Para5-0

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    797

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Para5-0

  1. Ron,

    If you search you will see that I have said this numerous times about the card. It is a starting point for canopy continueing education. I would support c and maybe D license canopy cards as well. and as you mentioned maybe a wingload proficiency card.

    The problem is it is a very slow moving process and there has to be an enormous amount of give and take.

    I would encourage any feedback you have on any topic but specifically canopy. Just PM me or even call me on my cell it isnt hard to find. I will let you know where we are and how we got there. But trust me many on the board and specifically S&T committee have nothing but good intentions when trying to tackle a problem that has put us way behind the curve, and now it is catch up time.

    I think it should start by adding canopy proficiency to all instructor ratings, especially AFFI courses. That would include ground and air evaluations. We must teach those who are going to teach canopy what to teach and how. Again, this is no simple one day fix, if it were I would be in line with you.

    This is very near and dear to my heart and I will listen to any constructive feedback you or anyone else has trust me, but to paint the USPA and BOD with one brush is a bit unfair. Just come to a meeting and see how much goes into it. I urge you to get involved, and that could be as easy as calling me and flaming me on the phone. I promise I will let your point of view be heard.

    Sorry for the rant, I am not being aggresive, I just know how much time and energy has gone into what we have so far. It is not what I wanted believe me but it is a comprimised starting point.

    Rich Winstock
    USPA National Director

  2. I hate to even jump in on this one but worthy of mention. Age of Legal Majority across the country is defined differently. Some states are 19 or even 21. One state is having a high school diploma.

    This has been discussed at naseum with the BOD and recently (as in last meeting) they agreed to go with the manufacturers on their age requirement. So if the rig manufacturer says 18 then it shall be 18. If you find a rig that doesnt specify, and the DZ is okay with it you can do AFF, Static Line, IAD, at age 16 in the U.S.

  4. Ok,

    as I stated when this first came out it was a starting point, and this is a good example. We had a flaw exposed to us and we acted accordingly.

    The vote was unanimous full BOD to allow STA, IE, CE, BOD to appoint who they want to teach the canopy proficiency card and then they must sign said card.

    Thanks,
    Rich Winstock
    USPA National Director

  5. Very good tough question. I will say that exit order and seperation SHOULD elleviate this problem. Tandems usually deploy higher than the average jumper and have the ability to stay up a bit longer to ensure you land before them.

    It boils down to seperation at exit, vertical, and in the pattern. It appears you do not have a seperate landing area for tandems and you are sharing a common location. For the most part a tandem instructor should be aware of someone on the same level and should be able to HOLD IN BRAKES to allow seperation. If you see this happening it might be a good idea to clear your airspace and speed it up a bit by doing a slow controlled 360 to lose altitude (again gaining vertical sepreation) then continue with your predictible pattern.
    On the other hand if you see a tandem spiriling down below you then you probably are very lightly loaded and should go into a brake configuaration that allows min. descent. Thus giving the tandem some space to work his pattern. Keep in mind turbulence coming off of the tandem is a concern and you should be nowhere near him at all.
    If you have a question as to whether he sees you or not assume he does not. If possible you could also abort the main area and land safely away from the crowd or funnel. Sometimes a little walk back is a good thing.

    Regardless talk to the instructors about how they would like you to proceed. Most DZ's do have seperate landing areas so this exact problem is avoided.
    Also a canopy class to understand and practice all of your controls and accuracy would probably help you out.

  8. Strat,

    Although I love your enthusiasm, take a step back take a deep breath and relax a moment. The BOD hasnt done a thing yet it is just on the agenda. Furthermore, I will be bringing up the DOT physical as well. So, dont put the cart before the carrot nobody has voted for anything yet.

    With that being said, I so think it will be a royal pain in the ass to start to compile a list of acceptable medicals. But if that is the only way then so be it.

    I already know the arguements on both sides, it will come down to a matter of a vote on S&T then a full BOD vote.

  9. That is the impression I have been getting reading along. I thought about this topic when I read about Pat Mooreheads rcord in this month's magazine. It said that due to weather they were hoping for the cloud base to rise above 2000 ft. In fact Pat was quoted as saying all he needed was 2000'. This made me think to myself, should we take away the ability for future experienced sydivers to do something similar? or was it unsafe. Given his experience and ability I think he did just fine.

  12. Quote

    We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't.



    Okay got to jump in, although it has actually been good reading for a change. I have no idea why this was put on the agenda or who put it on for that matter. The bottom line is, it is on the agenda and must be discussed and a decision made to the absolute best ability of the S&T committee. Then the full 22 person board must pass it.

    The only person I personally had conversation about this was Bill Booth, who had a genuine concern for AAD deployment altitudes being high enough for a reserve pilot chute to clear a burble. Mr. Booth advised that a 1 second delay could mean the difference between life or death and he has the numbers to back his clams. Of course the AAD firing altitudes would need to be adjusted.

    The flip side is we have had these in place for some time now and are they actually statistically the cause of problems. We all know jumpers who are the 2 pullers and will go to their grave argueing they have been doing it for years with no issues. Also AFFI courses routinely put the instructor around the 2k mark. Demos may present a problem.

    How about records? Most jumps in a day or 24 hour period every minute counts. If said record holder went out the door at 2100 feet and any attempt from this point forward will have to go out at 2600 feet we have a bit of a problem.

    This is a very sticky question because as mentioned above it takes away something we already have, versus making a sport potentially safer.

    I am anxious to listen intently to those bringing this forward and all of the pros and cons and making a decision. Either way I personally promise to weigh out the two and make a ssolid fact based decision. I am glad to have read everyones input because it will help tremendously.

    Further I will let everyone know how I personally voted and explain my rationale, I know some will agree and some will disagree.

  13. I just cant sit here and wrap my arms around this idea. A judge can determine what is good or bad for your own child. I think it makes our sport look bad. I also want to know what criteria was used to single out this sport. Do judges take this stance on all activities.

  15. What if this guy has his the kid say thursday through Sunday and wants to get a babysitter so he can make a few extra bucks. Oh yeah he works as a skydiver sorry. I have brought my kids to the DZ when I was jumping. In fact my daughter helped put harnesses on and off while I jumped. I thought it was quality time. So, a judge can tell me I cant do that? I disagree on this one sorry. If that is the case an ex could make it so a full time skydiver couldnt work when he had custody. That is a bit over the top if you ask me.

  16. I had a call for some assistance, from a USPA member going through a custody dispute with an ex. The ex told the judge she didnt want him skydiving while he was responsible for the child. The judge bought into it and banned the guy from jumping during visitation. I personally have never heard of such a thing.
    How can that be legal. My immediate thoughts are why skydiving? Why not ban him from driving or jogging, or golfing? I dont get it.

    Am I completely out of it? Can this be happening out there? A little input would help me help him. I contacted USPA and they had never heard of it happening before.

    I didnt even know where to post the question. lol

  17. Quote

    Its going to come down to the USPA either eliminating the recommendation for the 200 jumps or putting it as a BSR since its pretty clear the recommendation is being ignored every day.



    A recommendation could have an effect on a DZ that does not follow it. If an issue happens and the liability train starts rolling they will have to explain why it was ignored. That doesnt help the injured party though. I would be in favor of making that a BSR. I think it would be a hard one to enforce though.

  21. My first cutaway was at jump 4800 and 11 or so years into the sport. All the while I had hundreds of dreams where I couldnt find the handle, it was missing, or it was too hard to pull.. Woke up everytime gasping for air. Always having a bit of fear that I may not be able to find or pull my handles when I needed it most.

    After I had my first and it went exactly how it was practiced umpteen hundred times. I had a soothing confidence that I could do it when needed. I havent felt the way I did before my first ever since, if that makes any sense. It is not an overconfidence but a cautiously optimistic confidence.

    Yes, I wish I had it on jump 20 it would have saved me hours of sleep over the years.

  24. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Couple it to an accurate altimeter and you could program it to warn you when you're diving too fast, too low



    Too late. All I see that doing is going off while you hit the ground. It would be more of a bell or whistle telling you this is going to hurt.



    If you programmed it wrong, that's exactly what it would do. But you could program it with any parameters you wanted. You could get it to fire off a 120dB siren and give you electric shocks if you happened to exceed a 5mph decent rate below 1000ft AGL if you wanted. Or something a bit less ridiculous.

    But it's a valid criticism that getting the parameters right would be tricky, especially since a safe decent rate for a 20 jump guy under a Navigator 260 isn't quite the same as a 10,000 jump swooping champion under a Velo 84.

    But even a bog standard Vario would give you an indication of how hard you were diving and when you had levelled off which might be useful training aid to some.



    I like you said training aid. Because it would still require coaching and understanding of flight characteristics of the canopy you were flying. I am all for the concept, I just think there are so many variables. All of which are trying to assist with experience, common sense, knowledge.

    Then there is the thought that even if it were mastered, then would it be 100% relied upoun at all times? It is a mechanical device that would still need to be verified by altitude checks, and sight picture. that takes time and with the higher performance and higher loaded canopies time is the problem. Personally if my set up is improper and I take the extra few seconds to get wherre I need to be it is too late and I lost too much altitude. It would be an abort scenario. Which by the way I personally have no problem with. It is the ones that think they can just swing it around faster or yank the front riser a bit harder that wind up going too fast too low without the steering inputs to recover.

    Canopy education I think goes hand in hand with this concept. That means making, yes making new jumpers receive continueing education in canopy training. We now have basic requirements. Why not advanced. Yes I know it opens up a can of worms, the who, what, where, how....but I think it may be time to man up and start to tackle them.

    Perris and Elsinore just made statements that canopy pilots will have to demonstrate the ability to safely conduct a high performance landing. I am curious a) what are those standards going to be, b) Who will determine it, and will there be some type of internal rating system developed.

    I have never been opposed to a canopy instructor rating, or attaching endorsements to licenses. Dont ask me to spell it out I havent put much thought into the process but spekaing out loud imagine if you needed an endorsement to fly a higher wing load. Similar to a pilot getting time on an aircraft under supervision and being signed off on.

    Last paragraph is me thinking out loud so dont flame too hard please it is New Years and tomorrow we start at 0 incidents for the year.