• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by skypilotA1

  1. I tend to agree with you. I prefer the fast ride with my students. Consistently, the students say the plane ride to altitude induces the most stress for them. In my opinion, a last radio check, a review of the dive flow and hand signals, gear check….and I am ready to go! Anything longer than a minute of quiet time and slow breathing has adverse effects. True, the KingAir door is narrow…but it is tall, as am I. We easily get a cameraman and 2 instructor AFF out that door without effort. We had a Caravan here for a couple of weeks, all my Instructors (tandem and AFF) hated it because of the short door height. Glad to see it go. But, as has been said…to each his own. One adapts to what is available.
  2. I will leave it up to Mr. Mullins to release exact figures, but the new Super Super KingAir at West Tennessee Skydiving is SUBSTANTIALLY faster than the original N9HW KingAir…and it’s average time to 14.5 was usually 7-7.5 minutes…not noticeably faster, substantially faster!!! I was on it about 26 times last week. No time to relax and get comfortable.
  3. If you think this is an important issue I would suggest contacting your USPA Regional Director and have him bring it up at the next Board meeting.
  4. Why don’t you ask them? You have that ability during the Board meetings, either in person or via Zoom. It’s all open to members. In my personal opinion, I don’t think the USPA S&T committee is the best vehicle for this kind of change, aside from general recommendations and guidance like it has already presented. I think the best method for the change you advocate is as I already presented: At the local level, 1. By personal example. 2. By proper education, coaching and mentoring.
  5. I believe the best way, is leading by example. And show the jumper a clear and positive path toward downsizing, and pros and cons of every decision. If the jumper understands the physics and mechanics, you can then assist them in making educated decisions on canopy choices. A jumper will never react positively to arbitrary directives on what they can do. It is the “mad skills” and “the Man keeping me down” mentality. But if they are given enough information to make the intelligent, appropriate decision themselves, it is a “win-win”.
  6. Same problem here. It is difficult to change the culture when all the “cool kids, including all instructors and mentors, are jumping small canopies. The culture is deeply ingrained.
  7. I have sent you a long private message answering your questions. I hope it helps. Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director
  8. In replying to BMAC615, I don’t agree with you on this subject and data indicates you are incorrect. Many, in fact most times, a new rule is not implemented at first suggestion. Most of the time a new rule, especially something restrictive, must be presented several times to be passed. The Board members must be convinced to change their minds. Many times, to change someone’s mind, you keep introducing data to support your position. To quote a past Board member, “If it’s a good idea today, it will still be a good idea in 6 months or a year”. On one particular BSR I helped push through, it took a year of Board meetings to finally get a simple safety BSR implemented. If you are convinced, and think you can persuade the USPA Board to see it your way, that is the way to do it. Your Regional Director is the best conduit to get a new rule implemented, convince him, and he can help you convince the Board.
  9. There is no hard data to support your statement concerning USPA. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and this is a good place to express it. What your statement seems to indicate to me is “a keyboard warrior, lots of talk but no action”. I really could not say if this is correct, but it appears to indicate such. Again, I suggest if this is something you truly believe would work, push it up to your Regional Director, try to get it implemented. I, personally, have several suggestions from members I am presenting to the USPA Board in February in Reno. That’s how things get done. I cannot recall any case where a rule was implemented or changed simply because of comments on
  10. On the subject of “under loading” canopies…in my observations of several thousand student jumps, on the students first downsize from the huge canopies used during AFF, loaded at less than 1x1, the students canopy control and landings dramatically improve when they reach a 1x1 wingloading. This assumes the student has gained enough experience, learned the proper flair techniques, and know the appropriate sight picture. Based solely on this information, the “under loading” premise is valid. Of course, the practical aspect necessary rules out higher wingloading of new students. The data (and common sense) clearly indicates it is safer to place brand new students with “underloaded” canopies. I have seen no clear indications or data showing “underloading” of main canopies presents clear dangers, except for high winds and turbulence, both of which are usually observable and predictable. I would be interested in any objective data showing the dangers of underloading canopies, in general, with licensed jumpers.
  11. To respond to sfzombie13, if you are that convinced a new rule is the proper thing to do, I suggest writing up your idea in the form of a motion, and ask your Regional Director to submit it to the Safety & Training Committee to vote on. Actions of a member usually get better results that comments on Most of the ideas for any change come from members.
  12. Yes. the canopy collisions occurred due to opposing landing patterns. The information is all in the USPA Incident reports. The jumpers collided at low altitude, in the landing pattern, with conflicting landing patterns, in both cases.
  13. Both fatalities were due to opposing landing pattern conflicts.
  14. My opinion only…the skydiving industry, because it’s a small specialized industry, is run by skydivers, not business managers. Skydivers will close down Fridays to get some pre-weekend jumps, skydivers may not take advantage of business cycles to maximize sales, skydivers usually don’t have the business training to see advantages in terms of maximizing profits. It is skydivers running a business, not businessmen running a skydiving concern. The industry and thus the profit potential is too small to attract high powered, extremely qualified business people. Thus, we have a small industry struggling during tough times and coasting during good times. I’m sure there are a few exceptions, like Bill Booth, that cornered a specific slice of the industry. But, he is an exception.
  15. All is well! Official announcement to follow very soon!
  16. The question of “How many people died in wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on or passed by USPA S&T Committee” would best be asked of the USPA S&T Department at USPA Headquarters. I would just ask them directly. If I needed to know, that is who I would ask. You can contact them directly at [email protected]
  17. To be accurate, USPA endorses canopy piloting competition with recommendations of proper training and coaching.
  18. In my opinion, it is complacency. In almost all cases, it is very experienced solo jumpers, or instructors flying perfectly good canopies into the ground, performing improper procedures under canopy, and just plain low turns. . The USPA Safety & Training Committee is fully aware of the statistics and trying every way possible to encourage safe landings.
  19. BMAC615, the condition warranting a waiver must be pretty special, I can only think of a few, but each S&TA has their own standard. I have seen it waived for an AFF-I rating course, for a special wingsuit flight, and for a pro demo team to open lower than normal. I am sure every S&TA has their own standards. The AAD would have little to no effect on my personal decision to waive or not waive the altitude restrictions.
  20. Yes, you are correct. The overriding reason was safety. Based on data from the field, the Board was seeing newer modern canopies were taking as much as 800 feet to open. A deployment at 2000 ft would put the jumper at risk of AAD deployment, and that is if everything went perfectly. So, the minimum container opening altitude was moved up to 2500 ft for C & D license holders. This has virtually eliminated low pull AAD activations. The 2500 ft. minimum may be waived by an S&TA down to 2000 ft. if conditions warrant. Personally, I don’t believe the additional 2.5 seconds of free-fall gained is much help in any situation.
  21. Rdufokker, you are incorrect, sir. There have been several deployments above 25,000 feet in the past. Most have been planned. There is no hard opening, no damage or injury. I believe you are confusing true airspeed in freefall with indicated airspeed in freefall. Even at 41,000 feet, it still feels like you are falling at about 120 MPH. The opening shock at 25,000 is no different than at 4000 feet. A few years ago, during the solar eclipse, we made multiple jumps and openings at and above 25,000 feet. These are called HAHO jumps. They are regularly used by the military for insertion into a neighboring hostile area, open high and drift across the border. I am happy to discuss any of the procedures, conditions or effects of any of these HALO oxygen jumps privately, in detail.
  22. The answer is no. And I believe that will never happen. There may be recommendations, but never any rules or requirements telling a licensed skydiver what size canopy may be jumped. In fact, if you look at the latest actions of the Safety & Training Committee, they developed & published a canopy sizing chart much like you described, very detailed and color coded. But it is a recommendation. Skydivers are grown-ups and capable of making adult decisions, and taking responsibility for those decisions. The S&TA and DZOs certainly will suggest, recommend, and push a jumper toward appropriate canopies, but I don’t ever see the USPA Safety & Training committee deciding what canopy a skydiver must have. I should know, as I serve on the committee. Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director
  23. The USPA Board of Directors held its first meeting of the 2022-2024 term in Houston, Texas, February 11-13. A new standard, the meeting was broadcast via Zoom allowing any members to attend virtually. Meeting highlights include: • U.S. Skydiving Safety Foundation funds were allocated towards the development of instructional-rating holder educational videos on professionalism. • To support non-English speaking students, USPA will begin to include translated SIMs on the USPA website. • Major revamp of USPA website coming later this year. • USPA will be doubling down on public relations efforts to bring greater media attention to our sport and skydiving community. • S&TA online training modules receive a major upgrade. • To aid in student retention, USPA will develop a “Starter Magazine.” • 2023 USPA Nationals was awarded to Skydive Paraclete XP. • 2023 National Collegiate Skydiving Championships was awarded to Skydive Elsinore. • USPA will submit a bid to host the 2024 International Skydiving Commission (ISC) Plenary Meeting. • USPA implemented a 30-day time limit to submit state records. • In support of our record-setting competitors, USPA will cover the fees required to claim international records set at USPA Nationals. • USPA increased the funding allotment to U.S. Parachute Team management. • There will now be a requirement to publish a tentative schedule for Nationals, subject to competitor feedback prior to publishing the final schedule. • USPA is increasing judging compensation at Nationals. • 4-way Beginner Class will continue as a test event at the 2022 USPA National Championships. • USPA Headquarters building has been paid off. • New Group Member DZs will now be required to provide a copy of their flight operations handbook. • USPA will move forward with rewriting the SIM, with plans to complete by the summer meeting. • Updated USPA Value Statement and added discrimination and harassment language to USPA manuals. The annual general membership meeting was held on Saturday evening, with an after-party at Sam’s Boat, allowing members to mingle with directors and staff. A full report of the meeting will appear in the April issue of Parachutist. The next board meeting will be July 22-24, 2022, in Alexandria, Virginia.
  24. I see that many qualified people are correcting statements, or offering different opinions of the statements put forth by “lyosa” and others. That’s good, everyone has their own views, their own opinions, and are free to express them, right or wrong. Of course, they are always subject to correction in a forum such as this. One comment I want to set straight, about the “E” license proposal. Many are under the impression it was the USPA Board that was trying to force it down the throat of the members. That is wrong. The “E” license idea was mine…I developed the idea, I formulated it, I proposed it in S&T Committee, I argued the merits, I (with the Executive Director permission) got it included in a poll to the membership, and the membership did not show enough interest to pursue the concept, and it was dropped. So, if you want to attack someone about the “E” license proposal, you come after me, not the Board. You come after me all day long, bring all you got. It was my idea, my proposal, it didn’t pass muster, it was dropped. Not the Boards idea, mine. That is the way things work on the USPA Board. We look at maybe 100 different ideas or issues every meeting, maybe 5 or 10 pass muster. But we give a voice to any member with an idea, or suggestion. So when you say, the Board is wasting time looking at a new concept, such as an “E” license, we consider hundreds of ideas every year. Most are discarded, a few are passed. That is why the Board exists, that is part of the work it does, all as volunteers, with no pay. If anyone wishes to discuss this offline, by PM, or directly, I am happy to oblige. My home address, email, cell phone is in the front of every Parachutist magazine. Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director [email protected]. 901-233-4144