sweep

Section 1 : 4.1.4 The way I've normally seen it done with Teardrops etc is that the jumper finds someone from their lift or a mate who is qualified to check them out and shows them the kit before kitting up, then gets that same jumper to check them out once they have the kit on. ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

Bear in mind that with the introduction of CH1 as part of the A-Licence, you will not be eligible for an A licence solely by completing AFF and consols. This means that you would have to be integrated into the UK system as a student (which is harder than integrating someone who has fully completed their training). This is done at the discretion of the CCI at the DZ you return to so the best bet is to get in touch with your local DZ, speak to the CCI and get a clear list of the things he/she wants you to achieve out there. You'll find most CCIs very helpful and willing to offer advice. Once you know where you need to be when you get back, then head out there and have fun! Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

BPA Operations Manual : Section 2 Para 2 So if you are from overseas then CCIs are able to grant you such priveleges as they think suits your experience (based on a review of your logbooks etc). If you are in fact a British jumper visiting a different UK DZ then of course this doesn't apply and you should meet the BPA minimum requirements and have the right stickers etc. But then you should also have these at home. As has been stated several times the BPA does not require you to have FS1 to freefly - the minimum requirement is the skills listed in Mr Bounce's earlier post. However FS1 is advised and some centres do decide to require this : but since it is not an ops manual requirement a CCI is always free to waive this if he/she is convinced you have adequate belly skills. Also, I think if you are at a DZ where the culture is such that there are no two experienced jumpers who will jump with you for your FS1 without requiring you to pay their slot that is very sad. At my club, Skydive Strathallan, all FS and FF coaching is free to club members, and the club eats the coach's slot so in fact any WARP jumps you only pay your own slot plus the relevant beer on completion of the FS1. However even as a visitor to Skydive Algarve over the winter (and without an FS1) there were people of all levels of experience I had never met who were more than happy to jump with me all day when Exi hooked us up. One of these jumps I stuffed up, leaving the other guy basically doing a solo, yet there was still no discussion of me paying his slot. Even if you are doing an FS1 with three instructors I personally think you should be looking at most at two slots. The concept that the student (already often paying kit hire and only just done paying for their A licence progression) should pay the slots of three experienced jumpers - especially three that get subsidised jumps and cash from the sport already - doesn't work for me. Even if you make your living as a coach, we're only talking one level per student! People should jump for fun - if they can make some cash without screwing people over that's great for them and they should consider themselves lucky. The price for having such a good job is to help people out once in a while. Maybe that's just me being idealistic but this 'everyone for themselves' mentality where people take all the help they can get till they're in a position to make some cash and then wind up the drawbridge just doesn't seem to me the direction this sport should be going in. Luckily the vast majority of people I have met don't think this way and do genuinely care about the up and coming jumpers. Just my opinion ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

According to the BPA Ops manual - So if they don't have CH1 they must be treated as Students and comply with all student requirements (briefed, dispatched and debriefed by an Instructor, instructor on the ground, student wind limits, only jump with Instructors etc etc). Allowing Student Parachutists to jump outwith the requirements is a surefire way to risk ratings... Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

Note that in the UK system, we cover both angles. For parachutists there are four new grades achievable : - Canopy Handling 1 - which is part of the A licence - Canopy Handling 2 - part of the B licence - Canopy Piloting 1 - optional - Canopy Piloting 2 - optional but required for competition. However, there are also two new ratings - the Canopy Handling coach and the Canopy Piloting coach. These have the same status as existing FS, FF etc coaching ratings. In order to obtain these you need to satisfy the Chief Instructor that you have the proficiency to understand the subject matter and also that you have either BPA or National Coaching Federation training in how to pass on your skills. The system is fairly new still and only beginning to find its feet, but there is the potential for us to do some good work in canopy education, both for swoopers and for ordinary jumpers. As you say, you don't need to be a pro-swooper to teach all of this. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

When I was abroad recently I saw a group of wingsuiters go on a 21K lift when the cloud cover was solid (total 8/8 no holes at all) from 4K - 5K. Some were still coming back two hours later. At the same DZ there was a 28 way jumping in the same conditions - cloud right through breakoff. Doh! I have only jumped once when I couldn't see the ground and I doubt I will again. Besides the spotting and air traffic consideration, tracking through a raincloud is exceptionally sore on the face. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

That's like saying that the best travel insurance policy for a skydiving holiday is the cheapest one. In fact that's not the case because insurance in any area is not a question of whether or not you are covered : what's vastly more important is what you are covered for. There are substantial differences between the things that are covered under people's individual German insurance policies and the things that are covered under the BPA's group policy. The fact of the matter is that the BPA's insurers consistently advised us that to allow non-BPA members to jump at BPA centres would result in some uninsured risks in areas where the BPA was liable. While there may be no claims history involving German jumpers on BPA DZs yet, it could potentially only take one claim to seriously damage the BPAs financial stability, and therefore our ability to parachute in the UK. It really disappoints me that there are apparently so many on the BPA membership who are prepared to completely ignore the advice of our brokers (who are after all experts on the subject). It's hardly surprising that council members didn't look too happy about the motion passing (as stated in another post) considering that they actually seem to understand that with insurance and liability such a big issue these days it is perhaps not prudent to ignore the advice you pay your insurers and lawyers to give you out of some notion that they are just out to screw you. The sad thing is that its now also around the time that BPA members start jumping up and down about the funds held in the BPA's reserves and suggesting we should dole them out to 4-way teams : I wonder now that they have asked us to expose ourselves to uninsured liabilities whether they will think it might perhaps be worth having some money in the bank for our day in court. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

Those scenarios are no longer correct : in order to receive a UK (FAI/BPA) A Licence you need to have completed your training (AFF+consols or RAPS) and achieved your Canopy Handling Grade 1 requirements. Therefore even if you complete the AFF and the consols overseas but not the CH1, you could be treated as a student until the CH1 is achieved. However, the situation for integrating foreign-trained student parachutists into the BPA system is significantly stricter than that for integrating foreign-trained experienced jumpers. Therefore, it is vital that anyone considering going overseas to do AFF makes contact with the Club Chief Instructor at the UK DZ they wish to return to prior to booking in order to ensure that they understand what they need to achieve during the course and how they can be integrated into the UK system on their return. Otherwise the scenarios include : - having the AFF not recognised at all and having to do it again with a UK instructor. - paying student jump prices while you complete your CH1 training. This can mean that what looks like a cheaper option overseas may end up costing more. Sorting out the details with a UK DZ before going abroad [I]should[/I] mean that this is avoided. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

Kieran Brady is a Club Chief Pilot, he also does a lot of work liasing with the CAA regarding flying ops for parachuting (eg assisting Black Knights in getting their Porter sorted) in addition to the other Council work he does. Not sure about the others, I think Jimmy White became a CCP this year. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

I agree with you it sounds like they grabbed anyone available. IMHO you are only an instructor if you hold an official, approved Instructor Rating of some kind, and my post was that you can be properly taught to do talkdown without being a full Instructor. In other words it wasn't in response to the situation at this DZ but more to the post which urged people not to do talkdown at all unless they were instructors. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

I don't think BPA council should be entirely DZOs, but since DZOs are members of the BPA and pay the same BPA membership the others of us pay, I don't think they should be excluded from council. The other argument your question prompts is that the BPA regulates all skydivers through STC and the ops manual, so should skydivers be allowed to sit on the board? Ultimately I think that the BPA council needs to be a balanced group representing everyone's interests, whether DZOs, Students, Free flyers, FS jumpers, Accuracy and Artistics.... maybe even canopy pilots.. Just my opinion as a member. I'm not standing but I'd recommend Kieran Brady, Eddie Jones and Ralph Fielding (current council members) and Roy Clarke (a newbie, nominated by me) for consideration... Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

I agree that it is important to know how to deal with students, and that this is not just something that any "reasonably experienced up-jumper could do", and also that helping to run a dodgy operation is not a good idea. But I'm not convinced that a full Instructor's rating is necessary for student talkdown. Certainly in the UK, the regs require a B licence and a Ground to Air Radio Operator's licence. Beyond that it is at the discretion of the local Chief Instructor as to who they are prepared to delegate that part of their responsibility to. I don't have an Instructional rating yet but I did begin to learn Student Radio Talkdown from not that long after I achieved my B licence. Originally this was under direct supervision of an Instructor until I had demonstrated that I could do it, then I was allowed to do it on my own. However, I do consider my role to be solely to do the talkdown - I don't get involved in debriefing the students in any way beyond "did you enjoy that" and similar conversation. Any comments I have to make on canopy control etc are relayed to the Instructor (out of the student's earshot) to put forward as part of his overall debrief. Personally I think that, if carried out responsibly and properly taught this can be a good introduction to working with students and either a stepping stone towards an Instructional Rating or a way to stay involved with the Student program for those who don't want or aren't able for whatever reason to go all the way. Of course in the event of a malfunction or similar there is a lot of responsibility to say the right thing (or more importantly not to say the wrong thing) but that is something that can be trained for to an extent, and beyond that it is down to experience - and everyone has a first time. But the personal qualities that are involved in remembering the plan, avoiding panic and giving good advice don't necessarily only magically arrive when you get an Instructor rating. Just my opinion, Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

OK. I agree. I'm used to working with lifting equipment, some of which is certified in a way that the law considers it "uncertified" if you use it in a way outside the scope of its test certificate. In that circumstance it's actually in the wording of the test certificate which basically says the test certificate is only valid under particular conditions etc and for any other conditions the certificate is invalid. The law itself is worded much the same as the skydiving law ie a simple "you must use certified equipment". I thought perhaps the same applied here - ie the FAR passed responsibility onto the TSO for determining operating conditions. But after reading your and Tom's post I see it doesn't. My bad. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

But that depends on how the "must be able to travel at 65mph" is written. If it's a "must be able to achieve a minimum of 65mph" then I agree with you. If on the other hand it was a question of the vehicle being approved for use on the road, and the approval said that it had adequate braking performance and road handling up to a maximum of 65mph then you could be breaking the law by driving at 66mph since you have voided the approval. The two are very different. The key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way as is using gear that's never been tested at all. I'd be interested to know how the law is worded regarding aircraft. For example does it say that it is illegal to fly with the doors off, or make other specified modifications, or exceed the weight limits? Or do the FARs simply say the aircraft must have a valid type approval certificate (which is void if you change the aircraft from the description in the certificate). Regarding freeflying (from Diablo's post), I thought the TSO referred to deployment speed and hence so long as you go back to belly before deploying you would be OK. Intentionally deploying above the max deployment speed might also be considered to void the TSO since again you are operating the equipment outside it's certified limits. Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

I see what you're saying hook, but my train of thought would suggest that the document which grants the canopy the status of "approved" under the law states within it the maximum certified weight. Therefore if the parachute is carrying a weight higher than this, it is no longer "approved" since the approval is void. And the law requires the parachutist, and the Pilot-in-command, to ensure that all parachutists are using an approved reserve canopy. So although it doesn't specifically say that you can't overload the canopy, it's still illegal to do so because by jumping an overloaded canopy you are jumping a non-approved canopy. Same reason it would be illegal to jump a canopy with holes cut in it, or suspension lines replaced with string, or in any other way operated outside the parameters of the TSO. Or am I wrong? Sweep ---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..