bluesidedown

Members
  • Content

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    159
  • AAD
    Cypres

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    GBSP
  • Licensing Organization
    CSPA
  • Number of Jumps
    69
  • Years in Sport
    3
  1. And then all it takes is for some wiseguy to type that a primary cause of this CO2/ methane/ nitrogen/ GG overdose is the 6.7 billion inhabitants of the planet all enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in some parts, only one of the three)... Enter politics and religion: More people means more power means self perpetuation means successful organization... more is better, right? Or is it? Or is it becoming a fast-track to a derailment? Who knows for sure. All I know is that I can see a lotta smog hangin around and hear a lot of people telling of days when it 'didn't used to be there' ...might as well not waste too much time online and get your jumping done while ya can.
  2. Anyone think that the Kodiak might go the way of the Airvan when it comes to DZ operation? $1.3 mil is a hefty price to pay for a plane that can 'double' as a jumpship, but really wasn't designed for it.
  3. Just a note: If you're halfway serious about flying, and staying safe at it, plan on flying one heck of a lot more than once a week. At a minumum, three times; four to five times per if you'd like to get through your training in minimum time. Flying any less than three a week will result in slower learning and more money out of your pocket. A private license should take no longer than eight weeks if you do it right; six weeks if you're serious. (Just mentioning as an insight, nothing else implied)
  4. Second on Meux's post... Unless you're super gung ho, unattached, and willing to move far and often, flying privately may be the way to go. On the other hand, getting a Commercial single and flying for a DZ may keep you happy for a long time. But realize, getting to the point where you can fly for a DZ will take upwards of $15g, likely more.
  5. While sending Caravan and Twin Otter pilots to Flightsafety (provided they are IFR rated etc) may help on turbine DZ's, you generally do not hear about turbine accidents so frequently... there's a reason for that. At the Cessna DZ's, the critical training and procedures specific to jump flying should be absolutely solidified during the checkout. Things such as abort points, suitable forced landing fields, and stall avoidance would all generally be appicable there. Other things, such as a grasp on how a fully loaded airplane handles, effects of density altitude on flight characteristics, and general stall awareness(a grasp on how to stall, as opposed to how not to stall) are things learned through training and experience... in most cases, either in flight school, or when a pilot makes a mistake and scares himself to the point that some insight is gained- similar to having to seriously dig out of a hook turn after you've flown 200 sucessful ones. The latter are things that a DZO or CP simply cannot teach... they have to be experienced. The former is a flight instructor's responsibility- who, keep in mind, may be a 300 hour pilot themself. Then the issue comes that at Cessna DZ's, the planes are flown by low time pilots (low time can be thought of as less than 1000 hours, as a general basis), and these low time pilots have yet to experience a lot of the scares available in flying. Most notably, when the engine becomes silent, or when the plane goes down when you pull up. Hence, the explination behind insurance minimums. After all of this, what can a DZ reasonably do to ensure safety? Easiest may be to increase the pilot's paycheque... attract higher time, experienced pilots who have seen a share of mistakes, and know which end is up. This may actually be the reason that we see lower accident rates in turbine powered aircraft. Higher time pilots make fewer mistakes. But where does that leave the low time guys? Good question... Preventative training should succeed provided it is structured in a helpful manner, and is refreshed on a regular basis. In this case... helpful may have meant an SOP that allows no turns beyond 30 degrees of present heading below 500 feet in the event of an engine failure. Below 500 feet, just point her nose to the ground and at the path of least resisitance. An airplane can be replaced and your odds of surviving are better putting it into trees than spinning in. CP's or DZO's should not be pushing for the 180 back to the field after an engine failure on takeoff unless it is painfully obvious that you'll make it back in. It's just asking for something like today's to happen. It's happened hundred of times in the past, and will happen just the same in the future. Putting it into perspective, the 180 back to the field is similar to hooking it, getting into the corner, and then using superior skill to dig out at the right time to boost your swoop. It's clearly possible, but unless you get it exactly right everytime (experience) or have a few extra horseshoes up you ass, it's a risk not worth taking. I do hope that this is in the context of showing them how bad of an idea trying to coax it around at low altitude and with lack of power is... Or don't load any cargo at all and limit the pilot's available power to 20" on the 182- even for takeoff... you still have the extra power there for safety, you just can't use it in normal training. This is basic flight school stuff... the criticality comes when the calculation says you need 2000 feet, and the runway is 2300 feet... do you go? If so, where do you abort, and will the pilot actually abort as the point goes whizzing by and they're still on the ground? When the capabilities and the limits converge, criticality increases. Seconded... talk to your pilots and pick their brains, ask where they'd go after an engine failure at 400 feet. Same with the takeoff perfomance... see what their personal plan is for emergencies. Just think, you wouldn't take a perscription from a doctor without knowing what it's going to do to you, right? After all of this, take what you will from an opinion... we decide every day what risks we take and which we will not. At least inform yourself about what risks you do take on the way up to altitude- then have a plan. In the end, what is the cause of a majority of accidents? ...failure to anticipate...
  6. How do you deal... be honest... Whether it be stupidity at the workplace, sloppy maintenace on the jump plane, recklessness under canopy, north american politics, or the latest post here... what do you do to get over it?
  7. Sean Tucker has some experience with that dilemma... try a search for 'Sean Tucker bailout' and see if you can find hiw review of it. The message there is subtle but obvious.
  8. Sure glad someone has come to the media with it. It's the best (and only viable) solution yet to 'global warming/ climate change/ irresponisble use of limited resources'. Will it catch on? Maybe not... seems that the majority is very much caught up in the previously mentioned capatilist way in which specific modern societys function. Hopefully the next generations will slowly warm up to the idea before we pass the point of no return, if we have not done so already. Lastly, if you think that population is not an issue, think about the value of life today... what is a life worth in todays world? A dollar? A reputation? A barrel of oil? A tree? A sheep? A machine? Is it priceless? Or can you remember how many seconds you reflected for the last time you head of a death in the news?
  9. I haven't read through the thread, so forgive me if I'm restating anything. I came up with this a while back: Just using the 2005 numbers from the USPA website... The USPA had little over 31,000 members, who made 2 million jumps in total. There were 27 fatalites in the US alone that year, 59 reported worldwide. So, while a fatalitiy happens once every 81,000 jumps (pretty close to 116,000)- one out of every 1158 USPA members will be dead at the end of the year. In other words, the odds of thundering in is 1:1160. Granted... low turns account for a majority of fatalities in jumping these days, so the risk for an average cool heeled jumper is certainly less. Relative to driving in the states- in 2004 42,630 people were killed on the road... using a shortcut here a bit... the same data chart said that that's 14.52 per 100 000 people living in the country. Reduced... that's one for every 6887 drivers. So, your odds of dying in this most un-glamorous fashion are 1:6887. I'd assume that the stats for Canada would be similar, but if anyone can prove that we're better drivers, go for it. Thus debunked is the myth that 'the most dangerous part of skydiving is the drive to the dropzone'. A jumper is about six times more likely to die after jumping out of a plane that they are in their car. The driving habits of skydivers may skew actual results, though. "Flying is safer than driving" is another myth to be busted... but another day.
  10. Here's a bit to chew on: http://www.velocitypress.com/Religion.shtml ...careful what you learn.
  11. It seems to me that the general consensus here is that people don't pay attention under canopy. I think that there are accident stats to back that claim up too... but I don't think that that's any reason to prohibit radical airwork under canopy. Keep your head on a swivel, and try your best to stay on top of the situation- cause it's your neck whether you hit someone or they hit you. Just think, how many people cross the road and watch the car that's decellerating to a stop in the lane they're about to step into? I've seen a more people just keep walking with their ipod earplugs in, not even turning their head than I've seen glance to see what's coming. When I cross, I don't even step into the lane till I see the b**** is gonna stop just fine. Same goes for jumping, you're responsible for you... and that's about what it comes down to. ***Why don't you practice something useful instead, like flat turns and stall recovery. Why do you need to be practicing hook turns at 40 jumps? It's entertaining, great fun, and another step in skill building. If a jumper is comfy with doing something safely, cool, all the power to 'em. I started using front risers on approach on about jump 5... personal comfort (and apperently opinion) is different among different people. To each their own- Safe landings-
  12. I followed a six way out once, just to watch. There was a significant buildup of industrial haze around, and we entered a dense accumulation of it about six seconds after exit. In the fractions of a second it took to enter, it wasn't seeing the haze, but rather watching the six way enter the haze that gave a good sense of how fast we were going. It was pretty awesome- we fall freakin fast from a perspective like that. I've had athsma ever since... stupid haze.
  13. Just a note on the 'cutaway while holding one toggle' idea: I played with kiting my canopy last winter... it was fun stuff for sure. I'd camp out on top of this local hill at night when the wind was right, and just kite until my hands went numb. Anyways, one night I thought it'd be cool to test the ol' cutaway system- just to get a little confidence in it. I thought that the best and most realistic way to see it go would be to hang on to one toggle and let 'er rip. So I grab my left toggle and cha-chink... When I saw every line except the left steering line be absorbed straight into the middle of the canopy as it folded into itself, I realized I really learned the hard way that night. That night I spent about a half hour untangling things. I thought it was going to take three times as long, so I was lucky. I'd recommend grabbing one riser instead of a steering line before chopping on the ground, so that you keep your canopy, while giving it enough slack to deflate to a more managable sail.
  14. Jumpers do realize that flying a 182 is just about the very bottom rung on the ladder of pilot jobs, right? The lowest time pilots get their starts on 82's, and there are bound to be times when they have 'learning experiences'. For example there was an 82 that bent it's wings after the pilot bumbled into a thunderstorm last summer. I shrug this evnet off as a blip on the screen, while I'm very surprized the t-storm event didn't end up a whole lot worse. Funny how the opinion around here seems opposite. I'm sure that the pilot in question here actually has a lot of potential. If he was taken back by the event, it means that he's gained knowledge from the experience. Don't be so quick to judge a pilot as 'bad'... esp a low timer on the bottom rung- you get what you pay for.