skyguyscott

Just out of curiosity, would you want to ride in an airplane flown by a pilot who had been saving up and planning and got his commercial license in one weekend? Also, you may not know but if the DZ at which you are training follows the United States Parachute Association Integraged Student Program, you will discover that the old 7-level AFF program is actually now Categories A-E, and incorporate much more than just the jumps; there are reading assignments and discussions about topics like wing loading, airport runway headings, spotting, winds aloft, traffic patterns, common airport operations, obstacle avoidance, collision avoidance, in-depth emergency reviews that include hanging-harness exercises, familiarity with rules and basic safety requirements, gear checks and pre-flight, and an introduction to packing parachutes, to name a few other items on the agenda. And that is just to finish the AFF portion to be cleared for self-supervised solo jumping, but not enough to get your A-license, which is accomplished by graduating to coach jumps, Categories F, G, and H, where you learn to track away from other jumpers and safely dive,fly and dock on other jumpers, along with more advanced canopy skills, It's a lot; way more than just about anyone can squeeze into a full week, much less one weekend. But don't be discouraged by this, rather be stoked that you will actually get to master all these topics and be not only skilled, but safer in the air.

We are working on revising our student recurrency requirements. The USPA SIM is rather vague on what exactly should be done and when. What we had in place was based, IIRC, on something an old Instructor Rating Manual, which outlined the following: Students who have not jumped in: 30 days - recurrency training. 60 days - recurrency training and repeat last skydive. >6 months, retake all portions of the FJC and do a Cat B skydive as an evaluation jump. We are having difficulty in finding the above in any industry standard documentation. Does anyone know where the above protocol comes from? Our main concern in revising this policy is to come up with something that is on solid legal grounds, i.e. something based on a documented industry standard that would be persuasive in a civil suit. I am not, frankly, interested in whatever someone thinks is the "best" way to do recurrency training, I am looking for something that works that is "law suit proof", or failing that, something that has the best chance of defense in a law suit in US civil court.

A very old thread, but I'll add what just a few have alluded to. When I started jumping back in the Reagan Administration, we were jumping Mantas and for the longest time, we were taught, for lack of a better term, a one-stage flare, but we were on radio and most of the time we flared all the way when we were instructed to. Later, after I had been instructing FJCs for a while, we taught 2-stage in class, and not because we were trying to teach a perfect flare to first jump students, but simply because of the near-universal student propensity to flare WAY TOO HIGH, WAY TOO SOON. But on their first jumps with radio, to avoid having the students flare too soon, starting at about 80 feet, the radio operator would start to say, "Hands all the way up, all the way up, READY, READY, READY, READY, FLARE FLARE FLARE" The main point here is that the REASON we taught them to do a 2-stage flare was not to teach an optimum performance flare for a first (and, let's be honest, often only) time jump, but to prevent the student from shooting their wad all at once at 50 feet. So we would tell students to flare to their shoulders at 15 feet, then when they realize they are in fact at 50 feet, to hold there until they get down to 12 feet, and then flare all the way. Later, as they transition to different canopies, or in later categories where they are refining their flare in the canopy dive flow, we can start to talk about optimum flares. B-license requirements now include a canopy course which I think is a much more appropriate time and place to get into the finer points of flaring, rather than in the FJC. A first jump student already has a very full plate to digest as it is. They are likely not going to remember very much about flare techniques when they are instead more worried about malfunctions, obstacles, dive flows and so on and on and on.

So now that ppl have routinely been standing shoulder to shoulder in crowded bars, not social distancing at beaches and pools, and resuming tandem skydiving, any reports of TIs contracting COVID? Are TI’s that do tandem jumps being routinely tested?

The reality is wind tunnels, and those working at the wind tunnels are financially incentivized and invested in creating tunnel rats. They are not there to create skydivers just as skydivers aren’t incentivized to create tunnel rats. Tunnels can certainly help skydivers, but skydivers don’t need windtunnels in order to skydive. What did we do before windtunnels were invented? There are many skills like tracking for instance that she will never learn in a wind tunnel. And what about all of the canopy experience? It’s worth noting that very few skydivers die in freefall. You could certainly argue that canopy and traffic skills are far more important than freefall skills.

A complete and total quarantine is not necessary to stop the coronavirus, just look at what other countries have done to successfully bring their infection rates down to near zero. But it is certainly possible to put a moratorium on tandems until we discover and implement a way to do them without risk of transmission. In the meantime, our DZ is having remarkable success in steering people toward the static line or AFF program. This also has the added benefit of introducing more people to the sport itself and has the potential of increasing the number of licensed skydivers in the sport.

I am limiting the scope here to tandem skydiving. I think with the proper precautions and critically, social distancing and barriers such as masks and face shields we can help minimize the risk of transmission doing a lot of the other activities. But even so the virus doesn’t care, until we have a proven safe and effective vaccine, it will continue to find a way to spread as ruthlessly fast as it possibly can. I do think the fastest way and least lethally way to get back to normal is to do a hard stop, but we don’t seem to have the patience or support for that in this country. Evidently we would rather string this along until we or someone we care about is affected, and after the losses reach apocalyptic levels. As of now Canada has 87,000 total confirmed cases, compared to 1,700,000+ in this country. New Zealand and Germany have dealt with their outbreaks much more successfully. We are now averaging over 1000 confirmed Covid deaths a day. FWIW that is the equivalent of two 9/11s every week. In the last three or four months, USA has had more casualties to this pandemic then we have had in all our wars since World War II combined - in just three months! While the trend is declining in some states, it is increasing rapidly in other states and is still on the rise measured nationwide. And those are just the stats on fatalities.

Yes, we monkeys want the sugar so bad, we won’t let go, even to save our lives.

If we are to survive this pandemic in the quickest and least lethal way, we need to stop thinking in terms of YOUR situation and MY situation and realize that it is in fact our situation

I’m not really sure I understand how knowing the statistics on Covid mortality rates would inform a decision to resume Tandem jumping. What number would be acceptable? Or put another way, what odds would convince you that playing Russian roulette was safe or within an acceptable risk range? Besides, the stakes go far beyond mortality. There is also the possibility of a long, protracted illness that may result in lingering, perhaps permanent damage to certain organs and senses. There is also a very real likelihood of spreading a potentially fatal illness to others, including those most close to you, such as your aging parents, grandparents significant others, and close friends, and in turn, their parents, grandparents, friends in an ever growing web. “So I know whatcha thinkin’, and so the question you got t’ask yourself is do you do ya feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?”

One other interesting and relevant factor is the pool of people that choose to buy a tandem jump during the pandemic. After many weeks of answering the DZ phone, I can attest to the cavalier, myopic and rather selfish disregard many of these callers exhibit. Many are wet Egyptians (Dey r deep in de Nile) and some have even expressed their opinion that this is all a hoax. Thus those showing up wanting to spoon with me are highly likely to have already disregarded most if not all of the safety protocols epidemiologists have clearly outlined and come from a much higher risk pool than usual. Also, I am reading reports of people who are symptomatic but do not isolate themselves, and continue to spread the virus without regard to others There is also a report of some who have tested positive, kept the results secret and still didn’t quarantine For me the concern is not for myself as it is for the elderly and already health-compromised I take care of. Any exposure to this coronavirus would be fatal to them.

I would love to hear the reasoning of those tandem instructors who decide to do tandems in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. Are they driven by the economics? Do they think they are bulletproof? Do they believe that they will either not get it, or that if they do get it they will be asymptomatic? Do they have others close to them, or are they loners, or do they simply not care. Have they researched what we know about this virus, or are they acting out of ignorance? Are they being pressured into jumping by DZ management or by peer pressure? Do they believe that the protocols they have in place are effective at blocking transmission for the duration and distance required during a tandem jump? If so, how do they know? Please share your rationale and evidence, I would love to resume hauling meat!

It sounds like you are seeking a canopy optimized for aerobatics, as opposed to swooping. If so, try a Stiletto. It's designed to be fast and extremely responsive. Make sure you fly one that isn't tired or with a shrunken line set. Stilettos are great canopies, still a solid design, and you can still order one brand new.

I have never wanted to be a DZO precisely because I could never figure out a way to do it legally and get rich, or even stay a few points above the poverty line. Imagine if this was your sole income.

A review of the situation: Nothing substantial has changed biologically regarding the coronavirus. It still is happy to infect whenever and wherever it finds a host. There is not yet a proven safe & effective vaccine available, although that will eventually change. The only reason numbers currently are down is due to us starving the virus of new victims. As new hosts become available, the numbers will rise, especially the easier we make it for the virus to find a warm, moist host. We do not yet know everything about this virus, but we do know this one is especially contagious. Masks by themselves are proven not sufficient to stop infection. Good masks, goggles/face shields, 6' distance, frequent hand washing, avoiding eyes/mouth/nose contact with infected media, all together help in greatly reducing risk of infection, but may not be totally effective 100%. One can be infected but asymptomatic and spread the virus unaware to family, friends and co-workers. Symptoms vary, and can take a week or more to manifest, if at all. In some cases, hospitalization may follow about a week later, sedated intubation may follow a week after that. In extreme cases, death may follow quickly, or take weeks, or one may recover completely quickly or slowly, or recovery may result in lingering, perhaps permanent damage to certain organs and/or senses. The elderly and health-compromised are most at risk, but victims can come in any age and health status. Recovering survivors of those sick enough to be hospitalized describe an extremely unpleasent experience. As skydivers, we are used to understanding risks and devising technology, methodology and training to mitigate those risks. Good luck is always welcome, but we know better than to rely on it, because we know just how unreliable luck is. With careful and committed mitigation, we may know just enough to safely resume sport jumping, perhaps even student jumps. I am not at all convinced we yet know enough to safely resume Tandem jumping. For those choosing to Tandem jump at this time, please let us know the mitigation protocols you've implemented and how they are working. Any obvious symptoms should start manifesting some 2 weeks following infection.

Just like a bug is slower and more controllable than the automobile, upon the windshield of which it's remains are splattered.

yes, it is possible. It is rarely done. For most people, getting to your A license is a very intense experience. To cram it all in one week successfully requires good luck, good weather and a very very intense "Type A" personality. Here are a couple of questions to get you thinking: Would you hire/trust/consult a: Lawyer Doctor Accountant Pilot Parachute Rigger (someone who packs your reserve parachute) who got their accreditation in an accelerated program?

The COOLEST simulation was the ParaSim set up with VR goggles, full motion simulated frame etc. ( http://www.parasim.com/#) Whenever I have to train without a hanging harness, I inevitably get questions from FJS about where the toggles are, can they reach them, etc. Also, where else can a student practice kicking out of line twists? HHs also let you see how aggressive the student will be on the toggles, how much they flare, etc.

Is it me, or is it really the case that ever since Tandem really became nearly everyone's first (and usually only) jump, the number of licensed skydivers has continued to decline. Back in the dark ages when my original DZ only offered S/L, there was a motivation to get to free fall. That and a deal they had in place where you could buy a block of 20 (or was it 25?) student jumps for $200. (yeah, that was a while back). Anyway, back in the days before Tandem, most FJS would stick around for a few jumps, since they had already invested so much of their time in learning how to fly and land the canopy. Just sayin.

I agree that doing CRW is great for really getting people to learn how to fly their canopies to the edge of their flight envelopes. So is doing accuracy. But, one thing I miss about the 90s is that we no longer have a single canopy that really can do everything well. I, for one, am not enthusiastic about doing CRW with micro-lined ellipticals. Today, we have different canopies for different disciplines, all at ridiculously high prices. This proposal rests on the assumption that everyone wants to downsize so they can presumably swoop. But it is a much larger sport with other disciples like CRW and accuracy. Ever try using the winds to back up over the target? You can with the right canopy. Should I try these suggested skill sets with a strato-cloud? What if I just want to compete in accuracy? Or CRW? Or are we only interested in promoting swooping, or saying that this proposal is only for those who want to downsize so they can swoop? One idea is to come up with a canopy training curriculum that includes several different tracks; a track for swooping, a track for accuracy, a track for CRW, a track for Demos (Pro Rating) etc. But I wonder, if the goal is really not so much to train people for a certain discipline, but rather to fly and land safely under canopy, we should do that in the FJC and thoughout the ISP. I think we are guilty, during student training, of focusing much more on the free fall, and not as much on canopy control. I think we should have a designated ground coach watching and critiquing every student jump from the moment they deploy until touch down. There is no way the JMs can do that as effectively because they have to fly and land themselves, watching for traffic, and can't watch the student the whole time. If we spent as much or more time following the ISP canopy dive flows and critiquing their canopy skills as we do their free fall skills we would see a measurable improvement in safety. And if we can't even do that, or do it more consistently, then what good will implementing yet another training track do?

I'll repost this from an earlier thread. My stiletto was 107 at the time, and I have forgotten what the reserve was at the time; i believe a 130 or 113, i don't recall exactly. FWIW, Over the last 25 years in the sport, I have now had 3 two-out jumps; here is my own experience. The first time I was doing CRW with a buddy of mine, we had entered a two-man downplane on purpose -- we were young then and took it low, I'd say we broke at 500' or so. When we let go, his foot brushed enough on my reserve cable to fire it. I felt the reserve come off my back. My first instinct was to immediately cut-way, because, in my first jump course, that is what I had been instructed to do (however, in those days, FJS were given round reserves). I hesitated to cut away because I looked for my reserve but could not see it. Unbeknownst to me at the moment, because of the way sub-terminal speed, the reserve fell below me, and the free bag was slowly twisting underneath. When it finally got pulled off, my reserve started to inflate and I entered my own downplane just before I impacted in a muddy cornfield. From break-off to impact was maybe 7 seconds total time. Had I cutaway my main immediately, its likely my reserve may not have had time to inflate. As it was, I suffered a spiral fracture of one of my vertebrae and a nasty sprained ankle, but being young, I healed quickly and was back jumping four weeks later. That was with a Cruslite main and a Raven II reserve, for you old-timers. Years later, my second time, I had a hard, low pull (never tell a crazy buddy you will get his opening on video), and here is the interesting thing, my AAD fired (above it's set firing time, due to the fact that when my main opened about 1700' or so, as I swung under, my ADD immediately swung out of my burble and felt a dramatic increase in pressure. I did not feel it fire. I was flying under my main (a Stiletto) and trailing my reserve pilot chute. It was only when I did a 90 turn that it caught enough air to pull the freebag out of the tray. The next thing I knew, I felt a tug and looked up at a bi-plane. Now, at this point, none of these studies had been done yet and no one knew exactly what to do. I briefly tried to gestimate what might happen with what was then a radically new high performance main and a more traditional reserve, when, with my previous experience coming to mind, decided to fall back on my first jump training and I chopped the main. Luckily, (and I was) it cleared without incident and I landed my reserve. The lesson here is that people do tend to fall back on their last level of training rather than figure out something on the spot. The last 2-out adventure, a tandem student pulled the reserve handle on me during main deployment. I knew immediately this could be very, very bad. Luckily, as my reserve and main started off going into a nice side-by, I chopped it and all ended well. What we tell FJS stays with them for many years later. I have been more lucky than smart, and worn out my guardian angels by now. There may come a time when you are in a situation, follow the recommended procedures correctly, and still have a bad day. There are no guarantees in this sport, or in life for that matter. But these are the best recommendations we have, and by trial and experience found them the most effective in most situations. And no one yet knows the best thing to do in a complete entanglement, so we don't teach it in the FJC.

They were usually in the low 30s, but I remember as many as 40. We were all younger, thinner and lighter in those days. Just as sexy though. Also, how weird is it that the standard boogie plane everyone learned to duck walk in is now a mysterious jump ship.

The biggest danger introducing a camera to your jumping is not snags (although snags are a very real danger, especially the standard gopro helmut mount, IMHO) The real danger newbies especially may not realize is how much the mere fact of having a camera on you with the intent of recording something DISTRACTS you from your skydive. The more you jump, the more experience you will get with how often the unexpected unexpectedly happens. (hey, where did that guy come from....whoah, was that a thermal ... wait, did the wind suddenly shift... I got a mal... wow, i didn't know I opened so low....) Older, wiser jumpers learn to make allowances for the unexpected -- all those little things that can actually kill you, but no one ever had the chance to tell you about yet, because they are so rare or unexpected. Putting on a camera may or may not be distracting depending on how you are using it. If you are trying to shot something or keep something in frame -- it is distracting. If you are thinking "how cool is this looking" you are distracted. If the unexpected happens while you are distracted you and others could die. This is the key issue with newbies wearing cameras. And experienced skydivers know all too well how easily it is to become distracted and how deadly that can be.

Im really liking this discussion. We've come a very long way since the days of cameras being the size and weight of bricks strapped to your helmet. Also new: facebook and youtube. Combined with small, relatively inexpensive, lightweight cameras, newbies often can't wait to video their adventures and post them for all the world to see. The technology exists today for someone to fashion a video camera that could easily fit INSIDE a full-face helmet (Think of the size of the HD camera inside the iPhone), though I have not seen anyone do this yet. I can see some benefit to reviewing a student jump from the student POV, especially if there was an incident; the footage may be helpful. The question of course, is how much of a distraction is having a camera to the jumper. If the camera evolves into a mere recording device solely to inconspicuously monitor and record the jump, it may not be a distraction, especially if it becomes just another piece of gear. But if the jumper is using the camera as a tool of expression, to shoot a particular subject, then I think they will be much more focused on it (and less so on their environment -- their situational awareness suffers) Recently, the US government has determined that cell phone use while driving, even hands-free phones, are too distracting and recommends their being banned. The tech keeps evolving, but our brains, not so much.

Every jumper owes a debt of gratitude to the "stupid" adventurers who first thought it possible to jump out of a flying airplane for fun and land safely. Of course, that was a good number of fatalities ago. Technically, this is feasible, but there are a number of unknowns and legal issues to resolve before this becomes common place. As a TI who often has to wrestle with just one stiff passenger who suddenly forgets training and locks themselves in a fetal position or some other turbulance-inducing position, I wonder about the potential instability issues this formation (or any 3-way arrangement) could lead too. Now, i'd have to figure out who is causing the spin and try to overcome it before G-loc -- and now its 2-to-1. Maybe if we fit both inside a rigid capsule that is fastened to the TI -- but then it becomes a whole different experience Obviously, we'd need bigger canopies. Heck in the USA, we turn down many people simply because obesity has become epidemic here. And that's just ONE passenger. I don't doubt dual tandem rides would be a huge hit. Even today, friends and lovers ask if they can jump together or touch each other in free fall. Married folks, not so much - go figure. And legally, the FAA would have to become convinced this is relatively safe before they sanction it -- a huge hurdle that could be a big show-stopper. Economically, DZs might realize more efficiency if it is ever approved, but I doubt the return would be so much more than what they can realize today, and so the effort and investment may not be worth pursuing given the FAA hassle. Someone somewhere may continue to experiment and refine this, but that DZ won't likely be in the US.