kimemerson

Members
  • Content

    657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by kimemerson

  1. yes. Video is always a good, useful tool. If it turns out you had nothing to learn or gain by having had video, hallelujha! If you're having any problems, it's a real quick way to learn what went wrong, especially if it's something too subtle to spot in real time. Look at it this way too; the best of the best seldom jump without it.
  2. My understanding is that it has to do with Billy Weber, Rickster Powell, Todd Charmont and maybe Andi Duff. In DeLand. circa 1984. And it also might have had something to do with a world meet around that time. If you can find and ask Billy, I damn well know he'd love to tell you, regardless of the truth.
  3. Back in the early days of skysurfing, before Jerry Loftis came along with boards you could buy and instructions on how to use them, a few of us built our own and worked things out. Sort of. I had binding designs direct from Patrick DeGayardon and his only instruction was that I not kill myself. I was the first and second person to attempt to skysurf in NY. No pioneer. Just ballsy. Back then all anyone knew about deployment was that it had to be done while standing on the board. But getting into the stand up was a challenge all by itself and I hadn't really mastered it at all. Once out of the Otter I was spinning, flipping and anything but stable or in control. But I did manage to stand up, albeit briefly. I did a practice pull that was not much to write home about. I lost the stand up. I spun and twirled and tried the stand up a second time. Same result. So when, at about 8,000' I was able to stand up a third time I decided to really pull because I couldn't guarantee I could stand up again and pull on time. But as I reached back and grabbed the PC handle, I fell backwards, on to my back and as the PC was already out I completed the pull. The bag came out, hit the board, knocked off the board and sneakers, wrapped the lines around my right knee twice and the canopy, a Sabre 135, was fully inflated - at my feet. I was spinning and had severe line twists all the way up. I managed to untwist my knee from the lines, get myself at least with my head right side up, though still in a wild line twisted spin. It was clearly time to chop this bad boy. I pulled the cut away handle but then I noticed the altitude and for some bizarre reason I decide I had too much so I decided to ride it down a little, to about 4'000 before completing the chop. I chopped it and went to my reserve (Phantom 22'), but I was still spinning a tad too much I suppose and a mud flap on the container tore off and one line on the reserve broke. I was in a mild rotation the whole way down. Landed in some saplings.
  4. I've been doing the 180° snap hook since the days when you needed 500 jumps and to sign a waiver to buy one. Would someone please tell me where this alleged "blind spot" is supposed to be? I have yet to notice there was one all this time. Silly me. Back when people started 180° snap-hooks (circa Excalibur>Sabre>Stiletto) the mantra was "hook turns kill". When in fact it was a hook turn made too low that could kill. Key in that phrase is the word "too". Low is ok. Too low is bad. Back then they did indeed kill more people. But not due to any blind spot. Because canopy pilots had yet to figure out how to do them safely. People were simply initiating their hooks too low. Hell, done right you can flare too low and die. And true to much in our sport, we are our own test pilots, figuring out the limits of our sport and its equipment and our own skills learning curve. Eventually the 180° became a rather standard maneuver and stopped killing or harming people and now it's considered old school. The standard student approach with a downwind, base, final is a 180°. It's not a hook and there is a real base leg. But essentially it's just a slower, broader 180° turn. A 180° snap-hook is just faster and has a base leg about the width of the chord of the canopy. Or less. So it can't be that 180° is a dangerous approach. It must be that any maneuver executed poorly is dangerous. And anything we do that is too low to the ground has potential to kill. It often is not the maneuver but its closeness to the unforgiving ground that makes the maneuver dangerous. And how do we avoid poorly executed maneuvers? While no guarantee of a 100% safety rate, the way we avoid poorly executed, deadly maneuvers is not to take the ban route. It is to accept responsibility and teach. To an alarming degree much maneuver banning is initiated by those who can't do the maneuver safely themselves and don't actually have an understanding or knowledge or the skill so banning is the easy way out. I could not in good conscious ban a 180° hook turn when I've been doing them successfully for more than 15 years. If I thought they were dangerous, I'd have a hard time supporting that claim. And If I can do it and many, many others can, then simple logic dictates that they can be taught intelligently with a brilliant success rate. And with the fact that the 180° hook has been done as standard landing for so long, and as they are no longer killing at the rate they used to (through our ignorance and not through their own inherent danger), then anyone wanting to do one will have plenty of evidence to support that they work. And banning them will eventually cause those who want to learn them to simply go somewhere else. If anyone who bans them believes the ban is safety related then there's an element of supporting death by allowing the learner to go somewhere else. You can't prevent suicide by banning suicide. You have to address the issue directly. The only safe route is to educate. And if you can't educate, then buy all means don't resort to banning. Frankly I think your S&TA has his/her head up his/her ass on this one.
  5. While I agree with your comment as is, it should be noted that the changes you cite were in place 25 years ago and not much has changed since then. 3 rings then. 3 rings now. Hand deployed PC then. Hand deployed PC now. BOCs have been here 20+ years. It's been 20 years of Cypres already. AFF as an alternative to static line was first used in 1981. The Otter has been a primary jump plane at least 20 years. By the mid eighties it was a spectacle and an attraction to see someone jump a round. You might not be laughed off any self respecting DZ with a genuine interest in the whole of the sport. But you sure as hell would get noticed. Admired, even. The various changes, the real radical ones, between the early 70s and the mid eighties have only been tweaked since then. Not much has changed in the past 25 years that compares in importance to the sport's future with the changes that took place before then. Most if not all of the sport's advancements in the last 25 or so years have been fine tuning and not revolutionizing. Cypress possibly being one exception. Anyone who stopped jumping in the mid eighties would mostly recognize everything today. They would see that there have been changes like, for example, smaller canopies, PRO packing, BOCs. Not much would be a mystery. They may have already seen that canopies were rectangular and getting smaller back then. Why not 20 years later? They would have seen PRO packing, maybe, but would note that now they never really see flat packing. They would have seen that PCs were hand deployed, maybe already moved from the belly to ROL. Why not BOC? Retraining a jumper who has been out for the past 20 years would not be educating for the first time, but assuring a familiarity with old memories with only the slightest updates.
  6. 16 to 13.5. Packed them all. All were video jumps during a skills camp. Two rigs. Jump. Land. Dub. Grab a rig. Jump. Land. Dub. Pack two. Jump. Land. Dub. Grab a rig. Jump. Land. Dub. Pack two...
  7. agree here (if you exclude the Coaches) Like I said, Instructor or above.
  8. Section 5 is not Section 2. Section 2 is Basic Safety REQUIREMENTS. Within this section alone one finds what is required. ALL else in the SIM is damn good suggestions. Not following Section 2 can and may get you kicked out of the USPA. Not following everything else will not. I would agree that it is best to get a returning jumper up to speed. But a full-on FJC follwed by the whole of AFF (or whatever the program might be) is a bit excessive. I've retrained plenty of long absent jumpers and a good, thorough EP refresher, for the most part, some body position and exit stuff, and some canopy drills, that and a single jump has been all that was needed. They all did fine. My own experiences have turned in no evidence that says there should be a BSR requiring anything. I would hope that having a current USPA Instructor rating or above would qualify you to make the right judgement. And a requirement alone can't guarantee that.
  9. First, there is no requirement that has anything whatsoever to do with being current. Find it in the BSRs and I'll take back what I just said. Second, regarding the argument that things change; not really so fast as that. Twin otters have been around for more than 25 years and if the returning jumper jumps his own gear, nothing changes there either. And today's gear is not really at all different than it was 20 years ago where it counts. All the handles are right where they were then. And sky is sky. The Earth is still right where it's been all along. Third, I think the individual has to be taken into consideration. I've known people who get 300 jumps (D qualified) over ten years. I also know Jack Jeffries. 18 years from now if they both walk up to me and want to get back into the sport, I'd really strongly suggest the first guy go through the whole FJC again and I'd ask Jack to organize and be on an eight way as a welcome back jump. Also, what's the returning jumper been up to in 18 years? Sitting behind a desk all week and sipping martinis all weekend? Or rock climbing, hang gliding, drag racing... a life that keeps their edge, their timing, their reflexes all fine tuned? There's no requirement. But we're often faced with these situations so there probably should be some sort of guideline for how to handle them.
  10. Almost makes you wonder what it takes to get a rating these days.
  11. "principally for the benefit of spectators" is how the definition "Demo" reads. There were no "spectators" there was only support crew. If this had been into the field with it packed with fans... I would agree. As it was, it was a jump onto private property with permission of the land owner. I have a PRO rating, and was on a military demo team... I do understand a bit what is and what is not considered a demo. This was a promotion, but it was not a demo. And yes, it was not even a good promotion since he ate it on landing. Ok you all have me curious: Regardless of whether this was a demo or an exhibition or a bandit jump or whatever, there seems to be a common view here that the Raceway was all but abandoned this day. As I look at the video, am I the only one who sees a ton of people in the stands? The place looks damn well crowded. I have not been inside Daytona Raceway so I can't absolutely swear that those are people. Just looks that way to me. Anyone else?
  12. No need to be a "crowd" at all. Aside from personal opinion, someone show me where the number, the quantity, of spectators determines whether it is a demo. Or show me where the attendance of any spectator is required. Where, in the SIM Section 7 part A it says, "and principally for the benefit of spectators", I take the to mean that spectators is usually what a demo is about, that there's a certain logic in having someone on the ground getting their jollys watching the skydiver. But it doesn't make it a requirement without which negates the "demo" status. So, there's opinion or popular accepted definition of a demo. Then there's what the Feds or USPA doesn't actually say. Legally, it's a demo if your dog is watching.
  13. No definition of a demo - USPA or FAA - includes a minimum head count. And maybe it's me, but I think I see a lot of people in those stands. I'd say the people I see in the video sort of over-qualify as a bunch of spectators. USPA's BSR's clearly state that a Level 2 demo requires a D license. And I'd say this was at least a Level 2. If a demo is being insured by the USPA then I'd imagine meeting BSR's would be insisted upon but in a private deal I don't know that any of that must be taken into account. Skydiving without the USPA is a legal activity. Membership is not required. If you meet Federal requirements (filing of the NOTAM and obtaining the Certificate of Authorization) and have landowner permission, I believe you're good to go.
  14. http://www.amazon.com/Skydivers-Flying-Their-Pants-Fire/dp/0967099005 It's a self published book and it shows, but Tom was part of the early days and had some interesting ales to tell.
  15. I've always understood it to be Pilot in Command. In the scenario you describe I see no real emergency and so nothing is obviously indicating an emergency decision in my part. And until I get the pilot's permission to exit his aircraft, I stay put.
  16. This Mark and some of the old regulars from old Perris. Mark and Bobby were such different people but the best of friends. Sparky Edit to add picture of Bobby. http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Bobby1979Nationals.jpg http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/patsteam.jpg Second photo: #2, is that Sally Wenner?
  17. What are the odds that those same people don't know the difference between they're/there/their or then/than or your/you're or should (could) have/should (could) of or a host of other indications that people seem to have stopped reading for pleasure. And, what are the odds that some people won't even understand this post? Good for you for catching that. You may find, however, that unintentional misspellings are becoming more prevalent even in professional writing that goes out for publication.
  18. You mean the sheep? Never part of the original, completely separate, and nothing to do with Ray. He'll be missed, that's for sure.
  19. At 3:01 you can see a sticker in the back that says "Sydney Skydivers" So unless it's a visitor's sticker. I'd wager it's in Australia.
  20. Many years ago I was visiting Coolidge and one of the instructors told us of a group of Japanese students he was working with. One of them, a woman, asked him, "Please sir, can you tell me the three steps toward relaxation." He told her to wait a moment and when he returned he handed her a joint and a rose and told her the third step was hers to learn. Apparently it worked.
  21. Do a jump with your instructor on which you have no goals other than to relax. No turns, no forward movement...nothing. Then, once out the door and stable and with your instructor holding on, first do an altitude check then close your eyes for ten seconds or so. Get rid of all visual stimulation and just feel the air. Stop trying to relax and simply be in the air. Do another altitude check and if time allows, do it again but maybe put in a turn, again, with the Instructor holding on, maybe.
  22. Just remember the cross ports are supposed to be there. They're those holes in the ribs.