winsor

It's worth a shot, but isn't likely to work. IIRC, a parachuteless pilot attempted a Mr. Bill with one of the jumpers after exiting an inop airplane. Though they were both holding on as best they could, opening shock separated them. Blue skies, Winsor

You may not regret it if you buy new gear while still a beginner, but you would be the first in my experience if that wasn't the case. I have known DZs that had starter rigs that were passed down to newcomers by people who had used them to gain enough experience to know what they wanted when they chose to upgrade. We're talking gear that's well maintained, airworthy and reliable as hell - but not stylish and pretty. Gear that will save your life every time and bring you to a nice landing where you want to be has a beauty all its own. Even though I make something over minimum wage, I wince at the prices people bandy about blithely for gear of which they will shortly tire. I've seen someone drop close to $1,800 on a container that turned out to be unusable by them, only to take a major thumping when selling it. My recommendation is to find a container that fits properly with a reserve that's big enough to survive a landing when unconscious and a main large enough that you can land it in someone's back yard without injury if you have to exit the aircraft unexpectedly (engines have been known to fail spectacularly with no warning at all). A severely underloaded main (e.g., a 110# jumper under a Manta) is not optimum for learning to fly a canopy, and a main that is too fast and unforgiving won't allow you to make mistakes and stay out of the ICU or morgue. It is axiomatic among photographers that the limits of the Brownie camera have yet to be fully explored, yet people buy Nikons in the hope that equipment will make up for a lack of talent. So it is with parachutes - people are getting gee-whiz canopies who couldn't do justice to an F-111 7-cell loaded at 0.7 psf. If you can find a good, serviceable rig that's fully assembled, take a couple of jumps on it before you buy it. You may want to keep it as a backup later, when you get equipment according to your improved skillset. Remember, if it is good enough to keep you out of trouble as a neophyte, it should be able to do that when you are more experienced. Blue skies, Winsor

If you mean bought a new rig, I still haven't. I owned a rig before I made my first sport jump. It was a B-4 with a sleeved 5-TU and the only use it got was a parasail, though I have it packed as a pilot's rig these days. I owned a dual container rig with a square main before making my first jump on a square; my first square jump was an XL Cloud, the second was a Delta Cloud and the third was on my gear with no AAD. It was quite a day. Getting new equipment while a neophyte doesn't make a lot of sense. There's plenty of safe, reliable gear out there that will serve beautifully while you are developing skills, and won't cost you an arm and a leg. Having watched someone break their pelvis in order to avoid getting their CYPRES wet, I heartily recommend jumping something where you aren't worried about the odd grass stain. Getting an airworthy rig with a conservative canopy combination and plenty of life left in it makes the most sense from where I sit. When you later decide to get a CRW-specific canopy, or an all-around canopy, or a performance canopy, you won't be stuck with an inappropriate rig for which you paid a premium. When you do get a more specialized rig, you may well keep your first rig as a backup. It can serve while the new one is in for repack, or for jumps where it is simply better suited. There are circumstances where I will jump a 220 sq. ft. F-111 7-cell over a 99 sq. ft. cross-braced canopy every time. When I show up at the DZ, I usually have both. It is best to learn to fly with a canopy that is not likely to screw you into the ground at the first mistake. I know people who jump high performance gear exclusively who cannot fly a Cruise Lite anywhere near the limits of its performance. BTW, if you are only going to have one canopy, try to get one you can land in someone's back yard if you have to get out over a residential neighborhood. It only has to happen once to matter, and I've exited a couple of airplanes abruptly when the pilot concluded that they needed some maintenance. Blue skies, Winsor

I'm not a candidate, but I'll offer a thought. Those courses are partially a member benefit, but they also benefit the local dropzones. I'd like regional directors to be more tuned into how many courses are offered in their regions and at what dropzones, then push for a course when DZ's or members feel the need. That may mean advocating at the USPA level, or encouraging a DZ with the facility and air support to hold a course. Regional directors can probably better use their S&TA's for communication with regard to that function. Likewise, the USPA monthly S&TA and DZO newsletters should be listing courses and promoting them more aggressively. I'd also like DZO's to be organizing courses on their own. If a DZO runs a small dropzone he probably won't have a need for a course, but several small DZ's may have that need, and certainly the larger DZ's can be a source of candidates and facility when a local need has been established. DZO's should be working together to pool resources and coordinate needs in this area. Creating an adequate supply of AFF instructors helps create happy customers and AFF graduates, and that benefits the entire industry. -tom buchanan With regard to any policy decision, my first question is how it will benefit the membership. If it makes DZOs, pilots, equipment manufacturers or the United Way happy as well, that's all well and good. If it does not serve the needs of the membership as it relates to skydiving as much as possible and getting hurt/killed as infrequently as possible, I think is best addressed by others. Regarding training, I think it advantageous that there are those among us who are qualified to pass on fundamental skills. I would like our organization to consider equally those who instruct for a living and those whose ratings are part of an expanding skillset. Having been on AFF and Tandem skydives only while shooting camera, I am not intimately knowledgeable regarding the fine points of either. About the only thing I find disquieting is the feeling that teaching someone to land their parachute safely each and every time is not Job #1 in those new, improved, sophisticated teaching methods. I think the GM program puts the cart before the horse regarding courses to train instructors. If all the personnel meet the requirements for their level of participation, and all appropriate regulations are observed, I can't see what difference it makes whether the course is conducted at a cropduster strip on somebody's farm or a military base outside of Vladivostok. I think chanting the mantra "it's a club, not a business" eight or ten times at the beginning of any BOD meeting could have some effect, but that may just be my naivete showing. Blue skies, Winsor

Where would you encourage/require CRW? For the A license? D license? Do you believe the current licensing criteria are appropriate for the times? The A license level is where I suggest people get their first experience flying canopies in close proximity. It's been a while since I reviewed the material for any of the licenses, and it has been just about as long since I did a Style Series. I think the skills put forth in the ISP are just hunky-dory, so far as I have reviewed them. I think the means of implementation suggests whoever wrote them makes a living as an instructor and was at least as focused on job security as ensuring quality of the educational process. Blue skies, Winsor

I like the idea of everyone getting to the ground in one piece, but I don't think that further regulations are the way to do that. You might as well pass a rule forbidding injury or death and be done with it. I do recommend that anyone considering jumping camera speak with people who have done it for a while, and to research the instances where people have died with a camera on their head. It becomes clear that it isn't just another skydive, and it isn't what you do if your skill suck enough that it's the only way to jump with a group. I also think subjecting team members to a whiz quiz is of negative net value. If there are rules forbidding performance-enhancing substances and you have to rule out their use, then there is a basis. I have yet to hear anyone complain that the competition did better because they were using steroids or cocaine or drinking a better quality of beer, so I think testing causes more problems than it might solve. Blue skies, Winsor

I happen to be a "fun jumper," but understand that the skydiving environment that I find optimal is one of symbiosis, encompassing the high-investment operations and pushing-the-envelope champions as well as the C-182 DZ and the jumper looking forward to the A license. I want to see the organization focused on the skills that help keep us alive first and foremost. This includes input from any discipline that can improve safety - and they all can - with an emphasis on learning to fly the parachute safely to the ground in a wide range of conditions. CRW should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory. I have other ideas, and happily adopt those of other people as well that promise to improve our likelihood of survival while having a great time. Blue skies, Winsor