ufk22

Not only that, but if they are taught different ways at different DZs, or taught one way at one DZ and go to another, and are told that a particular method is wrong. I just called Michael Wadkins and he told me that he refers to the single-arm turn as an "alternate method", not "new", because he has been teaching it for a while now.That's why I put new in quotation marks. It's actually a variation on the "reach out with one arm straight and push down on the air" technique that I was taught 25 years ago. Used it with a Cat D S/L student last Saturday who was having trouble with turns off the aircraft. Did he also tell you about the "left arm straight out" during deployment? 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 you expand on this statement? How and why would USPA track DUI's? Who told you this? 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 was the last time USPA was successfully sued over the actions of a member? USPA would need to be negligent to be sued. Your position on DUI and TI's is over the top. People with DUI's on their record can become professional drivers. There is no room for being under the influence of alcohol for anyone in skydiving. We just don't do it. Even those with past DUIs. I just don't understand how you can think this way. "Successfully sued?" Or "Settled?" A suit was settled quite recently. Both cost a heap of cash, so it makes sense to weigh the cost of settling vs attorney's fees. Relevant to Charlie's agenda; More than 100 tandem examiners spoke against changing the medical requirement; they have no problem with it and support the current rule. If Charlie were the "voice of the skydiver," then perhaps he'd have spoken directly to the more than 100 examiners to determine what they wanted, vs promoting a personal agenda in the "voice of skydivers." Had the 100+ examiners agreed with Charlie, that the rule would have changed. There are some sorts of mistakes that can be forgiven in society. Restoring full rights in skydiving (or any other high-risk activity involving others) to someone with multiple DUI's isn't one of them, IMO. I cannot fathom the motivations of a DZO who would fight so hard for the right to hire someone who has been convicted of multiple DUI's. In reality, single or even multiple DUI's do not disqualify someone for a medical. I know more than one tandem-I that has had them in their past. The big thing seems to be how long ago. Time since with no more seems to be the key (proof that it's no longer a problem). 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. A five month thread that basically said " I want to change the rules to benefit my buddy" Don't see any difference between this and the worst " good old boy/girl" stuff that happens now. I'm open to your arguments...... 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.

We taught the shoulder turn until this spring. Michael Wadkins came in for an AFF course and showed us the "new" single side turn, (just lower the elbow and and hand on one side) and we started using it. It seems to work better. Less uncontrolled over-turning, less "banana" turning, just plain better. Thinking about it, much easier for the student to keep the spine straight. 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 reason you can't find a proven case against this is because there isn't one. We don't have rip cords because of bad exits and lazy throws. We have rip cords because that's the way it has always been done. The only reason NOT to use throw-outs is because "we have never done it that way" and change is dangerous and bad. We got rid of rip cords three years ago, same thing with spring loaded pilot chutes. We use regular pilot chutes for our S/L jumps with a double velcro assist and have had zero problems. Spring loaded pilot chutes have their own problems (burble) and are more prone to wrap around a leg or arm than the throw-outs. The "if he's not dead I'm going to kill him myself" crap makes me question whether you should work with students. That attitude is as old school as rip cords. 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 are exiting into sub-terminal air. Your arms and legs are going to have much less effect as control surfaces. Consequently, your initial presentation needs to be more controlled into the relative wind. From floater, just open up your left side and arch. Keep your hands and feet still for a few seconds, then deploy. This is one time a "hard arch" is much more effective than relaxed arms and legs. Remember the relative wind and don't try to get belly to earth. 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 generally keep my belt on til about 5000'. Exception would be me near an open door, but if I'm away from the door and back to the wall, I'll still leave it on. I grew up in this sport in the "seatbelts are for sissies" days. My first skyvan load was me on the open tailgate hanging on to the belt because No One would consider actually putting it on. Now, what's the point of getting it off early????? 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.

USPA governs skydiving, in immigration law. If someone has the proper ratings to do tandems in the U.S., that is USPA's only concern (and their only regulatory authority). Any DZ willing to take on the liability of hiring undocumented workers is taking an enormous risk. 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 biggest thing with this is whether then harness fits you. Five people the same height might well need five different harness sizes. Making a harnes a little smaller is no big deal, but enlarging a harness in almost cost prohibitive. Try it on, make a few jumps with it to be sure if it fits. A Sabre 190 is an easy canopy to land, easier than most student canopies, just a little different technique. The price, assuming good gear and at least half life on the AAD is ok. The guys you watched sliding in don't know how to land their canopies. If the main lift web is the right size for you, sounds like a good deal. The reserve might be a little on the small size, but not crazy small, and can be resold to buy something a little bigger if you need 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'll probably be fine" Usually an abbreviated way of saying.... "this isn't a real good idea, I don't have the power to stop you, and I've had too many long conversations trying to convince someone not to do something that they did anyway, so...." "you'll probably be fine" 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 argument has been around since I started jumping over 25 years ago. I hope it makes you feel better. "He died from stupid, I'm not stupid, so I won't die". People die from mistakes mostly, not from stupid. EVERYONE makes mistakes. If you want to think it can't/won't happen to you, fine. Just stay away from me. This is not to take one side or the other on AADs, RSL's, or hook-turns. When this sport is no longer about personal freedom to choose (not including injuring/killing someone else) I think it will be much less attractive to me and most 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.

I was on that jump... It was my REAL 2ND jet jump. 10 way if I remember right, Bob was third in the lineup. I left 2nd with a pack hold on a low time woman in front of me. We flew down to Bob, who must have weighed about 290 at the time. 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.

Bob Roach Jumped with South Dakota Skydivers. Once exited a 182 while expanding the door when his belly-mount deployed as he put out static line students. Had what for most would be a disabling stroke and came back to jump for 15 years after. He gained a lot of weight, and blew up more canopies than most people have ever owned. He would stall a canopy at 15-20' if it meant a dead-center. 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 I'm reading this correctly; based on the Instructor's rating as an SL/I, when he went out with the student, the Instructor was then acting in his capacity as Coach and did exactly as the IRM instructs. Signal, pull your own. An SL/I is not supposed to act in the capacity of an AFF/I and pull for the student. No, he did not do as the IRM recommends. As coach, the procedure is wave off, if student is still unresponsive, turn and track to gain sufficient separation and deploy by 3500'. Deployment being the final signal that it's time. Doing a practice pull isn't a signal a student is trained to respond to, and waiting til 2500' and deploying in place is stupid and dangerous. 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.

Cessna 182. Jump at 10k. Pull at 5k. Initiated barrel rolls (deliberately) by pulling an arm in. First left, then right. Instructor said if I get both done by 8k I can do a 360º. I got done at 7½k, figured that was close enough, so I went for it. Not sure if instructor thought I was out of control (or if I was even, but didn't realize it) but the next thing I knew he'd crashed into me, sending me flying every which way. I recovered onto my belly at 6k, but in a spin. I stopped the spin at 5,200. That was when I spotted the instructor absolutely miles below me. I tried to pull, but couldn't find the toggle, flipped over onto my back, recovered and tried again, finding it higher up my back that the last rig I'd used. I thought the "crash" was some kind of deliberate de-stability training, but apparently it was to stop something (maybe my turn, I'm not sure). I didn't ask too many questions because I was embarrassed that I'd already told other people at the DZ that the instructor had deliberately sent me flying (which, like I said, I thought was part of the training) but apparently wasn't. Oops. =(Assuming your version of what happened is pretty close to reality.... The one arm barrel roll is a pet peeve of mine. Most students that are taught this technique usually end up doing more of a head-down spiral, which burns a fair bit of altitude. A barrel roll should be done using both arm and leg, with symmetry. Right arm and leg in to initiate, right arm and leg out and left arm and leg in at half-way and left arm and leg out near finish. While the arm-only roll-our-of-bed is a good tool for getting back on your belly when inverted, it doesn't always work well to initiate a controlled barrel roll. Your instructor ended up below you because you probably burned a bunch of altitude doing your barrel rolls, he was diving towards you to catch up, maybe didn't remember that you had talked about doing a 360 right after, and then collided with you when you slowed down after the barrel rolls. Your "amount of arch" sounds more like a CYA thing from your instructor for colliding and then not recovering. You didn't say what your altitude was when you pulled, but considering the collision and all, congratulations on saving your life. If it was above 4500' I hope he gave you a pass on the dive. All the above assumes your version of what happened is pretty close, and I have seen similar stuff enough to kind of figure out how it came to be. On the other hand, not every student's recall is grounded in reality. But neither is every instructor'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.

"So who are you going to believe? Me or your lying ears?" 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.

Describe how or what you did to initiate your barrel rolls. You obviously did get back onto your belly??? What was your deployment altitude? 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 already figured out most of the problem. Don't rush. As you get out on the strup, your legs swing out and initially, because of the angle of the strut most students end up cocking their body. Taking the time to relax and settle in lets you hang more true vertical. I always tell students to get out their, then take a deep breath and exhale, then look up, arch release. If you let your body settle in before release, you will come off stable. You shouldn't need toe-taps or pointing toes or any of that for the 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.

In my mind, no, USPA is what stands between us as skydivers and FAA regulation of our sport. You want to eliminate arbitrary enforcement? Let's get the Fed's involved and see how that goes. BPA anyone???? 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.

nope, six board members camo their faces, put on black clothes and under cover of darkness take em out! 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.

But all of that is after the fact...after someone died or got hurt. And it is only twice a year. I want to see it published monthly. They do put out a monthly publication and email Who did it, what they did, and what was their punishment. Judy And other than giving people something to gossip about, the value of this would be?????? I've been involved with both sides of this. A skydiver got an Examiner rating from a regional director that was a friend in spite of NOT being recommended by three Examiners he had assisted. Even after a complaint was made, nothing happened until a new RD took over. Found out he had even forged a signature on a recommendation. He lost the rating but no disciplinary action taken toward either the RD or the " examiner". I also ended up getting dragged into a pissing contest between two S&TA's. One was friends with an RD. Got a call from the RD threatening to pull ALL my ratings if I didn't go along with his/her course of action. That course of action was based solely on one version of events , didn't want to hear both sides (neither of the S&TA's were without fault, it was really a wash in my mind), just discipline the non-friend. The S&TA was not allowed to give his side (same thing, "accept what I'm doing and shut up or I can pull all your ratings"). My point is, for either of these situations to be made public, with names, would serve no real purpose. What does serve a purpose is the new disciplinary structure adopted by USPA. All are innocent until proven guilty. An RD can't be a regional dictator. There is a formal structure and process to investigate charges. We have always been able to read board minutes. You've been in the sport 20 years, yet you needed someone to tell you about the governance manual. Do you need a link to the board minutes? Again, what purpose would be served by adopting your proposal? 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.

1. The "twenty years ago TI's were better" arguement isn't the truth. I was there. 2. If TI's were better twenty years ago, how is this possible since back then they were trained by manufacturer appointed examiners. Those examiners surely were sell-outs, only interested in doing what the manufacturers wanted. 3. The suggestion that the courses need to weed out more TI's seems to be made by some of the same people that DON'T believe a 3rd class medical should be necessary. If it's proper for Tandem-E's to cull those who might make hook turns or not do handle checks, how can it not be proper for USPA to cull those who can't get a medical? Having seen the introduction and the spread of hook-turn landings for tandems over the last number of years, my only question has been why it has taken USPA this long. The root cause of these problems isn't the gear manufacturers, it's the money generated by tandems. It's the blessing of the sport (turbine aircraft everywhere, jump prices relatively cheap), but also the only way to make real money in skydiving. To Tom; Thanks for having the courage to push this forward. 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 did he stop beating his wife????? 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 don't think we really disagree. Reread my post. I didn't say freeflyers can't do AFF well. I also didn't say that being able to do great 4-way was the key. "Jump a lot with students and low timers. Chasing/staying with them will give you skills you don't develop doing tight FS with good flyers ie constantly adjusting your fall rate to stay on level, side/back sliding to stay relative to them, etc. Learn to fly with your legs, can't use your arms if you're holding on to a student. " This is just my opinion based on seeing jumpers that focus on FF and not developing belly skills prior. A lot of AFF candidates go into it with the minimum jump numbers needed for the rating. I do agree with everything you said, especially the "panting, bleeding and out of breath at the end of the jump". One other piece of advice. Get 20 minutes (or more, of course) of tunnel time with a good coach who knows how to prepare you for AFF. Doing spin stops, roll-overs and proxy flying in the tunnel is great prep for the course. 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.