peek

OK, now I get it. Well, actually, USPA does require participation in an "Rating Renewal Seminar", and there is a signoff on the ratings renewal part of the membership renewal form. The seminar consists of instructional rating holders getting together and discussing instructional issues. I emphasize them quite a bit. They are interesting and you can learn a lot from other instructors. (And no one says you can't have a beer or two while you're having this meeting at the end of a jump day.) Some DZs have good ones, others, not so much. I asked S&TAs in my region for topics they discussed in their seminars, and listed them here for others to learn from. (The spaces between bulleted lists separate the DZs): http://www.skydivestlouisarea.com/USPACentralRegion/SpecificTopics.htm (OK, folks, don't let this little distraction derail the thread. I initially asked why people don't even open the email "The USPA Professional - a newsletter". And what about the bonus question?)

Unless someone told you that was the reason, I would not assume you stopped getting them because you were not an instructional rating holder. More likely would be that your email address fell through the cracks.

Perhaps USPA should look to its own criteria for certifying rating holders. Uh, oh ... Sorry John, you lost me there. Can you explain that?

I think the offer to sign up for the newsletter is somewhere on the web site because I think I saw it somewhere. Quicker would be to email Jim Crouch or the Safety and Training email address.

As you may know, USPA has an email list that you can sign up for called "The USPA Professional - a newsletter for the USPA professional training community". Email updates are sent periodically, updating instructional rating holders on various topics that will affect instructional rating holders and their students. I was talking to Jim Crouch, USPA headquarters Director of Safety and Training yesterday, and he told me that only about half of the people on the email list even open this email to see what it contains. WTF! Only half? (My exclamation, not Jim's.) (Granted, this information about whether you opened it requires that you allow email in HTML format. If you accept/convert the email to text only there will be no information about this.) (Edited to add: I'm pretty sure this is being done via "web beacon" or "web bug" and not via a email response.) My question is why? Why would someone not want to at least skim the email for information that they might want or need? Bonus question: What changes to the "A" license occurred at the beginning of this year that is going to affect many people?

Dori, just like Lowell, gave so much to skydiving and the parachute industry that it is difficult to describe. Sadly, she is another person that I will not see again at the PIA Symposium.

Here is a short article we wrote, which was referenced in a recent Parachutist article: http://www.pcprg.com/g-forces.htm (A link to this article is on the Skydivers page: http://www.pcprg.com/skydive.htm) My chiropractor confirmed this while we were discussing hard openings. .

I too, think that is the most likely explanation. I tell my tandem students that the "pull" needs to be a sharp tug on the drogue release. (UPT Sigma) And far as to how you have been treated in response to your questions, well, internet forums allow people to be anonymous and overly critical if they want to be. The internet is about "filtering" information. I suggest that you ignore those people, and use information from the helpful people, of which there are plenty. If you hang out here long enough, you will figure out who they are. Years from now, if you become an experienced skydiver, you will look back at some of these posts and laugh.

Well, I have been in denial about the outcome, but I heard that they have been identified in the crash. Van and Alberta were are incredible part of skydiving history, and will be missed. Van did me a big favor a few years ago, and checked out an airplane that was close to him that I was going to buy, and took pictures to send me. I talked to him on the phone. I always thought that I would some day get a chance to meet him in person, but now that is gone. So folks, don't put off doing what you need to do to connect with your fellow skydivers. Dropzone.com and Facebook allow us to communicate from all over the world, but it isn't the same as doing it in person.

I think that perhaps I am not enough of an "old fart" to give you the answer you are expecting. I started jumping in 1981 and I have 40 jumps on round and PC class parachutes. I couldn't wait to get to where I was jumping a ram-air. The round parachutes just landed too damn hard for a big boy. For me the best days were in the early 90's when most students jumped large ram-air parachutes (the Manta) and landed well enough that they wanted to make more jumps. Tandem jumping was well underway by then, but most people were still willing to spend the time on a ground school and learn how to skydive. I remember one day at the DZ, talking to some other experienced jumpers about noticing how many people were at the DZ.

I have purchased a couple of large diagonal cutters at local stores that have worked well (assuming they stay sharp). Maybe $10 to $20? I have never seen anything on the packaging that says "not for steel".

Huh?! I think you had better research that a bit more. Here is a line of canopies that is just one example: http://flightconceptsint.com/zp-main/zp-manta

Perhaps we don't need that part of the BSR at all. Perhaps this alone takes care of it: "1. General [E] a. All student training programs must be conducted under the direction and oversight of an appropriately rated USPA Instructor until the student is issued a USPA A license." "direction and oversight" is a powerful phrase, and means a lot. It means the Instructor is going to tell them how to do it, and is going to check to make sure that it is done. We may currently be relying too much on the historical interpretations of Instructor (teacher) and Jumpmaster (supervisor on jump), (which effectively is now a Coach). All we really need to do is to insure that students are trained well, and that can be done in a wide variety of situations. I hope we get comments from some other people.

I don't recall if anyone has requested a waiver to this. In general, if enough people contact the USPA Safety and Training committee about ironies, inconsistencies, and other issues with the way things are specified in the SIM, they might change it, or clarify it. Of course all instruction that a Coach does is supposed to be under some kind of supervision of an Instructor, but that supervision varies a lot.

I think you described it accurately. There are just so many things to do now, and skydiving is actually somewhat expensive, and often takes a lot of time. We need to admit that we, and many of the people that post here, are simply hooked! Nothing can keep us away from this sport that we love.

Marty Gutzler flew jumpers for Archway Skydiving Center in Sparta, IL, long ago when Dave Verner owned it. I don't think I remember him from there. A number of years ago he stopped by Vandalia, IL where Archway moved to. I talked to him for a while about the old days. When I heard about the accident I realized it was Marty and contacted Dave. It turns out Marty was a good friend of Dave's nephew in Nashville, IL. Although I did not know Marty well, the accident seems so close to me. Sailor Gutzler has a tough time ahead of her.

What "skydived19006" (Martin) quoted is from the BSR's, which are requirements. The chart is not, and is a "guide" to using the ISP. This illustrates having a program that is complicated to the extent that it requires additional charts and guides to understand the program. Sometimes they aren't kept in synch in a manner that makes things easier to understand. The FAA has Advisory Circulars to explain some FARs, so I guess it is no worse than that, but it is still frustrating.

The manufacturers require a medical only for the initial rating. After that, the rating is "handed off" so to speak, to USPA. (The manufacturers still control requirements for their Examiners.) That is the interpretation of many people. You can sue anyone for nearly anything. The only way that USPA is going to change this is to hear from a lot of members. Many BOD members completely disregard anything in these forums, so it is going to take a lot of letters or emails to the BOD.

Can you ask those questions again, specifying who "it" and "they" are? I don't think anyone can answer the questions properly without that. Remember, we are dealing with at least 3 different entities (in the US): FAA, USPA, tandem manufacturers. By the way, changes to the FAA medical for flying aircraft may not change anything with USPA's requirement for a medical (of some kind) for tandem.

I'm afraid that you are going to have to name names, because otherwise your post is not going to do much. Be brave!

I started jumping in 1981, and shortly after heard of people doing this, alhough I do not recall if it was a kit. I think it was the StratoStar that it was being done to, but I'm not sure. It was referred to as the "Added Attraction", as in, adding cells. As far as I know, it worked reasonably well.

Is it the "Order" that has this requirement?: "a manufacturer has to have a prototype plus 3 working, proven models in order to be considered a manufacturer." If so, it would seem that a non-regulatory document provides a definition (of a manufacturer), which is then used in a regulatory document (FAR) specifying who can modify a non-TSOed parachute. This is all rather confusing. Fortunately I have not been in the position where I had to interpret it that closely. But hey, we all hang out here to argue and then learn.

(Of course, the first thing is to make sure your packing is done well.) The Hornet, at least a certain generation/group of them, is known (in general) to open hard. (You may find some people that disagree with that if they have experienced Hornet's that don't.) A larger slider (or pocket slider) may solve the problem. You might need to wait to hear from someone that has specific information about this. I think I have read a post to that affect here. We know that it works for some canopies: http://www.pcprg.com/hardop.htm

Excellent! Excellent again.

Damn good question (and quite relevant to this discussion too.) Thanks for bringing that up. How many of you have replaced that worn out Velcro on the practice harness recently so that the cutaway handle doesn't just fall off?