peek

(Yes, this really is the correct forum.) What I am refering to is the space separating you from other skydivers at various time during a skydive, including under canopy. I have been wondering how much space people are wanting in order to feel comfortable. I seem to be comfortable with much less space than a lot of people that I have heard comment, and I am wondering exactly how much. If you could respond in actual distance in feet or meters it would be nice. And if you want to give 2 figures, say, one for someone you don't know, and one for someone you know and trust. How much to feel comfportable with: 1. Someone from another group opening near you. 2. Someone flying their canopy by you (with known visual contact between both of you). 3. Someone landing right after you (fast swoop). 4. Someone landing right after you (low wing loading or accuracy canopy).

FYI: http://www.pcprg.com/hardop.htm PS. To those of you who think large pilot chutes by themselves cause hard openings, please tell me why my 36 inch zero porosity pilot chute deploying my Stiletto 150 (with nothing special being done to stow the lines on the bag) has not caused hard openings in many hundreds of jumps.

After some fluid-based thread hijacking and some very unglobal-like commentary..... I'm glad to hear some beer lines exist for safety reasons. Reminder: Pavement isn't the only "hard" surface. I am not that familiar with the desert but I have heard that it can get quite hard packed. So can grassy areas after being trampled for a week at a boogie. Somtimes there is not that much difference in pavement, which is thought to be a bad place to land, and other places. Next question: Do you land in the melted snow in the winter and get your canopy so wet that you must dry it out with the fan, or do you land on the dry pavement and get perhaps only a small section wet? Why?

veter: By showing to novices that landing on concrete is easy and safe, you may incourage them to try. peek: I seriously doubt it. I'm specifically talking about people who seem to me to be terrified of landing on pavement, and not even the least bit curious about whether they can do it. veter: On my 42nd jump, I miscalculated my landing and was coming towards the runway. "No problem", I thought, and flared. Flare did not slow down me at all (downdraft), and I hit the edge of runway at full speed, breaking tailbone and both wrists and losing a lot of blood. peek: I'm sorry that happened to you. I wish you had done a good PLF because I think that could have saved you.

The "Beer Line" vs. safety First of all, I'll give you my version of how the "beer line" originated, at least in my area. I'd like to hear your versions. A bunch of Illinois jumpers go to Z-Hills in the 90's and come back as really "cool guys" because Florida is where it's happening in those days, blah, blah... In Z-Hills at the time there was a packing area adjacent to the landing area, so for safety reasons, they put an old garden hose across the area, and if you crossed the landing area into the packing area, you crossed the "beer line". OK, so that was more or less a safety issue. You didn't want people clobbering someone packing. So the "beer line" comes to Illinois. Since the landing and packing areas are not adjacent at this drop zone, they start making up beer lines that don't really have anything to do with safety. One is landing on pavement. (Granted you want to discourage novice jumpers from landing on hard surfaces deliberately because they can fall down or get dragged by the wind and mess up their gear or the DZ gear.) However, for creating an excuse for getting beer from experienced jumpers who have already done all the things on the traditional beer list and who have already bought beer they do this. So fast-forward to present times. What I have seen the "beer line" turn into is a bunch or morons yelling "beer, beer" if someone's first point of contact happens to be on pavement. And this is where there isn't even a "beer list". That's not polictically correct or something now, or is it "beverage list", another watered down tradition? So what does this have to do with safety? Well, now we have novice skydivers who think that there is some "danger" to putting your foot on pavement during landing. Now I see perfectly good approachs to landings being botched at the end for fear of landing on pavement! And I have seen injuries too. For no good reason! (This is just like hearing about novice skydivers making that low turn to avoid an obstacle, when the turn is more dangerous sometimes than the obstacle.) Why do we continue to do this? Well I'm not going to any more. I'm going to land on pavement in front of novice skydivers whenever I can remember to, to show them that it can be done safely if one concentrates. Let the morons yell "Beer" if they want.

That's where we differ; I treat them as students. *********** Thank You! ***********

You're doing good so far, calling yourself a Tandem Instructor! They may be your DZ's customers, but first and foremost, they are your students. Give them everything that any instructor would give any student in any training method. Training. Teach them to be a skydiver. Teach them to do something that they think they cannot do (it being only their first skydive.) Show them that skydiving is something they most certainly _can_ do. The more they know, the more comfortable they are, the more fun they will have, (and the safer your skydive will be.)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your giving back to the sport like that. Keep up the good work.

I'm looking for John Kieran contact info. He wrote the letter in June Parachutist about older gear. Location given was Levittown, NY

Folks, some of these comments are confusing to me. I makes me wonder if enough time is being spent thinking about what exactly is being changed. 1. Now the jump numbers will be lowered? 2. Just because people are cheating to get in, doesnt mean the standards should be lowered. These 2 comments sound like comments made if the WFFC changed its policy to allowing any licensed jumper (or someone with 25 jumps) to be wristbanded as a skydiver with no other supervision. The WFFC staff has come up with what is thought to be a way to provide "equivalent safety" for those with fewer jumps, by requiring more supervision. This concept is not perfect of course. The supervision will not be absolute, nor can it be on any supervised jump at any dz. I personally think a person with 40 jumps being supervised by an experienced skydiver will be better off than someone with 60 jumps and free to do whatever they want (including not even reading the safety info when they get to the Convention!)

I'm sorry, I can't tell from your comments how to respond or answer your questions. If you would like to call, (800) 435-1975.

Goodness, does the WFFC seem like it is doing that badly in recent years that people think allowing a small select group of additional skydivers to jump there is going to add to the bottom line?!!!!! The WFFC is certainly not in the "growth years" like back in the later Quincy years, but it is anything from suffering. I have been telling people for quite a while now the the WFFC is basically reflecting skydiving in general. The 90's, "Point Break", and the influx of students are over, and skydiving is needing to downsize a bit. To reiterate, if the supervising "coaches" are doing a good job, adding a few "novice" skydivers will not compromize safety.

GM: But you aren't talking about limiting participation to those who learned at large DZ's. GP: Correct, just an example. GM: I doubt someone who has gotten their A licence at another DZ and who has been cleared to jump on their own is suddenly going to accept having to jump with a coach. Read: Pay more money to jump. My guess is this could encourage more logbook padding. GP: You are not the first person to for some reason read into this new policy something about money. The only place "fees" are mentioned are in conjunction with the Student Training Vendor, which has always been the case. What we envisioned was a "Novice" skydiver jumping with a "Coach" from their home DZ doing them a favor! The Student Training Vendor does not want to do "coached" jumps, as they are too busy with "student" jumps. GM: I'm assuming you mean 50 freefalls. GP: of course GM: Is there going to be an established Student landing area? If not, why not? GP: The student training vendor always uses the student landing area. People acting as "Coaches" will establish a landing area with their "Novice" as they see fit. We expect them to. Supervision is the key. We expect people acting as Coaches to do just that. The policy mentions this explicitely.

"...get the numbers up..." sounds a bit, well..... The WFFC has always been about getting jumpers to attend who have never been to one. Always. What prompted the WFFC staff to revisit the policy was a licensed jumper asking why they should be excluded when they learned to skydive at a large drop zone with as much activity as the WFFC at times. Good question. Staff then began to think of ways that having Novice skydivers attend could be made reasonably safe. And after hearing about those people padding logbooks to attend, it was realized that it might be better to allow inexperienced but honest people jump under controlled conditions. Perhaps some of the people thinking about cheating could instead be honest (and safer) Novices. By the way, at this point I don't think anyone has any idea how many "licensed but not yet with 500 freefalls" jumpers might attend because of this change. It might actually be very few. I think "fear of Novices in the air" would be a bit premature....

BB: Will there be someone at the loading areas keeping an eye on the wrist bands? GP: The same people who have (or who have not) done this in the past. BB: Additionally how is it going to effect the LOs .... Are the LOs expected to do one on ones? GP: This changes nothing about load organizers when acting as "load organizers". If a "load organizer" decides to act as a "Coach" for a Novice" skydiver they will no longer be acting as a "load organizer", but will be doing much more. This is similar to when I have been wristbanded as an "Instructor" upon approval of the Student Training Vendor and done an AFF jump with one of their students. For that jump I was an AFF instructor, not a load organzer.

Yes, this is going to be serious work for the person acting as "Coach". It implies arranging with the supervised "Novice" jumper a specified landing area and perhaps a limited number of loads (first few of the day for low number of jumpers in the air.) This policy has been changed because the WFFC staff realizes a number of licensed but low jump number skydivers that have trained at a large drop zone have been trained to deal with these conditions, so why prohibit them. The student training vendor also trains AFF students at the WFFC starting with their first jump. It requires close supervision but can be done safely. And last but not least, we have found that a number of low jump number jumpers have cheated in past years by padding their logbooks. (Personally I would rather be in the air with a closly supervised "Novice" that a cheater with a "Skydiver" wristband.)

Also posted to "Event & Places to Skydive" forum, (because that's the best place to post it, but so many of you frequent this forum posting stuff that has nothing to do with skydiving, I thought it might have a better audience here!) There has been a change to the WFFC policy for jumpers with under 50 freefalls. If you are a licensed skydiver but with fewer than 50 freefalls you may jump at the Convention this year under certain conditions. Please see the Convention FAQ at the World Freefall Convention web site: http://www.freefall.com.

There has been a change to the WFFC policy for jumpers with under 50 freefalls. If you are a licensed skydiver but with fewer than 50 freefalls you may jump at the Convention this year under certain conditions. Please see the Convention FAQ at the World Freefall Convention web site: http://www.freefall.com.

It can also be as simple as a disposable camera duct taped to your foot and operated with the toe from your other bare foot.

Pilot Emergency Parachute with Ram-Air Canopy Just a reminder everyone that you can put together a nice and relatively inexpensive pilot's emergency parachute system using a ram-air canopy that is no longer popular with skydivers, perhaps because it has Dacron lines or has a higher pack volumn than the latest reserves. I found a 1993 Para-Flite Swift Plus (225 square feet) for $200 and bought a new Parapharnalia Softie (Mini) with the square reserve bag. (About $100 extra.) Very nice, very soft. (They don't name it that for nothing.) And quite a lift to my piece-of-mind if I should ever have to actually jump it. Not to mention very easy to pack. Thanks Dan! (I am not a dealer nor do I have any financial motive in this post. It's just that I am so damn happy about it.) It's almost as cool as buying a new skydiving rig. (Oh, well, I guess you have to be a jump pilot to understand.)

Local pilot about 65 years old, C182 owned by him. A guy we all knew, more or less. Low airspeed and very steep bank to the left right after takeoff, something others had said he frequently did. Not enough to sustain lift (this time). Impacted left side then flat. A number of us were there within about 3-4 minutes. It was strangely silent. We thought we were going to find a corpse it was damaged so badly. The pilot was concious but not coherent. Airlifted out. Broken back, and it is not yet known if there will be paralysis. Please folks, don't do this kind of thing to your friends. (Use your imaginations to draw a parallel to a hook turn). Don't let them find you like this.

Safety-wise no. But it is from a generation of designs before the current generation, so some riggers will not understand it, some skydivers will shun it because of its pack volumn, and therefore resale value will probably not be good.

I was at the dentist office today and was reading an old U.S. News and World Report, February 21st, 2005. An ad for AXA Advisors had this skydiver in it. I searched the forums and did not find it mentioned anywhere. Who's the skydiver?

[sarcasm] Ahhh, isn't it wonderful that skydiving is commercialized now to the point where the government is taking notice? Isn't it wonderful how people can actually (sort of) make a living as instructors, etc.? [/sarcasm] Well, we asked for it! By "we" I mean the "industry". We saw that growth of skydiving in the 90's and got dollar signs in our eyes, started taking celebrities on skydives, started putting up billboards showing the general public how "big" and professional we are. And when you are big and professional you make a lot of money, right? So a tax (or tax to pass on to your customers) is no deal deal, right? Plus, those Tandem jumps are just a "ride" aren't they? (This is something for us to all remember when we take people on those Tandem carnival rides. It only takes a small change of verbiage to get the attention of the government.) Maybe we had better stick to calling it "instruction" in a "sport" huh?

I should have brought this up long ago. I'm interested in any "special" training aids you might have developed and what advantages they have over the "normal" ones. A number of years ago, a friend named Duane Daws came to our DZ when asked to do some Tandem instruction because we were going to be busy. He brought his own gear, everything, rig, jumpsuits, etc.. He carried it all in a large plastic box with lid and wheels. He put padding on the top so that it could be used as an "elevated creeper". So I made one, and it has been the greatest time and energy saver, for _all_ training methods. You can have all your student practice their arch, and your Tandem and AFF students practice turns, and not have to lean over very far to turn the creeper in response to their body position. "Economy of effort" is a phrase often used when refering to training aids, and Duane's idea certainly does this. Does anyone else have any they have developed?