diablopilot 2 #26 September 2, 2014 The added speed over the airfoil and the mass of the tandem pair aft of the point of equilibrium swinging back forward are what make them "flair better". You can achieve the same effect with a "brake-surge" without the risk of a blind spot in the turn, or getting "in the corner". Of course the "[strikethrough]flair[/strikethrough]flare better" is perception. The added speed simply gives a larger window of opportunity to get the flare timing right, thus giving the perception of better landings.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #27 September 2, 2014 stayhigh Ya, we all saw that video, I still don't see the add risk part besides he did a wrong turn. I feel that 180 creates blindspot, and not much altitude to bail and adjust the turn. He should've done a 270. Go home. You're drunk.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #28 September 2, 2014 But can you really stand up your 240 lbs with surge technique? I agree that if you are flying Sigma canopy and start hooking them, now you are just doing it for fun. They do have plenty of power to stop even surging it in. However when you are jumping Icarus 330 or 300, you need to hook it or otherwise you'll end up plowing the fuck out of the grass, with no wind, heavy passenger scenario. Some canopies just suck and so are some dropzone that has questionable gears, and we need to improvise to make us not get butt hurt(no pun intended). Fuck, when I was flying Precision 330. They felt like there were no flair at the bottom. Ti should take some pride of their job and start standing em up. I've heard this dude from Austraila that worked at Lodi stood up almost 100% of them surging it in. But they do have arsenal of tandems canopies varying sizes and drogues.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 September 2, 2014 Well there is a whole different can o' worms to open up. Who needs a sub 360 tandem canopy?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #30 September 2, 2014 The place where there is a heavy wind, most of the time. But sometime you need to deal with no wind for a while, and you are stuck with what you have. Some of those USMC kids aren't that all that light either. Like Hawaii, Guam, Fiji.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miconar 0 #31 September 2, 2014 So you call me out on not knowing what I'm talking about, yet delete your comment I was replying to? Sure, a 270 would negate the blind spot, but in your now deleted comment you were talking about a 180. Oh but you deleted that so you could change the subject and question my experience, classy. Fair enough, lets establish a high performance lz for tandems, good call, nice job. Is your dzo choosing canopies that you feel require you to take unnecessary risks to land safely? And your reaction is to agree to fly them with a student hooked up on your front rather then kindly request or demand he provides you with proper gear? Is the pax you're paired with makes you think a no blind spot safe approach is impossible? And your reaction is to fly them in the general pattern with other canopies around you in a dangerous way that asks for trouble rather then explain to manifest this student is beyond your ability to jump safely? I almost feel like if you can't land a canopy straight in with the worst of it being dirty pants which you will accept as part of your job description you shouldn't be throwing drouges. But what do I know, I have less then 5000 tandem jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #32 September 2, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWW4-1mmgb8 Example of 270 being done correctly. Just scroll over to appropriate mark, around 5:20. I know what I'm talking about and I sounded like a retard. So that is why I erased my comments. You can erase all of yours as well if you wish to. You have freedom to do so. After all it is dorkzone.com And as far as the Dropzone's equipment goes, sometime you don't have the luxury of jumping at a bigger twin prop dz. Start jumping around more. You'll see some scatchy ass place. Where the drogues are questionable, main canopy is questionable, landing practices are questionable, drogue pouch is so stretched out to the point where drogue just flops out when you shake the rig sideways. Risers that hasn't been replaced since the time the rig was built, many more that I can think of. But you are a mule. You simply will be replaced by someone else or you move away and look for different dropzone. That's how it works. When the boss lady says, "You go now". You go now. That's how some small dz works. Positive side of small dz is that there are not that many rules. You do your job and bring the passengers to the ground safely and no one questions Ti's behavior.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fincher 0 #33 September 2, 2014 hard to stand up a tandem when you just piled through a AFF canopy on final......just sayin. Trying a stand up landing is no defense for blindly turning a canopy with complete disregard for yours or any one elses life. I know this was a mistake but you just cant afford to make them if you are doing this kind of "pattern". The TI was either complacent or an unaware jackass. Every TI in the world knows what got out of the plane before him and after him and Every TI in the world should be looking for those AFF and low time jumper canopies during descent. Diablo pilot is 100% right. The simple fact is that the TI did not do his job of locating canopies and mapping a safe pattern/building separation. No excuse for a tandem not to see every canopy below him. He is a tandem instructor!!!! He should be the most aware and conservative person in the sky. There is no good excuse for this to happen. That is an ignorant and trusting human that you have strapped to the front of you! Start flying like you give a shit about that persons life instead of your priority being trying to keep dirt off your jumpsuit. If you are bored with tandems and just want to go to sleep under canopy till its time to toggle whip that school bus at the ground then you should quit tandems and get a new job. Perhaps holding the ladder is more of your skill set. The TI here should have known that student or low time jumper was on the plane and should have immediately located him under canopy and flew accordingly. -Student was low canopy. -The TI is the one that initiated the maneuver that caused the collision. -The TI is an instructor that is responsible for using good judgement and being aware. Those are the undisputable facts. The TI is 100% at fault.i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #34 September 2, 2014 No people hook it so that they have softer landing. Simple as that. If you are bored under a tandem bus than you move on to Tandem Crossbraced FX250's. Go to a dz that allows big hook turns and stay there for a year or two. You'll understand. All these guys that are hooking 330 are very conservative compare to these guys that are doing big turns with TFX 250 http://vimeo.com/61493166 Like I said, he should've done 270's. Instead of a 180. If you are going to allow 90 degree hook turns than why not go bigger? They are safer, they start higher, better field of vision, more room to bail out. So the rule has to come to the conclusion, by per manufacturer. Manufacturer has to ultimate rule. What's allowed? Can we do 90? If they allow 90 degree turn than what's wrong with 270? It is just another 90 degree turn followed by big 180. So what is the rule of the UPT? The rule is not to do them in the first place. So the rule has to be changed? Since the canopy design advanced, and how people fly changed? Or do we all stick with no hook turn advice? Is it an advice or is that a written rule? If the rule is blatantly being broken all the time, and if UPT knows about it what can they really do? Besides losing its customers. Since DZ will start buying different tandem system,if UPT starts to revoke people's rating for doing hook turns. What power does UPT have overseas? There is no USPA cop, or UPT cop to monitor all of these violations. How are any of these agency going to enforce the rule? and punish ones that are necessary?Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 September 2, 2014 QuoteHow are any of these agency going to enforce the rule? and punish ones that are necessary? Pull ratings. Hopefully an S&TA in Hawaii has already performed a 30 day suspension of the TI's rating pending an investigation by the Regional Director.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 324 #36 September 2, 2014 re-read everything that Bryan Burke and Brian Germain and PD and others have written about canopy flight. Turns are dangerous, the fewer turns you do, the safer it is. There is no such thing as a safe hook turn and there is never a need for a 180 hook to final on a tandem jump. Tandem passengers are paying for and they expect to receive a fun ride, yes, but a safe ride mostly. If you were a passenger in a passenger jet and the pilot decided to hook it into another airplane, you would consider that negligent and dangerous and you would wonder what you were getting for your money. BE a professional. Fly like a professional, be ahead of the game. Like the FAA and the tandem manufacturers and USPA do not have enough issues with skydiving already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #37 September 2, 2014 I feel that as long as UPT doesn't enforce the rule hard, everyone will still end up hooking it at certain places. I mean places like Guam. How are UPT going to possibly enforce any rules? Or USPA for that matter, some dz aren't even a USPA member. You guys can say no to tandem hooks all day long, but I'll bet by first load today they are still going to do their 180's and 270's. Just like tandem headdown and atmo happens every single day at some part of this world, but again, how are UPT going to do anything about it? Let's leave the USPA out of the whole equation, only thing they can do is to suspend your rating, if the accident happens at a USPA dropzone. So my several question is, 1. How do we prevent them? 2. What is the UPT's stance on the subject? and other tandem manufacturer. 3. UPT surely knew about hook turns being done at certain places, why aren't they doing anything about it? 4. If the manufacturer has being looking the other way and pretending that it wasn't happening, isn't it part UPT's fault? 5. So that AFF student may be capable of suing UPT as well? Thousands of small dz around the world has that same attitude. "I'm doing my job and leave me alone". Only reason why this surfaced is because someone decided to put it on Youtube, just to bash other competitor dropzone. Just like he did for years, ratting out that other dropzone for going thru clouds, thus getting their pilot's licenses suspended. At the end he is just shooting himself in the foot. Now that USPA and UPT knows about prevalent practices of tandem hook turns at Hawaii, and almost a triple fatality directly caused by it they surely can not pretend nothing is happening, and they will have to take some action. Only one who is going to suffer is all the other Ti's at both location that will be subjected to restricted turns or not even a turn at all. Very interesting how this will play out on both of the dz's landing policy. People who visit north shore often gets shocked at what they see. Tandem 180 and 270's happening all day, and do anyone know what altitude they hook em at? Less than 200 ft with those tiny Japanese person. No one with right mind thinks about doing 180's under 200 ft, and these guys do it routinely. However there is couple guys out there who only comes in straight in, and they do fine. Not a stand up landing but they all go home at the end of the day, with their ass being sore.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coozer 0 #38 September 2, 2014 Those that think the 180 turn is the problem are not really seeing the issue here. Yes it is both pilots fault, whether or not the lower canopy was a student on radio. If they were on radio it was the person that put them there that is responsible fore their part in the incident. they were landing down wind into the flow of traffic on the landing area. this can be determined by the parachute doing a nice landing in the other direction at the start of the video. However, as much as the incident can be blamed on the actions of both parties the majority of the responsibility is on the tandem master. The 180 is not the problem, I would venture to guess that that instructor has done 180's successfully hundreds if not thousands of times. If they flew straight into the other canopy, would flying straight be the problem? If they spiraled into them at 2000 feet, would spiraling be the problem? The problem is general awareness. They must have known there was another canopy in the vicinity, if it was a student on radio, they would have known there was a student on their load and when they did their turn they obviously did not look to see if their path was clear. As a tandem master that has done thousands of tandems and thousands of 180's on tandems at drop zones where all the instructors do 180's a thousand times a year... I can honestly say I have never seen anyone hook a tandem into the ground and that is witnessing many many thousands of tandems. The 180 is not the problem. The people focusing on the 180 turn and not the fact that they were obviously not aware of what was going on around them are only adding to the problem. Canopy collisions have killed and injured many people, they are a result of poor awareness and this incident is not different to any of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #39 September 2, 2014 It is never a student's fault, especially if the student is lower than the tandem instructor. One has thousands of jumps, and the other is complete fuck tard who might chop because the slider was flapping. Who has right of way? How is it student's fault? He is lower and has less than 10 jumps. The guy is fucking scared and excited out of his mind. The student barely knows how to flair and where he is going to end up landing. He is not going to look up and say "I'm going to avoid that canopy up and ahead of me." The top guy has responsibility to clear what's beneath. It is scary that some has attitude that it was guy below's fault. It is always person above's fault, when it comes to canopy collision. Doesn't matter which way the bottom guy is traveling. They can go 45 degree for fucks sake, you let them do what they do and come down and bitch at them, not smash into them because they were going wrong direction. Biggest problem was doing 180, creating blind spots, again I'm for doing 270's when, and if UPT allows big hook turns. Again, if UPT has strong stance against tandem hook turn why have they allowed this prevalent landing policy over the years just because they are sitting in a island thousands of miles away from Florida. It is part UPT's fault for not taking a stance.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coozer 0 #40 September 2, 2014 I understand the student was either on radio or if not they should know that landing down wind into the landing pattern is bad. Doing a low turn to go into wind is also bad, so their mistake might have been made earlier when they should have been concentrating on setting up for landing the correct way. However the majority of the blame in this case is on the TM for not looking where they were going and not being aware of who was in the air with them. They had the experience to avoid this. At least some blame can be given to whoever was in control of the lower canopy though. Like every incident it is a combination of mistakes that lead to the fact... one of those mistakes was that canopy being there going in that direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #41 September 2, 2014 You made it sound like it was student's fault. Who was below and doesn't have ANY experience. 100% of the blame goes to the guy who has 1000's of jumps and above. 0 goes to the guy who has less than 10 and below. If you can not agree with that, I never want to jump with you ever at same load. You can blame it on Ti, not being able to see due to 180. That's really easy solution if one does 270's. and if the 180's were the problem and UPT does not want people to do 270's than they should all come straight in, as they did for year at the same exact location back in 1980's using way shittier tandem parachute then what they use now. I'd say it was manufacturer's fault for letting these type of behavior go on for years, since the mid 90's.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coozer 0 #42 September 2, 2014 Quote100% of the blame goes to the guy who has 1000's of jumps and above. 0 goes to the guy who has less than 10 and below. If you can not agree with that, I never want to jump with you ever at same load. You can blame it on Ti, not being able to see due to 180. That's really easy solution if one does 270's. Bullshit. the student (or whoever was in control of his position) was 'partly' to blame. I clearly stated that the majority of the blame goes on the TM. If you land downwind into the traffic at any DZ you are going to get a butt whippin... well I really hope so anyway. There is a really good reason you should not land in the opposite direction of traffic... what do you think that reason might be? The lower canopy was to the tandem's left side as he approached, he only needed to look before turning... I am all for 180's on a tandem if the instructor is competent, 270's should be left for wing loadings of more than 1.5 in my opinion. However this is subjective and is a tangent away from the lack of general awareness that was the 'major' cause of this incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #43 September 2, 2014 Not even gonna argue anymore. Clearly you haven't taught enough FJC'sBernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coozer 0 #44 September 2, 2014 Ahaha, so you think it is OK teach people to fly into the landing pattern in the wrong direction, or perfectly acceptable for people to do that, great.You need to take some lessons in comprehension as you quite clearly have not grasped what I have said, or what the reason for a landing direction is. Good day. I think my point is clear now so no need for any further comment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #45 September 2, 2014 stayhighIt is never a student's fault, especially if the student is lower than the tandem instructor. One has thousands of jumps, and the other is complete fuck tard who might chop because the slider was flapping. Who has right of way? How is it student's fault? He is lower and has less than 10 jumps. The guy is fucking scared and excited out of his mind. The student barely knows how to flair and where he is going to end up landing. He is not going to look up and say "I'm going to avoid that canopy up and ahead of me." The top guy has responsibility to clear what's beneath. It is scary that some has attitude that it was guy below's fault. It is always person above's fault, when it comes to canopy collision. Doesn't matter which way the bottom guy is traveling. They can go 45 degree for fucks sake, you let them do what they do and come down and bitch at them, not smash into them because they were going wrong direction. Biggest problem was doing 180, creating blind spots, again I'm for doing 270's when, and if UPT allows big hook turns. Again, if UPT has strong stance against tandem hook turn why have they allowed this prevalent landing policy over the years just because they are sitting in a island thousands of miles away from Florida. It is part UPT's fault for not taking a stance. Some of yout posts seem to be a little confusing. However, you can rant all you like about it being UPT's fault, a DZO's fault, anything else, or a lack of rules or supervision.. You can tell us about being "forced" to jump shoddy gear. You can try to deflect "blame" onto other individuals or organisations till you are blue in the face. Whatever. What it boils down to is this: The TI is his own safety officer, responsible for not only his own arse, but the life of another person who is expecting the TI to take full care of them. The do's and dont's of tandem skydiving, and the professional responsibility a TI has are common knowledge. There is NO excuse for deviating from known safe practice. Any TI who is browbeaten into jumping substandard gear, or treats the jump as his opportunity to have some fun because he is bored, allows his ego to override sound judgement, and has a casual attitude to safety has no business holding or retaining a rating. Why should he rely on UPT, USPA or any other body to wave a big stick before he complies with good practice? As a professional it is implicit on him to display sound judgement, make good conservative decisions, and display an awareness of what is going on around him on every single jump. There is no place for complacency. Anything less is unprofessional and bordering on wilful negligence. It is also unprofessional to witness unsafe practice, and condone such practices by remaining silent. He has a duty to the industry at large to speak out against cowboys. A TI is responsible for the life of his rider, no less than a brain or heart surgeon are responsible for the life of their patient. The level of professionalism needs to be equal. That message needs to be drilled into a few heads, and it would not hurt to see a few ratings pulled to emphasise the message.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coozer 0 #46 September 2, 2014 Obelix, you have a kiwi flag... are you a NZ TM? Do you suggest that you and all of your comrades do only braked approaches? I have worked in NZ and Aus. and I can safely say that 90% of the tandem landings I saw there were 180's. Do you also suggest braked approaches have never injured anyone and that a 180 is always dangerous? What is your point actually? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #47 September 2, 2014 QuoteObelix, you have a kiwi flag... are you a NZ TM? I'm a Kiwi but haven't lived in NZ for 13 years or so. Started (with a partner) and ran NZ's first commercial tandem DZ as CSO from 1987. Been around the block a few times. Quote Do you also suggest braked approaches have never injured anyone and that a 180 is always dangerous? Didn't say that, and I would question whether a 180 is really necessary, or leaves an optimum margin for error. QuoteWhat is you point actually? Professionalism. In all aspects. Not an unreasonable ask, I would think.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 21 #48 September 2, 2014 stayhighLet's leave the USPA out of the whole equation, only thing they can do is to suspend your rating, if the accident happens at a USPA dropzone. That is incorrect. Please refer to the Governance Manual, available on the USPA web site. Section 1-6. Also, USPA members are required to follow the BSR's, period. (wherever they are) Are you a USPA member? I can't tell because your profile is incomplete. Having said that, I will now add my commentary. Tandem skydiving has now become so common, so commercialized, and so much of a "job" to many instructors that they no longer care about doing the right thing for their student. It is all about them instead of the student, which causes them to substitute ridiculous actions with training. Me? I don't need to do tandem hook turns because I get so much enjoyment and fulfillment from teaching my students how to fly a pattern and flare the canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #49 September 2, 2014 no I am not a USPA member. So they can't do shit.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #50 September 2, 2014 stayhighno I am not a USPA member. So they can't do shit. So that makes you bulletproof huh?.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites