Dirty Laundry aired in z-hills

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

It is what it is. One of the issues here is legality, after all. I doubt it can be changed inside of 20 years,

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>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.

Same applies to loops, rolls, lomcevaks and inverted flight.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

They already do. What other skydiving rating do you need an FAA medical for?* They aren't parachutists as they aren't directly wearing one so what else would you call them other than cargo?

Edit: * It'a a BSR not an FAR. http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section2/tabid/164/Default.aspx#21c

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[NickDG 23]

What's that thing they wear, oh yeah, a passenger harness . . .

NickD

[jumpwally 0]

" sold our souls to the company store " ..........

man i get tired of hearing that shit,,its not the 70's anymore, everything is way more expensive and much more crazy on the legal end,,it HAS to be about Money and Customer service,,you can't survive long with out it.

Even if you want to give out free skydives and bj's on every load,,,fuel and maint cost MONEY, and the knee's on your jeans will wear out and cost MONEY !!!

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[billvon 2,400]

>Same applies to loops, rolls, lomcevaks and inverted flight.

True, although it's illegal to do that in most aircraft flown for paid-passenger use.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>Same applies to loops, rolls, lomcevaks and inverted flight.

True, although it's illegal to do that in most aircraft flown for paid-passenger use.

While true, that's misleading. The restriction on allowed roll and pitch angle is strictly according to aircraft category, not according to commercial or non commercial use.

(I paid to do them as a passenger.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>The restriction on allowed roll and pitch angle is strictly according to
>aircraft category, not according to commercial or non commercial use.

Yes, which is what I said. Aircraft flown for paid-passenger usage cannot be flown areobatically (legally, anyway.) Indeed, the "commuter" category of aircraft specifically excludes aerobatics, and any aircraft over 19,500 pounds cannot perform areobatics legally.

That being said, there is value in performing manuevers at the edge of the aircraft's performance envelope - which is why the commercial rating includes some of them. (Specifically the legal ones.) Think of it as requiring a cutaway before you get a tandem rating.

[jumpwally 0]

Ok,,This thread is done,,there appears to be no evidence of drinking and fucking,,,, lets move on ! Next......

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083