peek

Here is one: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1312925#1312925

You mean like a BIC? (Basic Instructors Course?) USPA had that some years ago. (I see you have been skydiving for 7 years. The BIC might pre-date you so you might not know that it existed.) The BIC was a pretty good idea in my opinion, because it was a teaching course that taught people how to teach, before they went to one of the method specific courses, which were evaluation courses. Also, the Coach rating is supposed to be a "license to learn", which would be similarly helpful, with Coaches being supervised by Instructors as they learn. But for the most part that does not happen. They are just turned loose with students. (I have even heard of new Coaches ignoring the advice of seasoned Instructors because, well, after all, they just got their rating so they don't need anything else.) Here is the real problem. Skydiving instruction used to be learned via apprenticeship, as in following a rated instructor around for at least a few weekends if not an entire season, teaching a numerous topics under their supervision, and having them signed off on a proficiency card when they were proficient. Then they went to an evaluation course. Now everything is expected to be learned via formalized education in a "course", and I think we have enough (at least empirical) evidence that this is not working very well for skydiving. I think that the apprenticeship method of learning/evaluation being changed over to going to "course" learning/evaluation happens as any activity grows and matures, (and I believe the commercialization of an activity has something to do with it.)

There are accuracy requirements for the licenses, so it is assumed that an instructor should have some skill in that area. "Not landing on the dropzone" does not seem to be related to "accuracy". There seems to be some other issue. Perhaps spotting? I think you are going to need to be specific about what you have seen.

Yes it does. The correct answer is "pack it according to the manufacturer's instructions", but there can be variations to this. That is part of earning a rigger's rating, learning about the variations, what is "correct", and what is "legal". Don't worry, there is still plenty for riggers to debate! Edited to add: By the way, there are multiple types of pack jobs that are all referred to as "flat" packing.

I would disagree. If you give the student the opportunity and train them how to do it, the majority of people I have asked didn't know it was an option and thought it was great. I pretty much feel like you do about that. (Not to be critical of [towwerrat] though.) Over the years I have mentioned this to numerous people and have found that TIs who do large numbers of tandems either don't have time, or get worn out trying to teach things to every tandem student. (I have had some TIs tell me specifically that they are not allowed the time to teach much because of the schedule.) Perhaps we are lucky that we have the time to teach as much as we want. I wish everyone could. It is very rewarding!

I have sitting on my bookshelf of skydiving books, the last issue of Skydiving Magazine, January 2009. That was the magazine we waited for all month. With Skydiving Magazine and now Mike Truffer gone, there is a huge hole in skydiving for all of us.

Maybe or maybe not. It depends on many things, just like when skydivers use cameras. Everyone is different. And one of the most distracting, at least for some people. (I have already seen a post in this thread suggesting that using a camera to record flight in an airplane is much different/less distracting than a skydiver recording their jump.) Maybe or maybe not. For those who are not familiar with aircraft flight instruction, there are fortunately some things that an instructor (and an examiner come checkride time) can do to test to see if a student pilot can be distracted. I think some of these things are even listed in the FAA Practical Test Standards. I recall during my Private Pilot check ride (many years ago!) that the Examiner tested my susceptibility to distraction by asking me to tell him the outside air temperature read from the pull-out vent, while climbing out of the pattern. It is a good test, and unfortunately one that cannot be easily used on a skydiver to see if they can be distracted by wearing a camera. Or can it? Perhaps we can develop some types of tests that are similar, to add to industry recommendations for camera flying. Anyone?

Spray paint: Cheap, easy, dries fast, very little will rub off on canopies, and whatever does will be dry. Not particularly good for the environment, but neither is burning fuel for our entertainment.

It is overly complicated. And what I have found from working with complicated rules and procedures is that the interaction among them is complicated too. Who is going to keep track of all of these things? Does the APF have a membership database with entries for these additional pieces of information? Will a dropzone be able to look up how many "demerits" someone has? Are there so many APF members violating so many rules that people think this kind of thing is necessary? In other words, what has created the desire for such a system?

Once again I hardly know what to think or say, except "Thanks, Cliff, for your work for skydiving and the parachute industry".

Are you the instructor in the video? 1. The canopy seemed to be flying OK and it seemed like normal kicking out of the line twists should have been possible. (But I wasn't there.) 2. Releasing the brakes allowed a lot of suspension line and toggles to fall down into an area where they could get caught on something.

I'll go for that, thank you. Perhaps the word "private" is not required.

I don't disagree, especially for a newer jumper, but part of the reason for the article was to explain historically why people are confusing "notification" with "NOTAM". I left off the version because of recent controversies associated with -2D, its withdrawal, etc. There was a thread somewhere here, sorry I don't have a link. I felt it best to just refer to the base document.

Yes, that is quite a topic in itself, and there are a lot of variables. I'm not quite up to an article about it. Perhaps a discussion here can answer most of your questions.

Understood. Any other title I could think of was a lot longer. Since articles are archived, it would be easier to find and use with a better title. Many people call such jumps "demos", but they aren't really, so a title using that would not be accurate. I dunno...

Yes, that is basically what it is saying, because of the difference in meaning of those words. If they (ATC) are authorizing it, they will note this somewhere so their controllers will know about it, and therefore they don't need any further notification. They were notified by asking permission and it being granted.

Comments on the article "Jumping Away from the Normal Dropzone" I thought I would start a thread for any questions or comments about the article that Mike Mullins and I wrote. In the future we will be able to point people to this article when we see questions about how to go about jumping away from the normal DZ. Mike and I spent a good deal of time making sure the contents of the article are accurate, and also had the article vetted by a number of knowledgeable people.

The one source I found when looking up that frequency said: Business Paging 462.475-462.95 MHz Emergency Medical Service 462.95-463.175 MHz So the Minitors might need to be changed to a "better" channel, so as to not be on an "emergency channel" perhaps used by your local police or fire. They whole idea behind a Minitor is to get it on a frequency band that requires licensing. That way you won't have to deal with interference from yahoos with walkie-talkies on a license-free band. I think the FCC license is a couple hundred bucks, and then you pay the radio dealer to change the frequency. Then get a transmitter for that frequency. Google "fcc business license".

Perhaps something from which we can learn, particularly those who wonder why a small format camera might be an issue: http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/tip-week/avoiding-deadly-distractions?cmpid=enews052113&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17546183&spUserID=NTY3MzA4OTQ2NDAS1&spJobID=216098508&spReportId=MjE2MDk4NTA4S0 In this case it was texting that caused the distraction, but it could apply to the camera too.

Someone should show Barry what the cool guys use: http://www.stltoday.com/the-brockabrella/image_18b02ed3-d33e-510a-9c8d-0684b775195e.html (A little bit of St. Louis history.)

You know, as much research as I have done on parachutes, and as many ideas as I have had related to them, I don't think I would have ever thought of this. Such a good idea!

Who would that be? If they are really doing that, it is a real disservice to safety and to skydivers.

Good question, and I don't know any model numbers. If you were buying both pagers and tranceivers all at once from a dealer, they would be able to set you up. My guess is that there would be a couple of models to choose from.

Are the older versions suitable for what we're doing? [Yes.] Are the Minitor V or VI worth the extra money? [Probably not much.] Also, how are you guys putting them on your students? [They are load and clear enough to put on the chest strap (with an additional rubber band for security).] I'm thinking about putting spandex pouches on the side of our pro-tecs.. [You would need to keep them turned down, as they can be quite loud.]

The Motorola Minitor series pager radios are the gold standard for ruggedness and reliability, although they are not cheap. Sometimes is takes a while to get particular units serviced if they quit working, so you may need 2 instructor transmitters (tranceivers actually) and 1 or 2 extra pagers (student radios).