ufk22

Smart advice. Waste of time to cock it any earlier. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Can things be improved? Always. BUT.... What you seem to be missing is that an AFFI rating does not mean you are now the perfect teacher (or ever will be by some people's standards). The rating means you have the basic tools to start teaching. I've been a coach-E and a S/L I-E for a lot of years, and I fully expect any and all new rating holders to make mistakes (hopefully not as many as I've made over the years) but not to make the same one twice. That's all I can ask of them. I got an AFF rating about a little over a year ago. Was I appalled by the level of readiness most of the candidates showed? Nope. I see it all the time in the courses I teach. I even make my candidates submit lesson plans prior to the course, not just for the required topics but for a broader range from the ISP. Even with this, I expect them to learn a lot of what they need during the course. I also expect them to be a lot better after a year or two or five of teaching. The strange part of all this is that if they aren't, an S&TA can suspend their rating but I can't. That might be something worth changing. Otherwise, setting the bar so high that is a lot more expensive isn't the answer. Setting the bar so high that no one qualifies isn't the answer. Holding the world to a standard that that I won't/don't hold myself to isn't either. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Made about 250 jumps on an Interceptor. Bought it used (less than 10 sub-terminal jumps) very cheap, over 20 years ago. I couldn't afford anything more expensive. I used it for everything. First month, I was black and blue every time I jumped it. This thing opens in a heartbeat. If you're taking it to terminal, roll the nose past the "B" lines and stuff it deep. You'll still have a canopy in an instant, but the openings will be tollerable. The flare range is very short and the flare is not real strong. If you don't get it just right you'll know. Flair it hard and fast. If you can consistantly stand it up, you know you can land anything. This canopy is stable as a rock, easy to sink, hard to stall. I wouldn't go over 1/1, as this is not ZP. Because of the weak flare, I wouldn't use it for accuracy as it has not much flare out of a sink. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Does anyone out there teach the "curl up into a ball" method to students for getting out of spins??? If so, how, when and why? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This being already done, why do we nned to change the BSR's?????????? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Having given this more thought, I would NOT have a problem with the definition being extended to any jump with students or A licence holders. Any jumps made with B licence and above should not count towards renewal. A licence skydivers still have a lot of basic skills to learn that really would qualify as coach jumps. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Works for me. I imagine that any "linked" exit will now count toward AFF renewal too???? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Another long, rambling diatribe. Let's initiate a discussion in search of a problem. I know you've suggested a multi-day FJC in the past and now you're suggesting we don't train people to properly initiate EP's at proper altitude. Before we even consider changing everything we teach on EP's, does anyone know how many successful cutaways/ reserve deployments at proper altitude were made last year??? 100? 1000? Statistically, it should be between 500 and 1000. And how many low cutaway/low-no reserve deployments? 2 What does this mean? Over 99% success rate, but because of failures in somewhere between .4% and .2% we need to rethink everything we do and teach??? Nothing wrong with doing everything we can to avoid all fatalities, but let's keep things in perspective. Any type of training that achieves this high a success rate is worth keeping. Perhaps if you filled out your profile you might have at least a little bit of credibility. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

OK, so if you haven't figured this out yet..... Every DZ has there own specific training program and their own specific student gear. The training most likely follows the ISP but everyone does it slightly differently. All equipment is basicly the same, but it could be SOS or dual handle, could be throw-out or ripcord. Your jump history is short, diverse and spotty. You seem to think that whatever DZ you show up at should not follow their own specific progression, but rather get an instructor to spend a couple of hours with you to determine what you know and don't know, what equipment system you are used to and then develope a trauining program that will be used just for you. After doing this, they should not charge you too much money. I've been training students and instructors for many years. I've seen a number of instances similar to what you're talking about. Someone shows up, low jump student, just passing through and wants to make a jump or two. It's far easier and more efficient to run them through our FJC with other students than it is to spend the one-on-one time to figure out where they are in their training and abilities. Bottom line, if you want to progress in this sport, pick a DZ and a program and stick with it. -> http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af359/gbeezy09/Funny%20Uploads/Calm_down_bro-DWrvfmLVFfKK0S1yir7V.jpg Do you think the DZ only has one pig? No. So in this hypothetical I don't expect someone to slaughter 1 pig for 10 lbs of bacon if they have more suitable pre-cut portions available. If they didn't then everything I have said would be unfounded now wouldn't it? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

You're saying I should kill my pig just to sell you 10 pounds of bacon? Student training is not a money maker for most drop zones. You are not planning on being a regular jumper. You have jumped just often enough to not be current, especially in light of you jumping between training methods. STFU This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Still not even close. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, but there's nothing in that old post about NOT using a washer, just talks about inspecting . The idea of not using a washer is just plain dangerous and foolish. The fact that your knot only setup pulled through the grommet should have shown you that. At some point in time I'll take the time to state the obvious that many are overlooking at the moment. I'm more concerned about the mechanics of communication and the stereotypes that exsist about adjusting closing loops at the moment. Here is just one post from 2004 from another that doesn't use a washer as well... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1282288;search_string=main%20closing%20loop;#1282288 There is nothing new here..... C This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Now you're suggesting not using a washer on your closing loop???? Your level of knowledge about this sport is underwhelming! I dug this one up because of a couple of concerns about Vectors (VIII, Microns,) that I have seen lately... The offset is to ensure that the final flap, the pin protector, the top flap, etc,... fit's into its' pocket. I have seen a couple of V3's with smaller than design main canopies installed and the users have drastically shortened the main closing loop. Consequenses of this were that the "Main pin cover" gets pinched by the side flaps. One container had visible indentations on both the main pin flap cover and the piping on the left and right side flaps. To me this begs the question, that this increases the potential for a PC in tow if you have an unstable opening. The other thing I witnessed of late, regarding the fact that on these containers the grommets are not designed to line up, was the fact that some packers, in the effort to get the grommets to line up,...shortened the closing loop....there was no washer on the loop, (it wasn't necessary,) and the closing loop promptly pulled thru when the container was thrown on the rack hitting the side of the container...This could have happened in the aircraft! The well intentioned individuals thought that the tension was too loose on the closing loop!!! So they shortened it, no washer, dosent need a washer with the low tension when everything is properly sized. Double overhand knot, or I use a triple overhand knot on my closing loop. Or get a washer and make sure to check it for wear on a regular basis... Anyways with the increased tension caused by the shorter loop, it pulled thru its' grommet.... "We wanted it to look normal..." was what the person said regarding the fact that they didn't understand why the grommets didn't line up! The UPT manual states that the closing loop should be adjusted to no more than 12 lbs of force max! But the min is left up to the user, the min force is enough to keep everything in its place. There is no real recommended min pin force for the main loop. As you can see, if you use a non-recommended size main for your particular Micron or V3 you run some risks that may in fact affect performance. C This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Got a used altitrack, had questions, they answered the next day. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, there are no "signs" that occur with any consistency. The only way to know who will stick with the sport is to see who's around 10 years from now. Some you think will jump forever disappear, some you think will be gone in 6 months never leave. This is a really important lesson for anyone with instructional ratings. If you think YOU know who is worth spending time on, you are wrong! This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Obviously referring to the inferring. To reply to the imply would be talking to myself Are you replying to the inferring or the implying? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

What are you inferring that I am implying??? You can read in whatever you wish! interesting use of the word "get", it infers something other than "earn" like mail order, buy, trade for beer, etc. You may infer, the statement can only imply. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This all depends on logistics. If you've got a turbine DZ flying a 14 pass aircraft, you would need 14 tandem rigs, 14 T-I's, and and 7 students/load to keep the plane turning (so as not to have to cycle the engine each load). If you have a fun-jumper base, you could cut those numbers in half. The alternative is to fly the plane holf full. If that's the comparison, then whatever you charge fun-jumpers is almost pure profit. If you've got a Cessna, 4 rigs, 4 T-I's, and lots of tandem customers it's hard to make an economic arguement for funjumpers. Had a DZ about 1 1/2 away from me that did an incredible tandem business with a kingair, but they eventually shut down. They were so focused on tandems that all the sport jumpers left. Without them to fill loads the economics didn't work. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Don't be sexist. It is sometimes that "gal". What's even better is when they get instructional ratings. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

At your experience level, most don't die from a 270 at 200'. Most die from a quickly pulled toggle to avoid something/correct something unexpected. Not saying that it can't/won't be something intentional that gets YOU. Seen it often enough that I no longer pretend to give a shit when someone ignorant transitions to stupid. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

My quess is most AOPA members would rather they spend 2% to get rid of skydiving at any and all GA airports. When you say they spend "not a dime on safety" you're saying that you don't count what was spent on putting together the ISP (although not perfect, cause nothing is, this has totally changed the structure of the FJC and skydiving progression). What's been done to standardize canopy training for the B license also doesn't count? USPA walks a fine line. For every member that wants USPA to toughen standards there is another member that doesn't want it. I myself wasn't happy having to spend almost $1000 to take the IERC. I've been running coach and I courses for over 10 years. I generally run one of each a years, and sometimes don't make enough to break even. When I went I found out that I had been doing it right, but there seem to have been a lot of C-E's and I-E's that weren't. On the one hand I'm glad to weed out some, but on the other, every time USPA adds another layer of requirements they are pushing us towards the time when local C-E's and I-E's are a thing of the past. Not saying that you're totally wrong, just that you're not totally right, same as USPA. When they start to give a shit about not letting members get killed under canopy.... I'll give a shit they are 35k strong. They have LONG since stopped caring about anything but the glamor. They will spend tons of time making a magazine no one reads, but will spend zero time creating a swoop syllabus. They will spend member money to make an official demo team, but not a dime on safety. If I didn't have to be a USPA member to compete at nationals and do AFF... They would have 35,013 members in a second. Totally agree. All they feature are free flying techniques and sponsored jumpers and how great they are. if I can jump without paying annual fees I would. The work they regarding keeping the feds off our backs is to me, well worth the price of admission...ymmv I'd rather pay the AOPA. If the AOPA spent 1% of their time protecting skydiving they would do more than the USPA. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Requiring tunnel time or using tunnel time to replace ff time both miss what is needed. The tunnel can be a valuable tool for learning some basic AFF skills (roll-overs and spin stops). It can also help with the basic flying, but the tunnel is far too limiting to really use for a lot of the flying skills needed (exit stabilization, staying close to a student that backslides 20' on release, staying with a students that drops 50' in a sudden roll-over, etc). That said, having 500 RW team jumps or 500 FF jumps also don't give these skills. Maybe a requirement for 100 coach jumps might help. Nothing teaches flying skills like jumping with low-time people who are sliding across the sky. As for the current teaching requirements, I've seen a wide variation of what C-Es and I-Es require. I want to see lesson plans on at least a few of the topics from my candidates prior to the course, then require and grade their lesson plans during the course. The idea is to try to reinforce the idea that they need to PREPARE. I've been teaching for over 20 years, but never just "wing it" for a FJC. I show them my outline with notes scribbled all over the place to reinforce the concept that just because they skydive doesn't mean that they can teach it effectively without preparation. I've had people go elsewhere to take the coach or I course and come back commenting on how "this other" I-E is a lot more effective because they don't waste all that time on lesson plan stuff. I've also known more than one I-E that actually hand out complete lesson plans for what their candidates need to teach during the course, and seen candidates just recite it back so poorly that they obviously haven't even rehearsed to this low level. The bottom line is that every candidate can reach a higher level than they themselves realize, but only if they are held to a real standard. Not all can or should pass. This is less about written requirements and more about real-world evaluations. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

My favorite skydiving T shirt.... "Don't tell mom I'm a skydiver. She thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse." This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The Canopy portion of the AFF course is woefully inadequate because it doesn't teach swooping??? Your confidence in your point of view despite opposing opinions from those who have a lot more experience does indeed coincide with the study quoted above by Sandy. It's actually worth a read. It's something that I use in my Coach and Instructor rating courses. No. I mean teaching it properly and in depth. Not just scratching the surface. While we are at it, I think the canopy part of the AFF course is woefully inadequate. Maybe that's part of the problem - our sport sets up the expectation that freefall skills matter the most and canopy piloting is something you just go out and learn on your own. I don't know - it's a theory, though. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.