mjosparky

There are too many unanswered question about your rig, canopy, packing and so on to say why you are having hard openings. I don’t know if you jumpmaster debriefed you on the dive. The reason you were unable to complete the dock is you were reaching for the grip. It’s the same as sticking your legs out to move forward. Fly to the grip. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Drones have been used to video big way dirt dives.With 150+ in the formation a drone gives the organizers an overview of the dirt dive they can't get while standing on the ground. Speaking as someone who flies drones and I don't for see them being used in freefall. At least not for several. years. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

It does not appear to be a “premature deployment”. It was a fast deployment by to initiated it. At 0.23 in the video you come out of what looks like a sit fly and about 3 seconds later, 0.26 on the video you are deploying you had deploy. Your speed is probably still up around 160+. Your pilot chute appears to be 30 or 32 inches which is probably too much snatch for your canopy. These are so things you might want to look at before blaming the gear. Back in the day when it was the “cool” thing to do I made about 500 jumps on a trash pack. This is where you pull all the lines taught, rap the tail around the canopy and put it in the container. No bag or stows. Never had a hard opening. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I agree with you Robert. Got a signed of both books right off. I had the advantage of making jumps with Pat when I only had 40 or 50 jumps. Like you said, made a big difference. Thanks Pat. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

http://doorbackuper476.weebly.com/blog/ba-22-parachute-manual-full-version-free-software-download My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I have never heard a jumper say he wished he hadn’t logged his jumps. It only takes a couple of minutes and years from now you will love looking through the old logs. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Ron, the company was FliteSuits I believe. It was started by Gary Carter. Have no idea where you could find the chart. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Pat, your are going to brush their delicate sensibilities. If they get past the tourist stage they might come to appreciate your babble rap. See you and Jan in Eloy in a couple of weeks. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I don't know of any FAR or USPA BSR that address' intentional cutaways. I done several TSO that require you to cutaway and I always wore a separate harness and reaserve. But even in the test standards (PIA-135) wearing a second reserve is not mentioned. Could you post where you saw this? Thanks My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

There is no blanket rule requiring pilots to wear a rig during jump operations unless the STC for that particular aircraft calls for it. Other than Part 105, these are the only reference in the FAR’s to the use of a parachute PART 21 – CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FRO PRODUCTS AND PARTS Subpart B – Type Certificates 21.35 Flight Tests. (d) Each applicant must show for each flight test (except in a glider or a manned free balloon) that adequate provision is made for the flight test crew for emergency egress and the use of parachutes. PART 91 – GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES Subpart D – Special Flight Operations 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting. (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

There wingsuits, what could possibly go wrong? My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Just taking a stab at it : Every STC is a separate piece of approval. This some require bailout rigs to be worn (like 182), while others may not (like the Caravan). You are right, every STC is issued to a particular aircraft. If it is not address in the STC and they are not doing aerobatics there is no requirement for anyone on board to wear a rig. That only comes into play if your goal is to exit the plane. Ref: Part 91.307 (c) My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

RIP Jim. Thanks for the good times. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

One thing that hasn’t been brought up is the cost to the membership for the suit brought against Skyride. This suit was not for the benefit of Individual Members but for the benefit Group Members. Skyride did not present a threat to Individual Members but their business model was a problem for Group Members, DZO’s. As I understand it USPA was handed their ass. The judgement was sealed and settlement was never revealed to the membership. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

The plastic handle problem was before SB’s. The FAA still issued AD’s on parachute related equipment. The last AD that I am aware was issued to RWS in 1999 for an amp fitting problem. Only two manufactures had an AD out on the plastic, Strong and Herbie Hog. No I didn’t make that name up. USPA took it upon themselves to ground other rigs. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

USPA not only does not verify the accuracy of the completed forms they discard them after receiving them. What is the purpose of going to the trouble and expense of producing a form that is not kept for future reference? It would be cheaper to just call it in. How in good conscious say Group Member DZ’s are held to a higher standard when there is no way to verify it. But yet the DZO’s have access to the data on every Individual Member. But the Individual Members don’t have access to this information. Do you see a pattern here? DZO’s run the show and Individual Members are left out in the cold. It is a case of the tail wagging the tail. I find it hard to support an organization that does not support me. The last two Board Members that were responsive to the needs of Individual Members Were Pat Moorehead and John DeSantis. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

USPA can't make anything legal or illegal. At one tome they sad that plastic rip cord handles were illegal. They were wrong. The rigs were TSO'd with them. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

It takes longer to build large formations, so the jumpers fall slower giving them more time. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

The FAA extended the repack cycle from 60 to 120 in 1978. Then from 120 to 180 in 2008. I can’t remember there ever being a 90 day cycle. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Everybody’s opinion is the result of their interactions with USPA. Those that have not had occasion to have dealings with USPA tend to adopt that of their friends. Here are some of the things I have taken from this thread. The issue of USPA insurance has been brought up by several people. I understand it to be third party insurance. That means damage done to you property by another jumper is not covered. Damage you cause to another jumpers property is not covered. The third party is someone not involved in jumping. USPA standards make a Group Member DZ safer. This is an assumption on everyone’s part. With no attempt to assure compliance standards are just so many words. Even when USPA is aware that a DZ is in violation of BAR’s and FAR’s no action has been taken by USPA and the DZ’s kept their Group Member status. As has been mention, decisions made by the BOD’s are increasingly aligned with DZO’s and certain manufactures. If you look at the makeup of the BOD it is more of a Trade Origination than a Member Origination. The “fun jumper” has been kicked to the curb. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

While I think he could have worded it better, I don't think he was wrong. It's true that USPA dz's are held to certain standards and requirements. So you expect to get that at a USPA affiliated dz. DZO’s sign a pledge “to comply”, pay a fee and they become a Group Member. They can also be designated a “Training Center”. As far as I know there is no follow up by USPA to verify compliance. I know of at least 2 DZ’s that flew aircraft that were out of time by 100’s of hours and were flown by Private Pilots. USPA knew if this and did nothing. So much for USPA DZ’s.. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I looked in the dictionary for the definition and to my surprise, the noun “skydive” isn’t listed! The Cambridge, MacMillan, Meriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries list it as a derivative of the word “skydiving”. Dictionary.com has it listed as a verb. I don’t know what to tell you. You can go by what USPA says or believe some rag of a dictionary. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I never doubted you. I was trying to make some money off the jump but couldn’t get anyone to take the bet. The naysayers before the jump really started to piss me off. After the jump “wearing a rig” crap started. I kept thinking can’t they just be happy for the guy and STFU. The bottom line is you did it. Good on you. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Michael, I read over Part 105 several times and it looks like you are right. It doesn’t say anywhere that a jumper MUST wear a rig. It says that if a single-harness, dual-parachute system is used it must conform. It sounds to me you could use a single canopy base rig and be legal. I am surprised the feds didn’t catch this on the last re-write. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Allen_Ward My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals