azureriders

Thanks again This was an old chem-light that was just laying around and we decided to play with so I did not have the label to read. The weight belt probably will not see as many washings as a tee shirt, but if we can get it to just lighten up a bit we should be ok. I will update this thread if anything happens that may be search worthy in the future.

Whaaaa? HE asked YOU to handle it? WTF? Probably because the original instructor is from out of the area. correct I agree, of course it should be every instructors goal to make every one understand everything, but that is not always easy.

You are right, it does make sense thinking about it that way.

Thanks John. No ill effects, I would assume that also means no stains? This is a bright green belt that I made for the wife and it now has a really dark spot on it, of course it is still wet. I want to make another one of these about as bad as she wants to wear a stained one

I had a chem-light that had been activated and left laying until it went out and for some reason leaked half of its insides all over a cordura weight belt. Is this stuff corrosive, if so can it easily be neutralized? Can I expect structural damage to the belt? Does anyone know? It feels like an oil base, even smells like it may be petroleum. I am very cautious of how I leave my rigs laying around, kind of upsetting that I let this happen, even if it was just to a weight belt. Thanks in advance,

When judging altitude you are using sight picture, not depth perception. Sight picture changes anytime the terain changes. So every time you change DZ's, there is a strong chance that you will have to give your eyes time to adjust to the new sight picute. In a new area with "small fields", your eyes may indeed cause you to pull a bit low, but when it comes to not hitting the ground, nothing is a fool proof as your eyes.

Would work well for most, but we do still see a lot of people who do not use computers and would prefer to simply be able to play the disk on their DVD player. In my experience it is also very important to keep your pictures easy to have printed at Wal-Mart. I have never tried this from a flash drive, it may work great but if Wal-Mart is not set up for flash drives it will cause grief. I also don't think it would be a good idea to add any expense to the video as the cost is already a limiting factor to videos sold, however you offered it as an extra that they could pay for if they liked it may just work great. Personaly if I was buying I would pay for the flash drive.

>Maybe you should ask an instructor how and when (as in at what experience level) to >do this safely if you are new in the sport, both also need similar wingloading to be able >to fly on the same level unless you are very skilled. Thats funny, if you are actually replieing to me. The point of this thread was never that I believed you should get big to get back, and I am an instructor. Of course I think you may have just been speeking to the general public. >A new topic on the drift? How about if a canopy will fly downwind after a while by itself if >you let the controls go? I don't think so but a few year ago I was told so by one of the >best skydivers in the world that was the case??? I have talked to a couple of people involved in drop testing canopies that swear each and every dumby droped will wind up landing down wind. Dosn't make much sense to me either.

I voted certificate only as that is all that they all get. We also have free bumper stickers located right next to the AFF brochures on the counter as they enter and exit the building. Log books are provided on request or for any AFF prep work done on the tandem. We also give free tee shirts to any one who comes out only to get weathered out or pretty much any other reason that they will have to drive out again in order to make their jump.

Been a great discusion guys and I would like to see it continued along any drift tangent that you like, such as students misunderstanding good material, or other procedures for getting back from longs spotts, however: I must admit that I jumped the gun on the original post. It took a little chasing as I did not actually take this class nor know the Instructors, but I did find one of them and have passed a few emails back and forth. It seems that misunderstood material was the root of the problem. He has even asked me to follow up with the students (which I planned to do anyway) and straighten things out. Also in his deffense, I have talked to one more of the students that had a whole different out take on the material, all of what she had to say was spot on. So it seems that a few of the students just misunderstood, probably talking to each other instead of the Instructor about questions they had.

Yes I did. Let me see if I can give you some back ground on my math skills. In an invitational placement test I tested out of college algebra, trig, and my first physics. I took the first calculus in the mechanical engineering curriculum my freshmen semester at LSU. Two years later I was dropping out and opening a construction company that I still own and operate. I use a lot of trig now, but I have become very very rusty on most other fields. So to the point, I roughly followed most of what you were saying. Good stuff I am one who grabs a pencil and paper for most things mathematical around the DZ even when most others argue that it is pointless. In practical trials, while flying relative to another canopy I can definitely notice the difference in closure speed when I get small and arch hard. I also make most of my jumps with large camera wings, if I do not collapse them under canopy, I am not coming back from anywhere.

I have not had a chance to speak to one of the instructors yet, but I did talk to another student that had a slightly different testament. She said she was taught to get small when facing into a head wind, and that with a tail wind getting small did not help as much and was not important. I still disagree and believe that getting small will help in either case, but still this is much better information. I can also see where some one could have misinterpreted this, and then talk to others in the class causing the same misinterpretation. Good discusion but I honestly believe the lesson to be learned here is that students do indeed misinterpret things and then pass that bad info on to the rest of the class, and not so much that there is group of canopy coaches out there teaching crap.

Ah, sorry about that. I see what you meant now.

I surely don’t know it all and I still learn from this site, and other sources, every day. I do however have over 1000 paid video jumps, 700 AFF jumps, and 400 coach jumps, hold a coach examiner’s rating, and supervise a fairly large coach staff at a turbine DZ. I think I am qualified to say that Dave is correct in the notion that we cannot compare jumping a camera with having a coach rating. The biggest difference being the training that is received for the bottom of the skydive. Coaches are trained that when things do not go as expected they are to 1) achieve adequate separation 2) pull no lower than 3500’. New and upcoming camera fliers on the other hand are trained to……… well they are not trained at all and all too often when things don’t go as planned, the camera flier’s first instinct is to get it on film. Compare the two and it does not take much deduction to see who is in danger. The rest of this post may be considered thread drift, so if you wish feel free to not read it, but I thought it important. > I'd rather see someone with 100 jumps put on a huge camera with a >VCR strapped to their chest than perform a half-assed coach jump I do see your point. However: A student jumping with a coach has been cleared for self supervision by an instructor and ‘should’ be safe regardless of the coach. A coach doing half-assed coach jumps WILL be corrected by the supervising Instructor if said instructor is doing his job, it is just a matter of time. Someone doing half-assed video jumps is not safe, regardless of anyone. These half-assed jumps WILL be corrected by ……. S&TA, other jumpers, DZO, or the EARTH, or some combination thereof, it is just a matter of time. >The coach has no responsibility for the un-licensed jumper from gear selection, to gear up, >to gear checks, to exit order, to spotting, ………….., to offering hand signals, to >break-off, or pull time, or flying the landing pattern, or landing. Their job is to be a jump >buddy, reference in the sky, and a person to talk to afterwards. A self supervised student is cleared as such only in freefall, most of the above items or not in free fall and are still fall directly under the responsibility of an Instructor. However, a coach is also responsible for all these things and is required to prove such responsibility to obtain a coach rating. Some more than others, even down to pull time even if the coach’s only real responsibility is to pull on time and therefore give the student a hint, it is still a responsibility. >The coach has no responsibility for the un-licensed jumper from ………………, >to stability in freefall, ………. 100% correct >In my experience, coaches do gear up students, train them for their jumps, perform 3 >gear checks for every jump, choose exit order, help teach spotting and ensure the >student's spot is safe, offer hand signals, signal break off if needed Good, they should be >In my experience, coaches …………….. talk students in on radio For a student still having a little pattern trouble, I would be happy with any of the coaches under my supervision to talk to them on radio. However doing so, via radio or other means, is a requirement to get an AFF rating, it is not so for a coach rating. >If the coach going with them wants to double check that they are performing that task >correctly, then so be it. However, the coach is expected only to fly their slot, and break off >at the correct time Actually, a coach is REQUIRED to do all these things, including three gear checks, spotting, exit order and giving a break off signal as a means of teaching. Then if things are still going well, the coach is required to break off, gain separation, and pull. Any coach caught neglecting any of these things repetitively will not be coaching under my supervision for long. >That's their function, they [coaches] literally are a glorified jump buddy. I couldn’t agree more, I just don’t think you give the credit deserved for this glorification. > I think the coach program is poorly implemented at a lot of dropzones I could not agree more, and more in regards to training, and supervision than to the actual coaches. >The coach program at my DZ is way above minimums……………. Lot's of guys will freefly the >exit, jockey around to get the 'good' light, make sure key parts of the skydive or action >are highlighted, look around for 'the shot', and interact with the student if appropriate. >Those guys are going above and beyond, but that is not required, and in a discussion of >who can get the 'job' done, a guy who can achieve the minimum requirements could be >called 'qualified' I hope I am reading this wrong and this is not what you refer to as an above minimum coach jump. Now that the C/E in me is done ranting, both the 100 jump requirement for a coach rating and the 200 jump requirement (as it is at my DZ) for camera, are both minimums. They are both directed to the jumper with above average skills and most jumpers should wait longer. I think both numbers are a fairly accurate well balanced minimum. I would much rather see someone with 100 jumps performing a coach jump under proper supervision than that same person strapping on a camera. That is just my experience.

There are many skydivers, including canopy competitors and teams who teach canopy courses. Using multiple instructors is fairly common. In other words, your odds of just guessing who this was based on the fact they use multiple instructors are very slim. No this was not Flight-1. I would not hash and bash on the instructors unless I actually heard the mis information being taught. These guys did a lot of good things while they were there and the point of this thread was not to flame them. It is still possible that this information was just misunderstood. I was not worried to much about that aspect, but I think I will follow up on this and find out. I just wanted to bring up what I heard going arond for discusion so that hopefully some would learn from it.

We all make a few of those, no biggy

I'm not sure that waiting until they bounce is the best way to identify those who may be distracted. So do you believe that 200 is the magic number to no longer being distracted????? Do you think we should implement a camera cert course? Maybe 7 camera jumps with an instructor to get signed off?? I am a firm believer that some people are simply more capable of multi-tasking or staying focused in general. I think these people will be as competent wearing a camera at 100 jumps as someone who is less focused and has 500, 1000, 2000, jumps etc.... I don't think the 200 jump requirement should be lowered... I just think that wearing a camera may be a big distraction for some and not a distraction at all for others. nice post. This is why 200 jumps is a minimum. We are not saying that everyone will be ready at 200 jumps. Some should wait longer. Yes some may be ready sooner but I agree that we should not lower the minimum, lowering the minimum to fit the very very few is just silly in my opinion. I have been approached by many who want to fly camera early, as well as approaching others with a camera already mounted. I do not argue that they are above average or have mad skills, I simply state that the 200 jump minimum is for them. Then I go to explain that many skydivers should wait for 300, 500, or even never to put a camera on. Once you put it in perspective for them, that you agree they may be ready for a camera when they only have the bare minimum of jumps required (200), most leave with a new confidience that no one is holding them back and begin to look forward to the expereince to come. I wish it was that easy on the net.

I am positive that three novice skydivers left that day with the concept of getting big to get back. All three were very adimant that that is what they were taught. I have not talked to the actual coaches nor did I hear the information being taught. I am inclined to believe this information was indeed taught, however to be fair it is possible that the information was simply misunderstood by the three participants. You are right, my original post did not leave room for honest misunderstanding. My apologies. Still a good discusion.

I agree with every bit of that, but before we tar and feather them, let me clairify something that I may have mis worded in my original post. There is no doubt what so ever that what I posted is what the participants took away from the course. However, most Instructors will agree that you can teach the same class over and over and at some point a whole class room of people will misunderstand the same point. I normally chalk it up to them asking each other questions when the teacher is out. anyway, point is I did not hear this info being taught, I just know what the class took home in their head.

obvious, but it is not funny to reach into the raft and deploy for your friend! The PC and bridle will dance around in the burble of the raft, wrapping up the heads of everyone on board.

Had been doing 180's on my canopy and was well pleased with the out come. Had also put plenty of jumps on my wifes canopy, which was 20sqft smaller and a completely different design than mine. Coming in on hers, was feeling spunky (stupid) set up for a 180, guessing at the different altitude needed as I had never practiced such manuvers on hers, came out of the turn only slightly low I thought, eased up on the fronts, switched to rears only to find out that there was very little response there, bailed to toggles but to late, smacked the ground, bounced high enough to flare again and PLF the second landing. We are now making plans for the 4th of July which will mark two years and my left anckle still hurts at times.

This past weekend we had a couple professional canopy coaches out working with some of our novice jumpers. I was working and not involved but everything I saw was great. They spent a lot of time and effort and were even looking out for others that were not taking the course and giving free advice. A really nice job I thought. After they were gone I asked a couple of people taking the course how their long spot exercise went. I was told how well that getting big worked as the wind was hitting them in the back and pushing them back. At first I thought it was simply misunderstood information but after questioning a couple others it was obvious that is what they were taught: get big if the wind is hitting your back, get small if the wind is hitting your face. Your thoughts and discusion ?? My thoughts: Your air speed is going to be the same regardless of wind direction given all other factors equal. If getting smaller helps you move faster horizontally with a head wind, it will also help you move faster horizontally with a tail wind. Although ground speed is what is going to bring you back, a faster air speed is going give you a faster ground speed in either situation. While under a properly functioning ram air sport skydiving canopy in half brakes (which is the way they were told to fly to get back, which is fine to me and not the point of this conversation) you will have a positive air speed and therefore the relative wind will always be in your face and there will always be a burble behind and above you and the wind will never be able to hit you in the back as you will always be out running it by exactly your air speed. Getting big is only going to increase drag and therefore slows both your air speed as well as your ground speed. It is also going to increase you skydiver/parachute drag ratio which is going to push your body back further under the parachute increasing your angle of influence and therefore cause your canopy to fly steeper towards the ground. None of which is going to help you get back from a long spot. Everyone’s opinion is welcome of course. I am an Instructor questioning a canopy coach. It would be good to hear from others of the same. I am also very interested in not only opinion, but the verbiage used by any one in canopy design or CReW.

can this be done, yes and I have done it. Is it easy, well it was not easy for me, I had to work really hard to fling this 110# lady, and was really giving it my all. she just really upset me when she brought her knees to her chest for no reason and rolled our dive onto its back. I even got mad when I reached across her body to roll her back over and she grabbed my arm with both her hands and began to crawl up me like a scared cat, how dare her. So yes, at that point with a lot of effort, I flung her off of me and I guess I honestly did not care if I messed up her jump or not, how inconciderate of me. I did however redock, reach over, slap her hands away before she could grab me again, roll her over and deploy her parachute for her. I sure hope she feels that saving her life made up for flinging her around and therefore finds no reason to go to the internet and complain about the said flinging.

TWO, one in my right eye socket, the other in my left eye socket; anything more is just redundancy. I do however strongly believe in being redundant so, my eyes are my primary altimeter and I normally wear a wrist mount visual as well, and that is to say that I rely on my eyes first and then possibly on a mechanical device.

As stated above, move the Hypeye. I have also seen sucessful use of a ring around the button. If you go to an automotive parts house and ask to see their selection of "O" rings you should be able to find a nice thick one of the right diameter and then simply gaff it down around the button.