azureriders

I can not honestly say the same because I do love my fun jumps and when the student pool is low I still make almost every load. However, my work jumps are as fun as any I do and come first. I really enjoy RW and especially if the Mrs. is jumping with me, but all that is put to the side for my work, and that is the way I like it. I normally average 20+ work jumps per weekend. This weekend the winds were high and I was only able to get a few students up late in the day, add to that 2 or 3 tandem videos and my work was done, but I still managed to get 17 jumps for the weekend. Alot of people don't seem to get it when I say I enjoy every work jump as much as any other jump. Glad to know I am not alone. As I tell all my coach candidates, post AFF / pre A license coach jumps are my favorite off all jumps. I just wish I had time to do more of them.

glad to know you are practicing. I think you will be pleased with the results.

And have you been practicing the drills I gave you? See you this weekend

My family came to America in a boat. They landed at Plymouth Rock only a short few months after the May Flower. I think I am an American

Totals, PC in tow, and what not the reserve side Instructor should be able to lend some assistance, other than that, the student is on his own after main depolyment. I cleared a PC hesitation / bag lock at the first stow caused by a weak throw from a Level one. I also videoed another instructor yanking lines to clear a bag lock that was up out of his reach, scary shit that was.

There is all kind of possibilities/reasons for disconnecting an RSL. Instead of going on and on about them I will try, to the best of my opinion, to directly answer the original poster’s question “why does SIM section 5-1 recommends to disconnect RSL in the case of side-by-side or downplane (if altitude permits)?” I think most of us can agree that the dual square report is an excellent read and full of great information and I would venture to say probably the main source of information used in the writing of section 5-1 of the SIM. A direct quote from the side-by-side section of the dual square report says “It must be noted that RSL's were not used in any of these tests. Great caution must be used when cutting away in that scenario due to the varied styles and applications of RSL's.” The dual square report also concludes in any two out situation requiring a cutaway that you should “disconnect any RSL, if time /altitude permits, and cutaway the main canopy”. Now, my conclusion in my opinion is that 1) they did not use RSLs in any testing for simplicity 2) there were already varying types of RSLs at that time and no telling how many more to come and 3) if you disconnect your RSL, you are back to the same situation as the test jumper was in. So therefore, disconnect your RSL or else you are in a situation that we do not have test data to support, therefore we would all be guessing at what will happen. That is my best attempt to explain why the SIM says what the SIM says. Personally I am of the mind set that if you study your gear and understand how the RSL works and deem it not to be a huge threat then maybe disconnecting should not be on the top of the priority list, however disconnecting it could still not hurt. To support my opinion on this is another quote from the dual square report “If they are already low there isn't a lot of time to be playing around trying to undue things when that time could be used cutting away and sorting out the best place to land.” If you agree with my mind set, I must stress KNOW YOUR GEAR!! The dual sided RSL on the Racer rigs have already been mentioned in this thread. I have personally witnessed first hand, air to air, up close the effects of not disconnecting that style RSL before chopping a two out. I thought I had lost a very good friend that day as he spiraled past me and into the ground with a dual entanglement. Luckily he and his passenger survived and my friend is now jumping again.

I would only be interested if there was one stipulation, I get to kiss you from the time I catch you until your normal pull altitude, and I get to leave from the camera step, you can leave from where ever you like.......ok, that was two stipulations.....

I am very pro USPA, however I know people who I believe to have legitimate reasons to feel other wise. I find the sticker to be very unprofessional, however I would not let it affect my opinion of the DZ itself.

Nice job saving your neck, however I do agree with most that you were a bit low and should think of picking your numbers up a bit. Some of my thoughts and opinions: The SIM states that break off for groups of 5 or fewer should be 1500 ft above the highest puller in the group. Although I agree that I can normally get adequate separation with 1000 ft, I think 1500ft is a good number, especially for some one of your jump numbers This could be repeated on every post that is ever made on these forums and it still would not be heard enough. At this point in your skydiving career, you should be trying to get as much canopy time as possible, and there are things to be working on other than just enjoying the serenity of it all. Anyone pulling at a safe altitude that is at the bottom of their comfort level who is still have problems with the rest of their group, needs to find a new group to jump with. Problem solved. If your problems are with the rest of the load, better load organizing will also fix any of those problems. Of course there are special consideration jumps which require you to pull lower as mentioned by others, but then you do not have to go on those. If this is the case, then you should be leaving more time between groups. Exit/Open separation is horizontal, not vertical. I track "past" open canopies all the time, and always get a giggle over how far over there they are. I have 5 cutaways and only on one of them did I take the time to intentionally roll over, stop spinning, and get stable before pulling silver. This also happens to be the only reserve deployment that I had line twist on......read my signature line. Now before you go thinking I am the pull higher police, I am actually known to be just the opposite. A lot of people think that USPA should raise the min pull altitudes. I think that 2000' for D license holders is ok for a min, but maybe the numbers for lesser experience should be raised from where they are now. Personally I am comfortable pulling at 2000', however I know that there is no time for playing or fixing anything down there. As Reginald has clearly explained with a mathematical break down, we all need a cushion for safety. For this reason I prefer to pull between 2500 and 3000 ft. Although I know I can pull at 2000' and still survive a malfunction, pulling higher gives me at least 500' of time to fix a minor mal, or perhaps to be used as extra tracking time when some other digit forgets how. Some of the above comments are replies to others I know, but I am addressing the original poster in regards to jump numbers and what I think he should be considering, please do not take offense.

I use a 5/8 in bit. Translates I believe to 15.875 mm.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1060109#1060109

In a word, NO! six hours of free fall time with the earth speeding towards your body is already and absolute minimum amount of experience for any new AFF-I. The tunnel can give you skill, but it can not give you the same experience. Just my opinion of course.

Totally off topic, but please make it a habit to track before pulling on tandem video jumps. If you do and I miss read your post, sorry.

Had a spectre 230 1.1 to 1 slam me hard enough that all the nieghbors where looking up to see what the loud noise was as I was looking up at 6 broke lines, all below the cascades. My right front riser had no lines left on it and was dangling around my cameras, looked cool on video though. Point is, any canopy can slam you due to bad body position, loss slider, line dump, etc. Just glad your friend was not hurt. By the way, since all the nieghbors were already looking up, I went ahead and cut that away just to give them a little show.

YES on every single pack job great openings

1 & 2 are pretty much up to you and what you want out of your openings. Personally, I do a standard pro pack until you would be ready to s fold the canopy to go in the bag. Then I turn the pack job over, roll it up and shove the bag over it. Kind of a pro pack with a psycho bagging technique. The picture in question 4 shows a bridle extension specially made for psycho packing. This is not necessary but does make things easier. If you are not using one you just need to pull the Pilot Chute Atachment Point out from the center of your roll and allow some canopy material to serve as a bridal extension to get your bridal back to the proper location on the pack job before going into the bag. Think about where your bridle normally comes from on an S folded pack job vs coming from the end of the roll on a psycho pack. After your canopy is bagged, be sure the pilot chute is still cocked. Especially if you are NOT using a bridle extension. If you cocked it before you bagged the canopy, and then it is not quiet cocked after you bag it, go ahead and step on the bag and recock the pilot chute. You should not be moving the kill line very much. I find my psycho bagged openings to be on heading and a bit slower than if I s fold. just my $0.02

It would depend on a lot of things such as wing loading, practice with rear riser landings, etc, etc. At about 400 jumps on a spectre 230 loaded at about 1.2 to 1 I did land (pound in) with one break stowed. I wraped the unstowed break around my hand until flying straight and flared with my rear risers, and performed one hell of a PLF. If I had it to do over again, on the 230, I would land it again. The same situation on my 170 at 1.5 to 1, even though I have plenty of rear riser landings on that canopy, no way would I land it. You have to remember, it is not just a rear riser landing, it is a rear riser landing from 1/2 breaks. So my vote is, IT DEPENDS

It may not be your dz, or his dz, but it is MY sport that will be in the headlines. There has been a lot of talk lately on these forums about the responsibility you speak of. Is it the student's, the instructor's, the DZO's, I mean really, who's responsibility is it. Okay, I will que you in, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY, AND YOURS, and I do mean always, no matter what the question, the responsibility is still ours. So, I will continue to use whatever means I can to deter young jumpers from being stupid, and I do encourage you to do the same. You do seem to be thinking about how to keep people from being stupid, kudos to you for that. However, please do not tell me that it is not my responsibility, because it is. Little Timmy is all my responsibility, simply because he is in my sport, and I dont even know the guy.

Next time you get a chance, stand on the tar mac with your back to the prop blast of a twin engine plane. Position your arms in all different places and see what the wind does to your wings and handles. Then practice getting your hands on them. I try to do this at least once a weekend. good job saving your neck

Could you please tell us what canopy class you have taken that teaches this. I have taken several (some better than others) and have never heard such things in one yet. Please enlighten us.

I regularly shoot HALO footage during the summer with exit temps around -25F. I have taken my older PC9, PC100, and once my HC96 for video. All have been using my Rebel xt for stills. All cameras are always in a condom, even the stills. I have never had any of them shut off from cold, but the condensation normally shuts them down around 2000' AGL. I have another set up waiting for the landing shots. I do plan on using my new HC5 for some HALO work this summer. If anyone is having regular cold issues with this camera, please let me know.

We use the old seven jump AFF program. I stress that there are seven levels, not seven tests, not seven pass or fails, and not even seven jumps, simply seven levels. We seem to be still working on this level, when the TLOs are met, we will move on to the next level, how ever many jumps that may take. Yes, you can finish the seven levels in seven jumps, but it is not required. As someone else has already said, if you give your students goals, (call them TLOs, or SMART goals, or what ever) then simply ask the student if the goals were met, 'most' will make the right decision on their own.

I understand your point but I still agree with the system. Wrapping all four ratings up in one bow as you put it, is what keeps us all on the same page, and what makes Tandem Instructors, rather than Tandem Masters. You say that the TI candidates did the same student prep requirements in their coach course as they will have to do in the TI course. I hear this a lot, but it is simply not true. Although the teaching techniques a Coach and an Instructor are taught are on the same line, they are not the same and they are not to be (should not be) held to the same standards. For the system to work properly, a Coach should perform many many coach jumps to refine their teaching skills, then an Instructor Examiner can evaluate and help to further refine those skills, and bring them up to Instructor standards. I personally think the # of student jumps required should be raised to get any Instructor rating for this reason. A Coach works under the supervision of an Instructor; this could be a Tandem Instructor. Should an Instructor be expected and trusted to supervise coaches simply because he went through the same coach course that they did, or because his training has went even further and his teaching skills have been refined in an Instructors course? I think having Tandem Masters in stead of Instructors could be a system that would work, but in that system they would not be allowed to supervise coaches, sign license applications, instruct students, etc. I highly prefer the system and requirements that we have now. I like having as many Instructors as possible around me, to work as a team. I find that a lot of Tandem Instructors (I did not say most, and I for sure did not say you) want to have the privileges of an Instructor, but do not want the responsibility that comes along with them. Your responsibility to a student goes much further than while he is strapped to you, your teachings will stay with him the rest of his skydiving career. If you wonder just how much difference the teachings of a Tandem Instructor can really make, go get an AFF rating. Then work on the other end of your Tandem progression system. I promise you that with in 100 jumps you will have a favorite Tandem Instructor and probably another that scares the wazu out of you, all based on the students that work with them. Yep, I like the standards and think we should stay with them. Go put forth the effort to do what ever it takes to get your Examiner ratting, it will be worth it. Then do what ever it takes to show your candidates that they are more than meat haulers, they are Instructors. For what it is worth, I am not a Tandem Instructor, like you I do not have time to do it all. I am an AFF Instructor as well as a Coach Examiner, and I can attest that working with Tandem Instructors that strive to Instruct is a pleasure, working with the others, yeah well, anyway. Good luck on your rating.

As John has already said, responsibility and liability are two seperate things, even if linked in many ways. My responsibility never lessons on any jump that I call my self Instructor on, never. The same is true when I am coaching. It may not be my duty to pull for a coach student, but I am still just as responsible to assure that my student recieves the knowlede and skills that he or she needs to progress in our sport.

There are several good ways to pack and you will hear good and bad things about them all. Some will say psycho packing is no easier than their pack job, and if you watch them and master their technique, you will probably agree. Most any proven packing technique, if mastered, can give you nice soft openings and can be performed very easily with practice. I do a normal pro pack, then roll the cocoon over, fold it up, and bag it as a psycho pack. Remember, you are actually trying to fold the canopy, not roll it. Rolling tends to push the tension out of your lines inside the pack job. Someone mentioned kneeling on the slider grommets to eliminate this, interesting technique and I am sure works fine. I psycho bag not because it is easier to get the canopy in the bag, I have seen too many good packers do it other ways for me to believe that. However, with a normal S fold bagging, your knee placement and pressure applied must be near perfect and held for some time, only seconds if your are really good, but that is still some time. I have lower back trouble and can not always hold my knees in such a position with out my back 'catching'. Once this happens I have to move to relieve my back and have lost whole pack jobs because of it. When I psycho bag, I can control the ready to bag, or half bagged canopy at any time literally with one finger (even a brand new canopy), allowing me to stretch and move my back if needed. The video posted earlier was quiet impressive. However, I can psycho bag a new canopy as neatly, with everything where it belongs, and more than likely smaller in the bag. By smaller in the bag I mean less likely to require a pull up chord on the line stows, not that there is anything wrong with doing so. As for speed, I would not want to put money on a race with this guy as he has obviously mastered his technique, but I would be competition for him and know that I can bag a canopy my way, faster than I can any other way, for my way is the technique I have decided to try and master. Moral of the story: your mileage may vary, find what works for you and go with it.