geronimo

Will you be at Perris on Sat., June 26??? If so, I'll look for you. Don't worry too much about not knowing the folks there. That's my home DZ and there are weekends where I don't know anyone. I'll split some tunnel time with you - surely you can do that with a cast?? . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

The question is 'how do you KNOW that you pulled the pin?' Once you know that you have pulled the pin, then you know your reserve totaled. Then you are SOL. If you don't know for sure that the pin was pulled, you can keep pulling on the handle to see if the reserve pops out. If you know the pin was pulled (for sure), you might be able to bang on the container to get it out. [I can provide an AD on this.] Cone locks lately - nope none. Ripcord stops - the only history we have is 'ancient' history from the 1970's because ripcord stops were BANNED back then. They have not been used since. It may just be me - but I think that a main handle hanging up in a main back then has 'about' the same probability of occurrence and a higher severity as a reserve handle hanging up in a reserve today. Sorry I thought the Javelin was the most popular lately. I've never heard of this ripcord stop problem before either. Yes I realize that. But what about the situation when you pull, it stops (like what you experienced on the ground) and no reserve comes out?? Would you really know for sure that the pin was pulled? This is a solution too. It is in a similar vein to another RSL system that has a potentially catastrophic failure mode. ………………………. The part of this that I find strange is that I cannot believe that *THE* RWS rigger would say that a reserve ripcord stopped from clearing the housing is acceptable or 'normal'. I've known *THE* RWS rigger for around 20 years. He personally told me how his RSL system worked some 10 or 15 years ago. Until I see or hear him say it personally, I am not really going to believe it. [where it = a reserve ripcord stopped from clearing the housing is acceptable or 'normal'] . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

So say you pull your reserve handle 6.25 inches and it came to a stop. No reserve comes out. Do you know FOR SURE that you pulled the pin? I would rather not have ambiguity in pin pulls. That way - in the case of a reserve - I can start banging on the container already knowing FOR SURE that the pin has been pulled. At 99.9999999% of DZs people are taught to 'clear the cable'. That means make sure you see the end of the cable to KNOW that you pulled it far enough. Each RC has a slight difference in slack distance. The only way to know for sure that you pulled that handle completely is to 'see the end of it'. Ok - so maybe the end does not have the swaged loop end on it because there was a swage problem. Ok - so maybe the pin broke and the left over broken pin is still in the loop. Ok - maybe someone in trying to kill your by cutting the cable Ok - so maybe your rigger left a temp pin in your rig. How do you know if you cannot pull the cable out all the way? What if that flailing reserve handle snags a riser or line & malfunctions your reserve? (You might be unstable during the deployment) or knocks out one of your teeth? or pops you in the eye? There have been people pulling in the wrong direction ( more out & up than down) that have not pulled the RC far enough. How do you tell the difference between that and a ripcord stop? There have been people with poorly maintained gear that could not get handles all the way out. How do you tell the difference between that and a ripcord stop? Ripcord stops on reserves are not normal. *THE* RWS rigger can say they are for his rigs. But the rest of the world may think differently. I suppose it does not matter because people can just wait for the CYPRES to fire. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

If a reserve cable-RSL configuration acts as a ripcord stop, you might want to look into why that is happening. The way it is supposed to work (even when the RSL has not been pulled), is that the slightly curved pin (attached to the RSL) rotates when the reserve handle is pulled. The loop at the end of the reserve cable falls off the curved pin before it reaches the ripcord cable housing. The pin protector flap and the RSL lanyard velcro restrict the loop end of the RSL pin so that the pull from the ripcord cable can rotate the pin once it clears the closing loop. The RSL pin moves a little bit and then is supposed to rotate. That is why it is curved and not straight. Looking at the pics for Vector 2 and Vector 3, it seems that the velcro for the RSL lanyard is placed closer to the center of the flap on the Vector 3, than it was on the Vector 2. The curved pin tip might be catching on the binding tape or top cover as it rotates. This may prevent the pin rotating enough for the ripcord loop to fall off of it. As you keep pulling the reserve handle, the pin contacts the housing sideways as you say. I don't know if the flaps are narrower on the V3. It might be that the RSL lanyard velcro is very worn. This would allow the lanyard to slide around, when it is supposed to be held in place by the velcro and the closed pin protector flap. RW has been using this for a very long time. I've never heard of people describing the 'ripcord stop' problem before. Maybe the RSL velcro was replaced on your rig and was positioned incorrectly?? Personally, I would not jump a rig that had a built-in ripcord stop. PS- no telltale kink in cable with this system. Other RSL set ups will leave a kink. of course I could be completely wrong - cuz I ain't a rigger. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

see Sam Tonroy the whole thread is worth reading. Reminder: If you exceed the TSO weight and or speed limitations - you might end up with a broken parachute, harness or body or all three. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

There are a lot of the malfunction (main and reserve) stories. Kenny Shroyer used to have an annual Bonus Day keg out at Perris. He landed under some mal in a plowed and wet field in the midwest. People ran up to the crater expecting him to be dead. He survived with minor bruises. [c late 1970s] There was a GK that landed on the front lawn of a DR - near Detroit some place. The lawn was very fresh sod. The DR. gave him first aid. The guy lived. [ c early 1980s] There was an entanglement or partially inflated (round) reserve student that landed in the former recycling plant north of the Perris DZ. She broke a bunch of bones, but lived. [c early 1980's] There's more over the years too. Lots of telephone pole and tree saves. Mike McGowan is a tree save. for the sans parachute jumps see Chuteless Jumps Bill Cole, Rod Pack and Jimmy Tyler did exits without a chute & then were passed a parachute to hook up on. Greg Gasson never did a chuteless jump - despite what the video looks like. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Unlike others, I think your post is depressing and cynical. The views you express about advances in gear, safety and training were also expressed 13 years ago, 23 years ago and much earlier than that. People have always complained about - low turns, - advancing to high performance canopies too soon, - people selling gear to unqualified jumpers, - use of seatbelts, - advantages and disadvantages of AADs, - people too cocky for their own good & not listening to the wise people, - people suing, - people not realizing the risk they took until something failed, - etc, etc. On one hand you ask for jumpers to be diligent and self-reliant, yet at the same time you say that some people don't have a clue about the risks they assume. The way I see the past 23 years that I have been jumping is: - I watched the 64-way at Perris in 1981 from the ground as a student jumper. It wasn't a record because of the FAI 5 sec rule. I was on the last two large formation records (as you were) of 300 and 357. Now, we do 64-ways as pick up loads. - There was only Static line instruction available in 1981. Today, we have tandem, IAD, AFF, hybrid AFF as well as SL. - I used an AAD on my first H&P in 1981. The next time with an AAD was in 1999. Now an AAD is required (almost everywhere in the world) for all student jumps. Our culture creates device dependency. Long ago, jumpers bitched about the rule to wear a second parachute. Today, people bitch if you don't wear a helmet on a 357-way. - We jumped without riser covers back then, now people bitch that the covers sometimes flap. IOW, we have advanced and will continue to advance. We have reached new levels of performance, equipment reliability and safety. What we have not done and probably will never be able to do is to change the character and nature of people. You can change the outcome of people's character and nature by changes in equipment, training, rules and penalties, but you will not change the fundamental nature of people. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Deceased: Alvin Autry, 42, D-4197 Robert Brotnow, 44, D-7700 Martin Estrada, 36, Richard E. Hayden, 36, D-6228 Kathy Kinzer, 26 Gary L Kriebel, 28 David Lindeman, 41 Michael Lombardo, 35, C-2523 Glenn W Racich, 42 Brady Sanders, 59, C-4129 James K Sword, 22 Etoula van Pelt, 38, D-6772 Terry Ward, 40 Monty H. 'Spike' Yarter, 65, pilot Bob Brotnow was a friend of mine that started jumping around the same time as me. He was one of the original yuppie jumpers. His gear was perfectly matched to USC colors. For his 100th jump, he hired all the local guns to do 16-way with him. IIRC, he also had a typed logbook. Terry Ward was the guy that did chuteless jumps in Mexico. Spike was a one-eyed pilot that was know for his cautiousness in flying. He maintained his plane in an immaculate condition. It is unknown why he took 13, instead of the usual 12. The observer was supposedly near the door and was, shall we say a height-challenged person. The previous weekend Craig Fronk, then a USPA National Director, jumped from the plane for some stunts in 'The Fall Guy'. The plane reached a height of 100 to 150 ft. Hank Asciutto said "The tail went down just after takeoff and he went straight up. After it stalled he got the nose down and the wing over-- a couple of hundred feet more and he might have made it." Spike also flew for our Wednesday afternoon jumps. We'd meet at van Nuys airport in the late afternoon, fly up to Taft, jump in and land. The dives were 'go dock someplace - then when a key is given - go dock someplace else' We'd pack up, do another jump at Taft, land and repack. Then load up for the trip back to van Nuys. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Subscriptions available here: http://www.thisistrue.com/ Also from that newsletter is: ">COPYRIGHT 2004 by Randy Cassingham, All Rights Reserved. All stories are > completely rewritten by Randy Cassingham using facts from the noted > source(s). ALL broadcast, publication, retransmission to e-mail lists, > WWW or any other copying or storage, in any medium, online or not, is > STRICTLY PROHIBITED without PRIOR written permission from the author. > MANUAL FORWARDING by e-mail to friends is allowed IF 1) the text is > forwarded IN ITS ENTIRETY, from the "Dispatched to" line on top through > the end of this paragraph and 2) NO FEE is charged. We REQUEST that you > forward no more than three copies to any one person -- after that, they > should get their own FREE subscription. We ALWAYS appreciate people who > report violations of our copyright to us. I've quoted Randy's skydiving stuff on r.s before. Heroic Story I asked permission beforehand, I copied the entire newsletter and also stated that I obtained his permission. Did you do that? [please note the last sentence in the quoted paragraph from True] I can tell you from FIRST hand experience that even when an author or publisher gives permission to someone for posting or republication in their print media, there will always be someone later that attributes the original article to the person that did the reprint. see Parachutist Feb 2003 pg. 13. MY stories that Jim correctly attributed, but still were reported incorrectly down the chain. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

see Fast forward to the year 2050 -last half of article is relavent Is Device Dependency Anonymous for You? and just for fun Canopy Control, Hook Turn and Turf Surfing Training . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

>Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way >> to expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency >> that is an exception to the industry standard rules. > >A great many DZ's sign off people to do things that are exceptions to USPA >rules. At our DZ we regularly allow people to make night jumps who have met >the requirements for the B license but have not yet gotten the license >itself. I've seen several S+TA's allow coaches without official ratings to >jump with "students" (people who have graduated AFF but do not yet have an A >license.) Many boogies I've been to will waive minimum jump requirements >under certain circumstances ("you can only jump at tent 4" etc.) Such things >are done regularly today. > And at many other dzs, these things are not done - specifically because of liability reasons. For some reason, I get to hear both sides of this. The jumpers that are denied the exception and the S&TA that won't grant the exception because his house is potentially on the line. >Also, keep in mind that Socal is not neccessarily like the rest of the >world. Perris, a place where there's a pretty good restaraunt and bar on the >airport, where the DZO can buy an airliner because it's cool, where there >are two large skydiving schools, a separate ultralight airport, and a wind >tunnel, and is just outside LA - is not like most other DZ's. > >>This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules. > >Surely you have seen Jack talk to people at Perris who have pulled too low. >I have. no comment > >>If you or anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude, >> USPA, the DZO and every jumper everywhere still want you to pull - >> even if it's under the minimum altitude. > >What the heck are you talking about? Of course they still want you to pull. >If this BSR was implemented, and someone violated it, everyone would still >want you to land safely. In fact that's sorta the _point_ of the BSR. > >>Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at >> Lodi recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet >> this guy did a low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did >> that on purpose?? No way. He turned *thinking* he had enough >> altitude. > >I would disagree. I strongly suspect he never even thought that. He had to >turn and he knew exactly one way to do it; altitude never entered in to the >equation. This is the story I've heard from a great many people - they need >to turn, fearing injury or worse from a collision. They do this by burying a >toggle because it's the only way they know to turn. > >It's like a driver who locks up his brakes on an icy road. Does he do that >thinking that locked wheels skidding on ice are a better way to stop? No, he >just has never tried (or practiced) any other way to stop, so he does what >he knows. > >How do you solve that? Education. Most people you can reach voluntarily. >Some you can't. Those are the ones who end up in the incident reports. > >>People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash >>because they do not have enough information or use a corrective >> procedure that is not right. > >Agreed there. > >>This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, >> people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We >> have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem. > >So far in my life I have met perhaps ten people who were simply immune to >the buddy system. You could not tell them a damn thing about canopy flight. >They knew it all. They were fine. I should give them a break. They could >usually stand up their canopies. Their next canopy will be smaller and will >land them better. I would be amazed if you have never met anyone like this. So you agree that it is a people problem. > >Of them, one will never walk normally again. I grounded two of them and >never saw them again. Two more broke their femurs. One of those people >recently came in first in a PST slalom competition. He told me something >interesting after that victory, along the lines of "I should have listened >to you; it wasn't until after I almost killed myself that I upsized and >learned to fly my canopy." > >So how do you reach them, the people who simply will not listen until they >break their femurs (or worse?) You can write them off, call them unaviodable >fatalities and cripplings. You can prohibit them from jumping. Or you can >put a system in place that lets them jump only if they get education. For >me, 1) isn't a good solution. I've lost too many friends to that option. 2) >is what I've done in the past; not a great solution either since they just >go somewhere else. 3) is what we're talking about now. > >Sure, getting every skydiver in the world to listen to their buddy would be >nice. We could also cover every possible landing area in the US with six >inches of foam rubber. Those two options are about as likely. > > > > >Hooknswoop >Moderator > > > >Nov 5, 2003, 7:21 PM > >Post #43 of 79 (259 views) > >Re: [geronimo] WL BSR, take 4? [In reply to] Can't Post > Quote >Your plan is pretty much the same as what you wrote awhile back. > >Amazing that it is being well received this time around isn't it? Or maybe people are tired of reading the same thing over and over again? There is a difference in signing someone off for reaching a milestone that everyone has to achieve versus giving someone a bypass to a BSR. You apparently do not understand the difference. I hear from jumpers on both sides of this. The jumpers that want a waiver complain about an S&TA or I (depending on the reg) not giving it to them. The S&TAs tell me that they are not going to grant a waiver to ANY bsr - no matter what it is - because they have a liability issue (aka - they may lose their house if the shit hits the fan) Personally, I tend to agree with the S&TAs on this, but not for their reason. I think any bsr that is wavierable by anyone less than the FB is a rule that should not be a rule. It should be a recommendation instead. IOW, the BSRs are bloated. > > Quote >You know, you do have to consider the REAL world in these types of programs. > >That is why I wrote what I did, the real world. Real injuries. Real deaths. > > Quote >First, I'll give a mini-history lesson. This is relatively recent history >and supporting documents are on the USPA web site. > >Second, I'll try to explain some of the fallacies in your presuppositions. > >Mini-History Lesson: > >I am telling this in chronological order, but do not have the time to look >up the exact dates that these events happened. You will find this >information in the USPA BOD minutes over the past several years. They are >available on the USPA web site. > >This is the history of what I call 'The Square1 BSR'. > >USPA changed the definition of a student from 'cleared to JM himself' to >'obtain an A-license'. > >Square1 requested a BSR waiver to the RSL requirement for students (under >the new definition) that have been cleared to JM themselves, yet not yet >obtained an A/license. > >USPA denied the waiver request. > >USPA added a NEW BSR that said (to the effect) that a student that was >cleared for self-supervision, but that has not obtained an A-license may >jump without an RSL if an appropriately rated USPA Instructor okays it and >makes a notation in the jumper's logbook. > >This worked for almost two years. > >About two weeks ago, Square1 had a pow-wow with all the packers at Perris >that pack their rental rigs. They briefed every packer on the RSL >installation and assembly. > >Do you want to know why Square1 had to do this? > >It was because the instructors would not sign off anyone's logbook to jump >without an RSL anymore. The potential liability that an Instructor could >exposed himself to by doing this is HUGE. > >Greater than signing some off for their "A" license? Greater than singing >someone off to be an AFFI?Don't want the responsibility? Don't get the rating. > > Quote >You see when the BOD acts as a committee and grants a waiver, there is >liability insurance that protects each BOD member from personal liability. >This insurance does NOT cover instructors or S&TAs. > >If you aren't willing to accept the responsibility and associated risk, then >don't get the rating or accept the appointment. I declined an S &TA >appointment not too long ago and have allowed my AFFI/E, S/L I/E, and TDM >I/E ratings to expire. I hope you really do not think this. S&TAs are at the DZ a lot of the time. Every one that I have personally met or communicated with via email or phone has the safety of the jumpers first and foremost in his mind - even the DZO S&TAs. These people do a lot of work and go generally unappreciated at most dzs. They are willing to make sure things work in a safe manner, but it is insane to ask them to accept additional liability by giving waivers to rules that should not be rules in the first place. > > Quote >Add to this, that about the time the 'Square1 BSR' was passed by the BOD, a >former student of Jim Wallace sued him, among others, for a low turn landing >he (the former student) did. He had about 100-200 jumps at the time. He >named his instructors in the lawsuit, claiming they didn't tell him not to >turn close to the ground. [This is a bunch of bull]. > >Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way to >expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency that is >an exception to the industry standard rules. > >Which is why it should be an industry standard. Are you saying we can't do >anything to stop the canopy incidents because of liability? > > Quote >This is sue-happy America. No instructor or S&TA, in his right mind, would >deliberately open doors for lawsuits. > >Of course not, "I signed off J. Smith to a 1.3 WL from a 1.2 WL after >demonstrating the ability to handle the higher wingloading following USPA's >detailed training program and administered the canopy test according to >USPA's detailed testing criteria." > > Quote >Lesson to be Learned that pertains to your suggestion: >Any type of Instructor or S&TA 'approval' (written or verbal) that grants >the jumper an exception to the industry standards (aka the BSRs) will not >fly with the Instructors or S&TAs in the field. You need to address the real >world ramifications of this additional liability. > > >Again, make it industry standard. > > Quote >There is also another precedence in the rule that says 'students' (formerly >known as novice jumpers) need an USPA Coach to jump with them. >Many S&TAs will not waive that rule (even on an individual basis) because of >the potential liability. > >Then don't be an S &TA if you can't do the job. > > > Quote >Presuppositions > >Quote >Minimum pull altitudes ensure that skydivers begin their deployment high >enough to deal with a malfunction based on jump numbers. > > >This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules. If you or >anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude, USPA, the DZO and every >jumper everywhere still want you to pull - even if it's under the minimum >altitude. > >Um, yes, I didn't say they didn't. Of course they still want me to pull. >Busting the hard deck doesn't mean they don't want me to not pull. You don't >think that the MPA BSR's were created to curb low-pulls? If, not, then what >is their purpose? > > Quote >The *theory* that these altitudes save lives has no merit. If you look at >the no/low pull fatalities from the 1980's and compare that to the 1990's, >you will find a significant drop in no/low pull fatalities. This is directly >attributable to the CYPRES, not any rule USPA or any other organization has >in their books. > >So, pulling at 500 feet on a regular basis does not increase the risk of >going in? And I thought having enough altitude to deal with any problems was >a good idea. Heck, why not make Cypres's mandatory and abolish the MPA BSR's? > > > Quote >The CYPRES made a difference, not the rule book. > >Then let's throw the rule book away…………..? Yes. I'd be in favor of that. > >Quote >The lack of a WL BSR is allowing an increasing rate of injuries and fatalities. > > > Quote >I seriously doubt that a WL BSR will reduce fatalities. The errors jumpers >make are because of loss of altitude awareness or not knowing the descent >rate of their particular canopy under whatever condition lead to their demise. > >The current system isn't. And this is more likely to happen on a faster >canopy than a slower one. > > Quote >Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at Lodi >recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet this guy did a >low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did that on purpose?? No >way. He turned *thinking* he had enough altitude. So he either did not know >his altitude or did not know how much altitude he would lose in abc maneuver. > >Exactly, he thought he had enough altitude. He didn't. On a larger canopy, >he would have had enough altitude. Had he done "abc" maneuver dozens of >times on a larger canopy, gotten some canopy control training before >downsizing, he would have been much less likely to try "abc" maneuver as low >on the smaller canopy as he had on the larger canopy. > > Quote >People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash because >they do not have enough information or use a corrective procedure that is >not right. > >Exactly. And not downsizing too quickly and canopy training can correct both >"not enough information" and using an incorrect procedure. > > Quote >This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, people >looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We have a >people problem, not a lack of rules problem. > >That isn't working and it isn't getting better, it is getting worse. So what >is the solution to the "people problem"? Letters to parachutist? Not working. > > Quote >Almost every line you wrote was also written in the mags, some 20 years ago >about the new fangled PCs, wings and Sleds. > >And they were right. Canopy incidents have far outpaced free fall incidents. >And we still haven't kept pace with canopy development. We are always one >step behind. > > Quote >We need to really express our concerns to those that may not realize that >they are in our their heads. We need to be persistent and unrelenting in >some cases. > >Doesn't work, as you example demonstrates. If they are determined not to >listen, they won't. If they are determined to fly a canopy they shouldn't, >they will. I found out today that someone I spent the entire time I repacked >their reserve lecturing now has black and purple legs from their knees to >their ankles. He was convinced I was wrong. He impacted on one side of a >taxi way and landed on the other. Had he hit the taxi way, it would have >turned out much different. So you agree that it is a people problem. > > Quote >Read the letter in Nov 2003 Parachutist from Michael Rackett. > >If it takes tough love by 'slapping someone across the head' then that is >what we need to do. > >That just pisses them off. Convinced that they are being held back and that >others just don't want to be shown up. Then they go out and hook it in. > > Quote >Rules will not change people's behavior. > >I got 2 speeding tickets in 1995. None since. I don't speed anymore. Rules >worked for me. > I'll see your two speeding tickets with one speeding ticket and two tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. I still speed and I still do not wear a seatbelt. …….. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Your plan is pretty much the same as what you wrote awhile back. You know, you do have to consider the REAL world in these types of programs. First, I'll give a mini-history lesson. This is relatively recent history and supporting documents are on the USPA web site. Second, I'll try to explain some of the fallacies in your presuppositions. Mini-History Lesson: I am telling this in chronological order, but do not have the time to look up the exact dates that these events happened. You will find this information in the USPA BOD minutes over the past several years. They are available on the USPA web site. This is the history of what I call 'The Square1 BSR'. USPA changed the definition of a student from 'cleared to JM himself' to 'obtain an A-license'. Square1 requested a BSR waiver to the RSL requirement for students (under the new definition) that have been cleared to JM themselves, yet not yet obtained an A/license. USPA denied the waiver request. USPA added a NEW BSR that said (to the effect) that a student that was cleared for self-supervision, but that has not obtained an A-license may jump without an RSL if an appropriately rated USPA Instructor okays it and makes a notation in the jumper's logbook. This worked for almost two years. About two weeks ago, Square1 had a pow-wow with all the packers at Perris that pack their rental rigs. They briefed every packer on the RSL installation and assembly. Do you want to know why Square1 had to do this? It was because the instructors would not sign off anyone's logbook to jump without an RSL anymore. The potential liability that an Instructor could exposed himself to by doing this is HUGE. You see when the BOD acts as a committee and grants a waiver, there is liability insurance that protects each BOD member from personal liability. This insurance does NOT cover instructors or S&TAs. Add to this, that about the time the 'Square1 BSR' was passed by the BOD, a former student of Jim Wallace sued him, among others, for a low turn landing he (the former student) did. He had about 100-200 jumps at the time. He named his instructors in the lawsuit, claiming they didn't tell him not to turn close to the ground. [This is a bunch of bull]. Now with all this local crap going down in S. California, there is no way to expect an Instructor or S&TA to 'sign-off' any type of proficiency that is an exception to the industry standard rules. This is sue-happy America. No instructor or S&TA, in his right mind, would deliberately open doors for lawsuits. Lesson to be Learned that pertains to your suggestion: Any type of Instructor or S&TA 'approval' (written or verbal) that grants the jumper an exception to the industry standards (aka the BSRs) will not fly with the Instructors or S&TAs in the field. You need to address the real world ramifications of this additional liability. There is also another precedence in the rule that says 'students' (formerly known as novice jumpers) need an USPA Coach to jump with them. Many S&TAs will not waive that rule (even on an individual basis) because of the potential liability. Presuppositions This is bunk. All the minimum pull altitudes rules are non-rules. If you or anyone else busts through the minimum pull altitude, USPA, the DZO and every jumper everywhere still want you to pull - even if it's under the minimum altitude. The *theory* that these altitudes save lives has no merit. If you look at the no/low pull fatalities from the 1980's and compare that to the 1990's, you will find a significant drop in no/low pull fatalities. This is directly attributable to the CYPRES, not any rule USPA or any other organization has in their books. The CYPRES made a difference, not the rule book. I seriously doubt that a WL BSR will reduce fatalities. The errors jumpers make are because of loss of altitude awareness or not knowing the descent rate of their particular canopy under whatever condition lead to their demise. Case in Point: The young jumper that low turned into the ground at Lodi recently, said 'Yeah I know - no low turns'. (paraphrase) Yet this guy did a low turn that killed him. Do you really think he did that on purpose?? No way. He turned *thinking* he had enough altitude. So he either did not know his altitude or did not know how much altitude he would lose in abc maneuver. People are not deliberately crashing into the ground. They crash because they do not have enough information or use a corrective procedure that is not right. This cannot be fixed by a rule. It can be fixed by the buddy system, people looking out for their friends - whatever you want to call it. We have a people problem, not a lack of rules problem. Almost every line you wrote was also written in the mags, some 20 years ago about the new fangled PCs, wings and Sleds. We need to really express our concerns to those that may not realize that they are in our their heads. We need to be persistent and unrelenting in some cases. Read the letter in Nov 2003 Parachutist from Michael Rackett. If it takes tough love by 'slapping someone across the head' then that is what we need to do. Rules will not change people's behavior. . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

article link Students idled by Mountain Fire near Temecula 01:52 PM PST on Monday, October 27, 2003 By IONA PATRINGENARU and DOUGLAS QUAN The Press-Enterprise Six homes and a total of 24 structures have been destroyed or damaged in the Mountain Fire east of Lake Skinner, which has consumed 10,000 acres. Capt. Rick Vogt, CDF spokesman, said the fire has caused an estimated $1.5 milion property damage. More than 450 homes are still without power in the Sage area. Vogt said that 25 percent of the fire has been contained, with estimated full containment at 8 a.m. tomorrow, with 380 personnel fighting the fire. More than 300 homes have been evacuated. The evacuation center at Temecula Valley High School housed 60 to 70 people overnight. There have been two civilian injuries, one with minor burns and one with smoke inhalation. The cause of the fire is under investigation. Some 1,500 children are out of school today in the outlying areas of Hemet Unified School District. The schools include Hamilton, Cottonwood and Idyllwild schools. They will most likely be closed tomorow, said district Superintendent Phil Pendley. Connie Newby, office manager at Cottonwood School in Aguanga, said that they can see a lot of smoke. Newby said that bus drivers drove their regular routes to makes sure any kids who were waiting at bus stops went home. Newby drove in from Menifee on Highway 79 and she said there was smoke on road, but that it diminished as she got closer to the school. Now, the smoke has caught up with them. "We can't see any flames. If we did, we'd be out of here." said Newby. .......... see also 1 2 3 4 more at pe.com Skydiver at Work I also drove down to take a look-see at the Mountian fire - as the smoke was coming my way this morning. It's still small - sort of like the Old fire was last Thursday when I drove to work. Hope it stays that way. Duffy sent me this from the noon news in SD: fire pix . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

You can read the old stuff here: Airplane Performance Perris Airport Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning DC 9 Family DC-9 Specs . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Related article: What determines Fall Rate? . --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com