NSEMN8R

When we started out this spring I bought 6 student rigs and 1 tandem rig and a 182. I have friends that run "mostly tandem" operations and I didn't want to compete with them. Plus I'm getting old and doing tandems from a 182 all day beats the shit out of your body. And I really missed flying my own canopy too. And I figured we could make skydivers that would become staff at all the other dropzones around here. I also thought that nowadays, with all the YouTube videos out there, everyone wants to fly wingsuits. You could do a thousand tandems and never be able to do that. It's something they could work toward learning out here. Also, it seems like a lot of people are really cheap and the price difference might swing them toward iad. And, on paper at least, Iad jumps are more profitable. I can do 2 tandems at 225 and make 450 for going to 10K. Or I can take 3 IAD students at 150 each and make the same 450 only going to 3500 feet. We've only been open for a little over a month so it's a little early to be discouraged, but I'm starting to wonder about in now. I spent a couple days last week cold calling businesses trying to market it as a team building exercise. I lead off with iad every time and every single conversation ended with them wanting to know how much tandems would cost. It's like everyone is afraid to go solo their first time nowadays. The one deal we got was a high rise window cleaning company and it was for 20 tandems. I think I might try some kind of groupon for Iad jumps next. Anyone tried that yet?

Are there any dzs left out there that do more S/L or IAD than tandems? I remember the old days when we used to have classes of 30 to 50 students every weekend and we only did a handful of tandems. Is it still possible to be successful without doing a ton of tandems or has the world really changed that much?

One time I was in the back of a 182 with a tandem student and there were 2 funjumpers in front of us by the door. There was a loud bang and the whole thing started shaking and smoke started rolling in. The funjumpers left and I dragged my student up to the door. We were half way out with just the uppers connected at about 2k and the pilot says "go if you want but I got the field if you just wanna ride down". If it was any other pilot I'd have said "see ya" but the vibrations had stopped by then and I knew the pilot was one of the best around so we buckled up and rode it down to an uneventful dead stick landing.

Up here in MI the cops get to keep whatever they can snatch. http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/02/bridgeport_township_man_not_ha.html Here's one high profile example, but there are countless more that no one hears about. One of my best customers lost two snowmobiles and a motorcycle because he let a cop in his house. There was an accident in front of his house and they knocked at his door. He invited them in and they smelled marijuana. Like an idiot, he agreed to let them search. State law allows him to grow 12 plants and have 2.5 oz of dried usable marijuana. He had 6 plants and 4.5 ounces of freshly trimmed marijuana drying on a screen. It would have dried out to less than he was allowed, but it didn't matter. If he would have fought it he would have been charged with felony manufacturing a controlled substance and maintaining a drug house. Even if he won, he would have spent more fighting the charges than his toys were worth. Besides, possession of any amount is a federal crime and they keep a Fed on their "Narcotics Enforcement Team" for just such a situation. He let the dirty cops keep his stuff and they never charged him with any crime. This, and the dozens of stories like it, are why people up here teach thier kids NEVER to talk to strangers, especially if they are police.

Didn't mean to be rude to you Dave. We know some of the same people and by all accounts you're a decent guy. My opinion of police in general has become quite jaded though. Until very recently I owned an Indoor Gardening store. Over the past 4 years I've heard dozens of stories of the police up here tearing apart the lives of people who haven't hurt anyone at all. It's always the same story. Cops come in and rob these people of anything of value that they have. Cars, snowmobiles, electronics... In most cases they aren't ever charged with anything. When it happens they are typically, they are given 3 choices. They can buy their stuff back for cash. They can just pull up their pants and walk away and the cops will sell their stuff and keep the money. Or they can sue the cops for it and, if they can prove they didn't buy it with money obtained illegally, they can get it back in 6 months to a year. Almost nobody tries to sue for their stuff back because the cops tell them that they have a Federal Agent on their taskforce that will bring them charges whether they were following State laws or not. They also tell them that they can bring in CPS to take their kids away if they try to sue. This isn't a once in a while thing around here. This is a multi-million dollar business. Welcome to the new America. Asset forfeiture laws and policing for profit have ruined the publc's perception of police. When I was a kid we were taught that the police were there to help you. It's sad that I can't teach my kids the same thing.

You mean that crap that thug-like cops spout off to stroke their bloated egos and justify their thug-like attitudes? I appreciate that shit about as much as when they say things like "Hate the cops? Next time you get robbed call a crackhead...". I don't hate all cops. But I ain't no fuckin sheep.

So I got these 4 monitor IIs. They're programmed to receive on 462.95mhz. I went to a motorola dealer to find something to transmit on this freq and I was told I'd need a special license for that and there are some hefty FCC fines if you're caught without it. They're also saying that the only Minitor model that can be programmed to work on the license free band is the Minitor V. Anyone else dealt with this before? I feel like maybe they're just bullshitting me to sell radios.

Are the older versions suitable for what we're doing? I found a pretty good deal on some Minitor III's on craigslist. Are the Minitor V or VI worth the extra money? Also, how are you guys putting them on your students? I'm thinking about putting spandex pouches on the side of our pro-tecs, but I've seen other dzs just hang them around the students neck under their jumpsuits. Any other ideas?

I agree it's pretty silly, but at least it's not so restrictive that most of us have to choose between uspa membership and doing FFCs. Personally, I wouldn't vote for it, but I wouldn't bitch too much if they passed it.

Correction. It failed TWICE. So they voted by name once and then did it again anonymously? Were the results different the second time? Are the actual results posted somewhere?

While we're off the subject.. is this about that wingsuit rating thing? If so, how did it end up? Do we have new rules coming?

If the passenger was a student it was a little bit stupid and irresponsible. If they're all big boys, they can make there own decisions o how much risk is ok.

That's awesome! Congrats guys. If there's going to be a course in the great lakes area this summer, I'd love to get in on it (unless your planning on trying to get uspa to make it 'mandatory') Is there a schedule posted anywhere?

What's the most comfortable floor pad you've seen in a 182? I'm thinking about cutting up a 4" memory foam mattress topper and wrapping it in cordura. Any better ideas out there?

If skyhooks were required in every rig the sport would appear safer because less people would be able to afford gear so less jumps would be made so there would be less accidents. It wouldn't really be any safer but it would make people feel good.

USPA website has it listed as 2686 yes 2053 no 1289 no opinion How is that not 44%, 34% and 21%? Where does 57% come from?

Without any numbers games, the poll did indicate 45% support for it. I guess the big question is "will they push it through with less than 50% of the membership asking for it?"

It would be even more accurate to say that only 45% of those responding to the poll indicated support for it.

So is it not OK even if it's two hot chicks?

I'd be afraid the students would be banging my camera on stuff and scratching up my lens. I'd rather hold it myself, but to each their own. People were duct taping PC7's to their student's hands even before handcam gloves were around. Nothing new, it's just a bigger deal nowadays.

With well thought out Standardized Curriculum, absolutely yes! In fact, I'd pay to sit thru your class, especially if it's taught by someone "trained" and qualified to teach the course. Why’s everyone so dead set against learning. And please don't respond with the old, scare tactics, bureaucrats are bad, conspiracy theory argument. If I want to hear that BS, I’ll just turn on my TV anytime between now and the Election. I don't think anyone here is against learning. I've taken lots of canopy courses and paid for freefly coaching countless times. I've also sat through and assisted with several ffc's just to see what other people are teaching. I took a base fjc when I started base jumping and I went to a crew camp when I thought I wanted to get into crw. If someone whose reputation and experience level I respect is putting on a course, I have no problem paying for it. I think the idea of having a structured course is a great idea. I think trying to create a monopoly by having the USPA make one particular course mandatory and excluding all the other existing courses is a dick move.

How is that not EXACTLY what this is? I understand you think it's for our own good and we need these guys to save us from ourselves and save wingsuiting from the feds and the evil insurance companies and all that, but that doesn't change what the proposal says.

This is the only statement you've posted that I would disagree with. I don't think there's any way the skydiving community will vote for a system where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country. Personally, I can't believe it's even a fucking option.

I'm talking about calling it an endorsement instead of a rating. For a rating you would need to see an examiner. An endorsement could come from anyone who has both the endorsement and the Instructor rating. This is the only way it would make any sense to me with following the logic: -- The USPA I rating already comes from an examiner just like the CFI does. -- It takes significantly more training for a pilot to earn a tail wheel or high performance or complex endorsement than it takes for an experienced skydiver to learn to fly a wingsuit safely. -- A CFI can teach pilots to fly a High Performance/Tailwheel/Complex aircraft without having to obtain an additional High Performance Instructor rating from an examiner. -- Under the current proposal, a USPA I would have to obtain a Wingsuit Instructor rating from an Examiner before teaching an experienced jumper to fly a wingsuit. With these 4 FACTS in mind, I ask "Why should the USPA require more from skydiving Instructors to teach something simple than the faa requires for CFIs to teach things that are much more complex?" There just isn't enough info there to justify the whole separate Examiner and Instructor rating systems. Doing it as an endorsement would insure that the information gets passed on by a trusted source without making it more difficult than it needs to be for someone who already knows how to teach and fly wingsuits to become qualified to give ffc's. -

There wouldn't even be a WSI. Just like there's no "High Performance Airplane Instructor" or "Complex Airplane Instructor" ratings. Any CFI that has a HP or complex endorsement can give that endorsement to another pilot. In a parallel system, any USPA I with a "wingsuit endorsement" would be able to give that endorsement to other experienced skydivers.