tdog

I 100% say digital! Here is why: 1) It is future proof (when you do night jumps and want the backlight or are using it for canopy - you will have it) 2) Analog gets stuck when it breaks. Digital goes blank or shows you an error code or serial number. No matter what your experience, if your altimeter is showing a serial number, you know you can't trust it. 3) I broke my analog twice, each time dropping it onto concrete from 4 or so feet. My digital should be broken with everything I have done to it, but it has lasted over 1000 jumps without a glitch. It falls out of my locker at least once a weekend to the concrete. (Buy the rubber condom for the neptune - it works!) 4) It tracks your jumps. It is useful for education purposes too as you can go back and see where you pulled versus where you thought you pulled. 5) Everyone who is less than 40 years old grew up with digital displays, not analog. VCRs, wrist watches, alarm clocks next to your bed and your microwave are all digital. I will bet 50 bucks to anyone who wants to bet that I could take 5 people off the street who never have skydived and show them an analog and a digital altimeter and all of them would instantly prove they can read a digital quicker and more accurately. Why would someone with a few jumps under their belt suddenly read an analog quicker? (A reason why newbies have a harder time reading the analog dial is it spins backwards. Every clock they have read in their life spin forwards. It adds even more confusion). But - I go back to the most important reason... Mode of failure. I have a video on my harddrive called "how low can you go" on a re-currency jump where I pitched at my harddeck in the jumpers face as my final attempt to get them to pull because they kept tracking thru their pull altitude and did not see any of my other attempts to get them to pull. They checked their altimeter 22 times on the jump, and their alti was found stuck at 7 grand when they landed and I saw in the video their alti was accurate in the plane and when we were docked seconds after exit. I never have seen a digital read the wrong altitude on failure, but I have seen them do stuff that says, "I am not trustworthy" such as a serial number on the display. I can teach anyone - "If the altimeter does not say an altitude, know you are on your own and have to make appropriate decisions." If you have an analog the conversation is much more complex: "If you feel your altimeter is not reading the right altitude...." IF your DZ requires analog until you have X number of jumps... Borrow one and buy a digital. I personally like the Neptune (although I like the older software better unfortunately).

Good list. Here are a few additional tidbits. 1) Remove the AAD. Treat the cables carefully. If the cutter cable is fished thru a long (longer than a few inches) fabric channel, found on some rigs, tie a small string or dental floss to the cutter going thru the cutter hole and pull the string thru the channel as you remove the cutter. This string is for later use. Tie the string off to itself so it is a big loop. It will act as a pull string or fish tape for the re-installation of the cutter later. Your rigger who will repack the rig will thank you for it. 2) Remove the packing data card. 3) Remove the cutaway and reserve handles, wash separately. 4) I dry a bit differently. I open the legstraps completely and hang the rig upside down from the showerhead pipe by the legstraps. I find a lot of rigs have "pockets" that will drip water out quicker when upside down. 5) I have seen one rig get mild color bleed where red fabric slightly pinked the adjoining white fabric. If your rig has any white or very light colors (yellow, etc) think about this risk. The bleed happens as it dries. I have used a shopvac with a soft tool to suck the water out of the fabric in areas so it can dry very quickly. May help some. 6) If you need to do legstraps only, and you are willing to be extra careful, you can put the reserve in a trashbag and seal it off. Hang the whole rig in a dry bathtub by the harness using some rope so only the legstraps are in the tub. Take the reserve in the bag and attach it to the shower curtain rod, or lay on the counter if one is near by. Carefully wash the legstraps using the procedures above. I have even done it with the main and reserve still installed when I knew there was no way for the rig to fall the tub. Just don't get the container wet if the canopies, aad, or packing data card are in it.

And (before my time) I understand you had to have a chunk of jumps before you were allowed to use one of those square parachutes. Creep is normal with changes in technology. I don't mind the creep of 500 jumps to 200 jumps for certain types of camera work as cameras have gone from huge heavy camcorders (film or VHS) to mini-cameras with memory cards that are small and light weight. With proper safe mounting, they could provide no more snag hazard than any other helmet. Most fail this snag test now, but they could. By certain type of camera work, I am not implying tandem video with stills and video. I am implying "set it and forget it" type jumps, or even video for a RW 4 way team if the skydiver is proficient (trained in the tunnel or sky). I am also not thinking still cameras as the act of taking photos requires action in freefall. Regarding wingsuits, I also don't mind (some of) the creep there either. When wingsuits were first invented, they were not well understood. They have gotten now to the point that (almost) every known risk has been identified and training can be done to mitigate those risks. So, this creep, unlike the cameras which is rooted in changes in technology, is instead rooted in understanding the equipment, in the same way we now recommend square parachutes for first time jumpers where the old initial recommendation was that jumpers needed experience before using a square. Where does this creep stop? I can't imagine technology that will allow wingsuits to creep much past the current accepted protocol of 200 (current) jumps. But cameras... Look at cell phone cameras. We have technology right now that could allow a camera to be built into a protec helmet without any extra devices mounted on the outside. Wireless video is here. Heck, in 20 years we might equip the AFF instructor and the student with video cameras with sky-to-ground communication. A 4th AFF instructor could be sitting in a room watching all three cameras and announcing verbal commands to the student in a speaker in their ear, "Arch my friend", "Dude, you have line twists, remember what you were taught and start kicking!", "Legs OUT", "You are going to overshoot the landing area, turn to the right". I am not saying I think this technology will be useful or even smart, but technology is allowing cameras to be used in ways we never have before (cell phones are now skype equipped, mobile video conferencing is here). I suspect the creep in cameras will continue...

Josh, You seem to thrive on getting people stirred up. Here is my two cents on the issue. I personally don't buy the old school argument that a modern camera is distracting in freefall. By the quality of the average go-pro camera shot, I am thoroughly convinced the skydiver not only does not have the skill to frame up a nice camera shot - nor are they trying to. Instead, we get to see minutes of nothing with a spec of a human every few seconds between glances to altis. But in all seriousness, I don't think the modern go-pro mentality is causing a lot of risk in freefall. Here is what I think are the two biggest risks: 1) Snag hazard. I have never seen such poorly designed snag hazards as the average pendant go-pro mount. When I first flew a camera, I got a helmet that completely enclosed the camera and tested the camera helmet by rubbing dental floss all over it making sure there were no snag hazards. I had 250 jumps at the time I knew I needed to start with a camera that had no snag hazard. Try that test with a go-pro! FAIL. I would personally not jump over half of the mounts I have seen! (If nothing else, I am sick of depressed skydivers walking around the DZ complaining about the go-pro that "fell off" in the door or in freefall. At least they break off and hit the ground.) 2) The modern go-pro type camera is VERY distracting in the door. Cameras 5 years ago had a cam-eye that would tell you if the camera was on, and turning it on was as easy. The new go-pro camera style has no viewfinder and a very poor method of telling the user if it is recording. I saw a bunch of 200 jump (I think less actually) guys in the door of the Otter last fall trying to get their cameras to record. The yellow light came on, then the green. Instead of doing a gear check (touching handles/check of threes) - they were struggling to ask their friend, "is this thing recording?" Then they jumped out without spotting. So in recap. To me, the two biggest problems with these small cameras: 1) HUGE snag hazard 2) Turning it on to record is not easy, no cam-eye, and is distracting in the door. Free-fall issues, well I am not overly concerned at this point. Yes, I support 200 jumps, but someone with 100 jumps I don't think is dead-man-walking with a go-pro IF the two issues above are addressed.

Wow... I just sent my PD Katana back to PD for a reline. They called me the day after it arrived with an inspection report, quote, and timetable. They promised it would be done in about a week and said it would ship on a certain date. I got an email from the shipper on that date saying it was shipped. I thought - what a wonderful company that can plan out a week ahead and deliver exactly as promised. That is why I am a loyal PD fan.

Mr. Martini: It is people like you that have caused me to stop coming to this site often. I used to have many posts per day. Now it is a few a month... Ridestrong said something he thought. Instead of saying back, "Hey, I thought it was the other way around, I looked up this info, check it out." - you sent a pretty nasty first shot across the bow. You said: Would you say that to a friend at the DZ who you disagreed with? If you did, I wonder how much respect they would have for you? If I saw you do that, I would purposely avoid jumping with you when there are so many other awesome people in the world. This is a discussion forum, not an answer forum. Discussion is normally two adults having a conversation and both learning when they are done. I know I have had heated disagreements with someone online here too, but I have tried hard to not thow out insults. Take away the voice, the face, and the human interaction, and this site suddenly becomes an insult factory. Why? I have jumped with Ridestrong. He is actually, in real life, a great guy. He also takes a lot of energy to learn the facts... And he also admits when he is wrong. He asked me for info on this subject and even quoted the PD videos he re-watched about lines. He legitimately asked people to give data online, but still no data, just more post of insults. Since in your first posts to him, you "bashed" his experience based on jump numbers - I am going to say this with a wink and a chuckle in my tone, but with also some seriousness "I have more jump numbers that what both of you published online combined. Now go apologize to the fellow for being a dick to him!"

That got me thinking. If you have enough time to disconnect the RSL, you should have enough time to steer away from the roof. As I tell people when they ask me this: But you are right - almost every small roof can be avoided, I would hope, with good technique (proper flat turn).

My opinions: If you are being pulled off a building, cutting away is the number one priority. The RSL will activate the PC and the reserve might indeed fall out of the container in the bag and if so the reserve in the bag will sit on the roof next to you. Thus, disconnecting the RSL is of lower priority because a reserve in a bag is not a timebomb in most cases. If you are still sliding off the building on a slanted roof, the reserve and it's bag will be dragging behind you, and might actually catch on something and save your fall. (Unlikely, but possible.) Also unlikely but possible is the reserve comes out of the bag and tries to inflate, but at least you have time to grab lines and control the situation. This ALL changes when you have a skyhook, in the same way that slamming on the brakes in your car on ice changes when you have anti-lock brakes vs pumping the brakes on a traditional car. Different safety systems, different issues. If you have a skyhook, and you cut away and you have enough force pulling on the RSL due to winds keeping your main inflated on the ground, there is a significant possibility the skyhook will get the reserve to linestretch in less than a second and take the bag with it. Bill Booth confirmed this in email to me once. But he (and now I) also believe that the reserve, with it's slider up, will hit the roof in a tight wad of fabric. When you pull a reserve out of a rig for a repack, it feels like a brick. It takes quite a bit of shaking for it to open up and start looking like a parachute. It is very, very likely this brick of fabric will land on the roof and remain a brick. But should it start to inflate, the slider is still up and the system will be a lot more controllable than a fully inflated main. Thus, when I have educated conversations with younger jumpers (I don't really feel this is a subject that can be taught as rules and procedures because there are so many what-ifs") - we talk about this. Clearly landing in a fast moving river - where a main could grab a rock and thus hold you under in whitewater, an RSL is going to make getting rid of your main an issue, especially with a skyhook. But on a roof - probably not... Next to a runway where you are being dragged towards the prop of a moving plane - or interstate highway towards a semi-truck, probably not. Thus, my personal belief has become - always disconnect the RSL on ocean or river water landings prior to landing unless there is no possible chance of doing it in time and controlling the landing. On a roof, it is the opposite for me - spend all my energy on an accurate and safe landing and ONLY disconnecting the RSL if the distraction will not adversely affect my ability to land safely on the roof. This is because, to me, having a RSL reserve deployment in a river is very serious, whereas an RSL reserve deployment on a roof is not. Putting all of this in the SIM would be politically challenging, opinion based, hard to digest, be specific to brands of rigs instead of universal, and controversial. Thus while I respect the SIM, for me it is just the outline/starting point/basis for further education.

He is still the manufacture. And you previously said we had to follow the manufacturer's instructions citing the FAA FARs. If other manufactures suggest their cards must be filled out differently, then we would have to respect their wishes. It is. So are about 50 other things you have to do when packing a reserve, such as counting tools, looking for SB compliance, sealing the rig with a seal, ensuring the pull force is not in excess of limits, etc. Do you ever write "Opened Manual, Aired out, Inspected, Packed, Checked for SBs, Verified Battery, Sealed, Counted Tools, Filled out Logbook?" I still contend, "I&R" has become the industry standard, along with "A, I &R" of notating that a complete reserve repack has taken place, of which, airing out is only one of many sub-actions, and therefore, the packing data card in the PRH is not in error, especially since it was provided by the manufacture as their approved technique.

I am confused. You believe the PRH is full of opinions and inaccuracies and thus needs to be replaced or rewritten. When challenged for examples by someone else, you cited the packing data card shown in the PRH as being wrong. I quoted FAA rules that specifically address what must be written in the riggers log and what must be written on the card, per the FARs. I could not find any regulations that regulate what is in the "Remarks" field of the card with enough specific detail that I would feel comfortable saying the card in the PRH violates those rules. When I challenged you on this, you just told me in the post that you have to follow the manufacturer's instructions when filling out the packing data card. Here is why I am confused... The packing data card you are criticizing as being wrong on page 7 of the PRH - was given to the FAA for their publication, by the manufacture, as an example of an appropriately filled out card for their rig. So if we are to follow the manufacturer's instructions per CFR 65.129 as you quote - then unfortunately even if you disagree with it - the card in the PRH handbook is correct since it was approved by the manufacture as an example as it appears to meet all the requirements. While I honestly think "more is better" when you write down information on a packing data card, this is my opinion and I understand it is opinion. I tend to agree with you, "A-I-R" is a better and more accurate comment to put on the card. But I know this is just opinion. I respect riggers that also put I&R because I know when they do an I&R, they must follow all the other rules, such as counting tools per the manufacturer's instructions and/or airing the canopy and/or sealing the rig, etc... Just calling you out a bit - if you are going to be very loud that the PRH is wrong, I am going to challenge you in areas where I think you believe it is wrong due opinions, not facts. P.S. I still respect you even though I challenge you (and myself) in these concepts.

P.S. I have been writing "A, I & R". I had a DZ office manager call me from out of state asking what I did. I said, "Air out, inspect and repack." They said, "is that an I&R"? I said, "yes"... Since then, I have been writing "I&R" more often because it seems that, at least in my neck of the woods, people expect to see that and expect that to mean "repack per the FAA regulations and thus let this skydiver jump it at my DZ."

Well played. Well played. So I can validate your point, what FAR or FAA document number is stamped on the bottom of the cards you use to authenticate them as being an official standard of the FAA? And - what FAR or document do you use to translate the "remarks" field to be something more specific than "remarks"? (I have three different packing data cards in front of me that simply say "remarks", not "services performed") I want to see how the packing data card places additional record keeping requirements on the rigger in addition to those I quoted from the FARs in a previous post.

MEL... Since your issue with this part of the Parachute Rigger's Handbook is that you believe the recommendations don't follow the regulations and are full of personal opinions - with all due respect, can you please cite the specific paragraph that shows that when you say "should" - it is not your personal opinion on that. FYI, one of my mentors (who then also was my DPRE) had me in my preparation for the exams compare and contrast the regulations for what a rigger must maintain in their records vs what a rigger must maintain on the parachute's records and chart this on paper... Then in the exam he verbally quizzed me on this as he read the Regulations as I recited them back by memory. This academic study of the regs, at least in my mind, proves the FAA's official regulations are different for the two separate documents. This study and then exam by my DPRE is endorsed by the FAA as the Practical Test Standards (for those non riggers, this is the document that the FAA publishes for the exam process) cites Task E being: Thus, I disagree that the documents are required to be the same (although I agree that good record keeping is complete and accurate and thus probably should be the same, but not required to be.) In fact, since the documentation regulations are different paragraphs with different words (and not merged into one paragraph or two duplicate paragraphs) - the FAA is intending the documentation requirements to be not exactly the same. For those following along who don't have the regs handy, here they are (emphasis and headings added): RIGGER'S LOGBOOK (a) Each certificated parachute rigger shall keep a record of the packing, maintenance, and alteration of parachutes performed or supervised by him. He shall keep in that record, with respect to each parachute worked on, a statement of (1) Its type and make; (2) Its serial number; (3) The name and address of its owner; (4) The kind and extent of the work performed; (5) The date when and place where the work was performed; and (6) The results of any drop tests made with it. (b) Each person who makes a record under paragraph (a) of this section shall keep it for at least 2 years after the date it is made. PACKING DATA CARD (c) Each certificated parachute rigger who packs a parachute shall write, on the parachute packing record attached to the parachute, the date and place of the packing and a notation of any defects he finds on inspection. He shall sign that record with his name and the number of his certificate. ---- analysis of the regs: ITEMS IN COMMON Date of service Place of service Defects found If the parachute was packed and inspected (indirectly implied by the words "the date and place of the packing and a notation of any defects he finds") ITEMS UNIQUE FOR RIGGER'S RECORDS Kind and extent of work performed Results of Drop Tests Type and Make (although 'make' is normally also a printed on the parachute card) Name and address of owner (although these are normally also printed fields commonly found on the parachute card) ITEMS UNIQUE FOR PACKING DATA CARD Signature (Name) Certificate Number So MEL, where do I have it wrong? Where is it more than opinion, but regulation, that the card MUST say "A, I, & R" instead of "packed"?

If your DZO won't let you borrow cheaply student or larger rigs, find your local old-skool flag and smoke demo jumper and borrow their rig. Normally a BASE canopy fits nicely in their rigs since they jump huge canopies. Part of testing any canopy is having a realistic opening. In addition to safety of the rig, when the canopy fits, you can test your packjobs and techniques.

Basically - I have had my Vigil stay on for over a week. I know someone who had theirs stay on for over a month. YOU NEED TO TURN IT OFF AT THE END OF THE DAY... Fixes all concerns. My loft, specifically my sofa, is 140 feet higher than the dropzone. (I actually had a survey person onsite for other reasons and had them give me altitude to the nearest 1/4 inch of the concrete below my balcony and then I dropped a tape measure... For the DZ I used the published FAA specs of the runway.) Only once (I intentionally leave it on and then inspect the next day just to see what happens just for my own curious mind) have had the Vigil stay on "forever". There was a weather front that came thru that day and that was all it took to confuse it enough to think my sofa was airborne since my sofa is already feet below airborne anyway. Note - the car ride home does go over 150 ft in altitude over the landing area, so there are many factors. Never the less, your comment OK. Since most people are not airborne at the end of the day, that would seem not to apply. Read out of context, would confuse someone to think, they don't have to turn off the Vigil. No matter what the manual says, turning it off fixes all chances of staying on and future misfires due to staying on going to a different DZ.

In fact - if you install a current meter in parallel, you "dead short" the circuit across the two poles you are metering. I found this out a few times in my life when I was sloppy and had my meter with the probes in the current metering configuration and touched them to, say, a 480 volt circuit in a service disconnect. Makes pretty sparks, dirties up the end of your probes, and requires a new fuse to be installed in the meter. But for a split second you get to see the full potential of that nuclear powerplant down the street across your meter.

The Vigil Misfire list due to ground calibration issues (joining multiple posts into one): UPDATED JANUARY 9, 2011 May 6 2009 I created this thread when my Vigil stayed on for 3 days. You may go to the first post and relive the debate if you wish. May 18 2009 a Vigil fired above the desired altitude. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3572705;search_string=vigil;#3569998 I received word from two reliable sources that the user took their rig from about 5,500 feet MSL to a sea level DZ without turning off their Vigil. It fired in freefall as it was calibrated to the wrong DZ. May 22, 2009 http://www.vigil.aero/...Airborne_Status_.pdf Vigil posted an official informational bulletin. June 20, 2009 Another Vigil user took their rig from about 5,500 feet above sea level - to sea level, and it fired in a midsize formation with people docked to the user. My good friend was in the formation and he told me the Vigil was on for MANY WEEKS before it went on the vacation to California. Based upon the group, who are my friends, I can only speculate that they were sharing rigs and thought someone else turned on the AAD as most people are in the "Cypres Mindset" that when it is on, it is on, that it will turn off on its own, and it would not be on from a jump 5 weeks prior so don't worry about rebooting if you were not the person to jump it on the very last jump. Jan 9, 2011 A Vigil II fired approximately the same time that the main fully inflated (The jumper estimated 2,500 ft AGL). This Vigil had been turned on by its owner the day before at a DZ that is 1261 ft MSL. The next day (today) he jumped at a DZ where field level is 88 ft. The Vigil was never turned off and back on to allow it to adjust for the new altitude.

Wow, again... I can name many "pros" and "cons" for a vigil staying on when it thinks it is not on the ground. I actually think this is a bonus in many ways. But over and over again they are firing by people who are making mistakes. Before you trash me by saying, "it was carelessness, they should have read the manual", I know the people in one of the previous incidents. They were brothers and shared just about everything. When they got to the foreign DZ they carried gear in together, one purchased tickets for both of them, while the other got gear out of the car for both of them. Because it had been over a month since they jumped, both brothers assumed the other brother turned on their vigil when they found it on. The rig(s) were jointly owned, meaning they shared equipment and called the gear "ours" not "that is his and this is mine". I see a lot of this in young brothers and husbands and wives that skydive. So, it was 100% logical that the AADs were turned on by the other brother that day and neither thought to ask. Of course assumptions can kill, we all know that... But I still beg the Vigil manufacture to make a simple change to the software to help. When the unit starts up it displays a lot of words, and finally displays "pro". So having text on the display is already designed. Why not have two words: "On Ground" or "In Sky" on the display. This way, on gear check the person knows their vigil is miscalibrated. It could show "In Sky" when the altitude is dangerously off, not just minor differences due to barometric pressure.... Say, 350 feet off of calibration... In addition, the unit could say "reset me" or something like that on the 12 hour mark. That would clue everyone that it has been on too long and is about ready to turn off - or that it has been on so long (like overnight or months) - that it needs to be calibrated. Yes, all of this could be fixed if the users would just turn off their Vigils before leaving the DZ... But then again, if users were perfect we would not need AADs in the first place! Signed, a happy Vigil owner who just wants the best product out there.

Mel, good morning. 1) You are right, it was NOT you who made the mistake on the rigging. I never meant to say it was you. Actually, I said it was an out of town rigger who I had not met, we actually met at PIA in Reno, therefore it can't be you! EVERYONE - I know of no mistakes made by MEL in rigging workmanship. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. 2) "Who in their right mind is going to list publicly, things that will surely drag them into a court trial?" Well, I never asked for, at the time, any details that would bring people into a court case... Just statistical information with links back to publicly available incident reports (such as dropzone.com incident threads or USPA reports on their website). And the public request included a way to get in touch with me privately with my phone number and email address included to allow private replies. You and Terry and some others did respond. Skydivers talk about fatalities and incidents all the time without fear of court cases. Because no one replied with any data other than a few anecdotal stories, I tore thru all the incident reports I could and found that rigging mistakes done by riggers of any kind are appear to be not statistically significant in the fatality reports. Rigging mistakes done by non-riggers seem to be much more of an issue. We all see online and in person sloppy workmanship here and there - for an example there was a rig posted online that had non-factory approved mods. But this is a perfect example of how the rigger (senior or master) failed to follow the directive both types of riggers have to follow - in my own words only do what you are trained to do, know how to do, and have been approved to do. 3) You said my idea to do away with a general "master" rating and replace it with endorsements was "way to complicated"... Well, I think it could be done with ease. A document, either in the Parachute Handbook, in the regs themselves, or in separate circular, could outline in table form types of repairs and maintenance and the cert required. There are only really a few types of things in the big picture, canopy fabric, canopy lines and their attachments, and the container. Replacing or repairing lines is a skillset. Sewing container harnessing is a skillset. Sewing or repairing container fabric and hardware (grommets, AAD pockets, etc) is a skillset. Sewing parachute fabric is a skillset. So there are basically 4 big picture "repair or maintenance" skillsets: harness, container, lines, parachute. It would be so simple to say that a senior rigger can only assemble, inspect, and pack rigs - period. To sew on a reserve, you need endorsements for non-seam patches and a higher standard endorsement for seams and attachment points. To repair or replace lines you need a line checkoff. To sew or replace non-structural components on the container an endorsement, and a higher standard endorsement for structural/harness modifications or repairs. Truck drivers do it... Class A and B (A = tractor trailer, B = no trailer but bus or heavy trucks) drivers licences, with sub-endorsements of tanker, bus, hazmat, multiple trailers, etc. Pilots do it... Start as a private. Once you get hours, experience and testing you can add more endorsements. It could be kept simple enough, but at the same time prove that riggers have the experience, mentoring, and testing required to do tasks. Each endorsement would need logbook entries of supervised work, followed by a letter from a rated individual as a reference, and then an exam conducted by a DPRE in the area of operation. I wonder why? Honestly, why? I am confused, perhaps you can explain more. Perhaps it is because you don't know me well and don't know my experience other than what we have talked about online (some of it being devil's advocate). I don't share everything online, and we only have briefly met in person - therefore you assume my outlook is limited or different in some way. Here is the flaw in the system, and perhaps why I don't place creditability in it. Some master riggers are great (I assmue you would be one of these). As all government systems do, they also can fail... One master riggers, again someone I met out of state briefly, but not you, told me how he got his master's... He worked as a reserve packer in a busy reserve loft at a dropzone for a summer and racked up over 100 sport back reserve packjobs, but had previous years of experience to earn the 3 year requirement. He then purchased a used seat rig and packed it over and over and over again until his log book had the proper number. Then he went and got his master's with a "few hours of testing"... He coached me how to do it with pride. Over the years we (you and I) have debated the concept of who should be able to replace a lineset. This guy had never replaced a lineset, just done some repairs here and there, but somehow got his masters. Contrast that to someone who actually wanted to learn, and actually has walked up to three master riggers and said, "Can I replace that lineset while you watch and teach me?" and who went to seminars at PIA for an example on the same subject. If I was a customer, I would want the senior rigger who has been mentored by experts any day over the master rigger who pencil whipped his ticket. Granted, this story is not the typical master rigger - but I have seen more than one who just did not impress me as being a "master". If we switched to my "more complicated" system of actually testing knowledge, and demanding experience - for a "rigger" to get a cert allowing him to repair or replace linsets - this master rigger who pencil whipped his ticket, would have had to have documented a certain quantity of lineset replacements under supervision in his apprenticing program, followed by a practical exam on the area of operation. Now all of a sudden this "master" rigger level certificate would mean something other than slamming a lot of packjobs and finding a DPRE that will sign you off. Even if this guy cheated the system and pencilwhipped his experience, he would have had to pass a specific test and shown the knowledge, and thus at least appear to be qualified. In recap - You said it yourself, you talk to Washington all the time, I just am hoping that you are striving for change (or reversal of unintended change) that really matters, really promotes safety, and is focused on areas of weakness that are currently documented in real, statistically significant, not theoretical, issues appearing in the field.

And we all know rigs built today are identical to those built 25 years ago. Change can be good. Perhaps it was lack of oversight, perhaps it was intentional that change occurred... But the one thing the FAA does well is be reactionary. Reactionary to either people crying loud for regulations to be made more strict, or reactionary to incidents... I just wish those who write letters to "legal" and host meetings with "legal" were more concerned with education, cooperation, and finding and preventing the root causes of real safety concerns than advocating for more government regulations. A while back I asked the community for a list of known incidents and/or fatalities caused by poor workmanship illegally (or even legally) done by senior riggers. I have read every fatality report in the archives. I question, from my own research, if this is a problem that "legal" should be tackling with a lot of energy. I have seen one of my best friends and a lot of people I have known die in our sport, so I do take this seriously and study incidents with serious concern. One of the first rigs I inspected as a rigger, years ago, was previously inspected and assembled by a well respected out of state rigger with the word "master" infront of his title that I recognized in the community by name, but not by face. It was a wakeup call when the reserve lines fell off the riser due to human error. I discovered he was doing a task he had never done before and made assumptions that he knew how to do the task. I have personally come to believe that the concept of "senior" and "master" are silly and just ways for the government to try to regulate with good intentions but poor implementation. Just as silly as the "back" vs "seat" when I think these should really be "sport" and "emergency" as packing a single parachute round is so different than packing a dual parachute sport rig. It is pretty clear that the FAA requires riggers to only do work that they 1) have the manual or instructions to complete and 2) have experience and training in the area of operation. I think the solution is to make these rules (perform only tasks you are trained/mentored to do) even stronger in the language and placement within the regs. There is no reason why a senior rigger, who has mentored under a qualified instructor, should not be able to replace, for an example, a line or lineset after mentoring and "signoff". But that same rigger might have only packed 2 or 3 pilot emergency rigs to get their rating and be terribly uncurrent in rounds. If you want to advocate regulations, I rather see the rigger certificate to be more closely aligned with a pilot's licence, where a senior rigger can do certain tasks, and then they can add tasks by testing and mentoring, just like a pilot can add instrument, multi engine, commercial, etc to his private pilot's license.

My record student: FJC most of the day Saturday, me teaching, him student - about 5 people in the class. Levels 1 thru 3 Saturday after the class until sunset (summer, late day sunsets) Learn to pack Saturday night Sunday, levels 3 thru 7 and his first solo. ALL WHILE HE PACKED FOR ME while I was working with another student so he could jump quicker - and yes I paid him for the three packjobs he did for me that day. Abnormal, but the standard I use for "working hard to get thru AFF quickly."

Gas vs hot air balloon? Shape? Design? I downloaded the FAA approved flight manuals for a few different manufactures of hot air balloons, and 500-1000 feet per minute are common limits published by the manufactures in the flight manual the FAA certified pilots must adhere to... Here is one snippet: The FAA written test for pilots identifies the risk of climbing too quickly is the deflation vents on the top of the balloon being pushed open and venting the balloon.

So you said your balloon was at 4,000 feet when a three way left, and shortly (I interpret that to be 45 seconds) after the balloon was at 5,000 feet. You had thus 1333 feet per minute (or more) of climb. I don't know anything about the balloon you jumped out of, and I honestly know little about balloons in general, but I know that is a extremely high rate of climb for a balloon. That is over 15 MPH. The balloon envelope was shooting up at 15 MPH. Assuming the air around you was not rising or falling due to weather, 15 MPH of air resistance was pushing against the top of the balloon as the balloon moved thru the air around it. The balloon has a hole on the bottom of the balloon for the burner. So the only thing that keeps the balloon inflated is the hot air rising inside the balloon and the resistance of pushing a lot of air out of the relatively small hole on the bottom. There is a point where a balloon will be flattened like a pancake when the air pressure pushing against the top of the envelope from the outside is greater than the pressure inside created from the warm air wanting to rise. I could not find "maximum rate of climb" on any of the manufacturer's websites, but I found that your balloon came real close to some award winning rates of climbs in competitions for competition balloons... If the "short time after" was 30 seconds, you broke those records. if the short time after was a minute or more than you were far from those records... It all depends on what "short time after" was. I have to assume (and hope) your balloon pilot was an expert and flew his balloon within the limits. He should have rate of climb instrumentation to know this... I do know this - The 5 person balloons I have jumped out of, the pilots sometimes don't let more than one person jump at a time, often two are allowed, but they don't want 3 ways... That is 3/5ths of their weight suddenly leaving, something that takes skill to fly and is risky to the balloon as if the balloon was in equilibrium before the group left, it suddenly has way too much lift energy for the new mass it has to lift. The larger balloons pilots, flying the 10+ capacity balloons, they don't seem to care at all about group sizes of 3 because 3/10ths of their weight leaving is much different than 3/5ths. So I ask this, did the pilot have the balloon in a very fast decent before the 3 way left? Was he actively flying the balloon and giving commands? If not, perhaps you want to talk to him about the limitations of his balloon to see if you need to adjust your plans for the next jump?

I was (unfortunately) a witness to a downplane fatality due to a low pull followed by an AAD fire. The injuries were indicative of someone who hit the ground belly to earth per the coroner's report and from what we saw. The injuries appeared, medically, to be as if someone hit a solid object at 65 miles per hour chest first. It is possible the skydiver was only somewhat belly to earth in a head high orientation, but it appears the skydiver was definitely not butt, feet, or back to earth when they met the ground.

Besides for the FAA rules, I have learned this over the years of doing a lot of jumps: 1) The balloon pilot MUST understand the risks associated with losing the ballast of your weight. The balloon should be either holding altitude or descending rather quickly when you leave. If you leave in a twoway - it is especially important for the balloon to be aggressively descending. This is normally done by pulling a rope and the pilot approving your jump the moment he detects the decent he approves of. If the balloon "shoots up" when you leave, due to not being in a decent and losing your weight suddenly, the air pressure hitting the top of the balloon skin will pancake it and push the hot air out of the bottom of the balloon, causing freefall of all involved. I was told it caused a fatality once, but I don't have the specific reports. Either way, a balloon pilot should understand the risks of dumping ballast. Even with this warning I have had novice balloon pilots complain they did not appreciate how fast they had to descend. Pretty much descend as quickly as they can safely and the second you leave either they will stop descending or perhaps climb again. 2) ALWAYS carry your cell phone and have the number of the balloon pilot, the balloon chase crew, and every other skydiver on the load. It is possible the balloon will be covering a lot of ground and you won't land near the other skydivers, and it is almost a promise you won't land near the balloon. 3) Landing areas - the balloon pilot will know where is legal, and where is "acceptable" for the balloon to land in their normal flying areas. Land there. Not on crops, not on government controlled open spaces, etc... Back roads, county roads, or even paths between crops are often great areas. I have met many landowners/residents and all have been nice when I thanked them and they saw I did not land on their crops.