peek

Luke: A Poynter's Manual would help me here... ...the MS70101 adaptor is reversible, but abusive to webbing. Therefore, there should be a webbing buffer sewn on the side which is inside the loop and around the centre post. With the strap reversed, the buffer will not be doing its job, and the strap may succumb to wear and/or be severed doing opening shock. peek: Nice information to add to this discussion. Apparantly rig manufacturers are not worried about it being abusive to webbing, or else have more history on the device, because I haven't seen any buffer material on a system using this hardaware. I suspect there was at one time. I'll pass this on to Dan Poynter, perhaps for the next update to the manual.

Skydiver Area http://www.pcprg.com/skydive.htm Barograph http://www.pcprg.com/baro.htm Note "sit flying" entries are for double wing suit type sit flying. Also, SLAS is specifically defined. I'm not sure many people know what type of speed their freefall speed toys are set to now.

And now I'll tell you why I asked. I think most posters realize now that this connector is reversable. Jeff, thanks very much for the engineering drawings that indicate this. The elastic keeper just happened to wind up where it was, and was not part of the question. Having no keeper installed was to make the running end of the strap easier to see in the picture and was not part of the question either. But of course you guys seem to catch everything! Granted, threading your chest strap like the pictures show is a bit different, but quite safe to jump with. My biggest concern would be getting out of your gear quickly if needed. It _might_ make an opening uncomfortable, but very little of the opening force should be on a chest strap. A folded over section of the running end might be less effective with it threaded that way. But would you trust your strap to a fold or would you insure proper threading (forward or reverse) to keep you safe? Also, remember that there are rigs with no folds. When I went to the certification course to obtain my crossover IAD rating, my buddy the Course Director was of course eager to try to trip me up on the gear checks, and he _did_ manage to do this with this threading of the chest strap. (I'm a good target and enjoyed the fun anyway.) When we came around the corner after the gear check he asked everyone to "pay up". :) While we all assumed this was an error in the gear check, I started thinking about it. Was it? Would it be a gear check error if the student got on an airplane with a safe routing of the chest strap? I don't think so. (Yes, there are plenty of arguments for _not_ doing it that way, but the black and white answer would be that it is safe.) And why didn't I notice this different routing? I looked _hard_ at that chest strap connector for 5 seconds, and detrmined that it was correct, and it was, just reveresed. The reason is that the view in the bottom part of the picture I posted is very close to the same angle as you would view your _own_ chest strap, and would look the same. Same angle. same view, same safety. Interesting how the mind views things. Now the other part of this.... This Course Director told me that another course that he attended included evaluators that were failing candidates for not flagging a chest strap routed in this manner as "improper". But is it? Shouldn't we base evaluations on safety, and not attempts to fail people for accepting chest strap routings that are indeed safe?

Safe to jump this particular threading of the chest strap or not? (I know my answer, I'm just soliciting opinions, and I'll explain later.) I'm sure a number of you will give me more that just a yes/no answer, but the yes/no part is an important part of the question.

When I said: "Tandem jumping _in general_ is devastating our sport." I meant that: We are now showing people that 1. showing up any time that is convenient for them, 2. not spending much effort in training, making the skydive, and 3. leaving right after the jump with little debriefing, is the _way_ _to_ _skydive_. I am gratified to hear from many of the posters to this thread that many Tandem Instructors are doing a lot of instruction, but still, many are not. The worst part of it is that we are seeing a downward spiral. People who have done a Tandem carnival ride take their video and show it to others, who in turn believe that this type of jump is what Tandem skydiving is, and all it is. Now imagine that every Tandem jump was very instructional. People seeing a Tandem jump on video would say "I didn't know they would let you do all that! I thought the instructor did everything for you. Gosh, if that person did all that on their _first_ jump, maybe I can. And maybe I can learn to do it by myself too." Every year that goes by I see more Tandem students show up believing it is a yee-haw wham-bam, thank you whatever, and leave, and fewer students who have actually thought about why they are choosing to do a Tandem jump. And if that explanation doesn't make sense, realize that there are many people who think that a Tandem jump is the _only_ type of jump available to them for their first jump. I know, I've talked to some of them.

Tandem jumping _in general_ is devastating our sport. Anyone that has been around a while and has thought objectively about it easily comes to that conclusion. Done well, tandem skydiving could have been a great thing, and at times still is. But most of the time it is treated as a good excuse to not give good instruction. Calling a Tandem student a "passenger" is proof enough of that isn't it? I absolutely _love_ teaching and jumping with Tandem students who thought they couldn't do it by themselves because they were afraid. By the time I am through with them I have shown them just how much they _can_ do. It's incredibly fulfilling, good for the sport, and why I put so much effort into it. But finding Tandem Instructors with that atitude is difficult now, and finding DZO's that don't just give up on training and herd them through like cash cows is even more difficult. (It's also difficult for the Instructor that wants to train well but is not given the time to do so, or is so tired from the large numbers of Tandem jumps they do that they lose the desire to train well.) (Of course some of you are great Tandem Instructors and DZO's! I'm talking about the others.)

JE: Congrats to all that attended and completed the Instructor Certification Course as Skydive Kansas City this weekend! Great Job to all: Patrick Hupp Steve Schonfeldt Timothy Degan Stacey Casteel Gary Peek So I was an IAD transition, having never had that particular rating before. Now I have, as my friend Louie says "all the merit badges". A rather interesting deployment method! Thanks to JE for his work.

Someone mentioned the other day how nasty that some drop zones have gotten in their competition to get students. I think everyone is aware of what 800 SKYRIDE is doing, but the average DZ seems to be getting involved too. Some of the things I have encountered on DZ web sites: Claiming that they will be "cheated" if they go to a DZ where they use smaller aircraft and go to slightly lower altitudes on thir student jumps. Claiming particular instructional methods offered by competing drop zones are inferior or obsolete. Using extremely negative verbiage concerning safety, and implying that theirs is the safest DZ around. Adding phrases to their webs sites thinking that search engines will treat them as search terms and cause more favorable results. Putting the names of competing drop zones in their web pages (various methods.) Creating sub domains/sub pages with specific major city or state names that are intended to appear to search engines as separate drop zones. (Some of these "tricks" are actually hilarious, because they are so amatuerish and years behind the search engine algorithms.) Any others that you all have seen? And what would you think if your favorite DZ did some of those things?

I'm posting this because of another thread in this forum where a rig owner seemed to imply that one shouldn't care how difficult/easy a reserve is to pack because they won't be packing it - their Rigger will. My question to Riggers is: With attitudes like this, why aren't you charging more for these difficult to pack rigs? For you non-riggers out there, I think one of these days soon, Riggers are going to wise up and start charging for your "don't care about the Rigger" atitude. (Just my guess, I'm not suggesting it.) I asked a question on the newsgroup rec.skydiving a while back when more people were reading there. I asked if they wanted their rig to be tight enough to look good, or as tight and small as it could possibly be. I got only one response of the latter. If most people want their rigs to be only tight enough to look good, then where are all of the extremely tight and difficult to pack rigs coming from, and why? I guess I could ask this question again, here. Tight or RF tight? Why?

I have this Altimaster 2 (the original, the "large" one) that I acquired for a good price, and turned into my Tandem student altimeter by making a really nice wrist mount, (padded, comfortable and everything.) I have most of my Tandem students wear it unless their hands are very small, then I wear it, and give them my Altimaster 3, the smaller one. It is nice and large so they can see it well. So me and my fellow TI have our students geared up, and I hear his student, (who is wearing the purple, late model wristmount altimeter), say to my student, "Yours (altimeter) looks really 80's". WTF!!!! I don't know if my student's instructor is 70's or 80's, becaue I've been accused of worse, but my student didn't seem to mind, and did really well on the skydive using that 80's altimeter. LOL!

Question for Static Line Instructors, and in particular, DZO's from drop zones using the Static line method: 1. How do you/your rigs insure the security of the main container closure before the static line reaches full extension? 2. How confident are you of the method used being really secure? 3. Are there any methods besides rubber bands and break-cord that I am forgetting about or don't know about? We were sitting around this weekend discussing whether to add the additional security of break-cord. Currently these rigs are using multiple rubber bands, but when it is cold, rubber bands lose strength. Break-cord is quite secure, but it is sometimes difficult to convince a packer that a "Surgeon's knot" is really much better than a "square" or "Granny". I have seen knots that came untied rather than cords that broke.

Well, I must not be as old and decrepit acting as "riggerrob", because I still do most Tandem exits from kneeling. :) And I think I'm older than him! Facing forward, (tell them beforehand to sit back on their feet a bit so they are not too tall). Both right feet out, (tell them beforehand that the wind will affect the planting of their foot on the step). Pivoting to the right (tell them beforehand that we will be doing this so they are not inclined to try to use the strut to hold onto). I like diving. All the while being careful that the drogue handle does not rub the right side of the door frame.

You know, I like that. (Especially when I think of how I am continually "competing" against the attitude of others not wishing to include much instruction in Tandem jumps, where I wish to include much.) Let's start refering to ourselves as that type of competitor.

You know, I've thought about this many times, because instruction is my favoraite skydiving "discipline". I think in skydiving, "discipline" has been used because of skydiving's ties to competition, where the use of the expression "discipline" is more or less what people expect, e.g., FS, CFS, Accuray, etc. If none of your skydiving is competition related, then perhaps the expression "discipline" is not applicable at all. I guess the question should really be asked in such a way that "instruction" can be a "proper" answer.

Well, thanks everyone for giving me the examples you had. I guess I'm used to instruction in my area where there is plenty of staff, and they are truly interested in teaching the novices, and not neccesarily in making as much money as they can. In a conversation with someone else recently it was pointed out to me that at some drop zones and in some areas, instructors and drop zones were more profit oriented, and the AFF students "graduated" from the basic levels were no longer as profitable as the newer students and Tandem students, so they don't get much attention. Gee, I always thought teaching people to skydive was fun, not profitable.

"There are plenty of dropzones out there that do not let their students even see the A-card." That is so outrageous I'm having difficulty believing it, but I believe you. Has anyone told these DZs what they are doing is ignorant? "This is also true at dropzones that pass their 7-level geniuses off onto their "advanced schooling" vendor to get them their licenses." That concept had not crossed my mind. It sounds like it could work if those students actually went to that vendor and got to work immediately. But if they went somewhere else thinking they were done with instruction it wouldn't. Much of this is really confusing me, because it would seem that any DZ that is even slightly "commercial" would be happy to do more instruction and charge accordingly. Even a club would be happy to be able to make a little bit more from student jumps wouldn't they? It would also seem that a DZ would want their students to get their licenses as soon as they can so they are less liable legally. "Who is "we?"" I meant "I" but I'm trying to get the readers and posters of this thread involved. I don't want our exchange to drown out the benefits of a forum.

I turned off those messages because I was getting a message from dz.com telling me I had a private message, then I had to log on to read the message, and it sure seems like a convoluted way to communicate. I have my email address in my profile. I would love to hear about those drop zones that do that. Now, the question is, if they were asked if they were just turning students loose after 7 levels, what would they say? (Could be considered a rhetorical question.) And the other question would be how they are getting from that point to a license, since very little of the "A" license proficiency card could be filled out in just those jumps. On another subject, your first response to the original poster was about handouts given to students in addition to what is in the SIM. We are interested in what you use and why. Something not explained well enough in the SIM? Additional info related to your particular DZ?

Derek, thanks, now I have to do a lot of typing. This is a wide variety of stuff, so I'll comment on some of it. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I usually think that many problems can be solved by talking to people about them. "Teaching a student to skydive in 7 jumps doesn’t teach them anything besides how to jump out of an airplane by yourself and survive in ideal conditions." This seems to be a comment about the way a number of DZs treated the "traditional AFF" program. Do the freefall stuff and turn them loose into the skydiving world. But to me it seems that most places created a "Level 8" even if USPA had not specified this. Having them jump with staff or knowledgable experienced jumpers. This type of program required students motivated to learn by asking a lot of questions. I've seen it work well. But now things are in place to make that better. Now that there is an "A" license proficiency card I would have to think that it forces the student to force instructors to teach them what they need to fill it out. To all: Is this working? "Some schools still use main ripcords, which sets up the student for failure the first time they jump a throw out PC." I haven't really seen that to be a problem. Where I instruct they use a cable type ripcord with PVC handle in the BOC position, so transition training is only to throw it away. This subject would make for another good discussion, meaning input from instructors on how well the transition goes. "Even worse is SOS." Now that the "universal" system is available I would agree. It would be nice to identify those still using SOS and let them know how easy a conversion is. Some rig manufacturers have conversion kits. "I see AFFI’s still teaching arching from the chest, in the ‘box man’ position, with the arms way up as high as they can get them." That is definitely "old school". I have to wonder why they would do that. If I saw someone do that I would pull them aside and try to convince them them to try teaching a better freefall position (one that they use for example). An interesting note: Where I instruct the static line program is popular. They use a modified Roger Nelson video tape where the "hard arch X position" is taught. I haven't seen many problems getting students to transition to a nice relaxed freefall body position later on in their progression. "I see AFFI’s sign off jumpers that can’t track very well or straight or at all. .... Spending several skydives working on nothing but tracking, heading control first, then adding better and better angle ...." When to sign off as OK is a good question. Everyone I know tells students that during there solo jumps before getting licensed is the time to really polish that track, and then when they do the "check dive" they should be good at it. I must say that for anyone to get really good a tracking they must be observed by experienced jumpers when they start doing formation skydiving, and be given more pointers then. To the group: I would like to hear some more examples of questionable instruction that you have seen and what you think we can do to improve things.

Derek said about some instructors: AFFI's that got their ratings a long time ago and still teach the same way they did back then. There are still a lot of DZ's that teach 'old school' AFF and the students lose out. Question to all: I apologize, maybe I don't ask for enough detail, but I am still interested in what is actually being taught by some of the instructors that people comment about negatively. Is it something like calling the jumps "levels" rather than "categories"? Is it not following the ISP progression closely? Is it not giving them an "A" license proficiency card and never signing anything on it? Is it teaching the freefall skills mainly until the student is cleared for solo freefall, and having never been taught much canopy control? I'm trying to figure out the level of the problems in instruction described. I'm curious about this because people have differing opinions about what good instruction is.

Rob said: "It will force the old school jumpmasters to LOOK at the new way of training. Soon the students will start requesting the Instructors who will assure their training is up to the ISP and the Old school JM will fade out." I've been meaning to ask someone for a while now, so this is not meant just for Rob (and anyone else with some specific examples can chime in here too): Just who are these "old jumpmasters" and what are they doing or not doing? Students need to have an A license proficiency card filled out to get a USPA "A" license, so what can any instructor being doing so wrong? Or are you not talking about USPA?

tspillers: Right now as a DZO, I just tell people NO. You're not ready, do these tasks, show me this or that, your judgement keeps getting you into situations that will get you hurt on a smaller canopy, etc. Todd, It is nice to hear that some DZO's have the guts to do this. My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones. Safety can really come from only one place- from drop zone management, be it the owner, manager, club president, or whoever is in charge. S&TA's can advise, (and sometimes they can even "control" if they are given the authority) but drop zone management is where it really comes from. USPA cannot make skydiving "safe". It can barely make it safer. Another question for all is why do many people think a wingloading chart from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received than one from a prominent canopy flight expert like Brian Germain? If I was a know-it-all young skydiver insisting that I was capable of handling a canopy that others thought would hurt me, I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a bunch of old people in a political organization, many of who have very little experience advanced canopy flight.

I am replying to Bill, the original poster, but this is not specifically addressed to him. Would some proponent of a wingloading BSR like to address the more practical considerations of (trying to) enforce such a rule? For example, isn't it nice when a police officer with a radar gun is allowed the judgement of when to actually issue a ticket? They don't give out tickets for going 2 MPH over the speed limit do they? Wouldn't be a good idea even if the radar was recently calibrated, eh? Well, exactly when _would_ you consider not letting a skydiver jump? When they are 3 pounds over the weight limit for their canopy size (according to this BSR)? How about 5 pounds? How about this skydiver who is 3 pounds over just takes off his jumpsuit, helmet, and shoes to fall within the allowed weight limits? That would be smart of use wouldn't it? Making a rule that could create a situation like this? So you might be thinking now that I am being ridiculous and that this example is rather far-fetched? So that wouldn't happen you say? People would use their judgement enforcing this BSR? PS. Oh, and whose scale? "No I'm not, I just checked my weight this morning on my Jazzmo 6 electronic scale, your piece of shit scale here at the drop zone is off by 5 pounds!" Well it's simple of course? The DZO can interpret this rule, like they can interpret the maximum weight for students, the minimum pull altitude, etc. No they can't! A rule is a rule. So someone gains 10 pounds over the winter and can no longer jump their own gear because they are now over the wingloading for their experience? Only 10 pounds, well that's OK. What about 12 pounds?

Nice observations. "Filter" is the key word in _all_ internet usage. Obviously you are one of those willing to do the work that will enable you to make good use of these resources. Many aren't willing to do that work, including many experienced skydivers and instructors. I read quite a few posts made by less experienced skydivers because I am interested in how they perceive certain things, and in particular, how I can better teach skydiving, having learned their perspective. Or, as I always say, "I learn so much from my students."

I wouldn't miss it for the world. It is one of the most interesting and educational things I do every two years. The week is a blur there is so much going on. As you will see from the ads in Parachutist and Skydiving magazines, there is a lot more than just the Symposium going on that week. The USPA BOD meeting for one. Go there, corner a BOD member, and ask them, "What are you knuckleheads doing about xxxxxx?". You'd be amazed at what you can learn from just doing that. If you live within a few hours drive of Jacksonville I promise it will be worth your while _just_ to enter the exhibit hall for one session, and that costs $10 last time I recall. In a short time you can walk up to so many manufacturers, and ask them all about everything. It is not necessary to go to the presentations to learn a lot about the gear and rigging! They will go over it in their booths in the exhibit hall.

"Safety Position" = "Act Like a Passive Passenger/Cheat the Person Out of Learning to be a Skydiving Student Position"!!! As I have already read from the comments posted so far, hand grabbing is seldom done by students, and even when it is, it is not a big deal. I recall when Tandem jumping was fairly new hearing some stories about how some body builder student got a death grip on the Instructor's arm and how it was scary, blah, blah. I'm wondering now if it was some skydiving urban myth that got passed around by Tandem Instructors when so few people were Tandem Instructors that they thought they were Skygods. Wouldn't surprise me. What do you teach a Static Line/IAD student to do on exit? What do you teach an AFF student to do on exit? Then teach your Tandem students the same! I agree that "positive" teaching beats the hell out of "negative" teaching. So an arch is not positive? P.S. Don't think everything you read in the SIM, the IRM, or Parachutist is the gospel. The sport is depending on you to innovate. Carefully developed new techniques are good for the sport. (need I now say ?)