robinheid

All these scenarios sorta evaporate if the student follows an instructor down, don't they? (Of course, that assumes that the instructor doesn't lead the student into trees, powerlines, other canopies or whatever.) I guess that makes radios a one-trick pony, doesn't it? If the radio doesn't work, THEN what are you going to do? Oh right, "don't rely on them." With FTL, on the other hand, even if the instructor's parachute doesn't work, he still has a reserve that probably will, and then the student still has someone to follow -- plus, as the articles outline, the whole system builds autonomy into the process so that in the case of an "off-plan" situation, the student still has a backup plan -- and tin the case of FTL, that backup plan is more comprehensive than most "AFF" training -- and perhaps less likely to be needed (though radios are pretty reliable these days). Again, the FTL system I describe builds autonomy into the process and by showing instead of telling also helps the student to advance more quickly than having to convert radio instructions into a flight path and figure out themselves how things are supposed to look. It's really just a variation on the old military training maxim: Watch one. Do one. Teach one. And there ain't nothing to watch when someone's talking in your ear on a radio; you go straight to the second phase -- and that delays your learning progression. But keep the radios if you want; you never know when the instructor might bounce and leave the student alone in the sky. But hey, that' what they do now even if they don't bounce, so it's long past time for "AFF" instructors to quit bailing on their students just when the going gets tough. My projection: If "AFF" instructors ever cease with the tumult in defense of custom and come to grips with reality, FTL will eventually make radios obsolete. Until then, stick with them because obviously the "AFF" community doesn't have enough faith in its current system to do without them. 44 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."

Repeating this does not address my questions/concerns, nor does it add anything to the thread. I had not read the artcles, but I went back and did read them before typing this reply, and all it did was generate more concerns about your idea. For starters, my original point still stands and has not beed addressed, that being that the FTL concpet is a one-trick pony. The only function it provides is guidance, there is no provision for providing any other type of advice or assistance. A radio, on the other hand, is adept at providing both, you can provide simple guidance as well as assist if things should go off-plan or the student needs more complicated instruction. Does your plan overcome that in some way, or do you just accept the reduced functionality? In terms of the phrase 'learn to move in a 3D space', which you used many times in your articles, how is that different than radio assistance? Guiding someone through an actual canopy ride, be it by FTL or with a radio, provides them the same experience of seeing the relationships between time/altitude and forward/vertical movement first hand. If you were comparing FTL to something like tracing a flight plan/landing pattern on an overhead picture of the DZ, in that case the 3D nature of the activity would be lost, and FTL would hold an advantage. but FTL and radio both work on the basis of in-air training (for the student), and both provide a real world experience flying through the 3D space. My final comment on your articles (you were probably better off before I read them), is that all of your examples involve jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps and were from 15 to 20 years ago. None of your esamples address the needs of the students with 1 to 10 jumps, and those are the vast majority of the jumpers who use a radio these days. Someone with the experience of 20-some jumps is in a much better position to be 'alone' under canopy, and then simply use FTL to tweak their accuracy skills. In that respect, it can be a useful training tool. However, in terms of primary training, for the first few times a jumper is under canopy as a student. the increased functionality of a radio far out-performs the one-dimensional idea of FTL. Furthermore, given the new(er) canopy performance requirements of the A license proficiency card, jumpers couldn't make it off student status without the basic skills that the FTL program could provide. Even if it's a good tool for jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps, they would already have those skills by virtue of the new(er) training requirements. FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ. Much better, Dave. Thanks for checking out the articles. To your contentions: FTL is not a one-trick pony. As you apparently didn't notice from the articles, the whole system built autonomy into the process, so that if, by chance or deliberate intent, the follower did not follow the leader, s/he already had the toolbox necessary to handle the rest of it on his or her own. This brings me back to the original point in my first post on this subject about radios breeding dependency. The whole FTL process as I developed it does the exact opposite, so there's your answer right in your objection: FTL's only function is providing guidance, not hand holding. The process itself equips the student to act autonomously, even if something "off-plan" happens -- as did in fact occur and was recounted in the articles (Kim broke off from the instructor once; Ali landed in the boonies after a bad spot -- in both cases, they handled their "off-plan" situation with aplomb because the FTL program had equipped them with the tools they needed to do so). Second, you can't teach navigating in 3D on a radio. What a preposterous proposition. All you're doing is telling them to turn one direction or another, which means absolutely nothing in terms of 3D maneuvering. Drawing it on the ground and pointing out the landmakrs -- then WATCHING someone navigate that space, then following them and SEEING how things look as you follow is orders of magnitude better. Heck, it's not even comparable. Yes, all of my examples were students with 20 or more jumps 15+ years ago. The time frame, of course, is relevant because it shows that "AFF" training is still in the dark ages of canopy training; literally, nothing has changed since I wrote those articles in either the way "AAF" instruction presents parachute training -- or the failures thereof to substantially stem the continuing carnage under open canopies by people who never learned the fundamentals -- and associated judgment -- when they first started jumping. As for the jump numbers, demolish that straw man, Dave!! Get 'im!! I say repeatedly in my articles that my findings are unscientific and need to be tested more comrephensively -- and with lower time jumpers. I further state repeatedly that the perfect laboratory for this is "AFF" instructors, one of whom should pull high with students and lead them down, to validate or disprove my findings on a larger scale with lower-time jumpers. So far, no takers, just people adding to the tumult in defense of custom. Keep the radios if you don't trust yourselves to train your students enough to do without them, But don't you think it's time to move forward instead of just digging in your heels against reason and then whining when so many "AFF" graduates kill themselves under open canopies a few hundred jumps down the line? 44 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."

What happens if you have a cutaway? What happens if they have a cutaway? What happens if you have a traffic conflict? What happens if they have a traffic conflict? Your idea has some merit, but overall there are too many scenarios where your guidance would be limited or eliminated alltogether, leaving the student with no options. A radio provides for reliable communication from a variety of sources. The communication does not rely on the performance of rigs, canopies, openings, or traffic. If you have an operator on the ground, that person will be there and able to assist regardless of what happens in the sky. There are far more variables in the sky than on the ground, I have not once enountered an obstacle I could not overcome when walking to the radio to talk down a student. On top of all that, follow the leader only provides directional guidance when the curcumstances allow. It does not account for anything out of the ordinary happening to or with the student, and that's a big part of the value of the radio. If everything under canopy goes as per the plan, meaning that exactly what they were taught comes to pass, flying and landing a canopy is not that hard. It's when things change and go off-plan that students could use the experience and decision making ability of a ground based instructor to help them make the best choices. Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles... Sigh... 44 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."

Says the guy with the 80 jumps! I won't call him a twat, and I am sure Travis is a cool guy, but he is no Bill Cole nor does he measure up to any of the old timers that I have gotten to know in my short time in the sport. What does my jump numbers have to do with it? Im just saying, Travis (along with a handful of other noteables) literally revolutionized the sport of freestyle motocross the same way many names mentioned on this thread have revolutionized skydiving or BASE. I have to plead my ignorance with a lot of the names mentioned here, I got some homework to do, but to imply Travis' achievements in his field(s) dont mean as much to his sport as BC's do in his sport is just unfair. Your jump numbers have nothing to do with it. That whooshing you hear is the point of your comment going right on over Doug's punkin haid. Moreover, you have a better handle on the title of this thread than a whole bunch of peeps with thousands of jumps who have no clue, given the names they're listed (almost all of which are popular and/or well-known). I concur, BTW; Travis is a big-time extreme sportsman who briefly touched parachuting among his many other sporting exploits. Another along the same lines is Shane McConkey. Check HIM out when you do your homework. He not only created a special kind of BASE jumping that continues to this day, he invented a ski that utterly changed the way peeps approach powder... plus he was one of the baddest skiers ever to have carved tracks through virgin snow and mogul fields alike. 44 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."

LOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS. 44 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."

LOL... Read the articles. You'll see that your premise is false and your conclusion unsupported by the data. 44 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."

Good to hear that your input is only to correct, not direct, but it's still a bandaid on a flawed process and I must also correct you on a key element: Follow the leader ONLY works when the instructor flies a smaller, faster canopy. I started out on a canopy loaded at .8 or thereabouts because, like you, I thought I needed to be on a canopy similar to that used by the student. When I actually did it, however, I discovered that was the wrong approach because I couldn't maneuver myself properly into the "leader" position. As soon as I switched to a more heavily loaded canopy, presto, problem solved! And the thing is, you don't "hang in brakes;" you brake just enough to slow your vertical and horizontal speed to stay within 1,000-1,500 feet or so. Also, as I discovered initially by having tandem students "follow" the photog... they can follow a flight path even when the "leader" is far below them. It's a natural consequence of having their 3D navigation problem converted to 2D by having someone to follow. They see where the leader goes and they follow, even if the leader slowly moves farther ahead of and below them. Finally, none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix. Why? Because, for one thing, we're pulling higher and later than the mob. Perhapos even more importantly, part of that opening-near-student-level thing AND using a smaller, faster canopy is that I would fly right over to where they were and establish contact/communication/whatever, then I would turn and lead them down. Yes, I would outpace them, but they still followed easily. Thomas Paine wrote that "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” We are still in the first phase with regard to converting from bandaid radios to follow-the-leader canopy training. There are all sorts of formidable outcries in defense of custom but at some time down the road the "AFF" community will quit abandoning their students just when they need them the most. It's funny, but the late great Jerry McCauley was onsite when I was doing my follow-the-leader training and when I disucssed it with him, he said that not only did he do that in the SEAL teams, they added a "graduation" wrinkle called "show the leader." This meant that, after the leader felt that the low-timer was up to speed, he made the low-timer the leader and his task was leading not just his instructor but the whole team to a safe landing in the right spot. So rather than defend what you do now, and make excuses for why you can't do follow-the-leader, maybe you ought to consider the advice of Morpheus to Neo and... "phree your mind." To help you in that quest, I have attached the two articles I wrote on the subject in 1996 and 1998 for Skydiving Magazine. 44 NOTE: Edited to add attachments 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."

Thanks for that. What you describe is sure better than ganging the radios to one "ground instructor," but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use that time more effectively by showing them the way down? 44 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."

Pssst.... skr 44 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, there is ridge lift and wave lift too. LOL... Good eye, Professor Nitpicker. I saw that after it was too late to edit. How'd my paper grade out otherwise? 44 Don't know that I'm qualified to answer that. After all, Lauren/Giselle claims I'm not a glider pilot despite what is written on my FAA issued pilot certificate, and that I know no physics despite having a PhD in the subject. Robin, This Kellend "Dr. knows Everything" claim to be a skygod but he can not answer simple questions about gliding, nor either answered what is his longest flight on his glider and his paraglider and the IGC file to prove it of course. You are a registered pilot and? that doesn't mean you are experienced and knows everything. period. Lauren, everything you say may be true, but it's also true that Professor Kallend has been doing more than what you do for longer than you've been alive and he knows things that you don't yet even know that you don't know. Jousting with some of the other peeps on this thread is one thing; trying to bust the good perfesser's chops is a challenge of far greater magnitude and one that I respectfully suggest that you save for another day. And Professor, please quit pushing Lauren's buttons, wouldja? I asked for your grade because you're someone possessed of deep and broad theoretical and practical knowledge whose opinion I value -- and instead you used my request to reopen hostilities. I know she's a tempting and even deserving target, but you're kinda pounding the rubble now, don't you think? Anyway, there's a maxim in the artificial intelligence community that "intelligence emerges from the interaction of conflicting elements," so kudos to you both for so generously contributing more than your share. 44 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."

If that's how it's actually done at dropzones in your observation or experience Robin, then that is not only just a shame, it is, IMO - WRONG. Sure, if you predicate your argument just strictly based upon that model or premise - you win - hands down. But this is clearly not the best, let alone what should be even accepted as any "industry practice" for student radio procedure/ops. Surely no-one would actually advocate that. I am of mixed feelings on radio & radio use / perceived possible dependency. I can actually see both your points, and I know I have posted on this in much greater detail (than I care or have time right now to get into here) before elsewhere. I think I may have even myself somewhere once, actually even started a thread, with very similar title. I will either find it and reference it, or weigh-in with my experience examples on more proper radio protocol procedures I've observed, later. But this example given, is just plain - sad. Disappointing to say the least, if anywhere this is truly, some(s) actual practice. P.S. - Quick Edit to add: I take exception at your comment / premise that: "this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does..." Robin, I am an AFF instructor, and this is *NOT* what I do! ...Nor is it what any other AFF instructor I either work with, or have recently observed at several dropzones I've experienced does in fact and/or in practice either! Let me get this straight: 1. You've never seen a large turbine DZ where a "ground instructor" manned 2-4 radios at the same time to talk down 2-4 students while the test of the "AFF" instructors high-tailed it off the landing area to get their next student? 2. On every "AFF" jump you make, you pull near student altitude and lead them down to landing? 3. On every "AFF" at your DZ, one of the instructors pulls near student altitude and leads the student down to landing? 4. On every "AFF" jump at the several DZs you've visited, one of the instructors pulls near student altitude and leads the student down to landing? 44 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, there is ridge lift and wave lift too. LOL... Good eye, Professor Nitpicker. I saw that after it was too late to edit. How'd my paper grade out otherwise? 44 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."

If you're genuinely passionate about spreading knowledge you need to change your approach completely. No-one will want to learn anything from you on any subject if you continue to a) never listen and b) insult the crap out of people you think don't know as much as you. Excellent advice, sir. Certainly, Ms. Martins will not be mistaken for Miss Manners any time soon, and her serial lack of courtesy and patience deserved most of the ripostes she received therefor. However, the record shows that both her content and courtesy exceeded yours, so please do yourself a favor and repeat your advice to the mirror until you change your approach. 44 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."

You're welcome. 44 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 precisely no one is claiming otherwise, which has been said here about 20 times already. The gain everyone but you is talking about is relative to the lowest point of the "dive". Right, so there is a mighty thermal that's always there, in the exact same place, on multiple jumps at that event? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkvPDd-8wE http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VigfXe1vhYg And it also for some reason only affects the jumper, but not the smoke? And entering it always for some reason corresponds with a change in body position? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tu5Cyw8xlI&feature=player_embedded Interesting valid points you have, it is possible to a place have a residential thermal given very specific conditions but it is unusual. I can't see the bottom of the mountain so I can't say if it would be the case or not. There were no measureable thermals at any time during the practice or competition jumps. There was one "test jump" on Friday the 12th by Ludo Woerth when it was raining and partly cloudy where he did experience some wingsuit-flight turbulence that scared him enough to emphatically say "NO!" when I asked: "Knowing what you know now, would you jump again?" (Given that all the other competitors respected Ludo as one of the most bad-ass jumpers on the mountain, they all heeded his assessment and stood down for the day, so no other jumps were made in those conditions.) Other than that, the atmospheric conditions at the site were extremely stable except for the approximately 24-hour period on Tuesday the 16th into Wednesday the 17th when the front blew through, when no jumps were made. Also, given the nature of the terrain and its relationship to the sun position and the time of year, there was no thermal action at any time around the "climb point" area, and definitely no "residential thermal." That, of course, is one reason among many that this site was chosen for the event; a stable environment. Two reasons. Number one, you can't always believe what you see on video. Most of the jumpers turned right -- toward the camera -- as they crossed the cable "finish line," which can in and of itself create the illusion of altitude gain. There was discussion about this point among the competitors that was as vigorous as the discussion on this thread (though considerably more good-humored and polite). Number two: This was a speed event that resulted in 26-second flights focused on achieving maximum speed -- so the flare did not occur after a "sharp dive" but after a 2,600-foot sustained dive designed to achieve maximum speed. Therefore, the energy available to him to convert into lift -- and therefore likely temporary altitude gain -- was substantially greater than on "just a sharp dive and flare." The windspeed during this jump and the others never exceeded about 5 mph at the landing area 1000 feet below the "climb point" shown in the video. At my spot about 1/3 of the way down the course, and about 1500 feet above the "climb point," winds were even lower - essentially zero for the duration. As I said, the competitors themselves had spirited discussion about how much altitude they did or did not gain, but I tend to side with those who say "Yes, we did!" because they were in a very steep dive throughout the course, then flattened out to slow down and pull, thus converting an enormous amount of speed energy into lift energy. To give you an idea of how much potential energy they had at their disposal, know this: The jumpers estimated that the course angle was 1.8:1. Given that most of the suits flying at the race had glide ratios of 3.0:1 or better, they had a lot of energy built up and thus could convert that energy into a lot of lift. One final thing to consider: When you do a "sharp dive and flare," you not only convert energy to lift, you add a lot of drag when you change your trajectory that radically over a short period of time. These jumpers did not do a "sharp flare;" as you can see from the videos, the dive-to-flare transition was more smooth than sharp, so less of their dive energy was lost to drag as they converted it into lift energy -- and a much longer than usual apparent climb interval. 44 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, as the great Hugh Akston once said, when you're faced with an apparent contradiciton, check your premises. 44 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 too at some point had a long speech typed out for robinheid and decided to delete it. I came to the conclusion that this is a man probably my fathers age and my father is a little crusty as well. I also realized I was five years old when robinheid started skydiving and that deserves my respect. Sadly enough the instructors who really need to read this thread and others like it probably don't. Sigh... another +1 And an apology is in order... your last two posts make it clear that I misjudged your intent and character when I responded to your first posts. My apologies and good on ya, mate, for hanging in there anyway. I look forward to meeting you some day. 44 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."

Most injuries and fatalities these days happen after a good opening. To simply abandon a student at that point for no reason is non-sense. We help students though the first few exits, we help them though the first few practice (and actual) pulls, and we should be there to help them through the first few jumps under canopy. Funny that you mention abandonment -- without even noticing that this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does as soon as the "FF" is over; plummet 2500K below the student so they can hurry up and make the next turn, leaving the actual under-canopy "instruction" to the bandaid that is a radio in the hands of one "instructor" juggling two or three radios because s/he drew the short straw. Years ago, I developed a "follow-the-leader" canopy training program, wherein the instructor would fly ahead of and below the student, who would follow. I developed this concept because, as a TI I would usually hand the toggles to the student after opening, point out the DZ to them and say "fly toward that" while I adjusted the harness to make them more comfortable. Usually, when I took control again, they were pointed at amost every direction of the compass except at the DZ. However, when there was a camera flyer on the jump, I would point to the camera flyer and say "follow him" -- and they did it right every time. Why the discrepancy? Because unless we're scuba divers or pilots, we never navigate in a 3D medium until we jump, and adding that extra axis gets confusing. When following someone, however, you're still doing a 2D path even though you are moving through 3D space. So I did it with low-timers (25-40 jumps) and even with the severe canopy training deficiencies of "AFF," they were landing within 15-30 feet of me every time. I would dirt dive the basic setup-to-pattern-entry flight, then fly a precise pattern of crosswind, 1k-750; downwind, 750-500; base 500-250; final, 250-landing. Additionally, I would dirt dive the "magic" of cheating your line tighter or wider on each leg to adjust as necessary as you went, along with all the other little pattern-flying tricks I won't go into here. And it worked magnificently. It also radically increased their overall awareness and lurkfulness, because, as one of them put it, "when I'm in the pattern I know where I'm going and where I'm at so I can relax on that a bit and focus more on finding the other traffic so I feel much safer." Moreover, by having someone to follow, they developed their "pattern eye" much faster, even when they made mistakes. In one case, our opening point was out of position from the norm and my student was afraid she wouldn't make it back by following me, so she broke away and ended up... not making it back. But as she ambled off into the weeds, she noticed that I once again landed in the center of the target, and she said afterward that she learned more from comparing what she did to what I did than she did by just following me. These are the sorts of training benefits that can accrue when we do not abandon our students after opening and/or try to cover up that abandonment with the bandaid that is a radio held by someone standing on the ground. But get this, Dave: when I proposed this to the honcho "AFF" instructors at my large turbine DZ -- that on each dive, one of them pulls higher and leads the student through canopy training, the immediately dismissive repsonse I got was, "but then I'd miss a turn." So much for not abandoning the student, eh? Student abandonment is endemic in and a fundamental part of the "AFF" economic model, and the radio is the bandaid to camouflage the abandonment. If you were really serious about not abandoning students after they open instead of just pronouncing it silly to replace bandaids with more and better training, you would no doubt have called for this kind of thing a long time ago, given your otherwise almost always stellar views and insights on things parachuting-related. But you're as blind as the rest of the bunch on this one, so Samuel Jackson to you too, my friend, because, as you say, "we should be there to help them through the first few jumps under canopy" -- and sitting on the ground looking up at them through 5,000 feet of sky is not "being there," no matter what kind of bandaid you have in your hand. 44 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 Elegantly stated. Peace out. 44 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."

Since you felt the need to happily correct me, then you must disagree that a harness cannot be properly adjusted on a 15-minute call. That's what I asked to be corrected on did I not? Not as I read it. Please write more clearly next time. Please point out where in my post I referenced myself at all. Anything at all? Even a little? No didn't think so. So I'm not sure where you get off making assumptions about me being holier-than-thou or having an attitude. But you're right, people do (or almost do) fall out of harnesses every day. It's common and easy to do and I need to be much more careful in preventing that. this post and the one preceding it reek of holier-than-thou. You aren't fit to carry that TI's jock, yet your attitude toward him is so superior with your 1/10th as many jumps and 1/8th as many years in the sport. And you're so clueless you don't even notice. Samuel Jackson, son. SAMUEL JACKSON. The fact is it has happened twice before, and almost happened here again. There's always a possibility and I'm willing to bet any decent TI has it in the back of his mind. I sure do, which is why I religiously fit the harness properly before boarding the airplane, then check it several times after. Too bad he didn't feel the need to do it on that jump. there you go, making assumptions again. You know only what you think you can see from a very incomplete video and you go on and on as if you were there. And guess what, Mr. Know-it-all-with-less-than-1K-jumps: One answer to your question is blazingly obvious in the video and you of course don't have a clue what it is or you woulda mentioned it by now. Could this happen to me? Absolutely! It is my single biggest fear as a TI. You can quit claiming I have an "it'll never happen to me" attitude because I obviously don't. I do what I can on every single jump to prevent a disaster like that. Tons of experience or not, your hotshot TI failed when it counted. I have 10x more respect for a TI with 1000 tandems and no hiccups than one with 3000 tandems who about fucking killed someone out of gross neglect. and it is this conclusion that's so dangerous because you just can't seem to get yer punkin haid around the concept that maybe he wasn't guilty of gross neglect, that, just like fatalities that appear to have occurred as a result of "gross neglect," there was an at-the-time logical event process that seemed to make sense at the time but only in retrospect did not. Again, you can see the precipitating element clearly in the video but of course you're so smart that you've already come to your conclusion so you can't see it. Here's a hint, though; it could happen to you no matter how securely you think you've fitted the harness. Again, this is what I mean by your dangerous attitude; your head is so full of what you think you know that there is no room in it to learn anything new and different, which we as a sport and individual TIs must do if this sub-set of sport parachuting (and all the turbines supported by it) are to survive. The system you propose huh? Go ahead and incorporate your system if you think its not already being done in places outside Lodi. I for one can personally vouch for not taking students I was not comfortable with. As for the ones who I knew I could handle but had to be extra cautious, I put the fucking harness on right and didn't end up with a viral youtube video you still don't get it. what you do personally as a TI is absolutely not what I suggest. Go back and read the pertinent parts of this thread and set aside your "I'm so good I always get it right" attitude so that maybe, just maybe, you might learn something. By the way, I personally don't care how long you've been jumping or how awesome you feel by talking like a dick. But a grumpy old skygod is just as bad as a newbie hotshot wannabe swooper. Except they are at least fun to party with and usually have hot girlfriends.

Sorry, I misread his bio info. TI in question actually has not three times as many jumps but SIX TIMES THE JUMPS (9000+), and more than twice as many years (30+ years) in the sport and several times as many tandem jumps (3000) as Sky4me has total jumps. You are wrong, though, and I'm happy to correct you: If you would read what I wrote instead of persisting in your own holier-than-thou attitude, you would see that I do not defend the TI in question; I use the FACT of his enormous, skill, experience and time-in-sport for what is called a CAUTIONARY TALE that focuses on the truth that if it can happen to him, it can sure happen to low-timers and newbies such as you and Sky4me -- and that with the attitudes both of you exhibit on this thread, it probably WILL. Really, dude, what you characterize as **** talking about other TIs is simply pointing out an attitude held by a TI that is in fact precisely the kind of attitude that results in these kinds of incidents. In so doing, you reveal yourself to be someone who holds the same attitude -- ignorant arrogance about something you think you know so much about but in reality have only the barest clue. It CAN happen to you, and until you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Yes, I can make those mistakes too," and "there but for the grace of God go I," you will remain a liability within the industry. Keep in mind that the previous fatal falls from harnesses all happened to TIs more experienced than either you or Sky4me, so enough with the pouting and listen up: The system I propose is designed to alleviate some of the stresses and judgment calls heaped upon the TIs in factory operations, leaving them the time and warning to better apply the knowledge, skill and experience they have accrued, thereby reducing system exposure to incidents such as the one in question, thereby preserving the economic model upon which turbine aircraft drop zone operations are based, thereby preserving the sport we also love so much that we argue about it online when we're not out there doing it. Love and kisses and a hearty Samuel to you too, 44 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, you were trumpeting how personally great you are at being a thorough and professional TI so of course my response is going to be personal, and if it diverges from your opinon of yourself then of course you will view it as an attack. Yawn... Covered by the "mental infirmity" question if apparent early, covered by grand exalted TI judgment later. That particular element is in fact your job as a TI to deal with. When I did tandems, I took care of that part on the ground so I didn't have to deal with it in the air. Yes, and a good TI handles the fear factor on the ground, not in the air where it's dangerous. No I shouldn't. That's on the TI for misadjusting the straps or turning too radically under canopy (or both). In 1500+ tandems, I only had one guy spew and it turned out to be the lovely spinach souffle with bad eggs in it he had for breakfast (his non-jumping girlfriend spewed hers on the ground without even jumping). Again, that particular element is on you. Maybe you need to learn a little more about harness adjustment and customer-friendly canopy flying. That's right, but having a system in place that allows more time and warning for grand exalted TIs such as yourself to deal with out of spec customers means you're less likely to make errors with them that could cause issues such as the tandem in question. Let me get this straight: A guy with three times as many jumps and time in sport, plus more varied and deep experience in all phases of parachuting than you will ever have did in fact make decisions that endangered someone's life -- and you take offense to the suggestion that it could happen to you? If I was your DZO, I'd terminate you today for that attitude, and if I was the manufacturer on whose gear you jumped, I'd yank your ticket today, This attitude of yours is precisely why we have these kind of incidents because the moment you start thinking it can't happen to you -- it will. As (IIRC) Sparky has as his signature quote, nobody's good enough at this sport that they can't die doing it. Your arrogant ignorance of reality in the face of the undeniable fact that a TI far more skilful and experienced than you will ever be can make such an error -- but you don't "appreciate" the suggestion that you could too -- means you have zero business taking anyone on a tandem. But with a fatal flaw in your operating system paradigm, so please take Samuel Jackson's advice, wouldja? Thanks, love and kisses 44 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."

So what did you mean by disrespecting Jeb and Luigi? 44 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."

Introducing... the next know-it-all TI who will make a mistake that endangers a customer's life. FYI, Mr. only-the-TI-has-the-knowledge-experience-to-make-the-call, the TI in question has three time more jumps and time in sport, and more varied parachuting experience and expertise than you will accrue in two lifetimes -- and yet he made a serious error because the entire decision tree was laid at his feet on a 15-minute call, with him already manifested on three more loads. Well, Mr. Grand Decisionmaking TI, they don't make the call in the system I propose; they only fill in the blanks on very simple questions that any whuffo can answer -- and then place them in either the "in spec" or "out of spec" assembly line. No "jump-no jump" decision required. The questions are simple. Is the prospective customer: Over age 40?* Overweight by more than 25 pounds?* Physically disabled or infirm in some way? Mentally disabled or infirm in some way? If there is a "yes" answer to any of these questions, then the customer is placed in the "out of spec" assembly line where, as previously discussed, the TIs have more time and attention to devote to properly assessing that customer to determine if they are capable of jumping and, if yes, how to accommodate their out of spec elements. * These numbers, of course, are adjustable. That worked out really well for the TI in question, didn't it? And in part it happened not just because he had to deal with all the above-mentioned assembly line pressures but because, just like you, he thought he knew how to get it done, make it work, and "never refus(e) a jump for someone..." Well, even skygod know-everything, thorough TIs as yourself are human, and humans make mistakes, so putting a process in place that minimizes your chances to make a mistake seems to be, well... common sense. Great words... exactly -- exactly -- the same words the TI in question would no doubt have used to describe his personal process, a process which did in fact work for him on more tandems than you have total jumps before the jump in question. More great words, but unfortunately they reflect the precise attitude -- the all-powerful, all-knowing hero TI -- that must be replaced by a systems approach that sorts potential customers into two process paths that minimize system stress and the chances of individual TIs making assessment and execution mistakes. Thanks again for doing such a great job of presenting the element that most needs to be changed in tandem factory operations. Hopefully, you'll learn the same lesson the TI in question did, but from this forum instead of in freefall. 44 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 truth emerges... Luigi and Jeb have accomplished spectacular things for sport parachuting, things you will never accomplish if you live 150 years. Jeb cannot walk down a street in China without being stopped for autographs and pictures (I watched this just last month). Luigi is huge in South America generally and Brazil specifically, where IIRC he has his own TV show, among other high-profile gigs. Both are accomplished at promoting their brand and product, which happens to be themselves. Do you have as big a hard-on for Papa John, or Bill Gates? And who the eff are YOU anyway? No real name, no info... just a bellyful of spleen for anyone who accomplishes significant things and builds on those accomplishments to accomplish other things. You remind me of the guys Theodore Roosevelt was talking about: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly... who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” 44 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."