mbohu

Yes, that could be, of course. Although it's somewhat surprising, considering that the Otter and King Airs at our DZ let us do Hop'n Pops and will circle over the landing area for a single hop'n pop for twenty bucks. (maybe they just really love us?) The specific DZ I experienced, which was offering low Tandems, has a Pac 750XL. They offer 8k, 11k, 15k and 18k jumps and on a single run may do as many as 3 exit altitudes. (Fun jumpers get to go out with the highest Tandem) I would say, if anything, the 18k one is the one that must cost them a premium, considering the extra time it takes for those last 2k-3k of climb. Yes, the tandem students I met were quite happy, no matter what altitude they chose and it felt like everything was very open and honest. Searching around a bit, it looks like many DZs offer different altitudes for Tandems and many (including Oceanside CA, which I believe is pretty big) offer low ones (between 7.5k-9k), so there must be some advantage to it.

Well, like I said, I'm not a dropzone owner. So, I searched around a little and there seem to be quite a few dropzones that DO offer Tandems from lower altitudes. I don't think there is anything wrong with offering different levels of services at different prices. That is in no way a deceptive practice in itself.(Skyride seems to be a completely different animal: From what I read here, they are using completely deceptive practices--which would probably be illegal and get them arrested in most countries) There are different types of consumers with different needs/wants. Bargain hunters might be perfectly fine with a low altitude jump. ...but what I was saying before is: There might also be people who are initially attracted by the bargain but are later--when they learn more about it--quite willing and happy to upgrade. I do it myself often when I rent a car or book a flight (OK--admittedly airlines are starting to overdo this, charging for everything extra...but that's another story) When you say "You KNOW that..." I think it means most people who hang out at this forum know this, but most first time tandem students don't usually know this, and some percentage of them most likely are fine with the lower altitude and MUCH lower price for their first (or only) skydiving experience. My intention for my post was to explore in a more realistic way how Groupon can be useful (or not useful) for a business like a DZ. Most of the previous comments were not really looking at this in a realistic way, I think. (The lower altitude offer is only ONE possible option--as a business, you clearly can't offer the exact same service for about 30% of the price unless you're making it up somewhere else.)

I hope that reviving ancient threads is not against the rules of conduct here. If so: I apologize. But I've noticed these posts about Groupons and Marketing, and it reminds me of my own industry, where most business owners are doing this out of passion and are not the most knowledgeable about marketing and such things. So here's my 2 cents: 1. One of the most important things to figure out to decide on marketing strategies and if Groupons and such are worth it: Figure out your average customer lifetime value for Tandem students. I.E: Over the entire period a customer comes to your DZ (one that started as a Tandem student), how much money do they spend on average (including videos, return tandems, AFF courses, etc.--if you are more sophisticated, figure out how many people they refer on average) So you need to be able to tag all customers that start as tandems and track their spending If you have tagged all customers who start as Tandems it's easy. Add up all the income from them and divide this by the number of such customers. That's your average lifetime spending for them. Based on that you know how much money you can spend on acquiring the customer. For example: If their average lifetime spend is $600, your average profit margin is 50%, you are making $300 per average tandem student. So, if you spend less than that to acquire the customer, you are making a profit. If more, you're going down--go for the cut-off!) So for Groupon: Let's say your regular Tandem price is $250, you are discounting it to $175 and Groupon takes half, so you get $ 72.50; that means you are spending $172.50 to acquire the customer ($250 - $72.50) In this case it might be worthwhile. 2. Set it up so that you always have an up-sell for each Groupon customer that a large percentage will take (experiment & track what works best). This could be video or, like at a DZ I recently visited: Their Groupon offer was a jump from 8000ft and they offered jumps from 12k, 15k and 18k. Once the customer was at the DZ they explained why you'd have a much better experience with the higher exit points and many upgraded. 3. Yes, Groupon's business model is unnerving: They get a huge cut. It might not work for DZs at all, and you should not use them if your business is not one that can profit from it. But comparing them to you offering deals on your website or even ads that pop up when someone buys a Pizza, is showing no understanding of how their marketing works. None of these methods compare. People who get Groupons emails/app messages/etc are WAITING to get the next list of deals and many are specifically looking for new unusual experiences (more so: Groupon heavily researches and segments their list, so they know exactly what people are most likely to be interested in what kind of deals) How often have you clicked on an ad next to the pizza site you went to? Me: never. The only thing that can compare somewhat is to build your own list, with lots of research and segmentation, tracking exactly what the people on your list like, staying in touch with regular emails, offering unique deals that are specific to what your customers want. And that's a lot of work and your list will only have people on it that are either customers already or that you incentivised in some other way to sign up. Maybe a few thousand as opposed to Groupon's millions. And it's lots of work. Honestly, while Groupon works for my own business, I think it would take a lot of strategizing to work for a DZ. It probably isn't worth it--although the idea of offering only low exit points on Groupon and then upgrading most customers might be what makes it work. Also: Once you offer Groupons it's hard to get rid of them. They have such good SEO that customers may see their ads even if they search for your DZ specifically and then, if you do not offer the Groupon anymore but someone else in the area does, they can siphon off customers who would have otherwise come to you directly.

Yikes! Good reaction. Sounds like he did not check above himself at all. Glad it turned out ok!

As a newer jumper I have more questions about what exactly to do, if I notice someone above or below me at pull altitude (irrespective of how I notice.) At this point it looks like I would deal with the situation on a one-on-one basis...but I also feel that any decision I take could be less than ideal, depending on the action of the other person in the same air space (and potentially even other sourrounding groups I'm not aware of) For example: I notice someone above me at pull altitude (3.5k feet) and decide to track a few more seconds but adjust my heading slightly to the right. (This actually happened--only instance where I noticed someone in my airspace at pull-time). In my case it worked fine. I had enough altitude, it got me clearer of the person above, I did not encroach on the airspace of another group and the person above me was an experienced camera flier who got out of the way as much as possible and pulled high (and fortunately had a normal opening) ...but what if the person above also decided to adjust their heading in the same direction and track further? Or just pulled high immediately after noticing me and had a high-speed malfunction or really slow opening? Are there any general recommendations that help in such situations? PS: I am aware that usually, if someone is above or below me, one or more people already messed up in some way, and it's best to avoid that to begin with, but once you're in that situation you still will have to deal with it, no matter who's at fault.

This is the first dropzone I've jumped at, which is not in Colorado and does not have the ground coming at you at 6,000 ft AMSL, so I loved the way everything feels so much easier at 0ft AMSL (softer landings, generally feeling like more time in the air). They do Tandems from 8k, 11k, 15k and 18k--so if you're lucky you can go up to 18k (alright: It's probably more likely to be just over 16k, most of the time.) I rent equipment and need a pretty large canopy (230 sqft) and they had 2 of them available (a Spectre and a Sabre2). They looked decent and worked great (felt 2 sizes larger than at my dropzone at 6000ft--did I mention that already?!) The staff, instructors, and generally everyone was absolutely great. They did neglect to mention one of their beer-rules, so I did have to buy a case for everyone at the end of the day. ;-) Yes, it's unusual that their landing zone is about 7 miles from the airport and therefore you have to be shuttled back to the airport (they have an old limo and a van for that purpose) If you pack your own equipment, I guess that could mean less jumps, because it worked out that we got back to the packing area around the 15 minute call for the next load, each time. For me it was perfect as their packer made sure that the next 230sqft canopy was ready for me the moment I got back. So I got on every load of the day. Landing area is huge. I spent the last jump from about 17k just "sightseeing" (mostly on my belly, just enjoying the scenery, not "working on anything") and it was gorgeous. They said they just got new ownership and are trying to tighten things up more, to make it easier to get more jumps in, in spite of the offsite landing area. So while this is only the 3rd DZ I've jumped from and I loved all 3 so far, I will definitely come back to this one when next in CA.

Do you think it makes sense for someone who hasn't flown a wingsuit yet at all, to go there and do this first?

Yeah, it's a "doing" not a "being".

Did you have to get a different kind of container for the Wingsuit, or have you been able to continue to use the same complete system you originally bought, when you started getting into WS? If so, are there any criteria that make a container more or less usable for WS?

Ah--sounds like these are Dutch regulations. Do they apply anywhere else in the world?

Really? The post says "model suggestions". I have never heard of any regulations in regards to canopy models or even sizes. For example, Sabre2 is listed as 100+ jumps and there are dropzones in the US which use it as a student canopy during AFF. Are these European or German regulations? This would be the first time I hear about it if there were any USPA regulations. Of course, as far as regulations go, they have to use some arbitrary numbers. In the US we have one about using cameras only after 200 jumps. Of course there isn't some magical thing that happens between jump 199 and 201 that suddenly makes you so much more aware, that it's suddenly safe to jump with a camera. (Well, actually I don't know, since I haven't gotten there yet )

Oh Man! As a German living in the US (OK I'm actually Austrian, but here they don't really know the difference...) I have to laugh at your comment. Only in our culture would we take these recommendations so literally! (I'm guilty of the same: My popularity at my DZ did not sore when I tried to explain to them with charts that it was impossible to do a landing pattern with exact 90 degree turns at 1000, 600 and 300 feet, when the wind blew from the north--I was right, of course, but no one else took these numbers as rigidly!)

With my limited number of jumps, what I write should definitely not be taken as more than my personal experience...but I have similar weight to you and only a couple dozen jumps more so here it is: I'm still renting and like it. I went from Nav 300 to Nav 240, like you. The first size of rental canopies they have at my DZ which are not Navigators are 230s (Sabre2 and Spectres) I started using the Spectre 230 about 12 jumps ago and would say this: Before you consider smaller sizes, consider different canopies than the Navigator. There is absolutely no comparison. I find the Navigator quite ok in the air, but what a huge difference in the responsiveness, especially on the landing flare. I could never figure out what other people were talking about when they talked about "dynamic flaring" technique, because the only thing that would get a Navigator into horizontal flight at the landing approach was to yank (more or less) the toggles down 2/3 of the way and wait for it to level out. If I was just a fraction of a second too late, that would not happen before my but hit the ground. With the Spectre, when I start my flare, the canopy reacts IMMEDIATELY, so I can keep adjusting the flare as it happens to get me into horizontal at the perfect height and land smoothly under any wind conditions. (I was told that this could also have to do with the stretchy lines that are used on the Navigators, at least at my DZ) In any case: I would try lots of canopies before buying one--definitely try something other than Navigators (so you know at least 2 different types of canopies) My most likely strategy after renting is: Buy a new container sized for me (possibly with reserve, MARD/RSL, AAD but WITHOUT a main canopy) sized for the main I want (I can't see a reason to go below 230 right now) and then rent, borrow and demo lots of mains before buying a used or new one for the container. Also: Don't do anything before you take at least one canopy course. It'll likely change your flying and landing style completely. PS: I love the Spectre right now but it takes a tremendous amount of time to open (my guess is close to 1000 ft. and I'm not sure if I like that--certainly love how softly it opens, but burning 1000 feet?! Before trying it I could not have imagined that there can be such a difference in how canopies open) so again: You gotta try some different ones before you even know what differences are out there! PPS: I jump at over 5000-6000 ft AMSL, so that's another reason why I might not go under 230 for a while.

I'I know this has been taught and discussed many times, but I still get confused when I read different things about the best way to flare. For example from (clearly very experienced and always great answer-giving Chuck) To clarify: For myself on my favorite rental canopy--Navigator 240 at 1:1--I am not really confused. It seems that if I want to go into horizontal flight, at zero to low wind, I have to pull relatively quickly and sharply down on the toggles just high enough to give the canopy time to adjust its flight direction. Then I smoothly finish the stroke to slow down the horizontal flight as much as possible before setting my foot down. If I start with a smooth slow stroke, it seems like the canopy does sink down more slowly but it never actually changes its direction of flight to horizontal. It keeps sinking down. I used to land that way initially and almost always PLFed (not because I necessarily absolutely had to but because I'm old, heavy, chicken and like using my ankles without pain) I listened to some of Brian Germain's videos and he said you had to give a sharper input to change the canopy's flight direction (vertically) and it made sense to me. i then tried it and really trained this in a canopy course. It changed my landings. I clearly go into horizontal flight mode for a while before setting my feet down (I DO have to be more exact however with the timing of the stroke than with the "old" landing method) But I still keep hearing very different advice from other's some time. Recently a very experienced jumper suggested the opposite: smooth slow flare to start and then sharp fast at the end to stop the forward movement. Again, I plan to continue to go with what works for me and take more canopy courses where I can be taught in person and have time to experiment, but I am wondering why jumpers with so much experience seem to have different advice/opinions on that. ...well and I wanted to try the poll feature as well

Reading through this thread as a new jumper, I do get one main impression that I was not aware of previously: It seems that the "problem" with cameras is not so much a specific hazard (entanglement, etc.) that the equipment itself poses, but it is the (potential) distraction and therefore additional complexity it adds to a jump. I did not think of this previously. This also means that what role a camera really might or might not have played in an incident might not at all be reflected in the incident report.

Ah--so that's the history. Well--she should have quit while ahead.

I'm looking at the map, and I don't think I've ever seen us go 6 miles south of the airport when flying up to altitude. And wouldn't the boulder airport be more of an issue for her then--they don't have a drop zone. Why did she only sue the skydiving operations?

I have to admit: I do understand people not wanting excessive airplane noise (or other noise) where they live--but she must have had some other axe to grind. I jump at Longmont and unless they changed their routes because of her complaint: I have never been in a plane there that spirals over one location to gain altitude (as she alleges in her original complaint). Unless we're doing hop'n pops we go straight out west over the foothills before heading back over the drop zone. Not many houses underneath there! (I know because I keep nervously looking out the open door at the hills & forests, wondering: If the airplane fails and I have to get out here, where would I land in this terrain???) ...and assuming her family hasn't lived there for generations, why move close to an airport if you know you hate airplane noise? And why on earth focus your complaint on skydiving exclusively??? But again, I do understand not liking noise. I generally don't enjoy it or fumes from gasoline either...for some reason I absolutely love the smell and noise when getting on a plane for a jump--but that probably has to do with the subconscious associations I've built up over my short time of skydiving. Who knows, in a few years I might like it so much that I will want to move right next to an airport?

You put it on the soles of the booties?

Thanks everyone for the input!

Hi! I'm a fast falling jumper and am looking at getting Bevsuits polycotton suit with swoop cords to slow me down. I've been mostly jumping my tight vertical suits freefly suit which I got for the tunnel, and depending on who I jump with it is often too hard to slow down on belly jumps. I am wondering about the booties option. I like the idea of more control and power for turns, etc, but only have 60 jumps (but quite some tunnel time) Are booties going to make some things much more difficult for me at that level? (I assume the additional power will need more fine-tuned control of my body in freefall) What about landing with booties? Are they inhibiting in any way? Do I need to slip out of them under canopy? When looking at them it seems to me that I can't point my toes, so when I land would I still be able to set down the balls of my feet first to run out a no-wind landing, or do I have to land so perfectly that I can set my entire foot down without too much force? I'll ask some people who know me better and are jumping those suits at my dropzone, so they might have more specific input, but I'm wondering what people here suggest for a low-jump number guy who likes belly-formations and quick, controlled turns (at least in the tunnel)

Thanks. Great tips. Did you upload the hand-drawn yellow pattern? I did take the 101 flight course and waiting for them to offer 102 near me. You're right. The course was awesome. Just being able to get from a slow smooth flare that pretty much just slowed down my descent without ever leveling me out to a 2-step flare that clearly had me zooming parallel to the ground before setting my feet on the ground was the biggest improvement for me. I'll take some time to practice more accurate landings. Thanks for the suggestion to let everyone down first. (might be hard with the tandems, though. They exit last and pull quite a bit higher than would be safe for me--I'm usually in the first or second group getting out)

Wise words! Thank you! You seem to be a person I wouldn't mind discussing politics and religion with! I'll try to keep my "they should be doing this my way!" thoughts under control! Probably a good survival skill in many areas of life!

Thanks. I'll check out the flysight. Sounds like an awesome tool.

I think this might be my main problem...and it's what I've been fishing for when talking to people at my DZ. I grew up in a Germanic country, so when you tell me the rule is this, I take it to mean this is E.X.A.C.T.L.Y the rule to be followed. The funny thing is everyone keeps saying that you have to do a landing pattern with no more than 90 deg turns, you cannot skip a leg (entering the pattern with a long cross-wind leg for example) and you absolutely HAVE to follow that damn arrow (unless you are following someone else in who is lower than you.) And again, in praxis it looks like most experienced jumpers are not following these rules (not talking about high-performance landings, but regular landing patterns) I do get the point about cross-wind landings. There was a time when the arrow on the ground was broken and at that point we just decided on the ground before going up that we would all land in a specific direction (no matter if it was downwind or somewhat cross-wind). It made everything extremely easy. The difficulty is: I'm at 2000ft, I have to find the arrow and look where it's pointing--usually not the same direction it was pointing when we left the ground; then I have to map out a pattern in my head, figure out if I can actually make it to the entry point within 1000ft; then try to figure out what pattern other canopies are actually flying (when it looks like they aren't really flying patterns following these same rules--that is the hardest: I can see what direction they are landing but I cannot usually make out their pattern before the final leg--last weekend someone was across the runway all the way to 200ft before they turned south and crossed it, going straight under me) So what I've been doing is to instead mostly think about "what will get me down most safely" and "how can I stay away from other canopies". This all works for me, but it does not get me to an exact landing point. So, when I read that based on the SIM I'm supposed to be able to land within a certain number of feet of a pre-chosen location every time, I feel like I'm failing miserably. The exact landing location is always the thing that I adjust so everything else can fit--so it's my last priority. I can hit a location pretty well, when the wind direction is the same one on landing as it was when I planned it on the ground, but in all other cases it goes straight out the window.