chuckakers

Oh we see the problem, and you have demonstrated your wish for a one-track solution - banning swooping. You have yet to address the fact that swooping is only one of many skydiving disciplines that carry higher risks like wingsuiting and CRW. You want to ban those next? I remember when freeflying first became popular there were numerous incidents involving freefall collisions and there was talk by some of just banning the activity altogether. Instead freeflyers learned and then taught techniques to others to minimize that possibility and today we see very few incidents involving body to body freefall collisions between freeflyers. We go through learning curves in this sport and people get hurt and killed teaching the rest of us the lessons. That hasn't changed since the very beginning and probably never will. You can keep whining to stop the carnage all you want, but the groundswell you are advocating just won't happen. Swooping is here to stay as long as swooping canopies are made available. By the way, why not aim your anti-swoop gun at the folks who make hp canopies? After all, if we couldn't get our derelict little hands on them we wouldn't have this problem to begin with would we? Performance Designs (386) 738-2224. Ask for Bill or John. Demand they pull all the hp stuff from the shelves. See how far you get. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Chuck, I can understand the idea even though they are two different ways of flying the parachute. I think the idea of getting the PRO rating would slow down the progression in trying to be a swooper in that you would have to have the PRO required 500 jumps and show you have an understanding of canopy control for the 10 declared accuracy landings. If a jumper doesn't have the discipline to get the PRO card, they most likely will end up being the current type of swooper that fills these incedent reports. And since wingsuiters are getting bashed for some reason about our current attempts of pushing the envelope, we have the same battle of newer birds progressing too fast to the big flying carpets without putting the time in the smaller suits to gain the required skils. Different shape of wing, but same problem. It shows that we have a common problen that when we can't self regulate by peer pressure/guidelines/mentoring, regulations end up being the only stick that is effective in beating back the overaggresive noobs that want to push the envelope, be it only their own personal one. Essentially you're saying the same thing many others have said - that we need a developed program for progression. I don't completely disagree with the concept, but I don't think there would be a lot of support for making it mandatory. Remember, even a pro rating isn't necessary to perform pro level demos. There is an option for going around it. Besides, many swoop accidents involve people who are very well qualified and highly experienced. People progressing too rapidly is only part of the overall swoop accident problem. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Define definition. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There certainly is a progression. Mine was Raven, Excalibur, Monarch, smaller Monarch, Nova, Stiletto, Velocity. Every swooper has a progression. It's just that some progress too quickly. As for regulation, what exactly do you want to regulate? Wing loading? Degrees of performance turns? In case you haven't noticed, many of the swoop incidents involve highly experienced pilots with many thousands of jumps - folks that would easily qualify for any regulation that would be instituted. I think you misunderstand what the pro program is about. Receiving pro training and getting a pro card has nothing to do with swooping. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

but it might have merit. Quote Nope Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's actually funny if ya think about it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Reminds me of the run on Cypreses after Tom Piras went in Panama after a freefall/canopy collision. I always say, Tommy may not have been wearing a helmet, but at least his free Airtec sponsored Cypres was turned off. While waiting for the load, he demonstrated turning it on, then said "it's only a four way" and turned it off. Looking around at the experience level of the others in the group on the way to altitude, he said "maybe I should have left it on." Wow. Didn't know that. Very telling. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Good job, brother. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The sound of the prop isn't typically noticed over the sound of the running engine, but that doesn't really matter. In the case of people not familiar with being around planes, the bigger issue is the invisible nature of a spinning prop combined with a lack of knowledge about safety near aircraft. In this case - as is often the case - the young woman had cleared the aircraft but turned around to thank the pilot for the ride when she was struck. Additionally the accident occurred at night when a prop can be even more invisible. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes, she walked into a spinning prop, just like many hundreds of pilots have. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I would have jumped slower opening canopies while jumping big, heavy camera gear. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

All stalls occur when the angle of attack becomes to high for the wing to produce lift, regardless of the cause. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

People aren't dying under canopy because they went through AFF instead of static line, they are dying because they are being allowed to buy and fly canopies they aren't ready for and allowed to fly them in dangerous ways. The acceptance within the sport of rapid advancement to high performance canopies and aggressive flying techniques is - by far - the leading cause of canopy incidents today. Two facts for you: 1. There's no data to support the idea that skydivers who went through AFF have more canopy incidents per capita that static line grads later in their careers. 2. Skydivers had only a fraction of the canopy related incidents of today when hi-performance canopies were flown only by the most experienced pilots. The method of training in a student's first 25 jumps is NOT what's killing people with hundreds or thousands of jumps. If we want fewer canopy deaths there's a sure-fire to make it happen. End the proliferation of mid-level skydivers flying hi-end hot rod canopies. It's really that simple. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If I recall correctly, when Cowboy got in the plane to fly to that boogie there was a note on the yoke explaining that there was fuel contamination and he flew it anyway. So yes, you might say he was sloppy on maintenance. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

is way cheaper to start with repeat jumps are way way cheaper you spend a lot of time under canopy and have more landings for the same amount of money you have to work for it to get to freefalling from altitude In the early days of AFF, there was a distinct advantage to s/l for canopy training because AFF students did only 7 or 8 jumps before being cleared for self-supevision, and that's usually where canopy training ended. s/l students had the advantage of making 20 - 25 jumps under supervision, giving them a dollars vs jumps advantage, which certainly is a factor in canopy proficiency. Since students learning at drop zones that use USPA's 25 jump program (or some variation on that theme) make as many jumps under supervision on either program, the only advantage left to s/l is cost. That advantage is pretty much blown to hell when you look at the skill level of graduates from each program. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Back in the days of an 8 or 10 jump AFF course I would have agreed. However if a student is learning at a drop zone that requires 25 +/- jumps to complete trainig regardless of method, I disagree that static line has any advantage over AFF and content that the opposite is true. Every jump ends with a canopy flight (hopefully, anyway), so any canopy exercise or training that can be conducted on a s/l jump can also be conducted on an AFF jump. Additionally, AFF students typically saddle considerably higher than s/l students, giving them more altitude to perform those exercises. 25 canopy flights is 25 canopy flights no matter what a student does before getting nylon overhead. AFF has the additional HUGE advantage of giving the student long-term exposure to terminal velocity (which is heads above s/l for learning freefall maneuvers) and that has to be considered in the decision process. IMO, AFF is a far superior overall training doctrine and since the OP indicated that the 2 programs are about the same cost I see no advantages to choosing static line. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Open a DZ. Done properly, you can actually make money. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's easy, once. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The reason is easy. We learn to skydive by being exposed to the freefall environment for extended periods. AFF was developed to give students that exposure from the very first jump. It also allows for instruction and correction during the skydive which dramatically steepens the learning curve. Or as I have always told folks, static line training is like wading around in the shallow end of the pool, while AFF is like jumping into the deep end with a pair of lifeguards by your side. Most people learn faster and better with AFF. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Welcome to the club. I have what my surgeon calls "lifestyle-accelerated spinal syndrome". A thousand video jumps on an Excalibur in the days of big gear have stricken my neck with arthritis and a few thousand jumps total have done the same thing to my lumbar. So far I have no herniated discs so I feel lucky. I can't address you specific issue but I can say you will do yourself a favor by taking it easy concerning things that will aggravate your condition. Stay away from canopies with a tendency to whack you on opening, require fighting out of line twists, or fail to flare well in less than optimum conditions. Leave the video work to others, use weights if needed to avoid the need to hyper-arch, and learn to land without thumping in on your feet or butt. Or as my Orthowizard says "if it makes it hurt, don't do it". Oh yeah, cryptonite strength anti-inflammatories help too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

This won't answer your question, but it's worth mentioning and should be the real lesson here. It never fails that your friends will suck you down when you are filming them deploy. Vidiots have experienced this over and over throughout the years. When jumpers know they are being filmed they often take longer than normal to pitch out. Not sure if it's because they are "posing", making sure they are in the right spot for the shot, or just don't have as much focus on the task at hand, but the story you told has been repeated hundreds of times since the inception of freefall photography. When planning to film an opening, plan for a higher than normal deployment and be extra vigilant about altitude. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Do a quick line check before packing and that won't happen. And remember a line check goes all the way to the 3-rings. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

After reading the news article, I believe USPA would do us all a big favor by archiving all the assorted media in this case and using it as an excellent example for our side when battling airport access crap in other cases. Let's start using the ridiculous against the ridiculous! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The irony is killing me. whatever dude, english is my 3rd language. how many do you speak again!? Let me get this right.... You mis-spell words in a post intended to insult someone for poor spelling, and then justify YOUR poor spelling when someone points out the irony? How ironic. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Reminds me of the run on Cypreses after Tom Piras went in Panama after a freefall/canopy collision. I always say, Tommy may not have been wearing a helmet, but at least his free Airtec sponsored Cypres was turned off. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX