chuckakers

Listen to this guy, Paul. Your 27 years means nothing compared to PiLFy's 2 years and 60 jumps. Hate to say it, but this is what we've come to. What a shame. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before. What the hell is up with you people? You're trying to tie and untied shoe with a motorized, remote-controlled, double-whizbang doodad. Just get some damn radios, already. Geez. oh damn radios so dang was a typo??? ha ha ha seriously chuck we don't need them!!!! As I was saying our students do a great job without the radio and its been done here for years we are just now using another piece of technology to help us train them better and it's working well here what ever you say it doesn't effect our results. I like the way our students are independent making there decisions from day one, The audible doesn't make decisions for them it doesn't pull down the toggles it just gives them information they can use. What ever methods Instructors use it comes down to the way they are applied the teaching and the briefing thats the important part not the device itself. I guess the guys that use to use an arow for TA might call your dang or damn radio a whizbang doodad too!!! If your students are already doing "just fine" without radios, they don't need audibles. You pro-audible guys are now talking in circles. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

OK, so the alti was "beat up" when you needed that as your justification for audibles, but when I point out that learning at a DZ that put you out on a "beat up" alti might not have been a good idea, it's now not so beat up? My friend, this is entertaining. Horribly scary when I think about it, but entertaining. Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me. I hate to burst your bubble, Sunshine. Being obstinate isn't being a genius... So far, all you've been is stubborn. You haven't refuted any arguments. Now, you're twisting around what I've said. My training DZ is highly respected in the field. That's why I chose it. The Alti that failed had some miles on it, yes. What I was pointing out was that even a spiffy newer one can still fail. School Altis get abused. They're gonna fail from time to time. Having a backup Audible, especially for a vulnerable student, is only prudent. Your wanting to throw my training DZ under a bus because one Alti failed, is w/o merit. Students expending attention, & experiencing stress, worrying about whether their only data source for altitude will fail, is also a distraction. My experience w/radios is that you usually can't hear them under canopy. They were only useful for calling the flare. Even then, they can fail @the worst time... Sunshine? Really? According to your profile, you have 2 years in the sport and 60 jumps, and you want me to agree with you that putting audibles on students for canopy control is a good idea but putting radios on them is a bad one?? Thanks for all the wisdom...cupcake. I don't know how I've kept thousands (literally) of students alive all these years. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well that's just dumb. Get some dang radios and you won't have the problem to begin with. Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me. No Chuck I disagree, as I have already said they are trained to fly on there own and that's what they do. When I first got here it scared me to death, but with the program we run from what I have seen in the last 4 years we don't need them either. Our students do a great job without the radio. We added the audible to give them some extra info, but it is just a guide. We thought we would try some new technology to see if it could help us train them better and our results are encouraging.

OK, so the alti was "beat up" when you needed that as your justification for audibles, but when I point out that learning at a DZ that put you out on a "beat up" alti might not have been a good idea, it's now not so beat up? My friend, this is entertaining. Horribly scary when I think about it, but entertaining. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before. What the hell is up with you people? You're trying to tie and untied shoe with a motorized, remote-controlled, double-whizbang doodad. Just get some damn radios, already. Geez. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Exactly why the audible, while still giving the information about hieght to the student while there new to canopy flight allows them to look around for you!! Lame. Students can be trained to not stare at an altimeter. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

In that scenario, using your altimeter is what got you into trouble in the first place. Altitude doesn't matter for the purposes of accuracy, glide angles do. ??? No Chuck, Using my beatup school Alti that hadn't obviously failed is what put me there. I was still a fledgling student @the time. Do you really think I could recognize glide angles @that level? I was going by my Alti. Had I heard contradicting beeps in my ear? I would have known something was wrong earlier, & aborted to a safer field. Your DZ put you in the air with a beat up altimeter? Sounds like in addition to other things, you also picked the wrong DZ. Beat up or not, it was your reliance on an instrument that put in that situation - at least according to you. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well that's just dumb. Get some dang radios and you won't have the problem to begin with. Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

In that scenario, using your altimeter is what got you into trouble in the first place. Altitude doesn't matter for the purposes of accuracy, glide angles do. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Using an audible for canopy control is the absolute worst idea I have heard in my 26 years of skydiving. My God, people - we are already running into each other with unprecedented frequency and now we're going to make the ride down even more complicated? I recently read a "safety" article on this website written by canopy "expert" Brian Germain in which he advocates using audibles for canopy control, and he is dead wrong when he says it makes canopy control safer. Adding canopy audibles, especially on young jumpers, does nothing more than distract from the real task at hand and results in jumpers becoming more reliant on a gizmo and less on developing the "keen eye" of a highly skilled skydiver. Has no one noticed that the more we try to solve our canopy problems with rules, procedures and layers of processes, the more we run into each other? The simplest answer is almost always the best one, yet some continue to operate from the position that if there's a problem they can fix it by adding something new to the puzzle. Altitude check points for canopy control should be minimal. Students should be taught early on to NOT rely on an altimeter for the canopy flight. It makes no difference whatsoever if a jumper enters a pattern at 800 feet, 1000 feet, or 1200 feet, turns to a base leg at 400 feet, 500 feet, or 600 feet, or turns to final at 500, 300, or even 100 feet. What matters is that they land safely, and attempting to fly the pattern with specified turn positions and altitudes on every jump regardless of traffic considerations, wind speed and direction, and deployment position relative to the landing area is not only logistically unfeasible, attempting to do so takes the jumper's attention in the wrong direction. Unlike powered aircraft that can enter and fly patterns nearly identically on every flight, skydivers more often than not enter the pattern - if you want to call it that - from different positions and altitudes on almost every jump to some degree, often radically different from jump to jump. That fact often dictates that the jumper fly a pattern that is other than what some insist on calling "standard". Teach jumpers to see glide angles and perceive forward penetration - all while flying well ahead of themselves and avoiding traffic. Teach them that pattern altitudes are estimates and that no two flights are the same. Teach them how to deal with the puzzle they get after each deployment. This ain't rocket science, folks. Get your damn faces and ears out of your instruments and fly your canopies. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Says who? Yours is the kind of reply that is contributing to our sport's dangerous fetish with high wing loadings. The OP never detailed his personal situation other than to say he is new, so why would take the immediate and ignorant position that he will want something faster later on? Is it not possible that the OP has no desire to go fast, visit emergency rooms as a customer, or leave the sport prematurely by ramming a femur through a lung? Could it be possible that the OP is middle-aged or older and simply doesn't want to risk an injury beyond that inflicted by tricycle-riding grand kids? I have no idea what the answers to those questions are, but more importantly neither do you. STOP making the assumption that everyone wants higher wing loadings and more performance. Some folks prefer less speed and collectively we need to stop encouraging those people to go faster through our comments and attitudes. I beg your pardon. Where do I say that I want him to downsize fast or to downsize to a ridicule small canopy? I do believe that a wingload of 0,9 or 1,0 is not ridicule high. Is a 230 or a different 260 that dangerous at the right (read conservative) time? Please keep this comments for those who advocate fast downsizing, which I do not do. I just do not think that students already have to buy stuff. I'll keep my comments where they are relevant, like right here. What you said was (exact quote) "Not now, but after some jumps you will want to jump a different canopy", That sure sounds you were implying that he - and by way of issuing an opinion, "they" - would want a higher loading after gaining some experience. I wasn't accusing you of recommending downsizing FAST. I was accusing you of recommending downsizing AT ALL! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Says who? Yours is the kind of reply that is contributing to our sport's dangerous fetish with high wing loadings. The OP never detailed his personal situation other than to say he is new, so why would take the immediate and ignorant position that he will want something faster later on? Is it not possible that the OP has no desire to go fast, visit emergency rooms as a customer, or leave the sport prematurely by ramming a femur through a lung? Could it be possible that the OP is middle-aged or older and simply doesn't want to risk an injury beyond that inflicted by tricycle-riding grand kids? I have no idea what the answers to those questions are, but more importantly neither do you. STOP making the assumption that everyone wants higher wing loadings and more performance. Some folks prefer less speed and collectively we need to stop encouraging those people to go faster through our comments and attitudes. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yeah...that's gonna happen...sure it is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There ya go, folks. Noobie dood just put the Canadian version of the IRS into high gear. CloudyHead, STFU! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Most of your questions and thoughts on DZ.com have seemed pretty reasonable, but debating on whether to spend your money on a jumpsuit before an AAD is putting you dangerously close to the New-age Skydiving Dumbass zone. (No moderators, that wasn't a personal attack. "New-age Skydiving Dumbass" is an actual category of skydiver and "the zone" is where they hang out when they sign on to dz.com) Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maxx, get off the acid. It's burnin' yer brain. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What a dirtbag. "Git yer torches and pitchforks, boys. We're gonna take of this!" Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

And the feeling is more pronounced when exiting aircraft at slower speeds. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

choppy choppy Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

At 5'11", 295 pounds and based on your description, you must look something like this http://www.bodybuilders.com/jay.htm. Otherwise the only thing to say is - yep - lose weight. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Swooping tandems insures one thing - a passenger will eventually get hurt - or worse - needlessly. But we don't seem to learn lesson in this sport any more, so I suppose it doesn't really matter what I think. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

She could always pay with boobies rather than beer. I am sure that is acceptable. Come on now let's be civilized, everyone knows boobies are for extra altitude If there nice enough, I'll buy the damn beer in exchange for the extra freefall! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Startin' to sound a bit trollish. Ever thought about asking someone when they tell you that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes, and the reason they do that is so that if a student is killed on landing, they can gather up the body and sneak it out of there so that nobody will know that the drop zone was responsible for it. All drop zones do this. We'd get a bad reputation if we actually let the public witness how often we kill students. Sheesh, we ain't dumb! John is correct on this one. It is far easier to burn the student's paperwork, archive the video for later viewing by hardcore death-wishers at raucous skydiver parties, and slyly restrict a photographer's shot to behind carefully positioned RV's than it is to answer the accusations of negligent homicide. If you don't believe John, take my word for it. If you don't trust me call John Hart. He owns the DZ and has a phone number. It's 513-422-JUMP (5867). I'm sure he will confirm the mass grave behind the hangar. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX