gshel 0 #1 October 11, 2007 Hi, I am going to get my tandem rating hopefully this winter so that I can do tandems at my home dropzone in summer. My dropzone uses mostly Strong but some of the instructors use also Vector. Those that use Vector tell me Vector is better, those that use Strong swear Strong is the best. Does anyone have an unbiased opinion? Which system is used most? Which is best for instructor? Which course is easier to pass!!! Any information will help lots??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #2 October 12, 2007 If you're looking for the one that's "easier to pass" then you're wanting your tandem rating for the wrong reasons. If your home dz is supportive of the idea of you getting your rating, go with what they use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #3 October 12, 2007 Go with Sigma and take the course from some one who will ensure you earn it and will help to teach you what you will need to KNOW.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jheadley 0 #4 October 12, 2007 If you like your packers, get vector. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #5 October 12, 2007 There is no debate when the Sigma is brought into the mix. Sigma is the best tandem system out there, period. I have a rating for a vector that I have never used and will never get a strong rating as long as they have the rig they do. Don't know if this is a PA, but Strong is crap. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #6 October 12, 2007 Quote Does anyone have an unbiased opinion? No.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCaptain 2 #7 October 12, 2007 This is a no brainer, get the rating for the main system used at your DZ. Yes, I agree that IMHO Sigma rules but that rating would do no good at a DZ that uses mainly Strong rigs. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koppel 3 #8 October 12, 2007 Simple. Get both and make up your own mind which you think is the better. Like any modern gear they all perform a basic function to an acceptable minimum. Some gear however performs waaaaaaay above the minimum requirements. My personal opinion is that I am reluctant to jump Strong if I have the option of either. That said my first rating was on Strong and if you know nothing else then there is nothing but hot air from others to base your opinion on. Good Luck and I hope they give you hell on your course I like my canopy... ...it lets me down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tqsmile 0 #9 October 12, 2007 Get your ratings on the rigs used in you area.All the rigs are good and all TM have the ones they prefer. No course is easy and you would not want to do an easy course anyway.I have my rating on Vector Strong,Sigma and eclipse but prefer vector as thats what I jump 99% of the time. they all work well.Do a proper intense course and take it from there. blue SkiesTQ I am me and you are you, so deal with it!!! www.skydivepe.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #10 October 12, 2007 Quote Simple. Get both and make up your own mind which you think is the better. Like any modern gear they all perform a basic function to an acceptable minimum. Some gear however performs waaaaaaay above the minimum requirements. My personal opinion is that I am reluctant to jump Strong if I have the option of either. That said my first rating was on Strong and if you know nothing else then there is nothing but hot air from others to base your opinion on. Good Luck and I hope they give you hell on your course I disagree. Get one rating and just use that one for at least 2 or 3 hundred jumps. Jumping back and forth between systems is not great at the best of times due to the different handle locations and procedures; it is especially not the way to go when you are new to tandem. Your best bet will probably be the Strong rating if that is what they have at your DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koppel 3 #11 October 13, 2007 Quote I disagree. Get one rating and just use that one for at least 2 or 3 hundred jumps. Jumping back and forth between systems is not great at the best of times due to the different handle locations and procedures; it is especially not the way to go when you are new to tandem. Your best bet will probably be the Strong rating if that is what they have at your DZ. Fair and suitable comment.I like my canopy... ...it lets me down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 22 #12 October 15, 2007 unbiased opinions on dz.cpm? you gotta be joking... strong TIs think strong gear is great, the same goes for vector, sigma, next, PDF, racer et all... get the rating for the main system on your dz and stick to it for a long timeThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCaptain 2 #13 October 15, 2007 Quoteunbiased opinions on dz.cpm? you gotta be joking... strong TIs think strong gear is great, the same goes for vector, sigma, next, PDF, racer et all... Really? My first rating was Strong and I jumped them for 3 years, my home DZ switched this year to Sigma. After jumping both systems I feel (in my humble opinion) that the Sigma is a better, safer system. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ast4711 0 #14 October 15, 2007 In your case...? I would go with the most on your DZ go with, so that you can make as many tandems as possible - it`s just learning... At least for couple of 100 jumps, until you can make your own decision. I made maybe 400 jumps on strong in 3 years until we managed to buy our own brand new sigma. I am glad we did this and I am shure we made everything right... :-) alex -- www.tandemmaster.net www.skydivegear.de Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #15 October 15, 2007 QuoteThose that use Vector tell me Vector is better, those that use Strong swear Strong is the best. There was an instructor working at freaks this year who is an examiner for both Strong and Vector/Sigma. He had a Strong rig with a 366, and a Sigma rig with a Sigma 340. I found it interesting that whenever we weren't busy and he the choice of which rig to grab, he always grabbed the Sigma. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimjumper 25 #16 October 16, 2007 I've jumped Strong's for over 10 years and have always been happy with them. They are reliable and land well. I am always leery when the latest and greatest comes along! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
camamel 0 #17 October 16, 2007 Of course. RichardWhen you think you're good...this is when you become dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
camamel 0 #18 October 16, 2007 Bill Booth and Ted Strong are both the pionner of tandems since the early 80's. Vector and Strong are the companies that put the most research and developpement on their product, and for many years they were pretty much the only one making tandems rigs. UPT and Strong still have today a huge part of the world market, not to say the biggest. Both rigs are very good but they don't look the same for sure. They are both safe and built by the most experience companies in the market. When I start jumping it was with round canopy's. Those two systems remember me that, we now have high performance eleptical canopy. But we also have The SIGMA's !! RichardWhen you think you're good...this is when you become dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #19 October 16, 2007 QuoteThey are both safe and built by the most experience companies in the market. Is it safe to tell instructors to disconnect the rsl because of the possibility of riser breakage instead of designing something better? Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #20 October 17, 2007 Get both! I did, and used both on the same day when I had low numbers, because I had to. there were 2 vectors and 2 strongs. For those that say that it is not a good idea...... ...... do you do handle checks immediately prior to and after leaving the aircraft?? if you are then what is the problem? If you are not then you should do so!!! the best solution would be to get yourself your own sigma and then you won't have to worry about it. good luck and be safe and most of all have fun and let you customer do so also. they are the one that is paying for it. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ast4711 0 #21 October 17, 2007 Quote..... do you do handle checks immediately prior to and after leaving the aircraft?? good point! This year we had three "incidents" where the first release somehow got dislocated during the exit. Only one Tandemmaster - he does handle checks in the door every time - noticed it on time and went down with the aircraft. The other two had an open main immediately after drouge throw because they did not check their handles. Quotethe best solution would be to get yourself your own sigma and then you won't have to worry about it. and thats the best point at all :-) alex -- www.tandemmaster.net www.skydivegear.de Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #22 October 17, 2007 Which course is easier to pass!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Differences between courses are insignificant. They all require 500 jumps, 3 years in the sport, another skydiving instructor rating and a Class 3 medical. Rob Warner Racer Tandem Instructor - circa 1995 Strong Tandem Instructor - since 1986 Vector Tandem Instructor - since 1986 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #23 October 17, 2007 QuoteGet both! I did, and used both on the same day when I had low numbers, because I had to. there were 2 vectors and 2 strongs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I did that when I was a young tandem instructor. Earned both Strong and Vector ratings the same week. Then my boss put me to work using four different rigs (drogue-less Vector, Vector with drogue, Strong with large drogue and eventually Strong with small drogue). The boss spent his days running around organizing things: "Rob you are jumping the red Vector with ??? on the first load, then the blue Strong on the second load with ???, then the blue Vector on the third load with ??? What a nightmare! I hate to tell you how many times I fell through 5,000 groping for a drogue release handle on the lower left corner of a Strong rig! This was long before they installed a second drogue-release handle on a Vector! This was long before Cypres was invented! Boy did I do some dumb things when I was young! When the boss was not around, TIs would meet in the morning to decide which rig each of us was jumping that day, and we would stick with that same rig for the entire day. In conclusion, I have to agree with Andrew Whyte. Learn one system, then do 200 or 300 jumps on it before contemplating earning a second TI rating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DualHawk 0 #24 October 17, 2007 I don't know if I can offer a totally unbiased opinion...but I will certainly try. My personal philosophy on current tandem systems is this: The current tandem systems offered by all manufacturers work well when they are properly maintained and when the instructors are well trained. As a result, any system can only be as good and reliable as the people using them and the people maintaining them. I understand there will always be positive and negative opinions on every system out there, and that's okay, as different people have different likes and dislikes. I won't debate the systems here, as I feel that it's not a professional thing to do, so I will only speak on behalf of the Dual Hawk, the Strong Tandem Program and tandems in general. Tandem systems consist of three basic components: 1) The Tandem System 2) The Tandem Training and 3) The Post Purchase Manufacturer/Owner-Instructor Relationship 1) The Tandem System Aside from upgrades in materials used over the years, the Dual Hawk has seen very few changes over the years, and that is for a good reason. From it's original inception, it simply has worked very well. Ted Strong is very conservative in his views and approach to tandem skydiving, and as such, in years past, the thought here was "We don't want to come out with a new system simply to offer a "new system", we want to make a system that incorporates all of the strengths of the Dual Hawk, while addressing the concerns of our customers. The current Dual Hawk, was and continues to be, a safe, reliable and durable tandem system, and that is why we didn't rush to put a new system on the market. To be fair, the thing we hear from time to time regarding the system is it's look. It's simply an older looking system, not as stylish as some of the other systems out there. Admittedly, we have never placed that much weight on looks over safety and functionality, so if the Dual Hawk has suffered in looks to some, to be a safe and functional tandem system with over 20 years on the market, then we consider that to be an acceptable trade off. 2) The Tandem Training: Admittedly, we have probably lost some of our market share simply over the number of other manufacturer Examiners in the field today, training more instructors on other systems. Strong Enterprises Tandem Program was run for many many years by Bill Morrissey and he personally approved and trained every Examiner for our system. They went through extensive background checks, and we never put more than one Examiner any geographic location to ensure that our Examiners remained highly current. Did we suffer from lack of Examiners in terms of sales? Sure. But I would ask, would a tandem candidate prefer a tandem course from an Examiner that was holding 3-6 courses a year, or one that held one course a year or less? By purposely keeping our Examiner pool small, we increased the currency of the courses they held, and that, in our mind, currency is critical in being an Examiner. 3) In terms of the relationship between Strong Enterprises and it's customers, I think most, if not all of our customers would agree that we are always available to them for training questions, general questions, maintenence questions, sales, or simply to talk about anything tandem related. And if Ted Strong is in town, he is known to spend hours on the phone with his Instructors and Examiners when they call in. That framework of customer support is critical to the long term safety of tandem jumping. Having just recently been out of the country, I had the opportunity to inspect 15 year old Dual Hawk systems that were all still in exceptional condition because of the of the continued interaction and support that we provide our customers after the purchase is made. So, that pretty much sums it up for me. While I realize that this is an open forum, and every sentence that I have typed can be "point-counter pointed", I would hope that it can be appreciated that as a manufacturer representative, I choose not to engage in debating the other systems out there. Like I said in the beginning, all the tandem systems out there are good systems and suitable for tandem jumping. We all choose to buy what we buy based on a number of factors. Your a Strong fan? We thank you for your loyalty and suppport and will continue to provide the best services and training that we can. Your a Sigma or Vector fan? That's cool too. Fan of another system? It's all good, there is plenty of room on the block for everyone, and diversity in gear choice is a good thing. To answer the original posters question, as was said earlier by others, I would suggest to pick one system and stick with it for a few hundred jumps, and then get cross trained to the other. Either system choice you make will be the correct decision, as long as the gear is properly maintained and you recieve good training. Either system, your heading into a rewarding and exciting new endevour, congrats! If I can be of any help in your decision, please feel free to contact me here at the factory at 407-859-9317 or email me at [email protected]. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises One other closing thought I wanted to share. We have a photo sequence in our conference room here at Strong Enterprises of Ted Strong doing a live "drogue in tow" Cyrpes fire drop test from many years ago before they were allowed to be placed in the Dual Hawk tandem system. Ted has always believed so strongly in protecting his Instructors and Examiners that he is always the first person to test jump a component placed in his system, including the AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DualHawk 0 #25 October 17, 2007 Hi Johnny, To be fair, the below quote does not tell the whole story: Quote Is it safe to tell instructors to disconnect the rsl because of the possibility of riser breakage instead of designing something better? The Service Bulletin only offered instructors a choice in whether they chose to use an RSL or not. Based on the late 90s incident of the RSL riser breaking, we felt compelled to give our instructors the option to disconnect it, we certainly didn't require it or standardize the practice. What occured on that jump was that a tremendously asymmetrical deployment overloaded the RSL riser to the point that it broke. The other riser on the system and a sample of other current risers at that time were subsequently stress tested to 5000lbs and all passed. In 20+ years, we have never seen prior, or since, an asymmetrical opening such as that. I ask you only to consider this. In the 20 plus years in it's current configuration, there was only the one assymetrical opening that resulted in such an incident. The overall history of the system has shown that broken risers are just not even a remotely common occurance. Once in 20+ years did it result in an incident. I mean, look at the industry as a whole, how many incidents are there where it was concluded that the person would have survived if they had an RSL on. Anytime you add a mechanism to a system, while it may prevent one scenario from occuring, there is always the possibility of another unforseen problem arising from that change or addition. Between Ted Strong and Bill Morrissey, they collectively have around 100 years of skydiving experience between them. Together they have spent the last 20+ years analysizing the Dual Hawk and it's components. Again, I understand that everything I type can be "point-counter pointed", my only hope here is to get across the idea that no perfect system exists, and that we must treat any system we jump (sport or tandem) with respect and to understand how our systems work. If I can answer any specific questions, please feel free to contact me at 407-859-9317 or email me at [email protected]. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
DualHawk 0 #24 October 17, 2007 I don't know if I can offer a totally unbiased opinion...but I will certainly try. My personal philosophy on current tandem systems is this: The current tandem systems offered by all manufacturers work well when they are properly maintained and when the instructors are well trained. As a result, any system can only be as good and reliable as the people using them and the people maintaining them. I understand there will always be positive and negative opinions on every system out there, and that's okay, as different people have different likes and dislikes. I won't debate the systems here, as I feel that it's not a professional thing to do, so I will only speak on behalf of the Dual Hawk, the Strong Tandem Program and tandems in general. Tandem systems consist of three basic components: 1) The Tandem System 2) The Tandem Training and 3) The Post Purchase Manufacturer/Owner-Instructor Relationship 1) The Tandem System Aside from upgrades in materials used over the years, the Dual Hawk has seen very few changes over the years, and that is for a good reason. From it's original inception, it simply has worked very well. Ted Strong is very conservative in his views and approach to tandem skydiving, and as such, in years past, the thought here was "We don't want to come out with a new system simply to offer a "new system", we want to make a system that incorporates all of the strengths of the Dual Hawk, while addressing the concerns of our customers. The current Dual Hawk, was and continues to be, a safe, reliable and durable tandem system, and that is why we didn't rush to put a new system on the market. To be fair, the thing we hear from time to time regarding the system is it's look. It's simply an older looking system, not as stylish as some of the other systems out there. Admittedly, we have never placed that much weight on looks over safety and functionality, so if the Dual Hawk has suffered in looks to some, to be a safe and functional tandem system with over 20 years on the market, then we consider that to be an acceptable trade off. 2) The Tandem Training: Admittedly, we have probably lost some of our market share simply over the number of other manufacturer Examiners in the field today, training more instructors on other systems. Strong Enterprises Tandem Program was run for many many years by Bill Morrissey and he personally approved and trained every Examiner for our system. They went through extensive background checks, and we never put more than one Examiner any geographic location to ensure that our Examiners remained highly current. Did we suffer from lack of Examiners in terms of sales? Sure. But I would ask, would a tandem candidate prefer a tandem course from an Examiner that was holding 3-6 courses a year, or one that held one course a year or less? By purposely keeping our Examiner pool small, we increased the currency of the courses they held, and that, in our mind, currency is critical in being an Examiner. 3) In terms of the relationship between Strong Enterprises and it's customers, I think most, if not all of our customers would agree that we are always available to them for training questions, general questions, maintenence questions, sales, or simply to talk about anything tandem related. And if Ted Strong is in town, he is known to spend hours on the phone with his Instructors and Examiners when they call in. That framework of customer support is critical to the long term safety of tandem jumping. Having just recently been out of the country, I had the opportunity to inspect 15 year old Dual Hawk systems that were all still in exceptional condition because of the of the continued interaction and support that we provide our customers after the purchase is made. So, that pretty much sums it up for me. While I realize that this is an open forum, and every sentence that I have typed can be "point-counter pointed", I would hope that it can be appreciated that as a manufacturer representative, I choose not to engage in debating the other systems out there. Like I said in the beginning, all the tandem systems out there are good systems and suitable for tandem jumping. We all choose to buy what we buy based on a number of factors. Your a Strong fan? We thank you for your loyalty and suppport and will continue to provide the best services and training that we can. Your a Sigma or Vector fan? That's cool too. Fan of another system? It's all good, there is plenty of room on the block for everyone, and diversity in gear choice is a good thing. To answer the original posters question, as was said earlier by others, I would suggest to pick one system and stick with it for a few hundred jumps, and then get cross trained to the other. Either system choice you make will be the correct decision, as long as the gear is properly maintained and you recieve good training. Either system, your heading into a rewarding and exciting new endevour, congrats! If I can be of any help in your decision, please feel free to contact me here at the factory at 407-859-9317 or email me at [email protected]. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises One other closing thought I wanted to share. We have a photo sequence in our conference room here at Strong Enterprises of Ted Strong doing a live "drogue in tow" Cyrpes fire drop test from many years ago before they were allowed to be placed in the Dual Hawk tandem system. Ted has always believed so strongly in protecting his Instructors and Examiners that he is always the first person to test jump a component placed in his system, including the AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualHawk 0 #25 October 17, 2007 Hi Johnny, To be fair, the below quote does not tell the whole story: Quote Is it safe to tell instructors to disconnect the rsl because of the possibility of riser breakage instead of designing something better? The Service Bulletin only offered instructors a choice in whether they chose to use an RSL or not. Based on the late 90s incident of the RSL riser breaking, we felt compelled to give our instructors the option to disconnect it, we certainly didn't require it or standardize the practice. What occured on that jump was that a tremendously asymmetrical deployment overloaded the RSL riser to the point that it broke. The other riser on the system and a sample of other current risers at that time were subsequently stress tested to 5000lbs and all passed. In 20+ years, we have never seen prior, or since, an asymmetrical opening such as that. I ask you only to consider this. In the 20 plus years in it's current configuration, there was only the one assymetrical opening that resulted in such an incident. The overall history of the system has shown that broken risers are just not even a remotely common occurance. Once in 20+ years did it result in an incident. I mean, look at the industry as a whole, how many incidents are there where it was concluded that the person would have survived if they had an RSL on. Anytime you add a mechanism to a system, while it may prevent one scenario from occuring, there is always the possibility of another unforseen problem arising from that change or addition. Between Ted Strong and Bill Morrissey, they collectively have around 100 years of skydiving experience between them. Together they have spent the last 20+ years analysizing the Dual Hawk and it's components. Again, I understand that everything I type can be "point-counter pointed", my only hope here is to get across the idea that no perfect system exists, and that we must treat any system we jump (sport or tandem) with respect and to understand how our systems work. If I can answer any specific questions, please feel free to contact me at 407-859-9317 or email me at [email protected]. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
