Para5-0

Members
  • Content

    797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Para5-0

  1. Never saw this one but it is hilarious. I was waiting for a better ending though.
  2. Along similar lines I knew an AFF Instructor who lost a very light student. The camera guy with wings, flew in to assist the student. So fast forward and this turns into a bit of a dispute or pissing match. AFFI-"do not touch my student you are not qualified" Video-"Dont put me in the situation to make the decision and we will both be fine." Both parties were very experienced but the video guy was not AFF rated. Led to some serious beer discussions. I think it is hard to make this black and white.
  3. years back I had the same thing done. lol no joke. They whispered in my ear and I repeated what they said. hilarious.
  4. The difference, I think if you take it as other is that the reverse side will not give you the pilot sign off. I took it as other and just received a different medical card. Then when I took flight lessons and handed it to the examiner he said I needed to go change the physical to a pilots physical, so he can sign the back, in accordance with the student FAR's.
  5. This one sounds hilarious to watch,
  6. The problem I have noticed with many agencies, especially DZ's and to some extend USPA is that they debate issues after incidents occur. It has always been my stance to seek out areas that may be a concern or safety issue. If from the very beginning we waited for something to happen before addressing it I imagine thae stats would be a hell of alot worse. With that being said: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1211149#1211149 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2809077#2809077 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3683263#3683263 Here are some that are interesting. I hope this doesnt turn into a defense of each one, because like I said it doesnt matter all that much. What matters is there is a potential for problems if the TI is not educated a bit and has a good sound grasp of his tandem responsibilities before adding this extra burden. I always wondered why do we need statistics to address a potential safety issue? I have read board minutes where it seems they were hesitant to initiate change because there didnt seem to be statistical data to point to. It appears almost as a scapegoat, just in case someone asks why they changed or voted for something. Why cant we say, Hey we are experienced instructors who think this might be a issue can we implement some positive change so that it does not happen. S&TA's should be doing this across the country with daily operations. An example is an uneven spot or hole in the landing area. Well, nobody has broken an ankle or leg in that hole so why change it. My stance is hey fill in the hole so nobody has to be the example used for why we should fill in the hole. I am not arguing just venting a bit, sorry.
  7. or to add a bit, how exactly would a ti deal with a problem? I for one have no idea what kind of spin could be created with that configuration or more importantly how the hell to get out of it. It is nothing less than experimental and anyone who does it should be considered a test dummy. and I am all for progress, but safety should at least be part of the equation, not to mention liability.
  8. Hey Ron, I think we are getting a bit derailed in the thread here. It is safe to say that both H/C and O/V can be done safely. It is also safe to say that small cesna dropzones tend to start out with H/C and it is economically smarter. Further, O/V is more prevalent at larger turbine dropzones. I backup and agree with DSE on several issues, first that in order to perform H/C a tandem Instructor should be soundly proficient with doing tandems. I believe that USPA and the manufacturers should again be on the same page with the requirements. And yes DSE has experience in this area based on his willingness and dedication to standardize wingsuit training. I like the Australian model above. I understand your points but we are all advocating mature, intelligent, educated, proficient instructors. Now how do we get that so no incidents do occur? You are correct there may be no concrete incidents to point to H?c being a direct cause but lets be smart and try to do something proactive instead of reactive. If we do nothing about the topic then when something does happen and is attributed to the H/C for whatever reason, the first thing that will be said is "Why didnt USPA or the manufacturers have recommendations or guidelines to follow?" IE: lawsuit. I would much rather see us discuss what recomendations would be suitable for a new tandem instructor to jump with a H/C as opposed to arguing about statistics that may or may not prove shit. or even worse which method is better. Glad to see you are pasionate about it though.
  9. I would probably save a bit more. Usually around 1500.00 or so depending on where you go. Then remember after AFF you have coach jumps, rental fees, and of course beer fees lol, then you should continue to practice what you learned until you accumulate 25 jumps and earn your A license. That will cost money as well. Having the money to jump regularly and stay current becomes very important, for a variety of reason, most important being safety.
  10. Skydive Long Island in Calverton started with no outside video, just the pilot snapping an exit shot from a wing mounted camera. Eventually outside video was implemented but it was years later after they upgraded to a 207. Now with a caravan and king air they only offer O/V. Long Island Skydive offers H/C only with their cessna operation. They fly 182's
  11. imho H/C tandems should be considered to be in the same category as any special needs tandem. The T/I should have a solid grasp of how to handle MOST situations that could arise well before taking his attention away from the basics, (stable exit, solid drogue deployment, good overall awareness, and mastered his/her landings) I agree with a 1000 jump requirement for the rating and have advocated this for some time now. I also feel until this changes we should have a min jump requirement for H/C tandem jumps ie:
  12. This is sometimes also known as the "First Man Down" rule. I am not a fan of this but I have seen places it works for them. Problem is the first man down now adays is usually a highly loaded swooper or video guy. and we know they always land into the wind, right
  13. Well, Welcome to the sport. You have found a problem that skydivers have been addressing for a long time. I will give you the short answer because if you search landing patterns you could probably read for a month straight. A good portion, but not all dropzones try to use a left handed pattern. The reason is for predictability. If everyone is entering the same pattern then you will have a somewhat good idea of what the other guy is doing. Not to say they will do what is expected. Always keep your head on a swivel. You were taught 1000' downwind, 600'base, and 300 feet final. Now it will either be a left or right pattern. I would grab an instructor at the DZ you are jumping at and have him go into more detail with you. Most Dropzones just dont say look out and do whatever you want. In this day, with canopy incidents on the rise a smooth, predictable landing pattern with proper seperation between canopies should be your goal. note there are dropzones that prefer a right hand pattern due to hazzards or for some other reason. Not all are left.
  14. Hey Rob, I have but to help the conversation here: Handcam Jumps TOM 7.4 states •minimum experience of 100 tandem jumps •Recommendation by CI, and logbook endorsement •CI approval of camera and mount •Undergo a course of instruction by DZSO •One jump with a licensed jumper before taking a Tandem Student •Audible altimeter is mandatory for Tandem Instructors with less than 50 Hand Cam Tandem jumps •Audible altimeter is mandatory for Tandem Instructors using a visual altimeter located other than on the camera hand. Be aware that a handcam puts your left hand into the student’s reach and more than one TM has been surprised by the student’s ability to hang on, despite being warned not to. If you do handcam, keep your other arm (the one you are going to open the parachute with) well clear of the student.
  15. Do you agree that a new Tndem Instructor 25 jumps and off probation should be allowed to perform H/C tandem jumps without concern? Based on your Stats?
  16. Just curious how much extra do you get for using your rig? If anything. The major DZ's in my area will not pay anything extra to you so it is almost not worth it.
  17. The music almost blew me off my chair. Great footage. wow impressive.
  18. +1 to include all special needs tandems(heavy, old, fragile, prostetics, quads, paras, or any tandem requiring special attention to detail.
  19. The Skydive Store is selling all demo rigs for 2010. Some have reserves and AAD's included.
  20. I read your entire post but truly feel it is not as simple as the manufacturer bowing out and being in the free and clear. Or if USPA takes over the instructor ratings completely, uspa will most definately be named in any tandem incident resulting in law suit moving forward. Example: Harness is put on incorrectly, student falls out resulting in death. Student sues, TI, USPA, Manufacturer of equipment, and Dropzone, in the attempt to find money. The Tandem Instructor says, "I was never trained in the proper methods to put a harness on". In a court of law, who has the ultimate responsibility to show an Instructor how to use a product? The product manufacturer? USPA? DZO?, S&TA? I live in New Jersey (A liberal sue happy state) and I guarantee, no matter what the manufacturer does they will be dragged into litigation. With that said, in a perfect world I wish USPA could take it completely over and relieve the manufacturer of all culpability, I just do not see an easy solution. I do like your Cessna comparison though. They do sell a product that is highly technical to use and could potentially kill people if used improperly or by someone not trained to do so.
  21. EG is a clown!!!! You put that very nicely. Although, I am fighting the urge to write my true thoughts on here.
  22. One point of contention might be that if a TI is sued for whtever reason, the manufacturer would still hold some liability towards said instructor. The TI could in turn sue the manufacturer claiming they sold a product and failed to train them properly on its use and dangers.
  23. Agent, I was at ZHills last Tuesday and was greeted and jumped with many. I was accepted and had a great time. I am from up north and just stopped by for the day. With that being said, I havent seen anyone ask you if you think you are ready for head down and sit flying with 33 jumps? If you asked me to jump with you I would say yes almost always, but in your case, (assuming your profile is correct) I might try to give you a bit more education prior to attempting freeflying, there is too much to list here but I would really inquire to see how proficient you were on your belly, if your rig was freefly friendly, if you understood the higher speeds, jup run, freefall seperation, did you have an AAD....etc Enough of my rant, I am conservative and you may get other opinnions here but I always recommend a solid base before wandering into uncharted territory. Especially at a unfamilar and new DZ. Sorry for the loss and good luck. Further: When you got your A license on Oct 10th the online community here seemed to be extremly supportive and encouraging. A lot of the online community jumps at ZHills.