Trick with tandem

[niteko 0]

Ok, just close this tread, cause not so many persons ready it anyway.
So:
- Tandem will never evolve to something more.
- Tandem main canopie HAVE TO BE at least 400 (500 sq/ft - it's better)
- TI just have to carry on the passenger, no fly, no rotation, no tracking, no HD, no stupid modern fly. NOTHING! Cause tandem passenger does not see anything around anyway. And this is not safe.
- Anyone who use Icarus canopies 330, or HOP330 - have to be removed from the TI list.
- TI have to be only person, who have at least 10000 jumps, and 60 year old, cause only person like this are respected well and safe enough.
- TI never have to use Hand held camera, cause it is very dangerous.
- all stupid guys from MTF (Modern Tandem Fly), Atmanouti etc - have to be set to "persona non grata"
- The best Tandem is Sigma
- The best Tandem canopie is Sigma
- The best sport canopie is Parafoil 2000 (it should be sigma)
- The best sport canopie for experts is Sabre 1.
- The best sport canopie for very profesionals - is Stiletto. But only skydivers with a lot of jumps can jump with it. Only these, who know what they doing.
- FF have to be removed from all DZ.
- accuracy and style - have to be priority.
- round canopies its not bad, but still have to be on the list
- everyone who smiling in the plane - have to be grounded (cause person like this not concentrated before the jump - its means - DANGEROUS!)
- if you not jumping for accuracy - you can try RW - 2-way the best, but have to be very careful, cause it's only for professionals
- all tiny camcorders have to be replaced to "camera and video recorder on the belly" cause only thing like this making video with respected quality

----------------------------------------------

[normiss 622]

Well now you're just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[michalm21 0]

I wish this thread died already

[bdazel 0]

niteko:

You're upset. Why?

You presented two main arguments in support of Modern Tandem Fly:

1. Advance Tandem rig has new innovations, making it safer to freefly with. - That contention is incorrect.

2. Tracking with a tandem student is more stable, thus safer. - That contention also has no merit.

Both your arguments are bunk. So, can you present a viable justification for Modern Tandem Fly other than that it's more exciting for you because you're bored with falling straight down with a tandem? If so, I really want to hear it - God knows I spend a lot of time bored under a drogue, and would love for a good excuse to change that. But I won't start going drogueless and tracking with the student simply to further my own selfish ends.


(edited to fix Dave's giggling)

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Tandem Modern Fly

Can you say that without giggling? I can't seem to do it.

Edit: Actually it's modern tandem fly. But I still giggle.

Dave

[NickDG 23]

Good stuff . . .

But now I'll have to drink beer and get laid to forget I ever heard the phase, "Tandem Modern Fly" . . .

NickD

[billvon 2,400]

Of course! Because the only two options are a fun and exciting future where all tandems freefly, all AFF's sitfly and there are no rules at all, and a future where everything fun experienced jumpers want to do is banned. It's attitudes like that that make this sport the great sport it is!

[niteko 0]

bdazel - it is not ALL ABOUT Tandem rig. It is about TI. About qualification.
I'm not boring, i just try to push myself for every jump. To make the best. To learn from every jump.

[bdazel 0]

Again, it is about the student, not about the TI or how good his freeflying skills are. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Kudos to you for wanting to improve yourself and push your limits. I do the same on every jump. It's that mentality helps us evolve.

But with a Tandem, your efforts should be toward improving your skills that will help save your's and your student's life someday. In my opinion, any skillbuilding outside that scope (like tracking) is likely just selfish and irresponsible.

[normiss 622]

Please post pics when you get into your first side spin from making a freefly exit.
I want to see that.
I've only seen a few fatal examples of side spins so far.

[niteko 0]

You can find some here:
http://www.tandem.aero/Tandem/The_Modern_way_of_Tandem_flying.html

spins.. etc ;)

and a lot of video in you tube
for exmp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7sXreQAux4

[Sangi 0]

Quote

1. Advance Tandem rig has new innovations, making it safer to freefly with. - That contention is incorrect.

I'm not a tandem rig expert, but I would really like to know why do you say that Advance Tandem rig is not safer compared to Sigma?

Look at for example (this is not a tandem rig but still) Advance Seven: http://www.basik.fr/en/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=189&category_id=6&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1&vmcchk=1

And now look at Vector Micron: http://www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27

I really think that Advance Seven is a lot more innovative and more advanced than Vector Micron.

Can't the same be said for the tandem systems?

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[billvon 2,400]

>Advance Tandem rig is not safer compared to Sigma?

He did not say that.

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

I'm no expert on containers but to me that Basik container looks like a Vector clone.

[bdazel 0]

This discussion has nothing to do with sport rigs.

Sangi - It was already discussed. Re-read the thread. I won't repeat myself.

[normiss 622]

Wow a tracking dive.

meh - I'll stick with a normal old-fashioned boring tandem jump where the student has a blast.
I'll also choose to fasten a hard helmet to my head during takeoff so there's no chance of it coming off and into contact with another jumper in the plane.
thanks

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

If you think the governing party fails to see a distinction between a stunt and a student tandem, why would they still manage to see the distinction between a swoop fatality and a student tandem? Dont you think any swoop fatality might also jeopardize the future of tandems as the "ever so straightforward" public sees our sport too dangerous ? Also I wonder what exactly makes the governing party immune for any factual information of the incident at hand, even if some misinformed individuals might jump to conclusions after such incident(s) ?

I think this is the second real argument against the actual issue of experienced jumpers performing this stunt. (the first argument was that someone might want to emulate this stunt without realising the dangers) I think both of these arguments are quite weak indeed, but Im curious to hear more arguments supporting your thory about the "publics perception" and futhermore what effect it might have.

I admit, this is a very difficult question to answer comprehensively. Im curious to hear arguments pro / contra on this issue you brought out..

I see it from a different angle. My reasoning is simple: the manufacturer says 'Don't do it, or we'll pull your ratings', and they have every right to. Even if only experienced jumpers are involved. Here's why:

When you swoop, or freefly, or climb onto the roof of the Otter to jump, or dive to make a plane-to-plane transfer into a Porter with a drogue out the back, you're in control of your own destiny.

When you jump out of an airplane strapped to the front of someone, fully aware of the fact that they intend to attempt a dangerous stunt, you're still not in control of your own destiny. You're still reliant on that person. And even if something goes wrong, or if you change your mind at the last minute, you can't very well turn and track away.

So there's a liability issue for the person wearing the tandem rig, merely because they're the one in control, and you (the passenger) have no say past a certain point. And because they can be held liable, there's a liability issue for the manufacturer as well. And that's why it shouldn't be done.

It's a sad reality of the U.S. legal system. I don't condone it, nor do I support it. It makes me downright angry. But having been on the ass-end of an unjustified lawsuit before, I will certainly respect it...and respect the tandem manufacturers not wanting rigs they made to be used in a way that the courts could consider 'above and beyond' the normal safety procedures.

Now, perhaps Basik doesn't have that sort of liability issue to deal with in France, which may be why they're all gung-ho on it. But personally, I still think Basik's promotion of freeflying with tandems is irresponsible. Only based on the notion that, as an instructor of any sort, your first responsibility is to your student - not to going out and having a great time 'working on skills' that in no way enhance the student's jump.

Regardless, liability is a crappy thing in the U.S. right now...but because a manufacturer is based in the U.S., they're going off of the laws they know. And if they say their gear shouldn't be used that way, and reserve the right to pull your rating, I say more power to them.

Signatures are the new black.

[Sangi 0]

Good words Lloyd.

It's just a matter of different attitudes and laws in different regions, USA - Europe.

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[Butters 0]

If I were you I would read more and type less.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[BMFin 0]

Quote

I see it from a different angle. My reasoning is simple: the manufacturer says 'Don't do it, or we'll pull your ratings', and they have every right to. Even if only experienced jumpers are involved. Here's why:

When you swoop, or freefly, or climb onto the roof of the Otter to jump, or dive to make a plane-to-plane transfer into a Porter with a drogue out the back, you're in control of your own destiny.

When you jump out of an airplane strapped to the front of someone, fully aware of the fact that they intend to attempt a dangerous stunt, you're still not in control of your own destiny. You're still reliant on that person. And even if something goes wrong, or if you change your mind at the last minute, you can't very well turn and track away.

So there's a liability issue for the person wearing the tandem rig, merely because they're the one in control, and you (the passenger) have no say past a certain point. And because they can be held liable, there's a liability issue for the manufacturer as well. And that's why it shouldn't be done.

It's a sad reality of the U.S. legal system. I don't condone it, nor do I support it. It makes me downright angry. But having been on the ass-end of an unjustified lawsuit before, I will certainly respect it...and respect the tandem manufacturers not wanting rigs they made to be used in a way that the courts could consider 'above and beyond' the normal safety procedures.

Now, perhaps Basik doesn't have that sort of liability issue to deal with in France, which may be why they're all gung-ho on it. But personally, I still think Basik's promotion of freeflying with tandems is irresponsible. Only based on the notion that, as an instructor of any sort, your first responsibility is to your student - not to going out and having a great time 'working on skills' that in no way enhance the student's jump.

Regardless, liability is a crappy thing in the U.S. right now...but because a manufacturer is based in the U.S., they're going off of the laws they know. And if they say their gear shouldn't be used that way, and reserve the right to pull your rating, I say more power to them.

1st thing:

Why do you think the person wearing the rig is in charge ? Actually I would say the "passanger" gets better acces to relative wind when bellyflying. The passanger has better means to control the two of them.

However, I would say this is kind of irrelevant because next you might argue that the "passanger" might be held liable for killing the person wearing the rig.

So let us focus on the manufacturer liability issue once more:

Basically your theory was that if the person wearing the rig is held liable than the also the manufacturer could be held liable. I dont understand the logic here. To me it sounds as crazy as if Volvo would be held liable for a pedestrian fatality when some drunk driver runs her over with a car manufactured by Volvo. I just cant see the logic there.

As I have said before tandem manufacturers would be very very unlikely sued if something was to go wrong with someone performing a stunt like this. I quote my self:

actually one might argue that tandem gear manufacturers are actually much less likely to be held liable, since they have produced so much protocols, recommendations and training programs for how to use their gear properly. And so if someone chooses to act against, they are on their own..

I wonder why no one pulls off this liability card when talking about MR.bills or some other stunt not involving tandem gear ?

As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues. Im willing to hear more argumentation if you can reason your statements however. So far Im not convinsed.

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Quote

As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues.

I may not be a law student but even I know that different countries have different laws regarding liability and different ways of those laws being interpreted.

people in some countries (i.e the USA) like to sue for any reason they can.
So while the liability issue may be bullshit in Finland that doesn't mean it's bullshit everywhere.

P.S. If you guys want to get Basik shut down I don't give a flying fuck. But don't get our US companies shut down cause you European folks want to 'push the limits' and have a "hardcore 'progressive' attitude".

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues.

I may not be a law student but even I know that different countries have different laws regarding liability and different ways of those laws being interpreted.

people in some countries (i.e the USA) like to sue for any reason they can.
So while the liability issue may be bullshit in Finland that doesn't mean it's bullshit everywhere.

Yes, you are right. The legal system does differ to some extent. However, the major principles are similar.

You dont need to be legally educated to understand the irrationality of LloydDobbler´s claim.

I gave you an example about the car manufacturer. Think about it, Im sure you are able to understand how crazy it sounds, and how irrational the statement is.

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues.

I may not be a law student but even I know that different countries have different laws regarding liability and different ways of those laws being interpreted.

people in some countries (i.e the USA) like to sue for any reason they can.
So while the liability issue may be bullshit in Finland that doesn't mean it's bullshit everywhere.

Yes, you are right. The legal system does differ to some extent. However, the major principles are similar.

You dont need to be legally educated to understand the irrationality of LloydDobbler´s claim.

I gave you an example about the car manufacturer. Think about it, Im sure you are able to understand how crazy it sounds, and how irrational the statement is.

I'll be honest. I didn't really read it. I tend to skip over the longer posts.

Edited to add: I see your point with the car. However in the US manufacturers are often named in lawsuits. Often times when people are murdered in the US by firearms the company that manufactured the firearm ends up named in the lawsuit. Whether it's right or not and whether they harbor some sort of responsibility or not doesn't really matter. They still have to spend those thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves in court. Fortunately for them guns have a much larger group of consumers, and the gun manufacturers make a lot of money and they can afford to fight the lawsuits. Skydiving is not nearly a large enough community for skydiving equipment manufacturers to make the same kind of money and fight lawsuits like other industries that have much higher profits can.

[Sangi 0]

Quote

If I were you I would read more and type less.

And what's so bad about my question?

I'm curious, I don't know the answer, so I ask. Don't see a problem here.

Also, it might not be very relevant to this or it actually might be, but still, a guy in my DZ told me: "It's better to ask 100 stupid questions on the ground, than have 1 serious question in the air."

So give me a break.

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Quote

Quote

If I were you I would read more and type less.

And what's so bad about my question?

I'm curious, I don't know the answer, so I ask. Don't see a problem here.

Also, it might not be very relevant to this or it actually might be, but still, a guy in my DZ told me: "It's better to ask 100 stupid questions on the ground, than have 1 serious question in the air."

So give me a break.

With the attitude you've shown in this thread do you really expect anyone to give you a break?

No matter how much people EXPLAIN the reasoning behind why you shouldn't do a stunt like this you just keep arguing the trivial. It's like when a kid asks you a question and you answer it and they ask 'why?'. Then when you answer why they ask why again and if you are stupid enough to answer that they ask why again and it just keeps going.