peek

In the case of USPA and GM dropzones, so few injuries of any kind are being reported that it is impossible to even see any trends in this area. Who wants to admit to injuring a tandem student?

Are we giving up safety? Yes in many cases. The guy in back is bored because he isn't busy teaching his student anything, so he needs a "cool" canopy to play with. [Having said that, there are of course cases where a small(er) tandem canopy would be preferable, as where the winds are always on the high side.]

Yes, all very good ideas. What that becomes is what Para Publishing has sold for many years. (I think Jan Meyer did much of the work on that logbook.) Actually, what I was suggesting was something simpler, mainly, utilizing checkboxes to reduce the writing. And yes this logbook was mainly for the first AFF jump.

Well, there are parts that can be pre-filled or checked without sacrificing the integrity of the debrief, right? Things like aircraft type, altitude, equipment (which really should include the main, reserve, rig, and type of cutaway/reserve handles, i.e., 2 handle vs. SOS vs. "universal"). Other things like the student's performance of course cannot be pre-filled. It can be abbreviated though. For example, what is a "COA" or a "PHT"? A month after the student's first jump, would they remember those? A checkbox with "checked altimeter/checked with instructors" or "practice handle touch" might be more descriptive, but in the narrative format, most instructors just write "COA" or "PHT". So there are some advantages and disadvantages. So what is better? Having a precise chronological narrative, or something that a student can understand in a month? I can't proclaim to know. Nice discussion everyone, a lot of good ideas here.

I bought the set. I had always heard about the series but had never seen any of the episodes. I was too young when the series was running and no one I knew ever had any around. A good deal as far as I'm concerned. The series is really quite good. The story lines are decent, and there are no more goofy things in them than in modern movies I've seen that included skydiving. What I think is neat about the series is that it shows skydiving being used for adventure, and for doing good, not just as a yee-haw sport.

Are you suggesting that USPA do something?!!!

Harry brought a huge amount of experience, perspective, and common sense to the USPA BOD when he was Western Regional Director. So many skydivers, as well as pilots, will miss him. I so much enjoyed my conversations with him about skydiving and aircraft safety.

Agreed, and that is why I would love hearing from many instructors about what is the best balance of checkmarks to narrative.

The other thread about instructors not writing enough useful information in student logbooks prompted me to post this. A while back, a certain DZ was convinced by a certain tandem (carney) that they were taking too long to fill out the tandem logbooks and that they were wasting time, "they get a certificate anyway", etc. Bullshit! MY students get a logbook. So I started making my own logbooks for tandem students, and to save time I pre-filled a lot of the info, and made check boxes for much of the other stuff. The attached image is the jump entry (only). I made it out of stiff 8.5 by 11 stock and put info on the front and back, etc. It looks pretty good. After they saw this logbook the DZ caught on, and realized that it would not take that long to fill out a logbook of this design. (The "tandem facilitator" person could also pre-fill some of the things so the instructor would not need to do it.) Fast forward a few years.... With an increased number of first jump AFF students it was realized that a similar logbook could be created to save time, yet be fairly complete as far as what an instructor should be writing in a logbook, at least for the first few jumps. (I don't have a copy of the AFF logbook they came up with, it is a work in progress now.) The main difference is that instead of the instructor writing a chronological narrative like, "good climbout, good exit count, good arch on exit, circle of awareness, 3 good practice handle touches, etc.", the items that they perform can be checkmarked, plus... things like the hand signals have 2 checkmark boxes, one that indicates that the signal was given, and another for if the student responded. The above items can save a lot of writing and a lot of time. There of course is space for any comments desired. The main disadvantage with it is that sometimes it would be helpful for the next instructor to know in exactly what order the student did these things. Any comments or suggestions are welcome, because who knows, someone may start publishing and selling logbooks of this style if there is enough instructor input on how such a logbook would look and work.

For those who might be reading this, you can jump a reserve without an attachment point if you pack it up as a direct-bag static line. I jumped my Swift Plus reserve once like that before packing it into my Softie pilot rig.

Kevin, what he meant was that the airlines benefit from the previous training that pilots receive in the military. It is an indirect benefit, and perhaps Tom was overly inclusionary in his examples.

Because the canopies available/preferred now are not well suited to stand-up landings unless there is a certain amount of wind. So why why do you suppose we now see so many solo students landing on their butts instead of doing the proper PLF when a stand-up landing is not possible? They were "trained" to do that on their tandem jump.

[snipped content] Ah, yes, FumbleRules. I have the book. When I was a kid I hated studying English and such tedious things. Now it is quite a lot of fun. The differences between US and UK English are quite fun to study too. Some of the UK expressions that people in the US are now using are incredibly descriptive and make a lot of sense. "One-off" is a favorite one used in engineering now. Oh, my, we are hijacking this thread aren't we?

http://www.skydivestlouisarea.com/misused.htm My idea was to point people to this when they make enough mistakes, but I haven't very many times. Please help me expand on the list. I'm sure you have seen even funnier ones.

I should have explained further. I don't use the front risers.

That is what I meant in case I did not state it well. I have a Sabre 230 which was set up with multiple brake settings for a research project, and it cannot be set to anything shorter than 6 inches of "slack". To me this is a huge difference from no slack, and I have had to pull my feet up quite high a few times when I turned a bit lower than I should have. I have seen some canopies modified for swooping with 6 inches of slack. If you are saying that much is not needed I believe you because I don't know. I don't have any slack in the steering lines of my small canopy. Perhaps there should be a chart of recommended "slack" in the steering lines for a particular canopy size when used for front riser swoops. If we get enough knowledgeable people to contribute we might be able to come up with a guideline.

I have noticed some replies above that tell you to lengthen your brake lines to prevent this. Please understand that this change will reduce your ability to stab yourself out of a corner if you should place yourself in such a precarious position.

I mention both the paper and downloadable versions and tell them that they _will_ need one of them to find the information they need for review questions, tests, etc. Some students get them immediately, some never do. The DZ does not have them for sale, the excuse being that they go out of date at the publication of the next version. (USPA's quantity discounts are not that good.) My opinion is that if a student with more than a few jumps does not even know about the SIM that there is something terribly wrong.

I understand those points. Unless I misunderstand you, they are based on an endless number of people wanting college degrees, so they do what it takes. We do not have a huge number of people wanting USPA ratings, so my point is that we should not insult those who want their ratings and already have experience in basic instructional concepts.

It is a waste of time for a professional educator, and insulting as well. We have a hard enough time convincing professionals to get skydiving instructional ratings. (As we all know {don't we?} the true professionals are the people that are professionals at their "real" jobs and bring that professionalism to skydiving instruction.) Skydiving is more than learning how to go through the motions of teaching a "category" (or "level" if you prefer). It is about understanding people and using judgment, something that professionals in other careers can bring to skydiving. I continue to be amazed at how well some "part-time" instructors can be, you know, ones that only come out to the dropzone every 2-3 weeks, and instruct a student or two if all the other instructors are busy. It simply amazes me to watch them work. Their professionalism overwhelms the entire process. Compare this to the person who decides their real job sucks, goes to some Coach and Instructor courses, and then "lives the dream" of being a "pro" skydiver.

John, I think you are going to need to just give up on these guys. (I have read all the posts below this one I am responding to also.) They don't seem to be understanding that what you are talking about is the requirement that a professional educator take such a _basic_ course. Back when they came out with the BIC I was wondering, "Where is the list of people that are considered to have enough basic teaching experience that they do not need to attend a BIC?" There was none. There also seems to be some confusion about what the FAA does well. (Yes folks, they do some things _very_ well.)

This is one of the reasons I was initially not too thrilled with Mike Mullins technique of using zero-G maneuvers in his King Air to help people get to their feet before exit. I was always concerned that the flaps on my rig would rub up against something during the maneuver. However, now that I am used to it, I find that it is helpful, and probably prevents less contact among jumpers and rigs (if they know how to handle it correctly). I discussed this with Mike not long ago, and expressed my concern that other jump pilots (in other aircraft) may attempt to emulate him with bad results. Just because Mike does it does not mean that your pilot should do this. And do not suggest to your pilot that they do this. Think about what happens if the jumpers floating around during the zero-G maneuvers get relocated further aft in the plane.

By who? About 6 grand, using SET400 (fairly slow opening) canopies.

Good question! Tamara Koyn did freestyle with a Vector 1. She made sure the Velcro was in good condition. The only flap I recall her commenting on was the reserve flap hitting her on the head. That is why she made sure the reserve loop was short and tight. If her riser covers ever came open, the toggles stayed in place because back then they used Velcro to hold them in place, and she made sure the Velcro was in good condition.

Here is a picture of Todd from a few years ago at the WFFC, on a rare load that we were both on as organizers. It was taken by Monte Kay I think. I think someone took him out right before breakoff, hence the "WTF" look.