zipplewrath

I have to chuckle. Sorry, but this is sorta an "okay boomer" moment. In the northern climes, no one had a "currency jump" despite not having jumped for6 months or so. Bajeezus people, we jump out of airplanes toward certain death. No one cares if your canopy or relative work skills are up to stuff. We enjoy flying DESPITE the risks for good God's sake.

Uh, no, I don't know this. It's an Air Force Base that does testing of experimental aircraft. There are many bases that doing aircraft and other testing. Most military jumping is probably done out of Fort Bragg.

I've got two reserves, ones been packed 25 years, the other for 14 years. I'm wondering if anyone is doing reserve age testing where they could make use of such things?

I was #5 on Flyaway 10. I always remember your father with a smile. Sorry that his last year was a battle. But I have to admit, Dick knew how to fight. May he rest now forever.

I've got about 200 jumps on a strato star. That's actually still in the Greenstar. But I don't really expect anyone to want to jump or install these reserves. I kinda figure at this point their only value is for testing.

Sorry, shoulda included what I knew. The oldest is a 24 foot 4 line release. Manufacturer is listed as "Steinthal". Last packed on 4-28-84. Packed in a modified Greenstar. The second is a Swift 5 cell packed in a Mirage from about '88. Well, the rig is, the last pack job is from about 2001.

So, I have a couple of reserves in old rigs that have been packed for between 10 and 20 years. They've been stored in air conditioned spaces and just been sitting there. The question is what to do with them. I can't envision anyone actually wanting them for skydiving. I do wonder if there is anyone, or any organization doing aging tests that might be interested for any reason.

You'd have a hard time proving such an assertion. Examples abound of aeronautical activities that don't have much FAA interference. I'm not saying that they are completely useless, but the historical reality is that they are mostly a handy structure for individuals to access when they want to take action. In and of themselves they rarely if ever take action on their own. PIA is perfectly capable of fully representing the sport, and the reality is that many of the same people involved in these actions through USPA could act through PIA as well. In fact, many either are, or work for, organizations that are also members of PIA. USPA isn't necessary, and there is surely no justification for them being nearly as "mandatory" as they are.

The one that fits. I had a mirage for years. Somewhere along the line I got hooked on Racer. The old expression turned out to be true for me. The Vector looks great on the packing table, the Racer fits your body. I suspect it has alot more to do with fit than anything else. Whatever fits is going to work well. The hard part is that you really need a "custom" fit to know. And of course it helps if the container was intended to hold the size main and reserve you will fill it with.

>>If you dont like dead ppl...this is the wrong sport.... >>Its like being a motocrosser and dont like dirt... >Despite whuffo perceptions, dead bodies are not >stacked like cordwood around the drop zone. You >are more likely to trip over a dead body when >you're out on a motocross bike than when you are >landing at a DZ Can't claim to know any real data for motocross. But that sounds suspiciously like "the drive to the DZ is more dangerous" kind of claim. I've never known anyone who died while involved in motocross, and I've known a few. A bunch of them got all busted up real bad though. On the other hand, I've known way too many who have died skydiving. Now, in general motorcycling riding, I've always been a tad suspicious that skydiving and riding had some similar risks, mostly because of the other cars. Either way, motocross is about the dirt, skydiving is about air, not death.

Well, I see things a tad differently, but the reality is that, yes, nothing new here. You're right, change the names and it'd fit in alot of places around the country. Look, as consumers, as a sport, we long ago "sold our soles to the company store". We're the spouse that sticks around as long as there's a nice house, a club membership, and a credit card that never fills up. We don't care who the spouse is sleeping with. We decided that we don't care a wit about how DZ's are run, by whom, or to a great degree for what price. We don't care who they throw off, what rules they break, or what they charge. From the DZ at Las Vegas, to all of the Skyride affiliated DZ's, we don't care what you do as long as you make planes fly close to where we live. Individually, we can all get in snits over one thing or another. But collectively there are always vastly more people who don't care than do.

In the end, there aren't alot of angels here. SDC got started by some folks that basically wanted in on "the action" and so started their own DZ. Richards was looking back then for a "winter" location for "His" plane (He may have only had one at that time, I don't remember). George would let it come down, but he'd fly his planes first. Richards was getting 2-3 flights per day some times. Joanie was running a store that had to "compete" with the gear store at the DZ. So the uncharitable expression is that what we have here is a case of the whores arguing over territory. Now, TK is a "late comer" to this game. I was no big fan of the way TK ran the place, but he was hired to come in an bring some business acumen to a situation that hadn't seen much up until then. It was a DZ rats paradise up until then with planes flying VERY light and a manifest that had trouble remember if you paid, or how much you owed. On more than one occasion, I had to tell THEM how many jumps I had made. And they'd keep forgetting to use the blank checks I left on deposit so there would be 2 -3 weeks of jumps on one check. And TK never made many bones about the fact that it was a business. I had run throughs with him in the early days when he harvested emails and hired someone to send out some VERY early SPAM when that still wasn't cool. TK was never going to do well at the State Department, but he was probably not fitting well at IBM either. All which leads up to the current situation. Many people credit Richards with bringing turbine aircraft to skydiving. One can make a case that he was merely one of the earliest. But when he first started showing up in Florida with his plane, we were doing 30+ minute climbs to altitude in WWII era planes. Within a couple of years there were ALOT of turbines flying (heck, even Eustis had a turbine at one point). And he had a program that was VERY popular called "frequent flyer", when you flew on his planes ANYWHERE, you got a coupon. After some number (20?) you "earned" a free jump. So there are no angels, but even I hesitate to truly call them whores. They've all made their contributions, but their motivations weren't particularly "pure" nor about "making skydiving better". They were about the money from right up front. And to a great degree they've been fairly "up front" about that part. Drama and Z-Hills go together a bit like skydiving and beer lights. And that will take ya all the way back to AT LEAST Hooper. And aircraft disputes go back to AT LEAST 40 Tango.

Most folks I knew that did both, would admit that SCUBA was more dangerous that skydiving. It's a strange calculation, but in the end, you know pretty quickly you're in trouble in skydiving and can start taking proper actions. In SCUBA, you can be getting into more and more trouble and not necessarily know it until it may be too late.

I was lucky enough to be around in the "bad old days" when this was pretty easy to do. It usually required a short sit down with the TM. Heck, I was on a 12 way with a skydiver's wife's 2nd tandem. We had fun.

Well, it's important in hypothetical to discuss the assumptions behind them. In this case, why would 90% of the membership be voting? You get the "beauty contest" now because people don't really have much they expect/need/want from USPA. If for some reason 90% of the membership voted, it would imply they had some interest in the outcome. Depending upon what those interests were it could significantly alter the outcomes.

I really can't say that they "shouldn't" be allowed. It's more a case of wondering why folks continue to elect so many of them. In the end I began to suspect that what was really happening was that the few thousand that bother to vote at all, are people who predominately have an interest in the industry, or in the operations of a DZ. They can be instructors, professional jumpers of almost any sort, plus packers, riggers in general, or others in the larger industry. Obviously not everyone that votes is in that group, but one can surmise that alot of these folks do choose to vote. And they will obviously have a certain affinity for others in the industry. The real problem is that there are so many members that don't vote. That's because there are so many who are members because they feel they have to. They have little interest in USPA or any of their programs. They care more about what the DZ owner does. They just wanna jump.

You might be surprised how much "you" have already donated to this thing. The USPA was instrumental in some of the early seed money for this thing, and the land purchase. IIRC it was over 100 grand.

I'm not particularly interested in being "taken" seriously (or otherwise) and I'd dispute that any of this discussion has anything to do with remaining self-policing. (not as long as there are ultralights). However, I'd agree with the statement; "We should all strive to UNDERSTAND the industry standards and why and where they came from". Standards make a presumption about the level of safety I want to achieve and that's going to be different for all of us, as is aptly demonstrated by our base brotheren. None the less one can't know their level of risk if they don't know why it's risky. It's up to them if they choose to take them or not - but they sure do look silly trying to defend those risks if they don't even know they exist. And equally silly not knowing why it's risky yet trying to "enforce" them anyway. I made a tight landing into an area of a DZ that was officially off limits "due to safety". Small place with more rules than they could enforce. After accomplishing it, I got an ear full from some self appointed cop. I calmly asked what was dangerous about it. The of the list of 5 things mentioned, none of them applied that day. I knew all of them and more. I had "shot" approaches at this spot probably 20 times in different conditions and taken the bailout everytime. There were alot of hazards depending upon winds and just the number of other jumpers around (they could easily "pinch" you between the landing area and some power lines). But the winds were right, the sky was clear of jumpers, and I passed into the point of no return dead on target. The risk was no greater than any other nominal landing I'd done. I learned alot, I built skills by trying this, and if I ever NEEDED to do it, I would know the approach well. And after the cop left, I spent 20 minutes discussing the landing with some 200 jump wonder explaining everything I knew. I learned as much from the rule breakers as from the instructors.

It was a relaitively serious question. In my 20+ years I've gone through a few realizations and one of them ultimately was that there are few guarantees in skydiving. For all the hoopla about supposedly "outlaw" or "unsafe" DZ's, I never particularly saw anything at the "safe" ones that I didn't see at the supposedly "dangerous" ones. Mostly it was a case of whether is was acknowledged or not. But in the end, some of the "safest" skydivers I knew died some of the most horrible deaths. Skydiving fatalities are a fairly rare event. It is hard to correlate them to any particular set of rules or features of a particular DZ. One of the most "Outlaw" DZ's I spent time at actually was pretty "safe". The outlaws knew what they were doing and as we loaded more than one of them in the ambulance, they'd often admit that they were aware this day was coming. Alternately, they made excellent "morality lessons" for the students about why the "rules" exist. I don't mind folks, or DZ's that want to take elevated risks. I just feel the need to ensure they understand that they are.

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that people don't die at "good" DZ's or that they just die "differently"?

Rita was one heck of a topic for a while both on and off rec.skydiving. Her tenure challenged just about every philosophy there was in skydiving, especially with respect to instruction. More than one of us found ourselves on the odd side of our normal positions. It's hard to watch someone laugh their way into disaster with gusto and joy. You didn't have to be "rule lover or tight ass" to see the obvious. But you needed one heck of a commitment to "live and let live" to not try to say something. In the end, it was hard to deny, she had fun.

Your assertions not withstanding, the ultralight aircraft industry did not follow the path you describe. They were extensively deregulated a couple of decades ago. The FAA is predominently interested in money, and there just isn't that much money in skydiving. The various marginal areas of aviation (gliders, ballons, etc.) haven't suffered at particularly because of their "second tier" status. Skydiving will always be connected to the aircraft, and the aircraft will always be regulated. Getting us classified outside of the normal aviation rules could allow us to be exempt from most of the rules governing parachutes. The biggest danger of moving outside of the FAA would be the occasional airport access issues that come up, and I haven't been impressed over the years that it particularly helps in that area.

And this is the source of the problem. You're right one "has" to belong to USPA. Oh, you can get around it here and there, but ultimately some boogie, some competition, some DZ is going to demand it and offer to sign you up on the spot. Which is why folks say you "have" to belong to jump. Functionally, it's true. The only reason it's true is because DZ's want you to have liability insurance. Some smart critter is going to figure out one day that just like the car rental companies, there's money to be made in them thar liability policies. And then those DZO's with so much to protect are going to figure out it's a better deal to require their jumpers to buy it from them, than to let USPA get the cash. A daily, weekly, or monthly policy could be fairly easy to sell. Especially in places where jumping is limited to 6 months or so. About that time USPA ain't gonna have nearly the clout they have had. They might even kill the GM program about that point. Heck, they'd be forced to go back to serving the weekend jumper. Then most of them would stop running for office.

billvon's condescension not withstanding, I understand what you are getting at. Unfortunately, I also suspect that much of your ire comes from trying to make money at this game. Otherwise, why would anyone care about what the airplane drivers think? Especially when it is about airshows, you're just trying to join "the cool kids". Only now you've figured out that it is almost easier to start your own clique. The Zen folks would suggest you just be happy with what you're doing and stop trying to please people. Donald Trump would just tell you to get another job.

Wow, how fast things spin out of control. Grip switching in a narrow context is a crutch which can inhibit the very jump one is attempting to accomplish. It can also be a crutch which can enable bad personal flying habits. That's in a narrow contex. If I open up the window a tad, there are plenty of situations in which a grip switch can be a useful tool, even if merely in a form of "risk reduction". When working with people coming up the skill level _I_ might execute a grip switch with them to avoid losing them. I wouldn't necessarily tell them to execute one since they can funnel the whole thing doing that. But I'd know when to let go, when to hold on. I'm trying to remember the move, but fun jumpers used to regularly use one on some block sequence; bi-pole, donut? Bi-pole Bi-pole? I can't remember. But the "trick" was that I guess it wasn't technically a grip switch so much as a significantly delayed release. One guy would keep a leg grip through much of the piece move and only release it as the new formation was closing. Mostly it allowed you to aggressively move through a block. In large formations, we used them to do major shifts. Inner sections might release a grip and drift back until they unfolded and met another grip. Dunno if that technically qualifies as a grip switch or not. We used to regularly do a large donut-cat-donut with 20 folks or more that was really nothing more than on big huge grip switch as you unfolded the donut and picked up the other leg, kept it moving and then released the opposite leg to reform the opposite donut. The "bad, very bad" is mostly about 4-8 way where you have folks basically climbing all over each other and dragging folks back/down/out in the process. It was a very common technique in the early days of RW before folks realized it was better to keep flying than to turn every dive into a horny gorrilla.