peek

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,434

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by peek

  1. peek
    Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Golly, gee, that is a sweeping comment. I know of some drop zones that do quite well fitting that 2 page card into their student's progression, (and if it the static line progression this is easier to do because there are more jumps). However, I believe you if you say that there are still a number of places that do "traditional" AFF where the focus is on the freefall only and they get waaaay behind on the proficiency card.
  2. peek
    I prefer the ones related to training the student.
  3. peek
    Oh, yeah! http://www.pcprg.com/hardop.htm
  4. peek
    Matt, what does "enterprise class" mean?
  5. peek
    I made a FXC 12000 operate a weight in a box with a pilot chute. It worked well, but it was difficult to get a skydiver reliable enough to put it out over the landing area so I could enjoy the suspense. When it spent a few days in the corn I got discouraged with the idea. It is a neat thing to do, but will require some work figuring out the configuration. I believe the Cypres doc specifies a "minimum loop tension". If you use an FXC 12000, the cable is so stiff that it makes it difficult to work with. In other words, these devices assume you will be mounting them on a tightly packed "normal" reserve, so a small parachute and container/bear will need some adjustments. Being mechanically inclined helps.
  6. peek
    I'll initiate an action item on that. (What someone actually said to me with a straight face.) "This is just the kind of syner-gistic, customer-centric, upsell-driven, churn-reducing, outside the box, customizable, strategically tactical, best-of-breed, seamlessly integrated, multi-channel thought leadership that will help our clients track to true north. Let's fly this up the flagpole and see where the pushback is." (Source forgotten.) Searching for "corporatespeak" will get you some more.
  7. peek
    Not necessarily. I'm thinking of a wide open discussion. :)
  8. peek
    Good point, I guess I should limit it to canopies with a single lower control line and upper control lines of "similar" length. I guess that could further be defined as "the shortest line in the group of upper control lines". I.E. the shortest line being "taut" and the others having (maybe an inch?) of "slack".
  9. peek
    I will not, because my question did not limit the canopies to "modern" or any other particular characteristic.
  10. peek
    Sometimes people surprise me with "new interpretations" of what would seem to be well known gear configurations. Please see the attached drawing of steering line lengths. It is from a particular reserve canopy, thus the indication that only one of the configurations is correct. (Do not read too much into this for purposes of this discussion.) We know that "taut" is the preferred length for many canopies, and that slack is appropriate for canopies where aggressive front riser will be pulled, so that the canopy does not "buck". 1. Does anyone know of any situations where "pulled down" might be beneficial? 2. What are you seeing in the field for the other configurations (and more importantly, what explanations have you been given?) (Edit to correct spelling. It's "taut" not taught, ha, ha! Taught is what you do with students. How about "teached"?)
  11. peek
    Thank you! (Darn government, trying to hide things on me.)
  12. peek
    Thank you! That is a good find, but I do not see a list of rules like in the USCG documents. Perhaps the FAA documents do not have them in a "list of rules".
  13. peek
    Can someone do some searching and help me find the aviation version of the "Rules of the Road"? It seems like they should be in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, but I have had no luck finding them. I also remember a post I made a while back about them but I can't find that either. Maybe I'm having a "bad search day". The nautical version is at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm
  14. peek

    Line Dump

    peek replied to Hooknswoop's topic in Gear and Rigging

    I like how you're thinkin' buddy. With yet another round of talks in another thread where people are claiming the likelihood of "line dump", I was about to request video myself. I have been thinking of making the request for a long time now actually. I've even thought of offering a bounty, because I don't think I will ever have to pay. The closest I have seen was a long time ago of a Tandem Vector with lines falling off without tension, but no canopy even close to being out of the bag. (I'm tired of hearing otherwise knowledgeable skydivers and riggers telling people to be sure to stow their lines tightly or they may have "line dump".)
  15. peek
    Thank you for taking the time to put a little science into it instead of just guessing like most people, (including some riggers.) Hard openings are seldom caused by just one factor. Your rig is a system, and many things must be considered to insure proper deployment.
  16. peek
    Oops, you're right. I was thinking about another part that had a lot of 30 day, 60 day 90 day stuff.
  17. peek
    I quoted directly from the SIM on the USPA website. You're right though... but those are the 2007 recurrency recommendations. Dave On this page: http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/SIM.htm the file is SIM2007.pdf and the section5.htm is current too as far as I can tell. Perhaps you had downloaded the 2006 at an earlier date and quoted from that? The first paragraph you quoted above is the same in both versions but the other paragraphs have been removed in the 2007. No more 30 day... 60 day... if trained using this or that instructional method.. convoluted stuff. Unfortunately this document changes so often that it is difficult for any of us to keep up with it.
  18. peek
    Dave, check the 2007 SIM, as the recurrency recommendations have been simplified considerably from the 2006 SIM.
  19. peek
    Peek does not have a personal gripe with SDU. If you would like further information perhaps you can contact Rob Laidlaw and ask him about me. People tend to compare SDU instruction with instruction provided by commercial skydiving centers. That is not a fair comparison. SDU instruction will usually be better because of its very nature. If they add to that comparison the instruction given by instructors who instruct to give back to the sport and who do not charge commercial rates, the topics I discussed earlier in the thread should make more sense.
  20. peek
    My guess is that you probably get a lot more going to a SDU course. That does not mean every student trained via a USPA program needs an instructor trained by SDU. There is a place in the world for minimum standards, after which the "customer" chooses how much further to go and how much more to pay. That is what USPA should do.
  21. peek
    ozzy: Why wouldn't we want that ? peek: "Charge for it" are the key words there. Skydiving is already expensive enough. If we send every coach through something like Skydive U, which cost them a lot, they are going to feel like they need to charge students even more. Note: The "improved" USPA programs are already having this effect! ozzy: Don't we need more then that ? peek: No. We need people to be safe skydivers and then let them choose where to go from there.
  22. peek
    I don't doubt what you have seen, but I'm pretty sure some of this is regional and varies from DZ to DZ too. In my area recently licensed skydivers usually stick around for the (average) couple of years regardless of who they jump with. (If "wildfan75" reads this thread I'm sure she will tell you about how satisfied she is with her DZ.) Never thought of it that way, so don't say that too loud, because we don't want any more of them figuring that out.
  23. peek
    Please humor me here for not answering the question directly. Instead I will make a statement that hopefully will cause people to think a bit about what we are discussing. Skydive U is a commercial entity, created to train skydivers to a certain proficiency, and to train people how to instruct using Skydive U methods (and standards), and charge for it. USPA sets minimum standards to achieve safety by settings standards for rating holders. If people want to go above and beyond that, fine. These are two entirely different things. As instructional rating holders (of any national organization) we are responsible for training students to be as safe as possible, not to make perfect little skydivers out of them. Skydiving is different for everyone. Not everyone wants to learn what you are teaching. Many people are quite happy to be safe and have fun.
  24. peek
    Rob, can you confirm that the "official" name is Dual Action? Around these parts, and ever since I have known about their existence, we have called then Universal. Can you point to some manuals that use the name? Dual more or less describes what we do with our own gear, so that would seem to be confusing.
  25. peek
    Whoops! I didn't think that would cause a side discussion. I was just kidding PLFxpert for thinking Tandem students rather than all types of skydiving students. I agree that there is a decline in skydiving. In fact I wrote an article about it at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2648072;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread