tdog

Many paragliding reserve use situations are low... Ridge flying requires you to be "close" to the ridge to get lift. Thus, too low to go into freefall once the PG becomes a ball crap. A square would fight the still out PG, and could do all sorts of bad things like downplanes, etc. The technique in Paragliding reserve use is to throw the reserve into open air and then pull in your PG if you have time. I suppose you could have two reserves - one for when you have over 1000 feet of altitude and are willing to go into freefall/have some sort of Skyhook.... Another for when you are lower (which will be the majority of the time you are flying).

I have first hand knowledge of three AFFI Instructor evaluators, who have honest conversations with their candidates in the pre-course about their skillsets and recommend the types of coaching required before they "go hot", and therefore only candidates who are ready "go hot" and therefore their pass rate is nearly 100%. I have done air and ground evaluations for two of them - and have been the one to say, "you are not ready yet" or "lets go hot". When I got my rating in 2006, I asked my evaluator this specific question and he said about 30-40% of all the people that travel to his course are told they need more coaching/skills before they go hot, and about 95% pass because of this.

With a few thousand jumps and nearly a decade in the sport - I never have seen any true "scientific" study to support this... I tend to agree it makes sense and always has been my plan and what I told other people I would do when coaching. Do you have data? Another poster suggested not to grab before pulling as it promotes head down. I just tried on my rig, and looked at how easy it was for the MLW to slide off my shoulder without a chest strap... There was a major difference between arms crossed and rounded corners vs arms wide in boxman... Clearly the worst is hands to your side uncrossed... Arms crossed, the MLW wanted to slide off your shoulder, but your armpits catch it... Shoulders wide in boxman, it did not want to slide at all..... I guess short of having someone hang upside down from a rig, we may never know....

Assuming the chest strap must be undone at pulltime... I see two options. I don't know which one I like better? 1) Cross arms, grab opposite side of body. 2) Best box-man belly to earth pull. The goal needs to be to keep both main lift webs across your chest. Option two widens your shoulder area. Option one holds them in place, but rounds your shoulders which might make matters worse... I had option 1 as my plan should the shit hit the fan... But, I wonder if I am wrong???? (Edit - I was typing as Dave posted... While typing, I sat in my chair looking at my arms and thought about the MLW sliding down my arms... I still wonder if crossing arms might actually promote the MLW sliding off rounded shoulders. No proof, just a thought.)

Be careful where you attach. I have seen photos of a friends rig where the articulation rings went from round to oval...

I still remember them pulling the white sheet over my fellow jumper after I laid on his canopy so they could land the helicopter. I wondered, "did they do everything they could?" Days later the autopsy report showed the jumper died 5 different ways - meaning 5 independent injuries, each causing his death. The impact injuries were said to be hitting a brick wall between 60 - 80 or so MPH based on the injuries. All I can say is - if you have a true downplane - cut away... Even if it is 30 feet above the ground, you are at least giving yourself a chance. In 1 year in my home state three people died of downplanes (2004-2005) - two crew dogs, and one very experienced instructor. And - remember this - your Cypres fires below 1000 feet (the primary cause of two outs) - you have very little time to handle the situation of the stress of a cypres fire and/or very low pull, and suddenly finding yourself in a spinning two out situation. Scary stuff. Stuff FJC instructors need to not skip over...

I would not jump Aerodyne slinks on any rig of mine. Therefore I would replace even if they were not worn, but I concur with others that they are reusable but should be replaced as often as the lineset and/or riser retirement. 1) I used to jump them before I was a rigger and the rigger who assembled my rig did not tack them. When a ring came out of the riser and was exposed, a brake line knotted on the ring and I had to land using rear risers as the tension knot was too hard to remove in busy canopy traffic. I believe (personal opinion) that the ring is more likely to snag a line in a tension knot. 2) As a rigger I found a canopy attached to the risers wrong with Aerodyne soft links. There was user error in how the canopy was attached - in a way that is impossible with PD or other slinks that have solid tabs instead of hoop rings. The ring allows a user to screw up the attachment and from a distance or upon casual inspection it looks correct. The canopy was able to be removed from the rig simply by shaking the lines on the risers... Oh, I probably should also say it was a Smart reserve that I found this way when I opened the container, and one of the 4 links had already come apart prior to me opening the rig. I contacted Aerodyne with a suggestion that they use solid metal disks, such as Cypres Washers, to avoid this user error, and their response indicated to me they were not passionate about the situation (meaning years later they have done little to correct the issue.) I would never buy or recommend an Aerodyne product after that experience, especially their slinks. In contrast I have contacted a few other manufactures with things I found wrong with their products, and in every case they handled the situation. For an example, an AAD manufacture revised their manual a few days after I contacted them. A container manufacture fed-exed replacement components to me and spent the time to track down the specific person who incorrectly manufactured a component and recalled a batch of the product that person worked on. That is the level of safety we deserve. Just my soapbox. That is all.

Gear = $5000 to buy at dealer cost, 2500 jump life = $2.50 per jump. Add packing, rigging and repairs = less than $10 per jump actual cost. Slots - if you consider the full $25 each, you assume there was a fun jumper going to fill the plane to take that slot and the profit built into that is lost... Actual cost is more like $20-22ish for the slot to fly the plane. Since most DZs need students + fun jumpers to keep the plane flying, lets just isolate costs. So the AFF student = $195 - ($20 slot cost X 3) - ($35 instructor X 2) - $10 gear costs = $55 gross profit on one jump. Compare customer gross profits on a full plane: AFF $55 profit / 3 seats on plane = $18 profit per seat Fun jumper = $5 profit per seat If the AFF student was not there, and there were a few open seats on the plane - then the cashflow the DZO will lose is even more... As a business owner I fully understand that DZOs need profit to pay for aircraft maintenance, hangars, lofts, front desk staff, and room for the AFF instructors to work. I don't feel $55 profit is too much considering what it takes to operate a DZ - and without students we would not have turbines at many DZs. But there is some wiggle room in the profit to give a thank you to the staff every once in a while (dealer cost on gear, free staff jumps, a little cash on record days, etc). And there is a little wiggle room to help students who need a little help to progress, such as a discount on a repeat jump....

+3 (in support of those who did not vote being significant) Maybe instead of making a complex instructor program, and having pretty pictures on the front of the USPA Magazine - they should make a cover story that is more newsworthy/educational instead of travel blog about the last boogie, and have a real factual article about wingsuit safety and known risks. I would bet a jumpticket that if the poll had a 3rd option, "should the USPA focus 2013 on wingsuit education and wingsuit safety, include new educational content in the SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques, but not implement a formal instructor program" - that item would have "won" hands down...

Simple answer is - jumps never expire, they always count towards paper experience. Real world skills get rusty, so you will have to do refreshers and other things along the way if you take long gaps. The refreshers you will have to do are often dropzone dependant. Some dropzones will be lax, letting you work one on one with a coach or instructor. Others will manage the whole process, pick your instructor for you, and require you jump a certain number of times with DZ instructors in a formal coaching program.

I have packed both reserves.... I personally like the looks of the Jav better than the Infinity... I have seen some Infinity rigs that just look bad (fabric weave being too smooth + shape of the rig being too long and flat + wrinkles on flaps). So, I would go with the Jav because you said the rep took 30 minutes to work with you, and wanted to build a customer service relationship with you... This is worth something, and if all other factors are equal (price, delivery time, etc), that rep should be rewarded for his efforts.

Yes, but I don't know if they will see my notes I put when I signed, but if they do.... I itemized all the money I spent at the DZ, and which types of establishments earned money from me (hotels, restaurants, employees and freelancers of the DZ who are local residents, rental car agencies, etc) all received my revenue. As an out of state tourist my money adds a lot to the tax base (city money to spend) and employment of people (who pay taxes and elect people). Perhaps my out-of-state cash influx is more important to the economy than in-state re-cycling of the same money. Most cities try REAL hard to get tourist money.... This DZ is a valuable asset to the community. If it loses tourist appeal (in my case if Bram no did not have his rating course there) – the city would have lost $3,500-$4,000 in out of state cash into their economy. I am one of many.

I did. Thanks for the advice. (And I hate packing, I could never be a packer, so I assume your reply is to other people and not me.) Your suggestion does not solve the everyday practice where fun jumpers pack for other fun jumpers, a 4 way team video guy packs for a team captain as he manifests the team, etc..... All things brushed under the carpet in the real world... In these cases the issue is not as you defined fucking lazy ass packers.

FYI - I forgot that the FAA has defined direct supervision, so maybe PIA would have to work with the FAA to clarify... Here are the words that matter: I guess the definition of "observe" is important... Can a rigger observe in general (be onsite, be in the loft, be in a plane) - or must they stand over each packer and check every single line, stow, and closing loop???? It says to the extent the work is done properly. Perhaps that is once a week observing a packjob? The truth is probably in the middle, depending on what the FAA local inspector wants it to be.

willPack4Jumps... What you ask for will become a nightmare... More FAA packing rules... FAA rules never help. If there is this jr rigger rating you propose, next time my friend asks me to pack his rig, and I don't have a rigger ticket, I get in trouble... We all know that mains are often packed by friends, packers, teammates, etc... Let's bless that technique since it is not broken! However, you have opened up a wonderful conversation as MANY packing floors don't have a rigger on the floor supervising, and the FAA could probably throw the book at 50%+ of the DZs if the local official interpreted "under the supervision of a rigger" to imply the rigger must be in the room. Alternate idea. How about clarifying the "under the supervision of a rigger" at the PIA level by a policy statement on what that supervision must mean so if the FAA snoops around the PIA policy statement can be used to protect the packing floor. 1) Define packers as someone who packs for hire for student, tandem, or rental rigs, where the next skydiver to jump the rig does not typically hire or choose the packer directly, or the rigs are typically not owned by the skydiver. 2) Allow a person to ask anyone they want to pack the rig for their next jump, with or without compensation, with no rigger supervision requirement. 3) Packers (per definition above) must be under the supervision of a rigger, with the following provisions: *Rigger interviews packer before they are hired for skill, knowledge, and techniques to make sure they are qualified including a practical exam where the packer demonstrates their skills. *A designated rigger or team of riggers will be assigned and documented to oversee and supervise the packers, and that person(s) name will be displayed in the packing area along with methods of contacting the rigger(s). *Rigger should conduct ongoing inspections of the packers workmanship at a frequency the rigger deems appropriate. *A rigger need not be available at all times packing is occurring, but must be reasonably available for consultations, supervision, and assistance. *The supervising rigger(s) should document site specific squawk procedures for rigs with defects, and shall determine what procedures will be followed when a packer notices a defect that may affect airworthiness. These policy statements could protect the packing concession or DZO from a FAA inspector who wants to interpret the current "supervision" rules to mean a rigger must be in the room, when in fact we know most of the time they are not. It would also allow a skydiver to have a trusted friend pack for them.

I have flown both... The KA feels a lot faster, both in forward speed, and "ground hungry-ness". You definitely have to be in the game to fly a KA, otherwise it will get ahead of you. (Landing pattern, knowing when to use rears to get home on a long spot, etc.) When I jumped a Crossfire after hundreds of jumps on a KA, it felt like I upsized... With over 1000 jumps on a KA120 loaded nearly 2:1 - I have had 1 line twist experience, which I cut away. It was a very angry canopy, but my friend with a Crossfire has cut his away more often... My stats are 0.1% line twists on my KA... I have had more line twists on my BASE canopy and Sabre2 170 and my old Pilot 210... The KA can open beautifully on heading, and it can open off heading... I choose not to jump it on anything larger than a 15-20+ way... But that is mainly because the speed in which it flies is so much faster than the other canopies that will be in the sky... I just rather be more conservative on those jumps, especially when other canopies also open off heading. I have not had enough jumps on the Crossfire to judge if it has more propensity to line twists, because it would take over 1000 jumps to get enough data to be statistically significant against a 1 in 1000 experience with my KA....

BASE canopies only last 300-600 jumps or so before they are retired for the technical base jumps. They lose their glide as they are often F111 fabric. Imagine if you were going to buy a reserve canopy on the classifides, and the reserve had 300 to 400 rides on it. What you want that is your reserve canopy? Often you need a lot of glide in BASE to get to your desinated landing area when you only have 5 to 10 second canopy ride. And canopies lose their flare, and when landing on a washing machine sized rock, you want a flare you can trust. So taking them skydiving can cost a lot per jump. When you buy a base canopy that you plan on base jumping, you should jump it a couple times from aircraft learn your canopy, but not much more. to the person who said the base canopies can be boring, you are doing it wrong! accuracy contests can be really fun especially when you're opening your canopy at 150 feet, but even on a skydive or hot air balloon jump too. Hahaha. but I would not want it to be my everyday canopy.

What does "On takeoff you could hear the assholes slam shut for the packing area." mean? Confused how a plane without a door could be slammed shut in the packing area on takeoff????

#1 - as a freelance rigger, (not a factory, DZ, or manufacture rigger) - I don't have a "job" where I have any moral, emotional, financial, or other implied obligation to provide services to anyone. If I was a subcontractor or employee of an organization I may have responsibility to follow their company policy and standards as long as they were not illegal, or quit that employment. #2 - When I earned my rigger's ticket, no one made me agree to an oath, like Doctors might with the Hippocratic oath, that makes it part of my "job" to certify something I am uncomfortable accepting the risk to certify. I can say no to anything I want (and the customer can find someone who wants to say yes). #3 - If someone got hurt, there are two possible liability exposures a rigger might face. The FAA enforcement, which this letter may protect against. And the civil wrongful death lawsuit, which this letter does not address. The plaintiff's attorney will argue while the rigger's actions were against the recommendations of the manufacture, and a professional should have followed the manufacturer's instructions... A good lawyer could easily convince a jury that this FAA letter simply covers government enforcement (and it may not even be admissible if the attorney can convince the judge their claims for relief were not related to regulations)... That their client would not be dead but for the actions of the rigger ignoring the time limit recommended by the manufacture, so the rigger's actions are the proximate cause for their client's death... So, I as a rigger, reserve the right, to simply say, "Dear customer, the manufacture (or PIA/Industry Publications, etc) published a concern with components of this age, so I would rather not pack that parachute. It may be perfectly airworthy, the FAA does not prohibit me from packing it, but I am unwilling to risk it because no one will stand behind my decision if I am wrong. Sorry."

Nice one, I like the tone of that - NOT. If a rigging customer of mine can't understand why I would want to limit my own exposure and liability on higher-risk transactions with a $60 repack fee upside and a $1M lawsuit downside, they can find a new rigger and I won't mind at all. They can even swear and yell at me, but I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any liability for my actions. It is cool that there are clarifications on this subject, but I think a rigger still has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and still be a professional who is "doing his job" and not being forced to "change occupations."

Years ago a building flooded in Colorado at a state University. The walls were thick stone with plaster and drywall on the inside. The restoration company brought in large desiccant dehumidifiers. They dropped the humidity to nearly 0% inside in order to dry the building as quick as possible. Days and days went by and the exterior walls would never dry out. Turns out - the moisture from the outside air was trying so hard to be in equilibrium with the inside air, which was so abnormally dry, that the moisture moving thru the walls saturated the bricks. They turned off the dehumidifiers and quickly things went back to normal once the vapor pressure on both sides of the wall was the same. Ok, so how does this apply to reserves? Without scientific study, but with a pretty good gut feeling after soaking many canopies in rivers/lakes/swimming pools - not even ZP is waterproof like a ziplock bag. Water slowly moves thru the fabric and where it is stitched. I think if the moisture can move thru 6" of solid stone, it can move thru woven fabric too, even ZP.

Of course not... I get it. OK, so have you seen any articles in the USPA rag? I looked back at all the USPA professional newsletters for 2012. Silent... You would think 11 strikes would have piqued their interest? So I looked at: http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx I did find two wingsuit strikes, but more of the strikes were non-wingsuit (of the ones I clicked in order for the first few pages)... Maybe the USPA needs to notice this is a concern and educate - or maybe the 11 is wrong? Seems like the insurance companies have better data than the USPA. The insurance broker should be reporting data to the USPA, even if general, so they can react (because god knows DZOs are not going to self report safety issues.)

There is a thread discussing insurance concerns in skydiving, and specifically claiming "The Skydiving Industry had 11 wing suit aircraft tail strikes last year." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4372794;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread This surprised the heck out of me... 11? I have not read or been told of them. Really, 11? This is apprently the number that resulted in insurance claims... How many were self-insured and not reported? 20 then? Post here any facts or knowledge you have about a strike. Perhaps say the DZ name and approximate date so if others have info they can "quote" your post instead of making a new one, so it does not get confusing if it is the same or different strike...

I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days? Has Parachutist had a feature article? I would think at least 50% of the strikes would cause enough injury someone would notice??? Anyway - I almost had one years ago. A good friend was in the door with me, and he was stepping on my legwing/foot accidentally. When he/we left, I tumbled, with my leg wing zipper being torn open and my shoe falling off. I was told I was inches from the tail. It can happen to experienced people trying hard not to screw up, so maybe this is a problem that does exist that we need to discuss?

At a talk at PIA, Robert Feldman, the Attorney for UPT and other companies, strongly suggested that "no refunds" is a dangerous liability issue. It could be argued to a jury that a student, who got hurt, would not have jumped but for the no refund policy (i.e. making the no refund policy proximate cause for the injury.) He basically said DZOs should not advertise or discuss a no-refund policy, and if someone asks for a refund, offer it. He suggested a busy turbine DZ might have to give $1000 back a year when people ask for refunds, which is a cheap price to pay considering the costs of answering a lawsuit or settling out of court.