In the end, there aren't alot of angels here.
SDC got started by some folks that basically wanted in on "the action" and so started their own DZ. Richards was looking back then for a "winter" location for "His" plane (He may have only had one at that time, I don't remember). George would let it come down, but he'd fly his planes first. Richards was getting 2-3 flights per day some times. Joanie was running a store that had to "compete" with the gear store at the DZ. So the uncharitable expression is that what we have here is a case of the whores arguing over territory.
Now, TK is a "late comer" to this game. I was no big fan of the way TK ran the place, but he was hired to come in an bring some business acumen to a situation that hadn't seen much up until then. It was a DZ rats paradise up until then with planes flying VERY light and a manifest that had trouble remember if you paid, or how much you owed. On more than one occasion, I had to tell THEM how many jumps I had made. And they'd keep forgetting to use the blank checks I left on deposit so there would be 2 -3 weeks of jumps on one check.
And TK never made many bones about the fact that it was a business. I had run throughs with him in the early days when he harvested emails and hired someone to send out some VERY early SPAM when that still wasn't cool. TK was never going to do well at the State Department, but he was probably not fitting well at IBM either.
All which leads up to the current situation. Many people credit Richards with bringing turbine aircraft to skydiving. One can make a case that he was merely one of the earliest. But when he first started showing up in Florida with his plane, we were doing 30+ minute climbs to altitude in WWII era planes. Within a couple of years there were ALOT of turbines flying (heck, even Eustis had a turbine at one point). And he had a program that was VERY popular called "frequent flyer", when you flew on his planes ANYWHERE, you got a coupon. After some number (20?) you "earned" a free jump.
So there are no angels, but even I hesitate to truly call them whores. They've all made their contributions, but their motivations weren't particularly "pure" nor about "making skydiving better". They were about the money from right up front. And to a great degree they've been fairly "up front" about that part.
Drama and Z-Hills go together a bit like skydiving and beer lights. And that will take ya all the way back to AT LEAST Hooper. And aircraft disputes go back to AT LEAST 40 Tango.
SDC got started by some folks that basically wanted in on "the action" and so started their own DZ. Richards was looking back then for a "winter" location for "His" plane (He may have only had one at that time, I don't remember). George would let it come down, but he'd fly his planes first. Richards was getting 2-3 flights per day some times. Joanie was running a store that had to "compete" with the gear store at the DZ. So the uncharitable expression is that what we have here is a case of the whores arguing over territory.
Now, TK is a "late comer" to this game. I was no big fan of the way TK ran the place, but he was hired to come in an bring some business acumen to a situation that hadn't seen much up until then. It was a DZ rats paradise up until then with planes flying VERY light and a manifest that had trouble remember if you paid, or how much you owed. On more than one occasion, I had to tell THEM how many jumps I had made. And they'd keep forgetting to use the blank checks I left on deposit so there would be 2 -3 weeks of jumps on one check.
And TK never made many bones about the fact that it was a business. I had run throughs with him in the early days when he harvested emails and hired someone to send out some VERY early SPAM when that still wasn't cool. TK was never going to do well at the State Department, but he was probably not fitting well at IBM either.
All which leads up to the current situation. Many people credit Richards with bringing turbine aircraft to skydiving. One can make a case that he was merely one of the earliest. But when he first started showing up in Florida with his plane, we were doing 30+ minute climbs to altitude in WWII era planes. Within a couple of years there were ALOT of turbines flying (heck, even Eustis had a turbine at one point). And he had a program that was VERY popular called "frequent flyer", when you flew on his planes ANYWHERE, you got a coupon. After some number (20?) you "earned" a free jump.
So there are no angels, but even I hesitate to truly call them whores. They've all made their contributions, but their motivations weren't particularly "pure" nor about "making skydiving better". They were about the money from right up front. And to a great degree they've been fairly "up front" about that part.
Drama and Z-Hills go together a bit like skydiving and beer lights. And that will take ya all the way back to AT LEAST Hooper. And aircraft disputes go back to AT LEAST 40 Tango.
Just change the names of the players and location and you've got skydiving as a whole, as you know, "as the prop turns" skydiving politics has always been here lurking in the shadows and rears it's ugly head now and then in a more public light as we see here.
Some where in the middle is the truth, it's all about what side of the fence your standing on as to your perspective.
I can only speak of a couple of the curent players as a visitor to z-hills, I found it well run and TK has always been more then helpful even to the point of allowing northern folks to bring "our" students to z-hills to train, the place was open for our use (class rooms, jumpsuits etc) at no additional charge. The kindness shown by all the staff and management was impressive to the students and helped make skydivers.
I can also speak of TK in my business dealing with him, I have always found him to be honest, fair and a man of his word, something that in this industry is not always the case with DZO's and mangers.
The man made a mistake, and unlike many in our ranks, he owned up to it and will pay the price for his actions, in fairness to him I think he deserves a second chance to right the wrong and move on.
The more somethings change in this sport the more somethings always stay the same.
[/crazy]
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo
I trust TK. Have flown with him more than a few times.
I agree with others.... if he can get a commercial rating flying an otter.. I'm pretty sure he can handle a cessna. Not like he started out flying otters (duh) and what do most ppl fly to start? Cessna! *ding ding ding*
I rest my case.
I agree with others.... if he can get a commercial rating flying an otter.. I'm pretty sure he can handle a cessna. Not like he started out flying otters (duh) and what do most ppl fly to start? Cessna! *ding ding ding*
I rest my case.
Millions of my potential children died on your daughters' face last night.
billvon 2,380
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>if he can get a commercial rating flying an otter.. I'm pretty sure he can handle a cessna.
Sure. And if you can teach AFF, it's a pretty good bet that you can do tandems. Still a good idea to have the rating.
Sure. And if you can teach AFF, it's a pretty good bet that you can do tandems. Still a good idea to have the rating.
kkeenan 13
QuoteIn the end, there aren't alot of angels here.
Interesting history. Thank you.
The bottom line for jumpers is that if there are no airplanes or facilities, there is no jumping. Most jumpers are not too concerned about facts beyond whether the airplane is running and the DZ doors are open.
To anyone who is interested, Skydive City is functioning normally. I and a lot of other people made plenty of jumps last weekend and had no issues other than some clouds now and then. The DZ is better than ever, with new facilities opening next month (new bar, etc.). All the weird stuff happening behind the scenes is entertaining to people who like that sort of thing, but it doesn't seem to be affecting operations at the DZ.
Kevin K,
_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?
Well, I see things a tad differently, but the reality is that, yes, nothing new here. You're right, change the names and it'd fit in alot of places around the country.
Look, as consumers, as a sport, we long ago "sold our soles to the company store". We're the spouse that sticks around as long as there's a nice house, a club membership, and a credit card that never fills up. We don't care who the spouse is sleeping with.
We decided that we don't care a wit about how DZ's are run, by whom, or to a great degree for what price. We don't care who they throw off, what rules they break, or what they charge. From the DZ at Las Vegas, to all of the Skyride affiliated DZ's, we don't care what you do as long as you make planes fly close to where we live. Individually, we can all get in snits over one thing or another. But collectively there are always vastly more people who don't care than do.
Look, as consumers, as a sport, we long ago "sold our soles to the company store". We're the spouse that sticks around as long as there's a nice house, a club membership, and a credit card that never fills up. We don't care who the spouse is sleeping with.
We decided that we don't care a wit about how DZ's are run, by whom, or to a great degree for what price. We don't care who they throw off, what rules they break, or what they charge. From the DZ at Las Vegas, to all of the Skyride affiliated DZ's, we don't care what you do as long as you make planes fly close to where we live. Individually, we can all get in snits over one thing or another. But collectively there are always vastly more people who don't care than do.
Bolas 5
Quote>if he can get a commercial rating flying an otter.. I'm pretty sure he can handle a cessna.
Sure. And if you can teach AFF, it's a pretty good bet that you can do tandems. Still a good idea to have the rating.
Your argument would have made more sense if reversed but still is weak as there's no private/commercial equivalent instructor ratings.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Can't disagree with you there!
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo
billvon 2,380
>Your argument would have made more sense if reversed but still is weak
>as there's no private/commercial equivalent instructor ratings.
I'd say an A is a "private pilot" equivalent - you can jump on your own and jump with people as long as they're not paying you to teach them. An instructor rating is akin to a commercial certificate - you have proven that you are good enough to get paid to teach/supervise others.
And to break it down further, that AFF rating is like that twin engine commercial rating. Hard to get and you have to know how to deal with students. A tandem in many ways is easier - not as much flying involved, just a bunch of handles in different places and a few more complex procedures. Realistically an AFF-I could do probably tandems after reading the manual and doing a practice jump or two. But it's still a good idea to get a tandem rating before you jump with tandem students.
>as there's no private/commercial equivalent instructor ratings.
I'd say an A is a "private pilot" equivalent - you can jump on your own and jump with people as long as they're not paying you to teach them. An instructor rating is akin to a commercial certificate - you have proven that you are good enough to get paid to teach/supervise others.
And to break it down further, that AFF rating is like that twin engine commercial rating. Hard to get and you have to know how to deal with students. A tandem in many ways is easier - not as much flying involved, just a bunch of handles in different places and a few more complex procedures. Realistically an AFF-I could do probably tandems after reading the manual and doing a practice jump or two. But it's still a good idea to get a tandem rating before you jump with tandem students.
Bolas 5
Quote>Your argument would have made more sense if reversed but still is weak
>as there's no private/commercial equivalent instructor ratings.
I'd say an A is a "private pilot" equivalent - you can jump on your own and jump with people as long as they're not paying you to teach them. An instructor rating is akin to a commercial certificate - you have proven that you are good enough to get paid to teach/supervise others.
And to break it down further, that AFF rating is like that twin engine commercial rating. Hard to get and you have to know how to deal with students. A tandem in many ways is easier - not as much flying involved, just a bunch of handles in different places and a few more complex procedures. Realistically an AFF-I could do probably tandems after reading the manual and doing a practice jump or two. But it's still a good idea to get a tandem rating before you jump with tandem students.
A licensed jumper without ratings can only jump with other licensed jumpers.
A licensed private pilot can take anyone for a flight as a passenger, not just other pilots.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Andy9o8 0
Sometimes analogies just plain fail. This may very well be a good example of that. I do think it's fair to explore whether someone formally certified to fly jumpers in an Otter is in reality sufficiently qualified (even if not formally certified) to fly jumpers in a C-182. But using analogies may not be the best way to go about it.
All of which is not to detract from what I posted up-thread: I smell an agenda here, and it's not really about safety.
All of which is not to detract from what I posted up-thread: I smell an agenda here, and it's not really about safety.
QuoteA licensed jumper without ratings can only jump with other licensed jumpers.
A licensed private pilot can take anyone for a flight as a passenger, not just other pilots.
I agree that analogies are bad, but i can correct your analogy as follows:
A licensed jumper without ratings can only jump with other licensed jumpers.
A licensed private pilot without ratings can only share flight controls with other licensed pilots.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.
kallend 1,620
QuoteQuoteA licensed jumper without ratings can only jump with other licensed jumpers.
A licensed private pilot can take anyone for a flight as a passenger, not just other pilots.
I agree that analogies are bad, but i can correct your analogy as follows:
A licensed jumper without ratings can only jump with other licensed jumpers.
A licensed private pilot without ratings can only share flight controls with other licensed pilots.
The person on the front of a tandem pair is a "passenger parachutist" according to the FAA (Part 105). So the analogy is to flying passengers, not to sharing flight controls.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,620
QuoteSometimes analogies just plain fail. This may very well be a good example of that. I do think it's fair to explore whether someone formally certified to fly jumpers in an Otter is in reality sufficiently qualified (even if not formally certified) to fly jumpers in a C-182. But using analogies may not be the best way to go about it.
All of which is not to detract from what I posted up-thread: I smell an agenda here, and it's not really about safety.
Actually I wonder what exactly the ability to fly lazy eights and chandelles has to do with flying jumpers anyway. It's not as if ANY of the commercial test standards deal with issues of rapid CG changes, drag from people hanging outside the plane, spotting or flying a formation load.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Best point made in this thread.
billvon 2,380
>Actually I wonder what exactly the ability to fly lazy eights and
>chandelles has to do with flying jumpers anyway.
Heck, what do any of those have to do with flying paying passengers vs unpaying passengers anyway? Mostly just a skill requirement. It takes some skill to be able to fly chandelles well.
>chandelles has to do with flying jumpers anyway.
Heck, what do any of those have to do with flying paying passengers vs unpaying passengers anyway? Mostly just a skill requirement. It takes some skill to be able to fly chandelles well.
QuoteThe person on the front of a tandem pair is a "passenger parachutist" according to the FAA (Part 105). So the analogy is to flying passengers, not to sharing flight controls.
And THAT is one of the worst wordings ever to come out of the FAR's. Someone should really be trying to change the term to "student parachutist", because if the FAA EVER really begins to believe that they are "passengers"......... we're fucked.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
etc.
If it were me, it wouldn't have been deliberate and might not be in TK's case.
I got my Multi & Commercial together. Certain maneuvers were performed in a single engine aircraft with the final ride in the twin. Only years later did I discover I was only Commercial Multi qualified. I just assumed I was rated in both.
I really don't care at this point but I wonder if TK actually knew the difference, I didn't.