itllclear

Questions in the various license tests could address this issue. That would be education at the national level. Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

This is a DZO function, not an individual jumper function. It might be more proper to have the Group Membership Program, and the initial and renewal forms, require that a DZ include its individual plan as part of the application. This plan could be as simple as "This is a Cessna tandem DZ, The only HP landers are the videographers who land minutes before the tandem. This is sufficient separation." No plan, no renewal. For various reasons, most DZ's want to be able to say they are Group Members USPA Governance Manual 1-6.4 (B) 3 already has provisions to discipline a jumper who "While engaging in any phase of skydiving, is so grossly negligent in his conduct or acts as to imminently imperil his fellow skydivers or aircraft or persons or property on the ground, or wantonly disregards the safety of himself or other persons." This is broad enough to cover someone performing a HP landing in traffic, or a sashaying, deep brakes accuracy approach under a big 7 cell in a designated HP landing area. This provision has already been invoked in at least one case of a high performance landing that caused an injury to another jumper. Of course, when it comes to "groundings" each DZO will still have wide discretion in enforcement. As far as a USPA action, the disciplinary action under 1.6 is very lengthy and would allow the jumper to continue jumping until the matter is investigated at USPA BOD, or at Least Executive Committee level. Please do not think that this means a disagree with the principal of separating different type landings. I'm just suggesting what I think is a more appropriate way to accomplish this. In the meantime, I'll continue to land "out" and tip the driver of the pick up truck. BSBD Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Other option -- recognize the conditions that often will produce turbulence (landing downwind of a large stand of trees, dust devils, etc.) and stay on the ground. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Exactly as worded, none of the above My choice is "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

However, the handling characteristics are very different in a 182 with just the pilot on board, and one loaded to gross weight with the CG near the aft limit. As part of my factory checkout in the Columbia 350, they had us practice some landings with the CG at the forward limit, and others with shot bags in the back to get the CG aft so we could feel the difference. Most check outs I've been given in 182's have been with just 2 on board with a forward CG. When I give a check out, I insist on a few times around the pattern and stalls with a few cases of oil, etc., as ballast so the pilot can feel the difference. In a 206, you just about need full nose up trim to land it when alone, but a healthy dose of nose down trim at gross with an aft cg. Neither is dangerous, unless the pilot is in a high stress situation that has not been previously experienced in a low stress situation, i.e., training. Blue Skies! Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Whenever I see a poll on the "public's opinion" on some issue, I wonder how many of the people being polled have a clue as to the subject of the poll. For instance, I'd love to see a poll asking for an opinion on the Middle East that began with "Of people correctly naming the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, and who could correctly point out Israel, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran on a map, X% were in favor of "y." Of course, it might take a long time to get a sample that would make it worth publishing a poll. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

I screwed up and forgot a couple who had birthdays in the lst year. Actually there were a total of 10 over 60, 2 of whom were over 70 and one over 80. Also, the pilot was over 60 and is still an occasional skydiver! Tries to avoid skydiving on the loads on which was the pilot for take off. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Just got home from a couple of multi-point 20 ways, on which @ 58 I was far from the oldest. At least one over 80, 2 over 70, and another 3 over 60. Most of the group has been jumping together for over 20 years. We still get together every 3 weeks or so for 3 or 4 jumps. A few of the other regulars, one over 80, a couple over 70, and a few over 60 weren't with us for various reasons today Blue Skies! Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Of course we should. Do you know what fish do in that chemical? Of course USPA demands that we even learn what to do if we land our parachutes in that chemical! Stick with Cuervo, or at least Corona! "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Welcome to the desert during the summer! That's exactly what happens. It's not uncommon @ Elsinore to see windsocks at the opposite ends of the runway pointing straight out .. at each other! I have a great memory of having the wind at my landing spot be 180 off what the nearest windsock was showing. Feet, knees, nose, the canopy landed in front of me. My friend was 500 feet above me, saw my landing and thought how stupid I was for landing downwind, He landed next to me in the other direction ... feet, knees, nose and the canopy landed in front of him. The winds had done a 180 between the time I landed and he did. What works for a one Cessna DZ along the coast, with steady on shore winds, may not work at a multi turbine DZ in the desert. A downwind landing is more survivable than a canopy collision. This has been debated many times on many forums, maybe the mods should lock this thread and direct folks to the others? BSBD. Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Also how the W & B changes while the jumpers move around, and exit. 5 floaters and everyone jammed in the back of the Otter or Caravan makes it fly differently than with everyone seated for take off. Another topic would include aerodynamic effects of "floaters" Since many DZ's do "formation loads" some education in formation flying would also be appropriate. Any other ideas? Blue Skies! Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Gail- Just went through my "missed calls" log-- sorry the inmate in charge of the Asylum was "High in the Sky" when you called. See what happens when I'm not around to be your driver! Looks like you got things sorted out. Have fun!!!! Blue Skies! Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

As a legal procedure, except for an action against a rating holder, which can be done by an S&TA, only USPA by an action of the Board of Directors under section 1-6 of the Governance Manual. http://uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/Gov.Man.April06.pdf This basically requires the Regional Director to start the procedure after being informed of the matter from an S&TA, and the penalty that can be imposed is revocation or suspension of a rating or membership in USPA. These actions are not that common, and usually are as a result of some action so outrageous that there is little controversy as to whether the action is warranted. As a practical matter, a DZO can use the BSR's as justification for saying "I don't want your business." Of course, a business owner can say that at any time for just about any reason, so long as it's not a civil rights violation. Many DZO's set regulations much stricter than the BSR's and ground people for violations without intervention of USPA. There have been instances in which USPA has revoked/suspended a membership, and a non-USPA Group Member DZ has allowed the individual to jump. Bottom line, except in exceptional circumstances, safety enforcement is a DZO issue. Many DZO's like BSR's because they save the DZO the work of setting up individual safety policies by saying "You violated a BSR. I have take some action against you, or my USPA Group Membership is at risk." BSBD Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Then there was the 1976 SCR Scrambles. Get 8 people who don't know each other, of varying experience levels (1 got his first 8 way the morning of registration) and say "Go build an 8 way as fast as you can." Remember, this was when there were still a lot of people who only did style and accuracy, wearing "gutter gear." So Joe tells his team mates "Get in, or go in." 2 didn't get in. As the coroner pulled away, Joe says: "I didn't think they'd take me seriously!" Maybe this should be in "History and Trivia?" BSBD Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

The point is that they were trying to stay in airspace that did not require ATC contact. In order to remain clear of the Class B, they had to remain below 1100 feet. If they had been in ATC contact and received a clearance into Class B, they would not have had to stay in that narrow space at that low an altitude. There are a lot of other factors in that particular accident that involve knowledge of how to make a small radius turn. These have been discussed many times in various aviation publications. In this case, the pilots did just about everything wrong. I'm surprised that the widow didn't name the building as an additional defendant in her lawsuit against Cirrus. This sounds like a simple case of more dollars than sense. BSBD Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Would the fact that there's a whore house underneath you and the runway is not in good shape qualify as an IFE? "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Gail -- Glad the weather cooperated! Blue Skies! Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Yep- it's not legal to open the canopy that far in flight. It's also not legal to drive 66 mph on the freeway. Now IF someone was to want to jump out of a Grumman Tiger, it POSSIBLY could be done with reasonable safety IF you startred out with enough altitude that you could accept the altitude loss during climb out and IF the jumper firmly planted his feet against the fuselage and IF the jumper dived for the wingtip rather than down or back, allowing the jumper to pass way outside of the horizontal stabilizer. I heard a RUMOR that someone actually did this in the early 80's over Fran's Star Ranch at Beatty, NV, but of course there's NO WAY I could confirm (or deny) this story. BSBD Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

An it IS appropriate to tip the driver for the quick ride back to the packing area. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your second sentence answered your question." "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Remember our sunset compressed accordian back in the early 80's? See you @ L.P. Harry "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Because someone has to open the chart and use it. Also, note that the Restricted Area warnings are a lot bigger than the little parachute symbol to the southwest of it. As jumpers, we have to be aware that we share the airspace with all other traffic. We do not own it. There have been a number of threads on this issue. On the other hand a Restricted Area is restricted, and pilots (even military on a mission) need the approval from the controlling agency to enter it. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

As I've posted a few times before, the only thing that will reduce the problem is DZO's deciding that it is more profitable to regulate the landing pattern than not to. It looks like that is finally happening. Too late for some, unfortunately. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your second sentence answered your question." "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

R2916, noted as continuous to 14,000 feet. Notation on the Miami Sectional "CAUTION, UNMARKED BALLOON ON CABLE TO 14000 MSL" It's along the Keys, and not that far off where someone flying from Key West east to the mainland might wind up. "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Not as long as they applied for and were granted the waiver as per Appendix B "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."

Amen!!!!!!!! "Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question."