velvetjo

You've obviously never been on a hop-n-pop load with Don Kellner. His spots always keep it interesting for the rest of us exiting the plane behind him. You'd better let Jay Stokes know that his record jumps don't count either, since they were below 4,000'. Lance

Drilling holes in helmets to mount cameras is something you'd better get used to doing. Go slowly, it's much harder to put material back than cut a little more later. Something else that helped a lot was using tape to position the box and top mount still camera on the helmet to get everything balanced & aimed beforehand. That way you won't have to drill even more holes in your shiny new toy. You might want to consider getting a few more than 115 jumps under your belt before strapping that thing on. I know people in your situation don't like to hear that, but it's smart to be able to fly your body without a lot of conscious effort prior to jumping a camera. Lance

Side mounting? I used a Bonehead d-box for my HC-42, and here's what I did. Get a dremel tool and cut a hole in the side of the box if the LANC plug is too wide. You may need to cut a nice big hole in the side of your helmet to match. Remember that loose carbon fibers and electronics don't mix well, so clean up after you cut and seal the edges with clear nail polish or something similar. Adhesive weatherstripping foam works okay for inside the box, but you may want to go over it with gaffer tape to keep stuff from shifting around each time you access the camera. Buy a couple of different thicknesses of foam so you can shim things the way you like. My d-box had enough room that I shimmed more under the front & on top of the back to increase the camera angle a bit. Worked great for tandems last season. Lance

This sounds a lot like a Coach rating to me. Lance

Good stuff, Tom. Another way to get the message out is to talk to the local Experimental Aviation Association (EAA) chapter in your area. I've been an EAA member for several years, and I've found direct communication with local chapters to be a great grassroots medium for local aviation issues. Besides that, it's a great way to meet powered parachute & ultralight pilots if you're into an occasional ride to altitude in non-traditional jump craft. Lance

Okay, so what about the cameras identified in this thread? Sony's already removed the LANC feature from some of their mini-DV consumer models. There was some speculation a year or so ago about Sony dropping LANC entirely, but I'm glad to see it hasn't happened yet.

You might be overestimating the current market demand for something specialized like this. The few switches/controls for miniDV and stills that cater to skydive photography all cross over between lots of models currently in use. Anybody out there working on using the firewire port for a control? Seems possible, since most editing programs can control the camera that way. This might be a hot ticket if Sony ditches the LANC totally at some point. Lance

That's true, but at least it gives a new coach a foundation from which to work. Sure seems better than nothing. Conversely, I'm sure we've all encountered teachers who've been teaching badly for a long time. Neither is ideal. If a candidate goes to the coach course fully prepared, they should have already spent a reasonable amount of time at their home DZ working on both teaching & flying skills. Again, this goes back to the responsibilities of the chief instructor to only sign a candidate's card if they believe that he or she has the necessary skills. Lance

I'm getting some really mixed messages here. Quality over quantity seems to agree that low jump numbers can be okay - is this what you're saying? Also, doesn't shifting this training to non-rated jumpers open the door for some very sketchy "instruction" for advanced students? Sure seems like there's more "risk of ignorance" in that route. As far as the magic number goes, what exactly are you planning to ask USPA to do then? As a suggestion, maybe it's more appropriate to require a C license, which at least has some additional breadth of experience requirements than simply asking for 200 jumps. The bottom line is figuring out a way to develop junior instructional staff more effectively. What effect does increasing the jump number requirement have on that, if any? Just out of curiosity, did you try to help the new coaches that you saw making the mistakes cited in the original post? If so, what did you do? If not, why not? Lance edited for spelling

So, what's the magic number of jumps and why? I'm not convinced that the jump numbers matter as much as the flying & teaching skill sets needed to instruct students well. Also, wouldn't an increase to the required jumps for a coach rating both reduce the pool of coaches and cause more non-rated D-licensed jumpers to fill this vacuum? That's effectively shifting a portion of student training to non-certified coaches. Some of these folks may be great teachers, but that's certainly not a given. This seems to contradict your statement above that a trained & certified coach is preferable. Lance

Best I can figure, the coach rating is a developmental position for the instructor cadre at a DZ. That means a coach is as good or bad as the instructors who supervise them, no? If there are coaches out there without the appropriate skills, I'd look to the course directors and chief instructors that are allowing this to happen as the root cause. I know that both of the folks who signed off my coach rating would have failed me without hesitation if I didn't demonstrate the necessary skills - no matter what my jump numbers were. Having the coach rating for a year or two before becoming an instructor helped me learn a lot from senior instructors. If people put as much effort into developing coaches as they do bashing them, it sure seems like we'd all be a lot farther ahead. How many times have you heard someone say: "...he's just a coach..." What kind of message does that send to these future instructors? What does that tell you about the person who said it? So do something positive. Go work with a coach on their teaching technique. Be a positive example for them, and respect them for what they're trying to learn. Show them better ways to interact with students. Do practice jumps with them as the "student from hell". Give them tips you've picked up from your students over the years. They might even listen. And maybe, if you're good enough at developing them, they'll even buy you a beer after the sunset load. Lance

I think we're talking about the same thing in some ways. I didn't get that you were including repacks with deployments from your first post, but I did allude to this as being necessary: The off-cycle repack being the repack required due to the deployment that you & Billvon both kindly pointed out. Unfortunately, it's tough to analyze this without treating repacks and deployments as separate events, even though they might be conditionally related. They're still two separate variables. Using the canopy manufacturer's recommendation in this analysis is probably a very gross oversimpification of the true impacts on the canopy, but it's not a completely horrible assumption either. I'd caution against putting much credence in any analysis based on that assumption. It most likely has a number of safety factors incorporated that skew the comparisons made here. It also doesn't even begin to address issues like low-speed vs. terminal deployments, packing conditions, etc. But, if you use that assumption anyhow, you then need to look at best & worst cases. Check it out. Define some variables as: I - conditions needed for manufacturer inspection r - a repack d - a deployment (not including repack) So, by the manufacturer recommendations of max repacks and/or deployments, there are two worst case conditions: I = 40r +24d or I = 39r +25d (includes a repack for each deployment) and two best case conditions: I = 40r or I = 25r +25d (assumes a repack for each deployment, and that you wouldn't have your rigger repack it just before sending it to PD for inspection) So, playing along with the assumption above, you can call the best cases equal and the worst cases equal. Solving for r in each case yields: Worst Case: 1r = 1d Best Case: 1r = 1.66d (which appears to be your point above) So, by this logic, a repack is equal to a deployment in the worst case of usage and ~1.7 deployments in the best case of usage. I still think the initial assumption is too simplistic, but at least this range gives you a more realistic feeling for the inspection parameters. Lance

I think you may have gotten this ratio reversed. From your figures above, it looks like: 1 deployment ~ 1.6 repacks So a deployment is actually treated as more wear than a repack. Sorry to nitpick, it's an occupational hazard for us engineers. Of course, you'd also have to figure in the off-cycle repack needed due to the deployment if you're thinking in terms of canopy life cycle. I'd assume that had already been accounted for in the OP's question though. Lance

Just a quick clarification of something that may have gotten lost in the mud of this thread: you don't need a commercial pilot's license to fly jumpers if you don't accept compensation (including flight time) for it. For example, if my wife (who's a private pilot) and I owned a 182, we could get an A&P to take off the door, file a jump NOTAM, secure landowner permission at the intended DZ, maintain communication with the appropriate ATC, and she could drop me all day long. There is no endorsement or license specific to dropping jumpers, it's only the compensation aspect that will get you in hot water with the FAA. So what does this tell us? Somebody out there with a financial interest in who can fly what thinks that this flight time = compensation rule interpretation is a good idea. If the FAA were serious about safety in jump operations, there would be an endorsement specific to the activity. Hell, you can't even fly a 182 without a high performance (over 200 HP) endorsement. BTW, do you think that folks already getting paid for flying jumpers aren't acutely aware of the pilot glut we've had for a while now? Just look up "pay for training" on any of the aviation boards and you'll see pretty quickly that it's perceived as a serious threat to the livelihood of professional (mostly unionized) aviators. To JudyJ: Do the decent thing and confront the individual you believe to be flying jumpers against FAA policy. If they don't respond, then consider going to the FSDO. This is serious stuff, admittedly, but have a little compassion before you screw with someone's life this profoundly. Lance ----- edited for spelling & punctuation

It's interesting that you bring this up in the context of other risk activities. I saw a talk by David Brashears of the Everest IMAX expedition years ago, and one of his main points was the potential for lack of an apprenticeship in modern climbing. I've seen a similar trend in whitewater kayaking over the last couple of decades, and it's definitely true of skydiving from what I've seen. There is a basic tension in all of these activities created in varying parts by: - marketing - think of how much you hear the word "extreme" nowadays - gear improvements which make the activities more accessible - our culture's consumer mentality - the customer is "king" - the elimination of most serious threats to life safety from everyday life So, in a way it's a setup for these poor folks. They're enticed into a typically low-appeal activity by mass marketing, allowed in a very short period of time to participate in relatively complex activities using sophisiticated gear that they may or may not fully understand, conditioned to believe that they're owed service rather than expected to perform at risk, and deceived about the potential consequences by the lack of true risk in everyday life. Is it any wonder that these attitudes exist? I agree with you that humility is a great tool for any kind of learning, especially in risk activities. The big question is: how can you get someone to accept the need for both humility and an apprenticeship to skydiving? Experience has shown me that it either takes something really bad happening to them personally or a number of close calls to get this message through. There's got to be a better way - so what are we missing? Maybe we ought to be questioning our collective leadership abilities in this area just as much as the seeming lack of good judgment by junior jumpers? Lance

I get what you're saying about the 20-30' distance being a little far, but it works with my setup. Crisp images, even up close. Focusing on anything closer with AF seems to make things worse, so it may be as much a function of the AF sensor as anything else. Would the use of a single-element wide angle lens factor into this? As far as setting cameras for infinity, it seems like you'd sacrifice even more depth of field than what I describe above (backing slightly off infinity). I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, other than infinity settings work for your setup. Since the HC-42 is very similar to my camera and he mentioned using infinity for focus, it seemed like a good idea to share something I'd found to be useful with a new video flyer. That's bad how? Lance

Be careful about setting focus to infinity. A better bet to maximize depth of field is to set your camera for the hyperfocal distance of your lens combination. You can do this very simply by setting your camera on AF, pointing it at an object about 20-30 feet away, and then switching to MF while it's still focused on this object. I've made this focus setting part of my video prep routine for my HC-40 w/ Royal 0.5 lens setup, and it works like a charm. I've had the camera go back into AF mode occasionally when changing batteries between loads, so it's worth a quick look through the viewfinder anytime you do that. I can't help you as much with the exposure issue - my HC-40 seems to do a pretty good job in this situation. I've seen what you're talking about with PC series cameras shooting tandems on the same overcast day loads, but for whatever reason the HC handled it better, even on auto-exposure. Kinda surprised all of us - we figured my video would be washed out as well. Lance

When it comes to jumpsuits for big boys, you have to realize one very important thing: if those floaty folks can't keep up, they're just not trying hard enough. Despite this, everyone will tell you that you need to fall slower. Lazy bums... I'm about 245 and 6'-1" for reference, and I have both a Bev polycotton suit and a Bodysport crater suit. The Bev suit wasn't slow enough to let me stay with most RW groups, so I had it converted to a camera suit with booties, afterburners, and wings. It's been a great camera suit, and I can really pop up on even the lightest tandems & RW groups with minimal effort. I ordered the crater suit around the same time for RW and coaching, and it's pretty good for slowing me down. Drag-inducing options that worked for me were: double fabric, cordura booties, loose cut, & wing material under the arms w/ swoop cords. The booties don't seem quite as effective as Bev's afterburner booties, but the extra fabric helps over not having them at all. Another good tip I got from a very experienced, fast-falling AFF instructor is to unzip your jumpsuit part way for extra drag. I still do this on coach jumps with light students, and it's pretty effective. Be aware that you risk blowing out your zipper by doing this, but I haven't had it happen yet. Consider going to a tunnel at some point to specifically practice slow fall techniques. This was the most helpful thing I did to slow down, since it's pretty easy to tell if your flying is the issue in the tunnel. In the sky, others tend to compensate to match fall rates, which doesn't allow you to see the effects of changing body position as accurately. You should have a pretty good range of options for canopies in your weight range. Lots of student rigs are in the sizes you'd be considering, so the gear is out there. Good luck with the rest of your training, Lance

Ask some of your local instructors to show you a staged flare. I used it to transition to ZP from a PD230, and it worked well for me. We use Sabres for student canopies, and a 4-stage flare seems to work well for them. The canopies are a little de-tuned, but moving to head/chest/belly/crotch in deliberate stages with hands together seems to do the trick. Hands together will keep you from making uneven control inputs, which will be even more pronounced than you'd expect with F111. You'll want to be much more controlled than the "give it everything right now" flare technique that a not-so-new F111 canopy might demand. Your goal is to gently bring your sink rate to zero just above the ground, so start flaring earlier and give the canopy a little time to react after each stage of the flare. If there's not much change in your sink rate, keep going farther into the flare. If you balloon a little or level off early, just hold the toggles and then continue flaring once you begin to sink again. Hope this is helpful, but in any case get some hands-on advice from instructors you trust to make sure you're on the right track. ZP is way more fun to fly! Lance

You have no idea of what happened... You sound like you think you were there or somthin... lol Ok, so maybe you were, lol. I know I should have known where we were and I was trying to look out the door for recognizable landmarks, but for whatever reason I wasn't able to... I'm sure part of it was that I was sort of stressed about exiting so low. I usually begin to pull by 4k, so exiting at 3.5k was definitely weighing a bit on my mind. In the end everything was ok, but I was just wondering what others would think, regarding me leaving the plane without knowing exactly where I was... And if it was typical to not have any pre-jump or in-flight communication between the first person exiting and the pilot... Any more than "Jump on Green"... I think what he's getting at is situational awareness. This is a skill that takes time to develop, but it also takes your focus as a student to make it happen. You mention in another post that spotting from 3,000' was an unexpected visual picture - this shouldn't really be the case at your point in training, as you should have been given the opportunity to see that sight picture on at least 10 of your 20-some jumps. Even if your instructors aren't telling you to do it, make a habit of finding the airport at common exit altitudes (including low ones). From the jumprun diagram you indicated, the airport should have been visible pretty readily from the door for a while before exit. You might need to get ready a little sooner so that you have time to look outside without distractions before the green light - that's a good lesson to take away from this, and something concrete that you can do to improve your spotting. You're at a stage similar to a student pilot just who has just done his solo. You know the procedures, but there can be a tendency to get so engrossed in them that you don't see the rest of what's going on around you. This is pretty normal, and part of the learning process. Your instructor's job is helping you to develop through this stage, although it becomes tougher with self-supervised students depending on DZ policies and differences between instructional programs. To answer your question, it's a bit disappointing that you were told that the "green light means go" and not given better coaching in spotting. From what you posted, you were probably justified in asking for a go-around, but it's hard to say for sure without actually knowing the circumstances first-hand. I may be an exception, but I believe that this is an area where USPA coaches can help a lot. Too bad some DZ's don't use that resource more. Lance

Here are a couple of 182 exits from Finger Lakes. I shot the 3-way exit, and my buddy Kiwi shot me leaving the AC. The sun washed out the 3-way some, but I still like the shot. I'll have to see if I can dig up any good tandem exit shots from last season. Lance

My understanding is that the club had moved from Baden Baden to Lahr a few years before I got there. I heard a rumor that the yellow C-182 used in Lahr was shipped back to Canada and might be in Gananoque. Any idea if this is the case? I'd love to say I jumped the same 182 on both sides of the Atlantic! I knew I was finally in when they promoted me from "that f@#$ing American" to "south Canadian". I really enjoyed jumping there too. It was a pretty sad day when the club was shut down. Back on topic, I agree that the USPA standards shouldn't be any problem after going through the German licensing process. Lance

I got a Canadian (CSPA) A and B license while in Germany, and had no trouble getting a USPA C license once I found a USPA instructor at Hassfurt (Tom Schaefer, not sure if he's still jumping). Unfortunately, the Canadians have been gone from Lahr since the mid-90's, so that's not an option for you. There was also an MWR skydive activity starting up south of Heidelberg that had an AN-2 when I was there, but I haven't seen them in Parachutist as a group member for years. Might be worth a look just in case though. Being close to France, you might also want to check into the different options you have there. I always found CEP Strasbourg to be a good deal, and they had a nice Porter. The German clubs were generally friendly once you'd been there a while, but their license fees seemed higher than anything else I'd encountered. Czech Republic DZ's were fun & inexpensive, although they're kinda far from you. No idea about their licenses. Have fun, and make sure you look for some interesting aircraft to jump while you're in Europe. Lots of cool stuff still kicking around the skies there. I really miss the Maisel hefeweizen! Lance

Your nickname reminded me of a C-182 jump pilot I know who calls himself a captain.

What are the benefits of touching down like that? Benefits include: 1 - Does not torque gear sideways if done properly. Landing with mains level in a crosswind will put side forces on the gear unless drift is timed perfectly to stop at the runway centerline (not likely for most of us mortals). 2 - Keeping the upwind gear low means that the upwind wing is low. Once the upwind wheel contacts, the crosswind will help get the downwind wheel down while pinning the upwind wheel to the runway. This reduces tire wear, eliminates most of the gear fatigue due to side forces, and reduces the chance of ground looping due to a gust. Gear level landings would neutralize this benefit, and upwind gear up landings would put you at a significant disadvantage. 3 - It's fun to ride a landing in on one wheel.