brettski74

A couple of points that I don't think have been mentioned, yet. If you're tracking away from a formation, you should be scanning the sky in front, around and beneath you while tracking to make sure you're heading into clear air for your deployment. If you were close to a deploying canopy, you should have been able to see him at some point - if not while in freefall, certainly when the colours of the canopy start to come out. It's kinda hard to miss. Did you see anyone around you during your track? Are you actively looking around you to clear your air while tracking away from the formation? If not, you should be. You said that the plaintiff was able to disqualify the group after you based on colours. What colours did he see and do they match your rig, jumpsuit or canopy colours? That said, while it's not impossible that it was somebody else, you and your buddy are the most likely culprits. If something like this happens, it's just as much your responsibility and in your best interests to seek out the other jumper/s and discuss what may have contributed to a close call. Don't be afraid to find the other guy and own up - "Yeah that was me. We were close and I'm sorry about that. I saw you and made sure that I avoided you, but we'll leave more time between groups next time." or something to that effect. I'd be much more concerned about a close call where the other party was unaware of it or didn't say anything in the hope that nobody noticed. Finally, I've had a coach call me "rocket man" after a jump, too. I've also been smoked in a track on more than one occasion and humbled by what I've seen others able to do in a track. I think I can track pretty well, but I know that there is always room for improvement. Don't get complacent about how well you think you can track.

Putting any kind of reliance on vertical separation for safety is a bad idea. Given 5 seconds between groups and 5-10 seconds of additional freefall... 15 seconds at canopy descent rates amounts to somewhere in the vicinity of 300 feet - maybe a little more for those with higher wing loadings. Differences in reaction time, canopy opening speeds, instrument precision and the possibility of a malfunction can quickly eat up any vertical buffer you may have otherwise gained.

A larger group in freefall does not move any faster across the ground nor are they affected by horizontal uppers any more or less. Within about 5-10 seconds of exiting the plane, you're falling straight down with respect to the air. Your ground speed at this point is the same as the horizontal speed of the winds at that altitude. Belly flyers drift further than free flyers because they are falling slower and therefore drifting across the ground for longer. Larger groups tend to drift further than smaller groups for the same reason - they are falling slower and therefore under the influence of the upper winds for longer. It is longer time in the air, not faster drift speeds as your comment suggests. Aside from that, I agree with what you've said.

Don't assume that new technology is necessarily better. Don't get me wrong - I love my Vector 3 including it's magnetic riser covers and skyhook RSL and UPT make some great gear and they are responsible for a number of innovations and firsts but there are pros and cons with everything. However, as an example with magnetic riser covers: When a competing manufacturer was asked if they have any plans to add magnetic riser covers, he chuckled and suggested that there would have been no need for magnets in the first place if UPT could design a decent tuck-tab. Maybe they are better than UPT's tuck tab design, but maybe other manufacturers have a better tuck tab design to begin with. Magnetic riser covers are closed differently than tuck tabs on a Vector 3. I've seen one very experienced packer closing magnetic riser covers as though they were tuck tabs. As a result, the closing force from the magnets would have been perhaps one-half to one-third of what it should have been. New technology can be improperly used if people are not aware of the differences to what they were used to. Again, don't get me wrong. I love UPT gear and the skyhook was a big part of my buying decision, but don't discount the continuous improvements from other manufacturers just because their improvements are less visible in the market.

I assume that you're talking about this product improvement and the NC incident it refers to.

Try it and you'll soon learn that skydiving has little to do with a fear of heights. I once met a girl who was deathly afraid of heights. She took up skydiving as a way to confront her fear of heights. She soon realized that it had nothing to do with her fear, but she liked the sport so at the time I met her she'd done about 700 jumps but still got scared walking up or down a flight of stairs. I think there's more to most people's "fear of heights" than many people think. For example, it may not really be the height you're afraid of. Maybe it's the knowledge that you could fall and hit the ground beneath you that's scaring you rather than the actual height. When skydiving, the ground is so far away that after a few jumps, you're brain starts to figure out that you've got the time and ability to handle it, but you still might be afraid of being on that ladder. Virtually everyone is apprehensive to throw themselves out of a plane that first time. That's normal. Do a tandem. You'll be attached to an instructor so that takes away a lot of the pressure and unless you're really fighting him/her in the door, you'll be getting out.

Most people have an awareness problem with their legs, particularly when they're new. You're best bet right now is to listen to your instructors. You're on a steep learning curve right now with lots of things to learn. Let them prioritize what is most important to focus on each jump. You'll get there.

I'm curious as to the uncertainty of improper operation. Is this because the jumper didn't check his/her gear prior to making the first jump at ASC, or is it because the jumper is not sure whether the unit was already on and/or shut down and started fresh prior to making the first jump?

There no strict rule, however, the PIM states that to fly camera, you should have at least a C licence, which requires a minimum of 200 jumps among other things. This is a technical recommendation, so it's not an absolute rule, but a rather strong suggestion from the CSPA. Per the PIM, you're supposed to get written approval to deviate from the technical recommendations. HOWEVER, to jump as a videographer for tandems will require more than just a C licence or 200 jumps. As far as I'm aware, there's no CSPA rule regarding what is required to fly video for a tandem, but expect to have a reasonable number of camera jumps, be able to demonstrate a certain level of competence and quality as a videographer and beyond that, talk to the DZO and/or tandem masters at the dropzone where you hope to work and see what will require from you.

Your Mileage May Vary...

When they brought the new plane out of the hangar a couple of weeks ago, manifest announced it over the PA, pointing out the shiny new paint job and interior. They also stated "no stickers" at that point. Word from one of the Perris staff that I talked to is that they're pretty serious about the no stickers policy.

If there is sufficient heat in the slider grommets from friction, wouldn't this also present a problem for melting/burning the suspension lines, too? Or is it not an issue because the dacron is more heat resistant than spectra? Does this mean that the SR-1 slinks are not made of spectra, or is all the discussion here about using SR-1 and/or reserve slinks on dacron lined canopies more of a YMMV type deal?

Everything still works the same way as without booties. You'll just have to get used to the response. I didn't really notice the difference so much in turns when I first started wearing them, but I noticed the difference when I took them off again. You'll probably find it difficult to track with booties initially, but again, it's just a matter of getting used to the response of the booties. All of the same inputs work the same way, just with more response for less input.

I wasn't talking about the compressed helium in the high pressure container. I was talking about the helium that's inflating the suit. When the suit inflates, there should be a slight decrease in apparent weight, due to the buoyancy of the helium. The compressed helium and it's container must already be carried by the jumper prior to inflation, hence it is already part of the exit weight of the jumper. The original article suggests that the weight of the jumper will increase when the suit inflates, but I contend that the actual weight should not change, and the apparent weight due to buoyancy should, if anything, go down, even if only by a tiny amount. I suspect that the additional air displaced by inflation of the suit would weigh no more than a few grams at most.

I think you're in the right ballpark with those numbers, so yes, by itself, such a system is unlikely to prevent a fatality, but I have thought over the years as to whether airbagor similar technology could somehow someday help prevent double mal fatalities. There are a lot of challenges, but a little advance here, a little advance there, after 10 advances that by themselves weren't useful, we figure out useful ways to combine their effects and we come up with something workable and useful. I mean we had the mars landers break their fall from orbit to the surface of Mars by being at the centre of a large, inflatable, multi-cellular cushion. I'm also curious as to how much this balloon suit takes away your flexibility and dexterity. I suspect that once inflated, it would reduce the movement in arms and legs, thereby making it harder for the skydiver to control body position and/or practise emergency procedures. I'm further curious about the increase in weight that they apparently calculated. Helium is not readily extractable from the air, so presumably the helium is being carried by the jumper in a high pressure container of some kind, hence this weight is still part of the jumper's gear and their weight shouldn't increase at all. In fact, due to possible leaks in the system and their increase in buoyancy, their apparent weight in the air should go down slightly.

I agree that you can and do learn to estimate altitude from visual and other cues as you gain experience. An altimeter may not be necessary, but it is important and should be carried if at all possible. I felt that the way that the original statement was put out there with no qualification like "you should carry one anyway" could give some newer jumpers the wrong idea. That was my point.

I'd suggest that if you owe beer for your first jump with your altimeter, then they owe beer for their first jump with you.

Viking Air is the company producing Twin Otters, now. They own the type certificate for the DHC aircraft up to the Dash-7, including the Caribou, however, I don't know that they've announced any plans to restart production of anything other than the DHC-6. I believe that they're only providing parts and support for the other types.

I don't know that carrying it in the open is any more or less risky with regards to clearing security, but it seems that some people have inflated ideas of what the TSA policy guarantees you. Firstly, you're not guaranteed to be allowed to take any item, whether it's a parachute rig or anything else onto the plane as carry on until it's cleared by security. The TSA policy promises three things: That they will make every effort to clear the rig through security without opening it. If they do need to open it, you will be permitted to assist. If the rig is opened, you will be given sufficient space to repack it. Everything else is at the discretion of the TSA officer/s involved. They're not required to acknowledge any printed information you bring with you, including print outs from the TSA website or x-ray images provided by your AAD manufacturer. If you've never had a problem and you don't want to spend money on a bag for your rig, then great. I hope you never have problems, but if you have a problem someday and are asked to check it, I suspect you'll be wishing that you'd brought a bag to help protect it during transit. The clear plastic bag I was given by the check-in agent was pretty much useless and didn't make it to the other end.

FMD rule The first two jumpers down landed so close together in terms of time, it's likely that many in the air would not have been able to tell who was actually first down. How much time do you spend looking at any single canopy while monitoring the traffic in the pattern? Chase the sock Adjust your pattern and approach does not necessarily mean do a 180 and go the other way. It could mean something as simple as allowing more space for the flare and run out if you're landing downwind. Whatever the conditions, you're going to have to allow for ground winds in planning your approach. You're also going to have to allow for traffic. I've misread conditions on occasion and had to change my plan. I do so in accordance with the local rules and when I visit any new dropzone, I make a point of knowing what the local rules are. I understand what you're saying, but I don't make the rules. I just try to follow them to the best of my ability. I'm sure that the Perris staff and management would love to hear your thoughts on how to run their DZ, though. Why don't you give them a call and rattle their cage? Or perhaps you're trying to say there's nothing the guy could have done differently? If so, were you there? I was.

You'll get different answers from different riggers, skydivers, freeflyers, etc... You'll get answer ranging from "You'll surely die if you do that" to "It shouldn't be a problem, just be careful". This is also a topic that's been done to death. Do a search and you'll find lots of discussion. My first rig was a Vector 2. I sit-flew with it many times and never had a problem. I had a world-class free-flyer tell me that the bridle exposure was minimal and shouldn't be a big deal and that as long as the velcro was relatively new, the riser covers should be secure enough in a sit. I had another freefly coach tell me that it woudl be fine for sit, but he wouldn't recommend head-down with velcro riser covers. A little while later, I met a rigger who suggested that I really should have a bridle cover added to the rig which he did for a modest cost - I think it was about $20. That said, I don't know that the bridle cover made a whole lot of difference. Bottom line, there's no one true answer. There are more modern rigs designed specifically for free-flying. If you're really concerned about it, get one of them instead, but for starting out, you'll probably be fine either way. Just make sure that you do stow the bridle away as much and as tidily as possible and if the velcro is wearing out, replace it and if anything abnormal does happen, seek more help before doing more jumps.

Well then I stand corrected, but if you were still on the dirt south of the grass, then you were likely outside of my field of view and hardly an obstacle for this particular landing approach. I was almost directly opposite where and when it happened. There was nobody else that I saw on the grass south of the collision except those of us walking along the flag line on the opposite side of the grass. Target fixation may well have played a part. As I said, there were several likely distractions for him to deal with on that landing approach, but I'd be speculating to say exactly what was going through his mind.

Huh? So what are you suggesting? You don't need to skydive either, but you seem to be indicating that an alti is not an important piece of safety equipment for a skydive. If that is the case, I must respectfully disagree.

But have you seen how well most buses can fly?

What about: C-206 Skyvan Beech 99 Kodiak DC-3 AN-2 AN-28 Let-410 Mi-8 C-130 OK, so the last two aren't that common, but still something I'm sure many would like to jump.