ufk22

I bought a Bev suit 3 years ago to replace a 10 year old diverite. The quality is great, but take care with measurements. Get the regular comp suit, poly cotton forearms if you want a little more drag there. Get the continuous swoop cords with full spandex across the back and under your upper arms (I'm not sure if this is what she calls retractable wings, as I sent her my old suit to copy). The majic bootie has a double pleat running from the knee to the toe. It seems to catch a little more air and gives me both more range for fall rate and a slightly better track. Color tape would be for stripes around the grippers. I like the magic stripe, which is thin and runs the length of the grippers. Get the regular grippers, the oversize comp grippers are too big. This is the only suit I use for belly flying, and I can stay with any size AFF student, match fall rate with any size group, and with the swoop cords can stay with Roger P's incredibly slow falling dives. Again, have someone else measure you, call and get someone ther to go through how you should measure each measurement. A friend got a new suit last summer and had to return it for mods because he got a measurement wrong. Also, get the loose fit if you jump in a wide range of temps. It give extra room when you add layers. Talk to Bev. She can give you a lot of good advice. 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, this has been out there for over a week and no one has asked, so here goes. Why were you sit flying with a V-2? I jumps one for many years, but gave up sit-flying with it after a couple of jumps because when I did, my cover flaps always opened up. This rig was never meant for sit-flying. It's perfectly safe on your belly but is not safe for a sit. From your description of the incident, it soulds like you had a premature opening??? I'm not trying to flame you, just a reminder to other jumpers that this type of older gear isn't necessarily safe for certain types of jumps. Hope you heal well and can continue in the sport. 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.

Jeez, a skydiver that thinks he knows more than what he does????? Why would you limit that to Tandem I'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.

If you have been working with a student from FJ to 38, any instructor who has been doing their job should be able to determine if the student has their head up the back side or not, in 38 jumps.... otherwise your a shitty instructor or not doing your job. I've seen a number of jumpers who, at 38 jumps, were struggling to progress, who would appear to have "their heads up their backside", that went on to be some of the best, most accomplished and safest skydivers around. I've also seen "natural" skydivers who at 38 jumps could do no wrong get in over their heads and end up seriously injured or dead a few jumps or a few years later. Any instructor who thinks they can judge long-term success based on short term progress is a "shitty instructor and not doing their job". To once again get back to where this started, any instructor that would "recommend" that someone with 38 jumps buy a Stiletto is a fool. Now, it could well be in John's case that this was not "recommended", but rather he, having MAD SKILZ, decided that he was ready for the canopy and no one seriously objected, which is quite different than recommending. To quote someone's sig line here "the fact that no one died doesn't mean it was a good decision". Roger Nelson was an innovator in this sport and I have a great deal of respect for him, but one of the reasons we all know who he is was is that he constantly pushed the edge in everything he did. Sometimes it worked out well and sometimes it didn't. And by the way, I've been told by many that Roger NEVER used Stilettos as part of his student program, just Sabres. 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, how about this - your right that advice from an instructor should be taken over and above than from an anonymous source on the internet. In that respect, you are correct. You have, however, focused on one reply to your post and ignored others. How do you address my assertion that you have proven to be far above the 'average' skydiver, and that any course of action you followed may not be the best choice for the majority of new jumpers? Just because something worked for you does not mean that it's advisable for others. To use your position against you, your suggestion that a Stiletto is acceptable for a jumper with 38 jumps is coming from an 'anonymous' source on the internet, and what 'real' jumpers should do is follow the advice of their 'real' instructors. To get back to the real question, should anyone with 38 jumps be advised or allowed to jump a stiletto? One size does not fit all. Every case should be taken on its merits. For a newbie jumper the merits can only be evaluated by his/her instructor or other qualified individual who has observed them. Most certainly NOT by anonymous posters on internet forums. This isn't about arguing "one size fits all". I've been teaching skydiving for over 20 years and teaching Instructors for over 10. No one I've taught or certified with a rating has been good enough to judge a student at 38 jumps and tell me how good they will get or how badly they will injure themselves. 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.

Not having a TI IRM in hand, I would argue against any TI participating in any AFF harness-hold jump. ...for that very reason. Personally I would refuse to jump AFF with a TI on the other side on a two-instructor jump. Because TI are not trained in the harness-hold method. I would argue that. Again, the old harness-hold training. Do you have something specific that says a TI can participate in a Cat D jump or higher? The world of skydiving includes training that does not use or require a harness grip. A tandem I can put out a student and observe them. This is the static line program Cat D-H. Read your SIM and IRM, specifically the Tandem I section of the IRM. 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.

Let's try that again. Do you think an inexperienced jumper should take the "bad" advice of their instructor, or "bad advice" from an anonymous source on the internet? Pretty easy question (if you aren't trying to hide a double standard). and the answer is.... d. None of the above. 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.

Anyone who would recommend a Stiletto, no matter the wingloading, to someone with 38 jumps is either a fool or someone trying to sell a canopy. 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.

First answer, you don't have the experience and knowledge to make the call. Second answer, you don't have any authority to do anything. I've been an instructor for 20 years and a C-E and an I-E for over 10 years and I don't have any authority to deal with something like this. Even if I was an S&TA, that authority is only good at my home DZ. Third answer, you can talk to someone about it, but if this is permitted at this DZ, you'll just get people pissed at YOU. Lastly, look in before looking out. You're jumping a Crossfie 2 with a little over 200 jumps, averaging about 40 jumps a year. The type of canopy is as important as wingloading, maybe more. Right now you are at the most dangerous time in you jump life. A lot of supposed knowledge, but not enough experience to use it properly. Focus on keeping yourself safe and alive and if you don't like how this DZ does things, don't go there. 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.

It's part of the first jump course, as in "don't turn the canopy too low or you will die" And also covered in the landing priorities section of the first jump course. It's also cover during the student progression when they practice flat turns. If what you're talking about is teaching people to swoop, that's another story. Since you appear to support special "I" and "I-E" rating for wingsuits, do we also need the same for swoopers??? There is a big difference between mandatory emergency training and mandatory discipline training. 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 point is that you shouldn't have to set up a new Instructor heirarchy for every skill you need to teach. >And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW >instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must >be negligent and has a liability in the death". USPA has mandatory water training but no mandatory low turn training, and low turns are the largest cause of death in the sport. No lawsuits yet. Not much of a concern. USPA does have mandatory canopy training. Most of it is done by any Instructor, the advanced portion by any S&TA approved person, no special instructor course or rating. 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.

And it would be even more accurate to say that the poll did not indicate "majority" support for it. Approval by less than 50% of those voting and only 8% of USPA membership would seem to minmize true concern by skydivers over the need for a new rating. Also, since tailstrikes seem to be the biggest selling point, a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting the sircraft" I rating. And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must be negligent and has a liability in the death". 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 a POLL. Not even a good poll. Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved" by 8% of USPA's total membership is a sign of membership approval. I have no problem with USPA adopting a uniform training program in the same fashion as the recomended training for rw or crw. I have no probelm with the manufacturers adopting their own training program. To implement a requirement for training and a new I and I-E structure I cannot support. 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.

Nothing stops you faster than a faceplant! (sorry, just realized a low hook would be quicker) 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 happened to me (sort of) many years ago at a boogie. 2nd load of the day, bases at 3000, tops a little over 4000, a 14-way belly dive. The plan was break off a little high (5500), track and stop above the clouds, fall through and then deploy out the bottom. This is/was pretty standard, don't want to be flying canopy in the clouds. Everything went as planned, but the bottoms had dropped to around 1800 during our climb to altitude. Everybody was pretty disciplined til 2 grand, then everyone got more scared of the ground than of a canopy collision. People watching from the ground said it was neat to see all the blossoming canopies appear from nowhere. My SOP for that type of cloud has always been to track 1000-1500 above the tops and be sure to stop before hitting the cloud, fall straight through, deploy just under in the clear. This assumes the bottoms are high enough. 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.

I prefer twine to duct tape. And lots of knots... As for the landing, WD-40. It will really smooth out the slide. 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.

Terrific take on things. This should be required reading for newbs. 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.

All the Skymasters I've seen were 9 cell 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.

Then you would agree that this actually is not a skyhook related fatality? As the skyhook played no part in causing this fatality. My understanding is this may or may not (but probably was) caused by the skyhook and its configuration at the time. The staging loop one only part of the modification, and one that was mandatory on tandems but optional on sport rigs. The big change was a new-differnt RLS/colins ribbon assembly. On the original skyhook the RSL ribbon ran from the riser connector to the colins loop and then on to the reserve pin/skyhook. After that incident, the design was changed. There are now 2 ribbons running from the riser connector, one to the pin/skyhook and a seperate one to the colins loop. Having a reserve deploy could pull on the main riser, but would not put any pull on the colins loop. 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 think I won't do anything I can for a student,but.... I don't want someone trusting ME with their life. I want my students trusting themselves with their life and I make sure they know that. That's not to say that their confidence in me and what I teach them isn't a factor in their success. Maybe because I've done S/L for over 15 years before AFF. Oh, to answer the original question, once I'm out the door with a student, I only see my partner if they're where they belong in their slot. My focus is my student. When I've lost a partner, I don't even look for them til I'm under canopy. Don't think I would even know that they were unconscious . 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, I've NOT made any agreement to in any way "protect" my student. I'm there to teach, I'm there to try to correct any errors they might make, and I'm there to assist with stability and deployment if I can. I'm not there to protect. I'm not there to save their life. 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.

Hard arch off the plane, belly to the relative wind (don't try to get belly to earth right away, just fly the wind), and remember you have plenty of time to deploy. If you were at terminal, you'd burn 1000' in 5 seconds, but after exit, 1000' takes ten seconds. Hard arch because the air is "mushy" until you get some speed up. I know you're supposed to deploy in five seconds, but for the first one I would rather see a stable exit and deployment that takes a little more time than something rushed and unstable. 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 question is how many loads/hr can your current 182 turn? Would you be better off with a faster clibing airplane or 1 more slot on a SLOW climbing airplane? 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.

Problem is, for every 5 (or 10 or 50) recurrency jumps that go well, there is one like this; [http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4132801;search_string=Chasing%20your%20student%20into%20the%20ground;#4132801 My guess is that a lot of people that are taking the "no problem, just jump" position on this might well be the first to crucify any instructor or coach that let a non-current jumper up if thing go to shit. Three or four years is a long time. I've done a lot of recurrency training and jumps, and the guys with the " I'm too good, or I've been in the sport too long to get retrained" attitude may be right, but I'm too good an I and I/E and have been in the sport long enough to blow off that kind of CRAP! 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, I told you it can be done, but WHY? For what a cargo 206 will cost, you could do a max engine upgrade, extend the wings and have a 182 that will really climb. This is what we fly today. 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.