ufk22

First of all, the "light area open, dark area trees" is the night jump equivalent of the "45 degree" exit separation rule. While it may sometimes be correct, it can also be the opposite. Think about it. This time of year, with crops removed and leaves turning on the trees, what areas would you expect to be lighter or darker? Bare ground or non-green leaves on trees? Second, two cars headlights are not enough lighting, especially if on an airport without runway lights or beacon. If there is not a town real close to provide a reference, even worse. I've made night jumps both at a remote private grass strip with minimal (but a lot more than you had) lighting and at airports with lighted runways, beacon and a close town. The second is a lot easier. Jumping into an airport on the edge of a large city, I found I could read my altimeter easier by tipping it down towards the lights of the city than I could from the cylume attached to it. At a dark, remote airport, I actually prefer to use a strobe on the ground far enough from the actual landing area to not cause problems. It provides a clear locator for the jumpers. It can be turned off when all jumpers have located the airport. You also said no one could see your light. Did you deploy a strobe on a rope after you were under canopy, or what type of lighting do you use? Last of all, were there easily identifiable landmarks around the airport? Large well lit areas? How far off were you? Was the spot good? If so, and you knew where you got out, maybe you just screwed up. 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 means the each successive group should open about 300' higher than the preceding one so that when you are under cnaopy you can look up or down and see other canopies at a 45 degree angle 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.

..............................................................Amazing how Stilettos went from being the hottest canopy on the market to the docile canopy mainly jumped by POPS. Hah! Hah! Mind you, Stilettos were the first - or second - elliptical canopy to hit the American market and we had to un-learn a few bad habits .....Stiletto is anything but docile. The reason they're considered "conservative" today is that they aren't an aggressive swooping canopy. I've jumped one for many years. At moderate wing loading (1.5 or so) a Stiletto has more range than any other canopy. But reach a hand out 4" on landing and you'll find out how "un-docile" the canopy can be. When I talked to PD a couple of years ago about a replacement and told them what I was looking for; fun to fly great glide for possible bad spot or low opening on student jumps stable in deep brakes for low flat turns or tight landings don't care about incredible swooping I was told that they still had nothing that would do the job better than the Stiletto 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 to deter from your question but I've never seen the phrase "great" paired with "S/L or IAD..." The only great application is getting an A-License for tunnel instructors. I do realize it's none of my business. To answer, another is Virginina Skydiving Center. What's wrong with static line? It makes less use of the aircraft and generates less revenue for the dz and staff.Having both S/L and AFF ratings, my take on the difference is economics rather than quality of training. By 100 jumps, I doubt if there is any noticeable difference in a jumpers abilities other than the S/L trained will be comfortable with low exits. By economics, I mean aircraft utilization. It makes no sense to have a turbine orbit at 3500' for multiple S/L exits. It also makes more sense to put 3 or 4 students out of a Cessna on successive passes rather than tie up the aircraft with 3 people to full altitude for one AFF. One instructor can easily train and put out 12 S/L students in a day, actually making S/L much more profitable for a Cessna DZ. The suggestion that "S/L is only a great way to to get tunnel instructors a license" shows a level of either arrogance or stupidity beyond my ability to comment further. 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 am familiar with some of these people covering for their friends (personal experience and second-hand stories) but I will say I have NEVER heard this said about Tom Noonan or Jay Stokes. In fact, just the opposite, but they are only two votes and both have enough integrity to not go "outside the system" with any information. 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.

So far, less than 30% get 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.

Unless you jump where there is a lot of sand, I don't know that cleaning the housing is recommended unless there is an issue. Studies I've seen show that a light lube on the cut-away cable, especially the ends where it passes through the 3-ring loop, can significantly reduce pull force. Exercising the three-rings means to twist the rings enough for the riser fabric to flex substantially a few times to help avoid the riser from taking a set, which can cause delayed release. I know of one case where a friend of mine had to wipe her hand across her three-rings after a chop to get them to release. 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.

A recent incident raised this question. As a side note, were you taught this as a student? 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 know, I have never thought of any of my tandem students as "200 pounds of stupid", maybe because of the training I give them. I would have to believe that if a tandem instructor showed their student how to shoot their own video, and practiced it a few times, that most of them would do an OK job. Maybe not all of them, but most.After over 20 years of training students and rating candidates, I think most people will perform up to or down to our expectations. The tandem I's I know that treat their students like students generally have good performance. Those that consider them "200 pounds of stupid" usually get what they expect (and deserve). 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've got thirty-some jumps right now. Get 100. Don't waste time on solo jumps, do 2 way to 4-way. Get a few drill dives that work on specific skills; center point turns side slides knee turns When you dirt dive, think more about what you need to do to get into position for the next point than about what the next point is. Even when the dives don't go well you'll gain flying skills. Free-fly (unlinked) the exits. You won't get as many points but you'll gain other skills. Make the end of every dive a "tracking dive" and really work on efficient tracking. How to know when to move on to other disciplines? When you get down from a dive and realized that you can remember everything that went on (both what you did and what others did). That will mean you are able to do your flying without thinking about it. And definitely take canopy courses. 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.

IAD training covers the equipment over a number of categories. With 6 jumps, I'm thinking you are Cat B or C. I'm assuming you have received complete EP training during you FJC and complete review during your Cat B trainings. Stand-up harness training has become the norm at most U.S. Drop zones. If used properly, it can be more effective than hanging harness because you get a lot more cut-away sequences than you would with a hanging harness. There is a limit to how much can be covered during training while jumping is going on, but the best thing you can do is hang around after jumping is done, bring beer and ask people to spend some time showing you stuff. 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 for terminology mistake, should have said " main lift web" adjustment. My point, however, was that in every incident, there is usually a chain of events rather than one specific thing. You had three links. This is not directed at you (even though ultimately YOU are responsible to save your own life) but rather at all people with instructional ratings out there. You were put up with improper gloves, badly fitted helmet and a misadjusted harness. Add a rapidly spinning canopy (which would lock you even lower into the harness) and you wouldn't be able to see if it was just a brake fire and would have to feel (through thick gloves) for your handles, which would be much higher on your chest than where you'd practiced. I'm not saying you couldn't have done it, just that it would be much more difficult because of things that could have been avoided. Gear checks matter. Proper equipment matters. Break the chain. [url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4758552;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; 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 off, maybe the moderators might consider moving this to the instructor threads, as this could be valuable reading for anyone that works with students. The potential chain; 1. thick gloves, not ever appropriate for students, not usually for even experienced jumpers. I jump in Minnesota/North Dakota and never wear anything thick. It's not THAT cold. 2. Helmet that doesn't fit/restricts vision. Don't know what kind of helmet (most student helmets are just regular Pro-Tec, and while they might not always fit well, they normally don't restrict your vision). 3. Improper harness fit/adjustment. My guess is the laterals were out of adjustment rather than the leg straps. I usually have my students bend at the waist 90 degrees with hands on their knees (no, don't go there) after gear up and push the rig towards their head. This will show real quick if the laterals are too loose. 4. All this combined meant the student couldn't inspect their canopy, couldn't see their toggles, couldn't even look down (I assume this also means that he couldn't look at his reserve handles) couldn't feel well enough through his gloves to unsnap his helmet or initially find his toggles, which also means he would have had problems even feeling for his handles. Add something as simple as a toggle fire to this and we could have an incident report rather than a DZ.com thread. Would that last line have read "student didn't respond to the situation and initiate EP's" because no one could figure out the rest of the story? 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 always keep them in stock for immediate shipment. Send me $500, Western Union only, no checks, no credit cards. As soon as I have the cash, I will use my meter

Assuming you are correct ($200 parts) you then have manufacturing (small lots), assembly (also small lots) and QC. Add a reliable cutter (not like Argus) Add liability insurance and where are you at? $1200? open sourse/ A device that can be reprogrammed by anyone with an interest? Sorry, don't want that guy on the same airplane or in the same sky as me. Open source development for "normal" software is one thing. A glitch in an AAD that fires when it shouldn't could kill the owner and others. 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.

Ditch the Triathalon. It landing flare is most comparable to an old F-111. It's really hard to stage it, generally needs to be full flight to full flare, and the window for getting it right is thin. I've got a few hundred F-111 jumps and can do it, but why? I've also known a few experienced jumpers that could never consistently land their triathlons. We all thought they were just could've land until they got different canopies. Usually, something designed to be ok at a lot of different things aren't really good at anything. 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..... Two things; Will you recognize landmarks well enough in the dark to know you're heading back? If you don't make it back, are you able to land in the dark safely? Spotting obstacles, judging altitude, just seeing changes in terrain (uphill/downhill)? It's certainly been done, but is it smart??? 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.

When you combine dick measuring with a pissing contest everything gets real educational in a hurry. Everyone also gets wet. 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 first couple of seconds off the plane it's less about the arch than is is about the presentation and the "relative wind". Until you have terminal air to play with, it's less the aerodynamics and more the momentum of your body. If you exit with too much push, you will go past that stable position. Also, remember not to try to get belly to earth, rather belly to the horizon and ride the hill. 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.

Excellent 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.

Contact your RD or the tandem manufacturer ( this can be anonymous) with names and the problem should get dealt with. If this is true, it reflector poorly on all of us and is a disservice to passengers. 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.

An 80+ year old pilot trying to show me how "some guy" used to exit from his Stearman just prior to my demo jump. He no longer flew, my pilot had never flown this airplane, never dropped a jumper and never inverted an 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.

I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. I obviously don't know who the two instructors were or exactly what they did, just saying I've seen plenty of this over the years in our sport and continue to see it today. There are better ways. AFF or any instructional rating is a lot less about skydiving ability than it is about being able to TEACH the student something. If you don't teach the student something in a way that they actually learn, you are not an "otherwise great instructor", you're just getting paid. 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.

Welcome to the old school world of skydiving. This is how I was taught 25 years ago, but this is NOT how I teach rating candidates to teach. I think the idea back then was that the "weak" needed to be culled from the sport, so if you couldn't take the heat, "go away". If you manage to come back (especially with beer) after that, you might be ok. But, that was then, this is now. I'm not saying that I have never had a serious discussion with a student, but I find it very hard to defend the actions of instructors who work this way today. The "they saved your life so quit your bitching" mentality is more of the same old school crap. The IRM is a very good source for techniques of teaching through positive reinforcement and giving proper constructive criticism when needed. It's worth a read for those that got ratings before it existed. 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.

He didn't, but I have been noticing a slow evolution toward having the student have their hand further forward rather than on their helmet. I don't correct a student if their hand is "close enough". What matters more anyway is how good of an arch or hips-down body position they have while reaching and throwing. Whenever I have taught the initial first AFF jump deployment, I have told them to use "arch, reach, throw".Agree totally that the arch is most important. We first taught the "hand on the helmet" for years, then went to the "open palm with thumb on helmet", which helped with the head-low, but now do extended arm (almost straight) open palm, which helps even more to combat head-low. Another "new" (alternate) technique from Michael Wadkin's Xcel Skydiving program. 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.