chuckakers

Wow - at the time I checked the results, 58% of you only check it once a day? C'mon guys, that's a bit on the complacent side, don't ya think? All kinds of things can happen to a rig between the landing area and the loading area. Of all the things you check before every jump, I find it hard to believe that the condition of your last possible chance to survive wouldn't be one of them. Sure would suck to chop a mal and only THEN realize there's a problem getting a reserve pin to extract. Of course if you're using an AAD, there's always a cutter provided activation to save your ass. Enjoy the ground rush. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You are way behind. The point was and is that it's ludicrous to hang on to an inverted spinning student for 30 seconds doing nothing but getting closer to killing the guy. What you apparently don't realize is that the instructor was a big contributor to the spin and hanging on doing nothing is about as non-instructor as you can get. The second instructor was holding excellent proximity and could have easily made a dock, which he did after the clingy instructor finally got thrown off. For 30 solid seconds, that instructor did NOTHING! That's not poor technique. That's temperol distortion. Had that skydive been an eval, he would have zero'd half way through that mess. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Speakers Corner? Actually this is all quite relevant to general skydiving. In fact, it's a discussion long overdue. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The canopy incident problem won't go away until we get serious about analyzing incidents. There is so much critical data that ISN'T collected about canopy incidents that a pattern of critical elements may never be established. Some of the industry's assumptions about the causes of canopy incidents and their cures might be quite different if a deeper fact extraction and analysis was performed. Bummer, but true. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Gotta say I'd be pretty pissed at the instructor that did nothing but death-grip the student and go for a 30 second ride! That was a miserable performance under some fairly typical circumstances. Is that "new-school" AFF certification at work? Hats off to the other instructor, who stayed with that ugly mess pretty much the whole time and even tried at one point to stop the inverted spin. I don't think this instructor was going to do anything but what he was doing for the previous 5,000+ feet, either. Aside from some creative inverted body positions, it looked a lot like he was just gonna keep hangin' on until the AAD fired or he got thrown off. And isn't it amazing how the student ends up more or less on his belly after the "release"? Sorry, bro. That guy would need a damn good explanation for that performance before I'd be on the other side of him with another student. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Who the hell is teaching your noobs?????? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Huh? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Well that pretty much explains it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

This may be the problem. There's nothing in the FAR's about age or a physical, but what if there IS in the manufacturer's requirements? FAR's dictate equipment must be used within the restrictions set by the manufacturer. Are they bothering to check the requirements of the manufacturer of the equipment in question? By default those are FAR's too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What am I missing here? Doesn't the FAA already require equipment to be operated within any limits the manufacturer puts in place? Pretty sure that would include following age restrictions, and the BSR's already call for all skydiving to be conducted within the FAR's. Sounds like following age restrictions set in place by the manufacturers was already covered. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The OP has 6 jumps. Practicing PLF's and learning when to use one might be a better option at this point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

At what point do you stop for lunch? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Are aware that you can adjust the alarm volume? BTW, I like mine and especially like the aluminum case. I've busted a lot of plastic skydiving stuff over the years. REALLY!? How? The directions that came with mine didn't say anything about it... I also read that you can select the different type of alarm you want but I'm not sure I got that right either... do you just 'stop' on the alarm tone you want to choose? Try this http://www.parasport.it/download/NeoXs%20User%20Manual.pdf Volume adjustment instructions are on page 7. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If your packing technique results in no fewer or no more line twists than others using a different method, what's the advantage? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The corrolation between the number of used canopies of any particular model on the market and the populairty of that model isn't that easy to define. Maybe there are fewer Saphire 2's being purchased new from the manufacturer to begin with. That would result in fewer units ever making it to the used market. You would have to know how many units are purchased new to determine if the reason for the lack of units on the used market is because people like them....or because people DON'T like them. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I agree with you but those number often can be duplicate only by their test pilots, ISA and brand new aircraft, not by Joe-the-average-pilot flying in a real world. That may be, but the same would hold true for the numbers on all planes, so it kind of negates the point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Are aware that you can adjust the alarm volume? BTW, I like mine and especially like the aluminum case. I've busted a lot of plastic skydiving stuff over the years. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Pull the slider up, keep the brake lines in the back, and shove it in the bag. The rest of the silly crap people do doesn't matter. Argue if you want, but it's worked well for me for 25 years with a dozen different canopies. I've never packed my own function, but I've chopped 8 that others have packed for me...and they do all the silly crap. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I wasn't encouraging the OP to trust the cost info in and of itself. I was simply providing the only side-by-side jump plane comparison that I know of on the web. I have more than a few jumps out of a PAC and I think your opinion is a little overblown. In my experience, a PAC at 80% capacity climbs noticeably faster than a -27 Otter at the same 80% capacity, and the PAC climbs significantly faster than any of the dozen or so Caravans I have jumped. The performance data issued by aircraft manufacturers are mandated to be accurate AND verifiable, so if they are off, it ain't by much or the feds would have something to say about it. Imagine the possibilities if a manufacturer published bogus take-off/landing distance requirements, max gross weight, or best rate or best angle of climb data. Besides getting them sued for fraud, they would also face prosecution in the event their false numbers lead to a crash. The published numbers aren't just sales fluff. They are required to be correct. With that said, I'll trust the manufacturer's numbers over your opinion. As for your assessment of "guaranteed massive head injuries" during a crash, that's also a stretch that has no basis in historical events. Every plane has something that isn't completely ergonomic from a skydivers perspective, and jumpers should have helmets on if landing with the plane anyway. How about a 182 or 206? The two jumpers in the back would have a similar issue in a hard landing from the low roof line and various support elements that stick out from the ceiling and walls, yet they are still the most used plane in the sport today. The PAC isn't an Otter or Caravan, but nothing else is a PAC either. DZO's who operate the PAC agree that they are the lowest cost per jumper turbine aircraft in the biz. That's why they keep buying them. But what do I know? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Given your logic, a jumper would be encouraged to use what could just be dumb luck as the benchmark for future decisions. Please tell me you don't teach that insanity to the noobs. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Statements like that will insure nobody listens to you. And the Euro-types think Americans are arrogant. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Give this a try. It's a spreadsheet from the PAC750 guys comparing acquisition and ops costs of several birds including the KA. http://www.utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html I'm a former DZO and have operated several turbines. The King Air is probably the worst possible choice these days. It's a gas hog and maintenance heavy. Compared to other planes, the KA is cheap to buy, but you'll spend the savings buying gas, doing maintenance, and repairing it (the cheap ones are also the old ones). If you want to make money and have jumpers brag about climb rate, get a PAC. If you want the same thing in a size people won't bitch about, you'll need an Otter. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Why would I need an USPA form in Finland? I was just sending an accident report form and USPA's was the first one I found online. Pretty sure the Finland club will accept it in a pinch, though. Why do you assume there would not exist any incident reporting form here? You still don't get it and you're getting boring. Never mind. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My bad. I'm pretty sure it was an FAA requirement before the transition to USPA control. Either that or the manufacturers required it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually the FAA does give a rat's ass about medicals for TI's. A skydiver is a skydiver, but a tandem instructor is pilot with a passenger. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX