!!!! But that does not mean the BSR's need to be changed to make that happen. Airtec can raise the activation altitude whenever they feel like it.... And anyone that knows their gear will know they have to pull higher than BSR says they can. Again, this is not about AAD activations or anything else.... It is about changing a BSR that really does not have to be changed. See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens. I don't need a BSR to tell me that. Dead on point, Ron. +1 Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I am one of those against the proposal for a BSR raising the minimum deployment altitude, but a distinction needs to made here. I am not against higher deployments. I am not against prudence dictating higher deployments when circumstances warrant it, and clearly today's equipment combinations require it in most cases including my own (slow-opening Velo and an AAD). I am vehemently against mandating a higher deployment altitude for everyone on every jump, because there are many circumstances in which a 2,000 foot deployment is safe and even some circumstances in which it is necessary. BSR's are supposed to be absolutes, so while a deployment higher than 2,000 is usually needed by the average jumper on the average jump, mandating it would exclude doing 2,000 deployments even when they can be done safely. That's why I believe as posted earlier that the BSR should remain the same and a recommendation should be added to address why higher deployments are usually prudent. Keep in mind that once something gets BSR status it's no longer just a good idea, it's a "rule". Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle. I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground. Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really. I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded." Case closed. Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think it's to do with the fact that at the current AAD firing altitude you're only a pilot chute hesitation away from bouncing if you're at terminal speed when it fires. If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes. Obviously raising main deployment altitudes and getting it to be the norm has to come first before modifying the AAD's parameters. This is probably ground work for raising AAD firing altitudes. I don't think an effort to raise AAD firing altitudes has anything to do with any move to raise main deployment altitudes. I believe it is simple math. If a container opening occurs at 2,000 feet and a sniveling canopy (like my Velo) that typically take 800 feet to open decides to open a little slower than normal - say 1,000 feet - the jumper is in or is getting into the firing range of the AAD. That said, I disagree with raising minimum deployment altitudes as a BSR. There are numerous scenarios in which a 2,000 foot opening is perfectly safe under certain gear configurations. If an appropriately skilled jumper has a faster opening canopy and no AAD, 2,000 feet is no different than 2,500 for someone with a sniveler and an AAD. Same applies if a jumper is doing a clear and pull from just above 2,000 feet where they will cover a 1,000 foot drop in nearly twice the time as a jumper at terminal. BSR's are intended to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits under certain conditions. If it is possible to safely open at 2 grand with a given gear configuration, then 2 grand should be what he BSR's reflect. If certain gear configurations necessitate a jumper pull higher than that, it should be addressed outside the BSR's. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's not the point. A rule that's not enforcible is a waste of time. The discussion isn't about whether the rule is enforceable. That's a different conversation. But since you bring it up.... Based on your assessment we shouldn't have any minimum deployment altitude because it would be impossible to ever conclusively prove whether a person broke the "rule", which is both overly simplistic and incorrect. What if the proposal was to raise the minimum to 2,800 feet. Would that be enough of a change to tell if someone busted? How about 3,000? 3,300? 3,500? Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred. So to say that a change of any given amount would be unenforceable and therefore a waste of time is simply not true. The question stands. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

... and I don't like it. What do others think? This is what I plan to post on the USPA forum where the BOD agenda was announced.... 3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL. I disagree with this proposal. Container openings of 2,000 feet AGL are no riskier than those at 2,500 feet when performed by appropriately skilled jumpers utilizing appropriate equipment such as faster a opening canopy in a rig not equipped with an AAD. BSR's are supposed to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits for some people under certain conditions. Creating a BSR limiting everyone's practices when only some (even if most) people are effected would blur the lines of BSR's as a concept. I believe minimum container opening altitudes should be addressed as gear and situation specific, and various scenarios would be better included in the SIM in the "equipment" section as recommendations for various gear configurations and experience levels. A note could be included in the "deployment altitudes" section of the BSR's referencing the more detailed discussion in the equipment recommendations section. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's not the point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Absolutely! It doesn't matter how many jumps you have or how much time-in-sport, if you see something you think is out of whack, speak up! A decent person would address the issue or explain to you how or why you were off base. It sounds like the organizer in your example provided an explanation as to why they were doing what they were doing. And yes, other countries have different rules. So, by their rules, he may have been entirely correct. BUT! Regardless of the rules, if you are not comfortable with what you see, speak up! You always have the choice of continued participation or stepping down. You made the best decision for yourself and that's a good...no GREAT thing. FWIW, my hat is off to you, sir. Now...go get your bottlers to produce more Irish Whiskey.

Using that logic the OP should ignore your reply. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You won't be making a "solo" jump. You will be with 1 or possibly 2 instructors (depending on the type of training doctrine being used). The instructor(s) will maintain a grip on you at all times until the parachute literally pulls you out of their hands. Assuming you will be jumping at a USPA drop zone, your instructors should be certified by USPA and will have received intense training and testing to make sure they have the skill to handle any situation a student might present them. As for the fear, trust your training and be ready to execute the skydive as practiced. Fear - to a point - is your friend in skydiving. It makes you pay attention and keeps you from doing stupid shit. At least until the beer light comes on. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I saw a similar thing on youtube over the weekend only it was jumping camera on his "6th solo". Thought the same thing. I guess some DZ's don't mind, or don't check? Here's the link - says total jumps "16 so far". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHICAzzY_s The plane in that video is the same PAC (N750SN) that is shown on the Skydive Hollister website. Looks like a pattern of noobs with cameras. Considering Hollister had a fatality 6-7 months ago that involved a camera flyer who didn't have anywhere near the requisite jumps, you'd think they'd be a little less care-free about this kind of shit. But I can't really say I'm surprised. Ouch. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Ryan's remains have (probably) been located in California. No positive ID yet, but a tentative ID was made from his clothing and receipts in a backpack found with the body. Hikers found the body in the desert a few days ago. More info coming from the family as it is confirmed. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I saw a similar thing on youtube over the weekend only it was jumping camera on his "6th solo". Thought the same thing. I guess some DZ's don't mind, or don't check? Here's the link - says total jumps "16 so far". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHICAzzY_s The plane in that video is the same PAC (N750SN) that is shown on the Skydive Hollister website. Looks like a pattern of noobs with cameras. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

An all black rig will appear less dirty when dirty and will sell easier than almost any other single color. As for a canopy, think BRIGHT, BRIGHT, BRIGHT. The first step in avoiding a canopy collision is being seen. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think you mean the big "A". Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Mark was responsible for me buying my first Talon (#284). He taught me to skydive at Parachutes & Associates in Frankfurt, Indiana in 1985. When I was ready to order my first rig I asked for his advice and he suggested this new rig called a Talon. When I asked if it was a good choice, he told me a bit about Sandy and his abilities, and said he already had a Talon on order, sight unseen. That was enough for me, and Sandy and his terrific wife Brenda and wonderful crew at R.I. have continued to impress me ever since. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That would certainly be prudent of him. The problem is, it's not always easy to tell good lawyers from bad. What do you go by? Win-loss record? That helps to some degree, but maybe this guy just had a string of cases where the facts were very much against his client, so he lost them all. The lawyer's apparent command of the law? Almost any lawyer worth his salt can make a pronouncement sound authoritative. Unless you actually know that area of the law, it's hard to tell that he's not giving you the full story. Recommendations? Those are often based on outcome -- my lawyer got me $2.1 million. Okay, but maybe you had a really obvious and easy case that a fifth grader could have won. State Bar complaints? That a person has none is good, but definitely not indicative of quality. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bravo! I have known Sandy for 26 years (and bought every rig I've ever owned from him). He is a first-rate person, design and rigging genius, and an honest businessman who goes the extra miles for his customers. The sport needs more like him. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Poor Guy should've checked out Crap Lawyer before hiring him. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Wouldn't happen more than once if I ran the DZ. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Pointing out that an instructor hummed it low to attempt to catch a flailer is not a claim of heroism. Bunk that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

i read this as : I should be glad mine has 103 snaps Sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiivvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllll. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX