0
davepend

Backflying with tandems (Was Rocky Point injury)

Recommended Posts

Not now that it is nonexpermintal, but back when everyone was a "test jumper" they could. Now days all bets are off on that one. While there are a few DZ that should have had it taken, they didn't, but did take ratings for life in some cases and they still can issue a letter to the USPA and the FAA stating Joe Blow sucks and we don't condone their actions, the CSC TM comes to mind.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarrett, I'm glad you finally got it sorted out. Whether you feel it's dangerous or not, I'm glad you won't be flying over/under tandems anymore. In the end, it all worked out well and I'm happy for it. I'm sure you're a good kid, etc... I don't want this to come across as an attack.

But...
Quote

My dad (instructor), DZO, still doesn't think that its really that much to worry about. The DZO just simply told me, "yeah to keep us from getting in trouble lets not do that." and just like I said before, once asked to stop I did so.

Quote

The DZO has seen the videos. If he didn't like what he saw he would put a stop to it.

Quote

The tandem master is my father. He's pretty experienced. If I was doing something unsafe, he'd sure tell me. I even asked him,"dad, when I shoot tandem videos, do you think that what I do is dangerous." He told me,"no...no man... shit no... I'd tell you if what you were doing was dangerous." And my dad is safety concious.



I really wish you would reconsider this justification. It seems like you were just looking for reasons not to change. You were presented with opinions, incidents and reports from dozens of different jumpers of all skill ranges and experience levels from all over the world... and not a single one of them was saying that what you were doing was ok. Yes, some presented their thoughts poorly... but the message was the same.

But instead of taking the information that was handed to you, you chose to rely on the one opinion that went against the majority. The one opinion that would make you right.

I understand he's your dad and he's a very experienced and talented skydiver, but he just isn't right here. Whether you know that now or whether you're just changing your actions for the sake of avoiding drama, it's an important point to make.

You weren't hunting for the right answer, you were hunting for the answer that would make you right. It wasn't about doing what was safest, it was about making what you were doing seem safe.

The only thing that stopped you was a call from the manufacturer... but it still seems like you're only staying out of the death zone for the sake of avoiding drama. I hope that you think some more about it and start staying out of the death zone for everybody's actual safety... instead of the safety you were ordered into observing care of the internet.

With all of this information in hand, maybe you should sit down with your dad and try and teach him something. Show him what everybody's been saying, show him that what you were doing really was dangerous. Every skydiver is a student, he's no different. No jumper is infallible. Maybe he'll keep vidiots away from him for the right reasons instead of the wrong ones.

I know we've butted internet-heads in the past, so I hope this doesn't look like an attack. I just wish you'd change your attitude. Sometimes stepping back and looking at the whole situation can make an enormous difference.

All the best.
I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you time the actual student in focus visibility to the rest of the jump 5/80 seconds its 16%. does the student only have to pay 16% of the fees. You might have ads sewn on your knees for McDonalds or something.
As far as 18 for jumps see the manufacturers rules. It basically states they can confiscate your rig if you arent complying with their rules. that makes all your bandit jumps just like driving home drunk right until you get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

At the end of the day, the BSR's are not laws, the FAR's are.

Derek



Unless you're in Nevada. But yeah, you're right, the FAA has the final word. Still, I'm personally a fan of the BSRs.

Blues,
Dave



What? What do you mean the BSR's are law in NV? What's your reference for this?
- - -
I am not afraid of tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

.... see the manufacturers rules. It basically states they can confiscate your rig if you arent complying with their rules. that makes all your bandit jumps just like driving home drunk right until you get caught.



This was my understanding after reading various posts, rules, and talking to the TM's at two DZ's; the manufacturer can confiscate the rig if the TM is out of compliance with their rules. But I don't have anything foundational (specific manufacturer statement) that supports this opinion. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Not familier with the USPA BSR's etc, but doesnt a TI obtain a rating on a specific tandem system from a manufacturer. Is the rating issued by the USPA or by the manufacturer, or onbehalf of the manufacturer by the USPA?
What im trying to ask is, can the manufacturer revoke/suspend a TIs rating if one of their safety requirements have not been met?



As far as I know they can pull the TM's rating at any time, I suspect this might be one of the reasons why the DZO involved in this incident had to listen to the manufacturer, and not just because the person on the other end of the line was being "particularly nice" ;)
But actually repossessing the gear once the sale is finalized is probably taking it a bit too far and has no actual legal standing.
Cheers,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand there was a time back in the dark ages when manufacturers wouldn't sell a tandem rig, they'd only lease them. I may be wrong here, but I think this is where the 'confiscate' thing came from. They'd just end the lease if they didn't like the instructor.

_Am
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi vpozzoli,

Quote

has no actual legal standing.



It does if it is in the contract of the sale.

I used to be a Technical Manager of contracts for the US gov't. We had 100's of pages of 'terms' that had to be complied with. All completely legal once both parties sign the agreement(s).

Just look at the waiver that most dz's use, lots of terms of agreement.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know they can pull the TM's rating at any time, ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes!

A Strong Tandem Examiner recently told me that he has the right to revoke the (Strong) rating of any tandem instructor he sees acting dangerously, on any DZ in any country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wholesale compliance with the manufacturer's requirements is not mandated in the BSRs, and only some of them are specified in the FARs. However, there are several areas in which the three sets of requirements overlap and agree (e.g. the FARs are incorporated in the BSRs by reference).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes!
Federal Air Regulations, USPA Basic Safety Regulations and tandem manufacturers' guidelines all overlap.
For example, if USPA hears too many complaints about a skydiver repeatedly violating FARs, they will suspend all his USPA ratings.
FARs, BSRs and factory recommendations are all consider "best practices."
In other words, if you violate an FAR or BSR or manufacturer's guideline - on your way to injuring a student - you will stand alone in court. USPA will not provide any legal support and the manufacturer will testify against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

At the end of the day, the BSR's are not laws, the FAR's are.

Derek



Unless you're in Nevada. But yeah, you're right, the FAA has the final word. Still, I'm personally a fan of the BSRs.

Blues,
Dave



What? What do you mean the BSR's are law in NV? What's your reference for this?



Yep, that's what I mean. Thank Michael Hawkes (even if what he initially supported was much worse). Here is the full text of NRS Chapter 498. Here's a quote ("Association" is defined as "the United States Parachute Assocation or its successor organization"):
Quote

NRS 498.070 Operators required to comply with certain federal regulations and safety requirements and to use Association’s training options; Director of Department of Transportation required to review amendments to basic safety requirements and training options.

1. The operator of a skydiving business shall:

(a) Comply with the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration governing skydiving;

(b) Comply with safety requirements that are at least as stringent as the basic safety requirements of the Association set forth in the “Skydiver’s Information Manual” in the form most recently published by the Association, unless the Director of the Department of Transportation posts a notice of disapproval of any amendment to those requirements pursuant to subsection 2; and

(c) Provide training to a student skydiver using one of the training options adopted by the Association in the “Skydiver’s Information Manual” in the form most recently published by the Association, unless the Director of the Department of Transportation posts a notice of disapproval of any amendment to those training options pursuant to subsection 2.

2. The Director of the Department of Transportation or a person designated by the Director shall review each amendment to the basic safety requirements and training options set forth in the “Skydiver’s Information Manual” and approve or disapprove of the amendment for use in this state. If the Director does not post a notice of disapproval within 30 days after such an amendment is published, the amendment shall be deemed approved for this state.



Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It does if it is in the contract of the sale.



Yes, but is it? And what about subsequent resale? And gear sold and used outside of the USA?
Also should the manufacturer not sue you first for breach of contract or can they unilaterally act as judge and jury and repo your gear any time they feel (by their own assessment) that you have not abided by the contract?
Regardless of the confiscation issue, I think that being able to pull a TM's rating (with all that ensues) gives the manufacturer enough "power of persuasion" to convince even the most arrogant TM to listen to them very carefully. After all they only hold your current livelihood in their hands (assuming a professional TM that is).
Cheers,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I guess there is always this to talk about...(See Highlighted) I vote for "we are lowering the bar" and doing a disservice to the sport and students if this waver is allowed to pass, for this person, do to their clear lack of understanding of others "rights to a safezone" in the air and only stopping because Tom N. from Strong called the dz. IMHO This member needs to grow up a lot and should not be granted a waver for the age requirement.

link:www.uspa.org/news/notices/STAgendaJuly2007.pdf



Safety & Training Committee Agenda
July 13-15, 2007
1. Landing area BSR change requested by Molly Osbourne
2. Finalizing the title for the rating end game and “Train the Trainer”
3. AIC course changes
4. Tandem guidelines with handicapped students
5. Tandem meeting summary (from June 5 meeting between USPA and
manufacturers)
6. Tandem instructor currency requirements
7. Tandem BSR changes to 2-1 E. 4. c. and d. which will require all USPA
members performing any tandem jump to hold a USPA Tandem Instructor rating
8. Foreign license transferring to a USPA license—should a conversion require
the USPA A License Proficiency card be completed?
9. Edits for the Skydiver’s Information Manual
10. Edits for the Instructional Rating Manual
11. Application for AFF instructor rating course director appointment
Mike Hawley
12. Individual Waiver Requests
• Jarrett Martin—waiver for age requirement of 18 to earn the USPA Coach
Rating
• Patrick Dassi—request to be added as a CCD without attending an AIC
(will attend within 18 months)
• John T. Guthrie—Request to be added as a TCD without attending the
AIC
• Gregg Fahrenbruch—Request to be added as a TCD without attending
the AIC
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This member needs to grow up a lot and should not be granted a waver for the age requirement.
• Jarrett Martin—waiver for age requirement of 18 to earn the USPA Coach
Rating



The coach rating is a joke anyway - the time it took to add that to the agenda was a waste of USPA dues. (IMO). Let the kid coach. He can probably fly pretty well, and if he's a child about it, hopefully the pre-grads will recognize it and not use him.

I'm also not a big fan of restricting someone in one area (1 on 1 mentoring) for being arrogant in a completely separate area (tandem video). It's a bit like the worthless tactics politicians use like 'censuring'. They are petty and impotent gestures.

I don't think he's shown any worse judgement than any typical teenager anyway. So you might have a rational to say that waiving the requirement is for kids mature and skill beyond the norm. So he meets the skill criteria, but not the other. Try again next year. The real issue, is how much research does USPA do to review these waiver requests. This would just be an anonymous agenda item for 99% of us. If the DZO is good with it, USPA should approve it.

Maybe it would be more productive if his dad just smacked him in the back of the head once a day every weekend for a season. That's how most boys figure out how grow up.

I'll bet you that once he grows up, he'll be a fine instructor and skydiver. We need some blood in the sport that love it and wants to contribute.

He's probably a decent kid in person. Most DZ kids are one extreme or the other. He wouldn't even be doing what he's doing now if he was "the other" type.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I don't think he's shown any worse judgement than any typical teenager anyway.

I agree. But I think to ask for a waiver to allow oneself to be placed in a position where your opinions are given (some) authority, one would have to demonstrate that one DOES have better judgment than that.

>I'll bet you that once he grows up, he'll be a fine instructor and skydiver.

I am sure you are correct - once he grows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>to ask for a waiver to allow oneself to be placed in a position where your opinions are given (some) authority, one would have to demonstrate that one DOES have better judgment than that.



I agree with read of the age requirement completely. I just don't hold much credence to the coach rating. If it was to pursue an AFF or tandem rating, then I'd be more definite about it.

See, I agree
Quote

So you might have a rational to say that waiving the requirement is for kids mature and skill beyond the norm. So he meets the skill criteria, but not the other. Try again next year.



...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This would just be an anonymous agenda item for 99% of us. If the DZO is good with it, USPA should approve it.

He's probably a decent kid in person. Most DZ kids are one extreme or the other. He wouldn't even be doing what he's doing now if he was "the other" type.



The DZO was apparently cool with him backflying underneath tandems, too. All it takes is one FUBAR and we're all looking bad. USPA needs to consider that, too. Additionally, what about any insurance liabilities? What happens when a not-of-legal-age coach takes out a student or vice-versa?

Jarrett likely is a great kid. In all my email correspondences (save one) with him, he's been reasonably adult. However, his attitudes presented here on DZ.com alone (no matter how hard he protests that he's a "different person" on DZ.com) should be cause for pause when considering granting him a waiver to become a coach.

Maybe being a coach isn't terribly glorified nor important in the foodchain of the skygods, but the rating does provide for people that don't have licences to skydive with at least reasonably competent skydivers that can help them learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In all my email correspondences (save one) with him, he's been reasonably adult. However, his attitudes presented here on DZ.com alone (no matter how hard he protests that he's a "different person" on DZ.com) should be cause for pause when considering granting him a waiver to become a coach.



I assume the DZ.com personality means absolutely NOTHING when I meet another skydiver. Best trick for J is to go and request in person and show he's got it together. Also, references from locals.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The DZO was apparently cool with him backflying underneath tandems, too. All it takes is one FUBAR and we're all looking bad.



Ya know, this thread gave me a whole lot to contemplate – I have been scrutinizing my position with tandems, and studying footage. I want to make myself as safe as possible to our students, yet still give them their moneys worth.
I have probably nearly 2000 jumps filming tandem skydives, and I am not totally terrible at it.

There is something in my circle of tandem aerial videographers that we refer to as the “money shot”. That is based on the assumption that the tandems students’ video and highlighting them is what it is all about. The “money shot” has the tandems student and their instructors faces filling 80% of the safe frame area during freefall, which places the videographers X number of feet in front of them (depending on type of lens) and at an angle below the tandem pair (perhaps 45 degrees or so?). If a premature deployment occurs at this point, there is a possibility that a collision may occur, if not with the tandem pain, with the drogue.
Granted, if the premie occurs while directly beneath, the collision is guaranteed, there is still quite a measurable amount of risk while placing my body in position to get good shots of the star of the show (the tandem student). I have been practicing various positions that would greatly minimize the chance of a collision totally, but I am finding it difficult to get the “money shot” that is a good a quality to the one I described earlier. .

I am most eager to receive advice as to how to get a good “money shot” that is 100% safe for all parties involved. Naturally, if you have no tandem video experience and just want to chime it, although it will not be much use, please do – I am patient…
Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this tangent of the thread is probably best for the photo forum;
shoot exactly as you describe, but don't use a wide lens. This allows you to be back away from the student.
Or work with the TM so that he's willing to look in your direction as you take a shot from a 90 degree angle, back to the sun, at a slightly tilted angle.
I've got some of those shots on my laptop at the DZ, I'll post em' later this evening.

[edited to add pix &
While this isn't the money shot you're talking about, it's a great angle to work if you don't want to fly slightly below and in front of the tandem.
If you're belly flying, I fly in a mantis position focused up at a distance of about 5-7 feet back. If you fly sit/tween position, you can angle below and shooting up without being beneath as well.
I disagree with the concept of being in the student's face the entire skydive, that doesn't tell a story, it just says "Here is my face and I'm moving fast." It doesn't show the student relative to the ground, and doesn't show the student relative to anything else, either. All that said, I don't have the thousands of jumps you do, so I'll leave the subject by saying that I'm never beneath the tandem, and have never had to worry about the trapdoor, DZO is happy with what I do, and other vidiots seem to feel I'm shooting reasonably well, although there is a tremendous amount more I expect and intend to learn.
This isn't a wide, shot from about 8 feet back. If I do jump a wide, it's usually a .6. This shot however, is just a straight HC7 with a UV filter on the lens. I shoot without image stabilization enabled, don't find any issue with shaky/unstable video. I have found certain kinds of wings can cause issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While this tangent of the thread is probably best for the photo forum;
shoot exactly as you describe, but don't use a wide lens. This allows you to be back away from the student.
Or work with the TM so that he's willing to look in your direction as you take a shot from a 90 degree angle, back to the sun, at a slightly tilted angle.
I've got some of those shots on my laptop at the DZ, I'll post em' later this evening.



I believe this topic applies here, where the topic seems to be safe positioning for the cameraa flyer.

Not using a wide angle, the shots seem to accentuate the movement of the camera flyers head movements more (which is impossible to hold perfectly still), and changing the angle of the shot usually does not capture the tandem students face (as I have experimented with this quite extensively), tandem students have a tendency to look at the planet (down, not at the horizon).
Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's the same sort of angle I often take, flying in a knees-down position.

Back to the latest twist of the thread, I'd gotten an email from someone suggesting that I contact the USPA BOD if I have objections to the waiver being granted for a 16 y/o becoming a coach.
Given this particular thread, I think it's a reasonable suggestion. I'm still a little surprised that the thread took the direction of:
"Don't backfly directly under tandems, please?"
"My DZO says it's cool."
"I'm a TM. Don't backfly directly under tandems"
"Screw you cyber @#E$!"
"Don't backfly directly under tandems, it's not safe, a premature opening from the vidiot could kill everyone."
"Then I won't have a premature opening. I know I can prevent them."
"Really?"
"OK, you guys got your way, Tom Noonan from Strong called my DZO and now I won't be backflying under tandems. My DZO says it's safe to do, but Strong doesn't want me doing it."

Does this discussion merit a waiver to allow a 16 year old to become a USPA coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest not wasting bandwith and lets all send an e-mail to USPA with our comments and put this to bed, its as important to all of us as the current swooping/landing issue. I'm also afraid we've done a lot of incredible ground work for some lawyer who doesn't know it, but sadly come across it someday. :|:(
smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0