chuckbrown

Hats off!!!

IMHO, everyone should be proficient in packing their parachute -- your life depends on it. One of the benefits of learning (or even jumping when off student status) at a smaller DZ is that people will spend the time to teach you how to pack. Spending $50 to learn to pack? Find a 182 DZ and learn for free. And learn to spot while you're there. Yeah, packing sucks, especially in the middle of a hot & humid summer, but that just makes the air feel that much better when you go up again. P.S. Never paid a packer, or used one outside of student days. Just a personal thing.

Hi, I think I met you & your hubby when you stopped by Maytown. The property is gorgeous and would be beautiful to jump at. As other posters have said, you may want to check other DZs to lease a 182. Most of the commercial DZs in the Northeast have 182s that they use infrequently during the warmer months when they can support a King Air or Otter, so you can probably find one to lease. I know if Maytown ever needs another 182 for a weekend we call Chambersburg and rent theirs.

Ron, these numbers indicate that currency is the criteria you should be looking at to control this problem. I agree with what you're trying to do, but my divergence with you has been your focus on jump numbers. Again, almost 50% of the fatalities last year involved jumpers with over 600 jumps. I agree that low time jumpers are more at risk on these canopies, and steps should be taken to keep them from pounding in. But by the same token, this problem also effects jumpers with higher jump numbers, but who may not have the currency needed to properly control these canopies. Maybe a thought is to require a minimum number of jumps or a control course to initially qualify to fly a certain WL, but also require a specified number of jumps per year to maintain the qualification.

Considering what Bridge Day does for the local economy, they could at least show someone jumping off the thing.

2 of 11 had over 1,000 jumps and 6 of 11 had over 600 jumps. You're right something needs to be done. My point is just that this is a bigger problem than just low-timers. Keep up your great efforts. I always appreciate reading your posts.

That jumper is probably not dead DUE to his experience. If he had less skill he might have died...As it stands he just got hurt. There is a big difference between hurt and dead. Or lucky. Both serious injuries and death are the problem here. How many busted femurs and torn aortas has this sport seen on HP canopy landings where death was a real possibility? I've watched a friend with 2,000 jumps take a HP canopy and leave a 4 inch divot in the dirt when he hit. He missed having his femoral artery severed by centimeters. There's a problem here that isn't being solved by limiting canopy selection based on jump numbers. Nor does it seem that passing a test is the key. In the SC jumpers case, he was very proficient but had a leg strap come loose on final. Likewise my friend was very proficient and talented; but he still made a mistake in judgment. The question really comes down to should these canopies be made in the first place? Since they are, we should have something to minimize the injuries & deaths, but the fact remains that all skydivers flying HP canopies will be always be at risk with a fully inflated canopy over their heads.

Or the jumper in SC with 3500 jumps, including 1300 on a Stilleto who broke his pelvis in 3 places doing a hook turn on his new Katana? Fortunately not a fatality, but it does seem to indicate that HP canopy landing problems are not confined to lower-time jumpers. I'm at a loss as to where & how to draw the line.

Nights jumps are incredible. Night solo, night RW, night water, night water RW, night CRW (landed off on that one -- just a bit worried until I found a well-lit spot to land). Seriously though, jumping at night is unbelievably beautiful, especially if you live in an area with lots of lights.

Yes. Currency is very important in this sport.

Good decisions above 1000ft usually eliminate the need for radical maneuvering at 30ft agl. _________________________________________________ This sums things up completely. You can have the best canopy control skills in the world, but if you use poor judgment, the ground will eat you.

I don't know. It seems to me that there was a fairly serious injury in Lake Wales in February that was prompting a lot of discussion on DZ.com. Parachutist magazine is fast becoming irrelevant in the internet age. Just look at the way the disciplinary actions were reported. Pretty lame. DZ.com has completely taken over the dessemination of information to the skydiving community.

Good thing nos. 6 & 7 weren't on any licensing tests.

I think Seal 49 & Mojosparky have already given the reasons. Please understand, I'm not advocating taking a BASE rig out of a plane, nor do I think that it's authorized by Part 105. Read my post closer. In response to your questions: 1. No. BASE jumping involves jumps from a Building, Antennae, Span &/or Earth. Skydiving involves jumping from an airplane. 2. I'm not a historian on BASE. If you tell me when it started I could probably tell you what type of rig you used. 3. Yes. Go to Bridge Day. Having said that, they're not encouraged. Read Tom Aiello's excellent piece in the forums. 4. Didn't you just read my post? I think I said no. 5. If they are an "approved type." Maybe you should ask if emergency rigs can be used for BASE. 6. I'm not studying for my rigger's exam. 7. See, no. 6. Blue skies

The FAA lawyers will say that you are only allowed to parachute if the jump is done in compliance with Part 105. In other words, a jump must be permitted by Part 105 to be legal. Part 105 permits jumps using a single-harness, dual canopy configuration. You can use the dual canopy rig if it meets the requirements of Part 105. Part 105 doesn't permit jumps using a single canopy configuration. Part 105 doesn't even make any reference to a single canopy configuration. People are making the (compelling) argument that jumping a BASE rig is permitted because Part 105 doesn't prohibit it and because Part 105 doesn't specifically state you must use a dual canopy rig. That's not how the FAA will look at it. At the hearing to pull the pilot's ticket, they'll argue that all skydiving must be conducted in compliance with Part 105 and Part 105 doesn't permit a BASE rig to be jumped from an aircraft. Therefore, the pilot violated Part 105. The argument that a BASE rig can be jumped from a plane because Part 105 doesn't prohibit it is a good one, but I doubt it will work in front of the FAA.

I'm rethinking this. I think the best way would be for him to go through all the AFF levels. Twice.

He might be bored with a canopy ride?!?!?! May thee be smoten by the smites. Just kidding. I loved AFF. My level one jump I did the training objectives so fast it seemed like I had forever to enjoy freefall. I like Chuck Blue's idea. Find out on tandem. That way he doesn't waste any money if he doesn't like it ... yeah, like that'll happen. Glad he's back in one piece.

You're not confused, you're normal. Fear is a good thing. It keeps you focused on surviving in a very dangerous environment. If you want to get into skydiving, get into it full time and accept the risks. The rewards are plenty -- great people, great times and sharing incredible experiences. Go through the training, you won't regret it. Yes, you'll be scared at times, but, hey, welcome to skydiving.

Me too. I've had a few skydiving dreams where I bounce & get up and walk away. Now my skydiving dreams are just about really cool jumps.

Being under any malfunction sucks. You're absolutely correct, though; always maintain altitude awareness.

Even if it was a complete wad of junk, I'd ride it down to a lower altitude. Chop a canopy at high altitude and you'll never see it again. Besides all that altitude gives you a lot more time to try and save the situation. I've corrected malfunctions that I was planning on cutting away from because I had the time.

http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/articles/aug03/canopiesout.html If somebody can make it clicky, please do.

I borrowed his rotation Lightning back, landed way better! I wanna trade!! _________________________________________________ Just put an extra set of links on the rear risers & you'll get pretty close to rotation trim. I use extra links if I'm jumping with Triathlons since sequential trim is too floaty for the Tri. Plus, if you want to do LOTS of rotations the Lightning flys better in rotation trim (duh). I secure the slider bumpers with tacky thread length-wise on the outside (no needles) so it's very simple to change trim without fighting with the bumpers.

It's illegal to jump in a national park. It's not illegal to possess a parachute in a national park. The problem arises because the person possessing the parachute, if they have accomplices (ground crew or other jumpers), is exposed to a conspiracy charge. If the evidence is that someone was climbing up to an exit point that they know is in a national park with a parachute on their back with ground crew below or other jumpers in tow, chances are a conspiracy charge will stick. NPS will say they conspired to violate the regulations against jumping in a national park, and took positive action towards carrying out the violation (climbing to the exit point). On the other hand, its doubtful the same fact scenario would support a conspiracy charge where, as in this case, the jumpers didn't know they crossed into the park, and, therefore, didn't intend to violate the law against jumping in a national park. By the same token, it takes two to conspire, so if you go solo into the park, they can't get you for conspiracy, and, as far as I can tell there is no regulation prohibiting the possession of a parachute in a national park. Having said that, you'll still have to hire a lawyer to fight the feds if they decide to confiscate the rig they see in the back seat of your car. It's probably smart just to leave the rig hidden if you take a daytrip to a national park, even if you don't intend to jump.

I figured it was Wendy seducing another impressionable and vulnerable youngster.