• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by Para5-0

  1. maybe contact Dos donkeys they specialize in custom helmet paint jobs. The owner Jeremy would be happy to answer your questions. or he is on facebook under due donkeys!/2donkeysinc?sk=info
  2. One minor issue with audibles, is the ability for you to completely tune it out. Have you ever landed and really didnt remember the audible going off? as silly as it sounds I will take mine out every now and then for a few jumps and then replace it. It refreshes the startle effect of the device. Just my own thoughts.
  3. concur, Hope you have a great day Jan. Rich
  4. Leap for Life This is a national attempt to raise funds for cancer research. Also Make a Wish is very active in the Skydiving community.
  5. Wow, A true pioneer of the sport, I am proud to say I met and had some great conversations with. Blue Warm Air my friend.
  6. Very nice. Congrats. and no it isnt small or it wouldnt be a record. Great Job.
  7. I wasnt going to chime in but what the hell. I do not know the manufacturer or the people over at infinity and can only go off of what everyone has said here, and trust they are squared away. What I do know is the OP. He is a full time video/coach with exceptional skills. I have never heard a complaint come from him ever. When I saw the frayed loop, I got a sick feeling in my stomach, knowing that he is an avid swooper and flys his canopies hard. The problem I see is, if that loop let go in a swoop this would be in the incident forums not general. To brush this off as him being dramatic is not entirely fair, without knowing a bit of background. For infinity to say if it was going to break it would have broken on opening not on a landing is a weak response at best. This is definately a safety issue and it was definately brought to the manufacturers attention via email and phone. I am hoping it is resolved and not just brushed aside. A proper response would be something to the effect of, we are sorry and here is a complete new set of risers, send us your rig for a full close inspection, and maybe we can put out an advisory to everyone to be on the lookout for. Or matbe we need to look at this a bit closer. If the overly dramatic heading saves someones life then the laugh is on us not him. I am not usually one to vent in public but in this case it was done only after receiving a calous and unsatisfactory answer. It also appears to be something that has happend more than once.
  8. Just a thought: sometimes when you tell a tandem student to put their feet on your butt, it makes it hard to transition them to solo because of a bad habit being formed. If they do several training tandems it develops the wrong muscle memory. Not critisizing at all just trying to help out the affi who gets the student and has to take them on a solo freefall. Good luck BS
  9. Can AFFI's handle a student that heavy in a worse case scenario? Just wondering.
  10. Hello, Just to give an update on this particular situation. I was contacted by the OP and given a full history of the incident. I as many actually became upset while I heard the details. I contacted Ed Scott and Randy O. Within one hour the TSA and Jetblue representatives were notified and supplyed with all documentation needed to rectify this tragedy. The OP should be safely on his way without incident tonight to enjoy a great skydiving vacation. It is a testiment to USPA and there close relationship with the FAA and airline carriers. Maybe the OP can give his version of whether or not the situation was handled expeditiously and professionally. Rich Winstock
  11. Haha, I knew that wouldnt slip by. Okay the rationale that was explained to me involved a D licensed skydive being considered a Master Skydiver for lack of a better term. The thought was, at the time, that person should have experienced or accomplished all aspects of the sport to be knighted with the D license accomplishment. Okay Devils Advocate: I know the first thing out of anyones mouth is going to be; Do we require D license candidates to make a wing suit jump, a CRW jump, a skyboard jump.. The answer is no we do not. So to boil it down, should we keep the requirement based on the thought, "we have always required it? or do we maybe require a jump in all disciplines? or---do away with the night jump requirement all together. Andy - why exactly do you think it is requirred? and more importantly what do you think would be a solution. I guess first you would have to agree or disagree with the night jump requirement, then justify either way. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. Sorry for SP errors I rushed. Thanks, Rich
  12. Mike, I am not against your train of thought on this. I see we cant just ignore the recommendations we want to and accept the ones we like. Maybe I am not getting my thought across properly. I think that there are some areas that we may have to self regulate and make decisions in the field that fall into, lets call it a gray area. I am not a big fan of over regulation or under for that matter. I think in this particular case a S&TA or Director can make a call based on this person, their experience, log book,. jumps,. etc and I would back the decision either way. I like to think we can trust S&TA's to make good sound decisions or at least be able to explain their thought process. If you told me you made the OP make a solo to comply with the SIM recommendation, I would support you. Visa versa if you endorsed the D license based on 6 night jumps more than satisfying to overall concept, I would support you. In either case, I would hope it can be articulated properly and a case made for the decision. Again, these are just my thoughts.
  13. Can I clarify your thought? What would the restriction exactly be? They can not perform night jumps? I am not sure what you mean?
  14. completely agree. If I am trained wrong on the ground or if I practice improper technique and it goes uncorrected, you can expect it in the air. It makes a nice segway to debrief the importance of proper ground training. "Perfect practice makes perfect permanent"
  15. I guess we will discuss and clarify it at the meeting. I have been tasked with reviewing that section in the SIM and giving any areas that need clarification or should be discussed. So I have already marked it for Safety and Training Committee review. As far as the D License night jump waivers, I do not know if they are marked restricted, I will have to check on that. I do remember the person who requested it will not be making any night jumps period. From my understanding and speaking with other directors it has become common for S&T to grant these night jump waivers in the presence of some medical reason that would possibly become a safety concern.
  16. Kim, I am with you on this one. The solo as I interpret it is to get acquainted with a new task for the first time before attempting any sort of group dive. I would most definately sign off on the night portion of the D license in the above senario. 5 night group dives is more than enough to show competence. Asking for a solo would be a waste of time and money, unless the OP wants to. We can discuss whether or not the requirement is a good one or not, forget that, I dont want to open that can. At the last BOD meeting we did grant several D licenses waiving night jumps due to night blindness and some other issues. Bottom line to OP: As a S&TA, I would sign off on this, as Kim mentioned it is a recommendation and your local S&TA can make this call.
  17. Good additional points: A bit more on exits: in bold Exit- Keep your proximity so when the evaluator looks at you, you are right there ready to go. This is harder than most think if the evaluator turns to the left from a front float position. You will have to actually track up the hill to stay in the proper slot.There are things, "tips" or "tricks", that can help in this. Watching the hands and hips for "commitment" to the exit. I typically do three exits that you should be prepared for. As Matt said have a light touch on the student and leave with him regardless of the count, we tend not to do the best counts. I always leave from a front float and coach candidate from middle. I will push out extra hard and slowly turn left, causing you to have to fly up the hill and left slightly, so when I look to my right youare there. Second, normal front float exit without a good count. or third I just drop right down next to the plane. This is very tricky because you can easily go right on top of me. you have to anticipate the drop and drop faster than I. Watching the camera step. A big FWIW; This is out of a larger turbine plane. If you are doing it out of a cessna disregard. haha sorry
  18. Being I am giving the coach course next Friday I will tell you my thoughts. I do not attempt to trick a student or do anything that he/she will not see from a real student. Although I have been know to put my helmet on backwards now and again. Usually not caught by the way. Exit- Keep your proximity so when the evaluator looks at you, you are right there ready to go. This is harder than most think if the evaluator turns to the left from a front float position. You will have to actually track up the hill to stay in the proper slot. Freefall- Be proactive keep the dive going, Give nice clear thumbs up to initiate the next phase of the dive. Watch your distances. I try to be a very good student so I can see you flying the dive. Pull TIme- Be prepared for a no pull senario, I give it quite often. You will have to wave off to signal break, turn and track and deploy by 3500. I will try to make you bust your hard deck. You will be surprised how many times The coach candidate busts. Usually a complete surprise that I am not breaking off. Canopy- Watch your evaluator, meet him on the ground. Smile it is over.
  19. I dont want to spin off topic but this has been a point of contention for me for sometime now. I think that there should be some sort of S&TA community or Blog, or group email that we can diseminate information to all S&TA's from all DZ's. Very similar to UPT, Strong, and USPA having a reciprosity (sp) for various suspensions; Why cant all DZ's honor diciplinary action or grounding from other DZ's? I have had the younger jumper tell me that he will just go jump at xy dropzone. Luckily in the north east we all know each other fairly well so all it takes is a call. There really should be an online community of just S&TA's so we can share experiences and learn from each other. Not to mention ask for advice if needed.
  20. Sky, Thanks for the response. Keep in mind a DZO or S&TA or Chief Instructor has the right to ground anyone they feel is that guy for any reason. There is no BSR requirred. An S&TA has the authority to also suspend a instructional rating for up to 30 days under the governance manual 1-6.6b1. The funny thing about "that guy" which by the way I love for a national campaign on canopy safety. Are you that Guy? would be a great way to really get people thinking about this. Especially if we tell them they are that guy or girl and let them prove otherwise. Rigger Paul, Even if I agree with what you say, I agree most with,"Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish?" We cant just throw our hands up and say why try because it will not accomplish anything. The goal is to offer as much education from inception on through continuing canopy . or better put, It sure as hell cant hurt. I often say those in a canopy seminar are not the ones I am worried about, it is the ones who think they dont need it that worry me. Back to the proficiency card and section 6-10 and 6-11: if we require it prior to a license (B or C) then we are forcing That Guy to sit down and listen to us. It is giving the instructors another chance to educate and hopefully reach that guy. As it is now that guy gets his A and doesnt have to really do anything. We are dropping the ball. I am a strong advocate of this one proposal: What I have done in the past is go over those sections at water training. Do you know why? Because they have to be there and they have to listen to me. It works, or at least helps. Dont give up the fight I see the frustration, believe me I still crack up at the you tube Teach me to swoop animations. Usually when there is a joke we laugh at there is some truth behind it.
  21. We are on the same page here. Dont forget going over these sections is in addition to completing the proficiency card under the supervision of an instructor. So reviewing the two sections as well as complete the proficiency card with an instructor. That would cover the applicability of the discussions. Ok, I am all about liability (USPA, DZ, STA, Instructor) but before we lynch USPA can I point out a few things. These recommendations came out of hours of sit down meetings in Reno and remember that : "Earlier this year, USPA decided to gather industry experts for a Canopy Safety Summit (see page 23 for participants) and created a web page to solicit ideas and comments from all sources for consideration by the group."(Parachutist) Jay Stokes (March 2011) "So this year’s focus on canopy training, canopy separation and predictable landing patterns will be led by our S&TAs with the support and encouragement of your president and the board of directors" USPA is all over this topic trust me on this one. One of the main reasons I ran for the BOD was I felt it was not fair to throw a stone while I sit back in my small corner of the world and do nothing about my perceived issues. USPA is giving the opportunity to all membership to get involved on this hot topic. Again, 70% of last years fatalities were canopy related. We know this and are doing our best to address it. That includes this thread, USPA canopy blog, the new suggestions listed above, the sleuth of canopy articles in the magazine, USPA professional, USPA updates. I am definately on the other side of the fence now and I see first hand the work going into this. Lets not forget USPA's staff and the effort being put in behind the scenes to address this important issue. Lets not forget the mere fact we are begging for input on this one. Think about how great that is; it is we as a membership as opposed to them the BOD. I am just putting some personal thoughts out there by the way I am not speaking for USPA, the BOD, or aany particular director. LOL Disclaimer..
  22. Can I just point out one thing: These are still in the discussion phases, so input is crucial. I am an advocate of getting as much input from membership as possible before doing anything. To ellaborate on #3, The proficiency card will be redesigned. It was tossed around where to include this requirement. Some felt C license some felt B. My personal thought was instead of requiring a canopy course, having an instructor review Section 6-10 Canopy Flight and section 6-11 advanced with the potential licensee. This would allow an instructor to review wing loads, flight characteristics, and a sleuth of other topics for the particular license. Exactly like we require an instructor to go over water training for B, we can have an instructor review the canopy sections. Requiring a canopy course opens a can of worms: What course is approved? Who is authorized to teach a course? Etc. I really liked this idea but it is still a work in progress. My only point of concern was talking to a person with 50 jumps about advanced topics such as video and high performance landings. I thought it would be better suited at the 200 jump stage. Your thoughts are highly encouraged and will be reviewed and brought to light. This particular change is a very serious step in the right direction for Continuing Canopy Education. The thought was that after an A license is earned we still need some continued canopy education. Your thoughts on #3 are encouraged. The responses will be read and considered I promise. This is exactly what members have complained about, not having input on future changes. So it is not a knee jerk reaction. Rich Winstock