robinheid

name one and provide the cite. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

FACT #1 - All the items listed by the FAA, whether a Life Limited item or a Special Inspection (i.e. the corrosion inspection of the wing) are found in PSM 1-6-11, which is the Structural Life Limit Manual for the Twin Otter. MANDATORY COMPLIANCE FACT #2 - Back in the day there were many operators that did not comply with PSM 1-6-11, because it was not part of the Limitations Section of the Maintenance Manual. The Limitations Section is the only part of the Maintenance Manual that is FAA Approved and technically if not listed there it could be deemed RECOMMENDED by the operator. So, what did the FAA do? They issued an Airworthiness Directive, in 2008, that stated that ALL operators MUST comply with the requirements of PSM 1-6-11. The FAA does not take to kindly when someone blatently ignores an AD. One of the most curious things about this whole thread is how the one guy who asks the most critical question gets trashed by everybody else for asking it. Nothing in the FAA report says that the elements in question were unsafe, only that they "overdue for replacement" or not inspected as required. Being overdue for replacement is a figment of the FAA's bureaucratic imagination, and not necessarily related to reality. No one has yet said whether the cables in question were no longer serviceable, only that, according to an arbitrary FAA rule, they should have been replaced by now. Many FAA maintenance regulations and requirements are completely nuts, and are not based on reality, and given that Bill frequently jumped from that plane and probably flew it too, it was also in HIS best interest for it to be airworthy -- even if it was not necessarily FAA-compliant. This is in a lot of ways a paradigmic example of the current assassination technique of acting on the seriousness of the charge instead of the depth of the evidence. I guess it is natural for parachutists to jump to conclusions, but it's really kind of appalling that so many people on this thread seem to think that just because the FAA says it was a horrific crime, then it must be true. And yes, if those cables and spars were unserviceable, if they were in fact in dangerous condition, then yes, it was a horrific crime. But not even the FAA suggests that, as far as I can tell -- only that Bill didn't follow the letter of their rules. No one yet, in all of the blah blah so far on this thread, has yet established in any way shape or form that Bill didn't follow the intent of those rules, in his own way, as he so often does with everything. So let's try to maintain a little perspective here as we explore the situation: 1) Bill allegedly did not comply with several different FAA requirements, and he is paying the price for that alleged non-compliance. 2) Bill, insofar as I understand the reports and allegations, was not accused, charged, found guilty of, or fined for operating an non-airworthy or otherwise unsafe aircraft. 3) Accepting government pronouncements at face value and without critical examination of the premises underlying those pronouncements is like jumping a rig assembled and packed by a whuffo, and guaranteed by that same whuffo to work properly. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I must respectfully point out that your addenda to this discussion defies the rules of discussion and common sense. I don't see the words "intentional" or "practice" anywhere in your prior post, nor do I recall seeing anywhere in this thread any mention of downwind landings as something to be practiced or done intentionally. Secondly, if you have time for a "careful setup" to a downwind landing, then, uh... why don't you just, you know, do a careful setup so you can, uh... land into the wind? Which brings me to your utterly absurd notion that you want to hook turn into your downwind landing for better acceleration -- toward what? The ambulance? The morgue? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Just to add something to discussion: If winds are light then wind direction does not really matter at all. Especially when you have lots of energy coming out of the swoop. That is an obvious statement. But when winds are 10+ mph (I’ve never done more then 20) then crosswinds are much more dangerous then downwind. The only safe way to land downwind in those conditions is sliding (on your feet or and on your butt ) and the biggest danger is to roll sideways in process. For that reason I’d rather go downwind then try to do crosswind landing. None of this is recommended for conventional approach on a big canopy especially for new jumpers. I must respectfully point out that your addition to this discussion defies the laws of physics. Force = mass x acceleration -- or to say it in English, if you land twice as fast, you hit four times as hard (more or less). Which means -- D'OH! -- each unit of speed subtracted from your landing speed = a much bigger unit of force subtracted from your landing impact. Ergo, "the biggest danger" is not "to roll sideways in process" but to hit the ground harder than your body can absorb without breaking. Period. P.S. News flash: "rolling" is a great way to dissipate your landing force by distributing it along time and body parts. You might want to look into that -- rumor has it they call it a PLF. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Well, I was talking about penalties and consequences of violating the rules. I don't agree with this. I'm not familiar with any rules of business that prevent the business from getting started. Now if you're talking about skimming the rules to get your business started and running more cheaply, then yes, I see your point. But then, you're exposing yourself if you get caught. Bill Dause and Lodi come to mind here. Which leads to my statement about life being much simpler...you wouldn't be looking over your shoulder all the time waiting for the hammer to fall. Again, the rules for age requirements are written by the State and concern the rights of minors. Pops, I must respectfully point out that your "argument" is incoherent. Nobody is violating any "rules." There is NO RULE that says a 17-year-old, or a 5-year-old, cannot jump. There is NO RULE that says a DZ or other business cannot try to protect itself by having customers sign WOLCs, even if those WOLCs are not likely to hold up in court. So, please, tell us exactly what "rules" you keep demanding that we follow in order to make life simpler? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

And just to clarify further, for noobs and the experienced as well, never forget that you can turn in a flare and flare in a turn. Every degree you can turn off the windline as you flare on a downwind landing reduces your groundspeed and therefore landing force. This doesn't mean do a 180 low so you can land directly into the wind (and then crater because you increased your rate of descent); it means turning slowly as you flare so that by the time you finish that flare you've taken yourself several degrees off the downwind line, thus significantly reducing your landing force. P.S. At Perris, sometimes they have the FJD (first one down ain't always a MAN, you know) thing in effect and sometimes they have a designated pattern direction, but they also have something else I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (though I may have just missed it): At Perris, if you don't like the direction of the designated pattern, or the choice made by the FJD, then you can land off the primary landing area in whatever direction you want. This of course is a luxury that tighter DZs may not have, but it's a great choice to have... and one that's made regularly by jumpers with a lot of gray in their hair. They may have to walk a little farther to get back, but I'd rather have a longer walk to the packing area than a shorter stretcher ride to the ambulance. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Thus making it a... best practices issue. D'OH! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Jeez, dude, get a clue. A business can indeed decide whether or not to allow minors to jump. No state law in any state prevents that. State law enters the picture if and only if a minor is injured during a jump and a lawsuit is filed claiming negligence, and disaffirming the WOLC because a) the signee was a minor (thus invalidating the WOLC on its face) and b) the parent/guardian co-signee cannot sign away any minor rights (thus also invalidating the WOLC). That's IT. Please, people, read some basic contract law before you start spouting off on this subject. It's really - really - simple: A business can choose to let minors participate -- or not, depending on how much risk it wants to assume against the potential benefit of so doing. Period. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Speaking for at least some of us bozos, I totally get it, Pops. I totally get that there are multiple other sports and even travel activities that also require adult and minor waiver-of-liability contracts (WOLCs), the minor versions of which are seldom upheld by the courts unless there's also an accompanying proviso about agreeing to arbitration (and that's a crapshoot too). And I totally get it that the vast -vast - majority of those sports and travel activities, most of which have far deeper pockets and more minor-participants-at-risk than parachuting, do in fact include and even encourage minors to participate. Yes, sometimes they get sued, but yes, too, those sports benefit in the long term and in overall terms by not only expanding their customer pool but getting people actively involved while they're young and still forming their sporting preferences. In other words, the risk is justified by the benefits. I wrote about this in great detail in the final issue of SKYDIVING Magazine. Check it out if you'd like to get educated about the way this whole issue plays out across the sporting and adventure travel spectrum, not just with parachuting. Bottom line is the bottom line: Each parachuting BUSINESS should make its own informed choice about the age at which they allow people to jump. Period. To date, most of them concur with Andy908 and go with age-of-majority only. Fine and dandy, more power to 'em. But what I don't get is all the bozos who seem to think it's intelligent and appropriate to insist on a single standard, enforced why who-knows-who, for all businesses in all states in all circumstances. It's THEIR business, not yours, and if those business owners want to increase their legal risk to increase their business, well, uh... it's THEIR business, you know? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Just one: Get a grip, dude. Whaddaya gonna say next time a 70-year biffs? Mandatory retirement age? I've skydived with 11-year-olds and 14-year-olds who were way more on the ball than their technically "adult" counterparts, and with some old, OLD farts who were way more dialed in than their still-in-their-prime skygod counterparts. There are indeed some peeps who shouldn't be skydiving at any age -- just as there are some peeps who should keep their silly opinions to themselves -- but in both cases, we know that ain't gonna happen, is it? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The pattern and the importance of flying it predictably are part of the basic canopy skills course outlined in the SIM. Teaching it helps a lot - I've seen improvement in the pattern at the dz I used to jump at after teaching 4 courses using the outline in the SIM. See, this is what I meant when I demolished DSE's straw man on this point a few posts back: Everything we need is, in fact, already in the system -- it's just in the WRONG ORDER. We need to stop with the freefall training from first-jump on, and focus on the parachute training until beginning parachutists "graduate" with their basic parachute skills dialed in. Then they commence with freefall training. It isn't revolutionary, it isn't going back to the past, and it sure isn't rocket science; it's just rearranging the existing system to eliminate the freefall-focused bias of its progenitors in favor of the common sense imperative that we teach the survival skills before the fun skills. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Nice straw man, Douglas... all of the training methods I suggest are already in place... I'm just saying we need to rearrange and re-prioritize what we already have to teach survival skills first and fun skills second. Enough with the straw men, dude... I didn't say the defenders were on the thread... D'OH! the defenders of the failed marketing status quo that you're calling out are the BOD and HQ peeps.... you know, the same BOD and HQ peeps whose failed training system status quo you're defending on this thread. Indeed... you forgot the old maxim: the first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to... stop digging. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

okay, thanks. Appreciated. How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote (or did)... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today? Still awaiting your answer. My answer is the same one I put in a different explanation above, but if you wanna poke... Advocacy of replacing/supplementing AFF with SL/IAD is strained at best because it's not practical. Many DZ's won't go for it for any number of reasons. So...dream of your Utopia all you wish. Utopia will always be there for you. But back in the world of reality... Canopy training emphasis in the existing structure, supplanted with better training methods, can be very effective, I believe. Tools like the ParaSim are terrific teaching tools too, but you're not going to see the USPA mandate those at every GM DZ either. Work within the parameters of reality, maybe we can have a real discussion, Robin. Now please, i've got to get back to my Munchkins slaving away in my candyland. So, when it comes to USPA's failed media and marketing system, you loudly challenge the status quo and call out those who defend and perpetuate it (clicky). But when it comes to USPA's failed training system, you loudly defend and perpetuate the status quo and call out those who challenge it. Fascinating. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I'm on your side on this one, Robin. top Coolio! I thought maybe you were... my comment was aimed more at the peeps who get it that we need more parachute-specific training outside of our current freefall-focused training system, but who don't yet get it that it needs to be the FIRST thing new jumpers learn to do, not a subsequent thing. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

okay, thanks. Appreciated. How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote (or did)... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today? Still awaiting your answer. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

And all I'm saying is... put this basic class BEFORE the freefall training starts. D'OH! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

From what I have read, this is what killed JFK Jr. JerryBaumchen that and the facts that: a) his wife was late to the airport, so it was near dusk when they took off instead of broad daylight as JFK Jr. had planned; b) his wife and sister DEMANDED that he fly out to Martha's Vineyard anyway that night so the sister could go to a party; b) despite the fact that even high-time VFR pilots shied away from flying away from the coast in the hazy-at-dusk, sky-horizon-and-ocean-blend-together conditions that evening; and c) he had just gotten a cast off his left foot (broken ankle) so his kinesthetic awareness on that foot was reduced. As usual, it wasn't just one thing but a series of events, starting with getting a late start, and all of which were magnified by a high-performance airplane... which is what a couple of other posters have said about low-timers flying high-performance canopies: you can get away with it when everything goes right, but the problem is, everything doesn't always go right. P.S. JFK Jr. and his wife also had a big fight right before they took off. She wanted him to shower before they left; he said, "I'll just wash up on shore." SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

that TOO! For example, as part of every license requirement, there must be a continuing education canopy course/workshop/seminar of some kind. when you hit the top license, a similiar requirement every other renewal year, or every third/fourth/fifth renewal year... you know, like with a driver's license in many states... you have to re-take the written test every X number of years. There are many models on which to base our system; we just have to be open to seeking them out and then applying them. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

pulling is only a survival skill if you are... uh... freefalling. and the point here is that experienced people are dying in canopy accidents because they never learned how to do things right in the first place and it's a testament to the relative safety of parachuting that they lived as long as they did. Castles made of sand look great until the first wave; castles made of rock look good after the wave too. Our current parachute training turns out canopy-pilot castles made of sand that sometime lasts for a long time before that first wave shows up and kills them. I'm saying we need parachute training that turns out canopy pilot castles built on rock, not sand. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

okay then, just delete the downsize part of the graduation requirements. Next? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Indeed. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair But really, you make broad sweeping statements. Suppose you support them with some facts or at least details, to wit: What is the "plethora of reasons why this is true?" Why is "no one about to go back to the old system even if it did things much better (in the very part of the sport that is -- by FAR -- causing the most fatalities)?" What are the "flaws" in static line training -- and how do they compare to the fundamental flaws of a system that teaches fun skills before it teaches the basic survival skills? Well, you hit one of the nails on the head. Financially, it's not going to work for most DZOs and short of "forcing" people to go back to a static line teaching methodology, which I don't think is practically enforceable, it's one of the biggest reasons why it wont happen. the thing is, it makes economic sense for a DZ to do this. With sl/iad training, you have planes dropping more students lower, so faster cycle times, plus the ability to have them jump when it's cloudy as long as the cloud base is 3k or more. and not for the better because it's used as a carnival ride instead of dual instruction. my system creates a from-the-start two-track tandem offering: a) carnival ride for $X; b) beginning dual instruction for $Y. Then, if you want to keep jumping, one or more short-delay tandems to teach canopy piloting. Then you go to sl/iad ONLY... no "choice" for the students. If they want to become skydivers, they learn how to handle the gear first, then they go for fun. Benefits: cheaper for the students per jump; easier for them to get more jumps faster (several students per instructor instead of several instructors per student), and they learn the key survival skills while at the same time hanging out at the dz learning more about everything. but who can't fly their canopies competently. one BIG thing that drove AFF adoption against all reason was one reason: instructors get paid to JUMP, not to teach, so of course they resist and actively sabotage sl programs. I watched them do it at perris. then don't do it. dedicate student turbine loads in between the high loads -- and because they pay a higher-than-high-load price to go to a way lower altitude, you can send up your turbine half-empty and still make money. Valid concern... but easily solved. Just have them exit like an airborne trooper -- feet together, legs straight, bent at the waist, hands and elbows tight against their torso. paratroopers do it this way because the windblast on big planes is strong, and they're wearing tons of gear, so poised exits aren't practical and the airborne exit reduces line twists and flipping through lines, etc. remember, THE GOAL HERE IS PARACHUTE TRAINING, so just get them out the door in a way that promotes good openings and... get this, gets them comfortable with jumping out the door. instead of worrying and focusing on their body position, they assume an easy relaxed positionwhich promotes... relaxation out the door. then they get open and do their thing. so this way you acclimate them to doing, in a relaxed fashion, the weirdest part of a parachute jump -- stepping from an airplane in flight. Cool but as i say in another post near this one, just keep them on sl/iad longer... don't use the old-fashioned progression; just leave them at clear-and-pull until they graduate from basic parachute training. okay, fine, let them keep doing that. but for peeps who DO want to learn to jump, after that first sl, they do dual-instruction tandems, then go back to sl for basic parachute training. you're right. It's not one versus the other -- it's using both -- and inthe right order! Survival skills first (basic parachute training), followed by the fun skills (basic freefall training). AFF has proven itself to be an effective way to teach basic freefall skills. It has similarly proven itself to be incapable of teaching basic parachuting skills. to catch up training to match parachute design, we need more intensive and parachute-focused training instead of the all-in-one thing that is AFF -- and that is precisely what the system i propose will do. AFF began where everyone jumped 200-230sf canopies, so it's obsolete as a basic training system. We need to cut the freefall out of the basic training and focus on the parachute, THEN go to the freefall training. pretty simple: survival skills first; fun skills second. most especially the peeps who think they already know it all! SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

TRUE! But what I've proposed is that we EXPAND the sl/iad training tothe point that the student is a competent pilot who has downsized to a somewhat manageable canopy-container system before they start freefall training. No more 5-jumps-then-you-freefall... you stay on sl/iad until you meet certain performance and classroom milestones, then you start freefalling. this training would be like the aff system in that people can ace the course in X number of jumps, but it usually takes several more. and, to me, "graduation" means when you're competent enough to go from 260-300 sf canopies down to something in the .7 to 1.0 wing loading range. then, and only then, do you graduate to freefall training. as roger nelson discovered, putting people on smaller ZP canopies helped their freefall learning because the they were flying the rigs instead of the the rigs flying them. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

okay, thanks. Appreciated. How would you know? You don't even know what I wrote... and really, what part of "teach survival skills first, fun skills second" isn't relevant today? If it's such "a very good system," then why are there bandaids stuck all over it, with more coming every day, and scores of peeps still dying because of its failures? talk about absurd... what did you put in your coffee this morning? A fatal flaw, just like a pack job that turns into a ball of cow manure when you deploy it. Try applying that "logic" the the ball of cow manure over your head as you're screaming earthward. Nice straw man. As riggerpaul said, and I repeat (for the umpteenth time): teach survival skills FIRST, then teach the fun skills. If you had done some due diligence into my past efforts on this subject, you would know that one specific example I use to validate what I propose is the Goriesky experience over several years at the Air Force Academy. Search for it on this site -- and from now on, if you want to argue with your professor, it's best to do your homework first. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."