tombuch

Have you ever jumped a spring loaded PC? That is where learning to do that came from, when I was a student I had a spring loaded PC get caught in the burble bad enough to hit me on the back of the head, I reached back and threw it out, but the method is still very valuable today with throwout PCs being the norm. Interesting question. The shoulder twist is a holdover from the old days, and it still works, but with the newer canopies it might be worth considering teaching a head high attitude for clearing a pilot chute hesitation. The advantage is that it is the same procedure that a jumper will be using as he gains experience, and will reduce asymmetric openings, as was mentioned by the originator of this thread. The disadvantage is that a head high/knees low response could cause a student to backloop on opening. As an AFF instructor I handled spring loaded hesitations by lowering the legs and lifting the shoulders, creating a symmetrical head high position, and it always worked. Of course I was holding and controlling the student so a backloop wasn't possible. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I hate to respond to a post and just say "me too," but I gotta do that and offer a big thumbs up to any L&B product. I have had a couple of regular Ditters, and now have a Pro-Track. L&B makes great products and they have amazing customer support. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It's my understanding that when you take the SDU coach rating course they set it up so you get the USPA rating too. Call SDU for confirmation. -tb Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

SDU is the better course, and is honored by USPA. It costs more money and requires some jumps under a probationary program before you can call yourself a true SDU coach. The USPA coach course is OK, and does a good job of preparing you to work with students under the supervision of an instructor. It is a good course, but if you can only take one, I'd suggest the SDU program -Tom Buchanan USPA Coach Course Director Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

There are generally no records kept of main pack jobs. However, the main should be inspected and repacked when the reserve is repacked, so if the reserve is in date, the main should be too. I suppose not all riggers repack or open the main, but they should. The primary reason for the reserve repack is actually to allow for a detailed inspection of the entire rig, so failure to open the main denies the customer a complete inspection. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That's actually a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) and has the force of law. The 120 day repack applies to both main and reserve. See 105.43(a). Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

None. I began skydiving in 1979 when there were no coach jumps. I made a few jumps with well intentioned skydivers who had a hard time teaching anything, and mostly just jumped with another low-timer while trying not to kill each other. I should mention that was back in the day when the United States had about 50 fatalities each year, and just half the total number of jumpers. We've learned a few things since then, and I'd rather we not go back to the way it was. -tb Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I have 2 Javelins and each has a Sabre 120 as a main. I like to think they are identical, but one has more than 1,000 jumps on it, the other just a couple of hundred. They fly pretty much alike and I never notice any difference until landing...the older canopy has just a bit less lift, and that can be a problem on a hard turning or fast approach. Everytime I land the old canopy I'm just slightly behind on the flare point, and the landing kinda sucks. It's never bad, but just never really up to my standards. If you have multiple rigs it's a good idea to stick with the same parachute in both containers, but even then there will be differences. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It's all that and more. Back in the day it only took about 50-100 jumps to become a static line jumpmaster. Those programs are becoming very limited. It takes 500 jumps to be a tandem instructor, and six hours off freefall time to be an AFF instructor, so in the absense of an old fashioned SL or IAD program there was no formal entry point for low time skydivers into the instructional path. The Coach program presents a low-time jumper with the knowledge and mentoring needed to be a valuable and contributing part of the instructional community. It is designed to enhance the student experience, and also to bring skydivers into the instructional track. The coach program is optional but it does seem to enhance retention and training where it is used. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I agree with you if "The Masses" means us, experienced skydivers. I don't agree if "The Masses" means students. We the the necessary knowledge to make informed choices and decisions, students don't. I'm not suggesting that we over promote the sport or encourage every moron to skydive, but I do think we as a collective group need to make sure student programs are reasonably safe, and that the material is being properly presented. As for experienced skydivers, let 'em rip. Hook yourself into the ground. Open at 700 feet. Wrap at a grand. Have fun! But please, don't hurt anybody else. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That should be an easy question, and I had no problem answering it. It is embarrassing if Americans can't even answer that one correctly. Canada is our great and friendly neighbor to the north. If you missed this question, get in your car, point toward California, turn right, and drive. Check the country out. And if you have a chance stop by Ottawa. It's a great city and feels as much like a national capital as washington. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Right. No question about it...the customer pays either way. But if USPA costs are collected exclusively through individual membership fees then WE pay it all. If some of the USPA costs are passed along to GM dropzones they are spread among all the customers, and most of those are students. When a GM builds an expense into his profit/loss statement it is at least partially covered by the student business. My position is to share the costs among all the users of USPA services, and that includes dropzones and students. The Group Membership fee is a good way to spread those costs. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Well said. Let's also think about the 50 separate State Governments. We've done a good job with the feds so far, we just need to keep it up and not water our effort down. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Regulatory support because I'll bet Mike uses the national airspace system. Publications support because I'll bet Mike uses the SIM. Instructional support because I'll bet Mike uses USPA trained instructors, and all the support of the Safety and Training department that developed that program. Mike and Larry use almost all the same services, but the numbers posted indicate that Larry pays about $400.00 for those services, and Mike pays nothing. $400.00 isn't much, but at least it's something, and I can't figure out how such a small amount of money can be such a big issue to to people. These huge dropzones are turning around hundreds of thousands of dollars and should be able to kick in a few nickels. And, for those who don't know about these two dropzones in Arizona (and Mike has another in Tenn), the issue that keeps Mike out of the GM program isn't money. But with that said, dropzones should be willing to kick in a few dollars to support the industry that supports us. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

First point...Let me take that back, pre-first point: I was beginning to think this thread was out of control, and we were worthlessly beating an old dead horse. Not so. This thread is now showing 3,086 views, so at least a few of us are interested. Very cool, cuz it's important discussion. I hope there are some new folks lurking and listening. Now, first point: I'm a Coach Course Director and don't have to charge anybody anything, nor am I restricted in where or when I can offer the course. As far as I know it's my decision. If PIA wanted a course and they had an instructor willing to do it free, then they should have been able to conduct it free. There is a rating fee for the Coach candidates, but that is paid to USPA and is independent of me or the DZ. Likewise with a SL course. In fact, I did a static line course coupled with an IAD course last season and charged nothing. The second point is the cost of the group member services. I don't think our association costs will go down at all if we eliminate the GM program. There isn't much there that can actually be eliminated. The directory will still be there, but charged 100 percent to member services. Same for Safety and Training costs, Government Affairs, Insurance, and everything else. Those costs are incurred for everybody, but for budgeting reasons they are split into several categories. It's easy to push more of those expenses on us, the individual members, keep the group member fees the same, and show the program as a profit center. Or, the costs can be weighted to the GM program and it will show a loss. That's basic accounting. Costs can be put anyplace where they are reasonable, and it is reasonable to put something like government affairs as an individual service or a group service, or any percentage split. It doesn't matter to me where the costs are placed, or the profit/loss of any individual program. I want those services provided. Now, as to who is going to pay for them, it's true that if business pay for a group membership they will pass that cost along to consumers. The 34,000 "fun" jumpers are certainly consumers, as are the 250,000 students. I'd like that financial burden covered by the DZ and then passed along to thier customers, us and students. I want the DZ to pay at least a token part of the expenses that keep us in the air. Look, I think about the big DZ owner with millions of dollars in airplanes, dozens of staff members, thousands of students, and no corporate contribution to the system that makes it all possible. I want that guy, that profit motivated businessman, to pony up and help subsidize the organization. I have no sympathy for his financial health as he tosses thousands of tandems at a couple of hundred bucks a pop. I like Mike Mullins. I like Larry Hill. I don't like it that Larry is paying part of our administrative costs and Mike isn't, yet both Mike and Larry want the same services. Sorry, I would be very happy if we keep the airspace avaiable for all of us at any dropzone, but limit some of our key services to the dropzones that are actually willing to support the organization. tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

What those non-member dropzones are not doing is helping to finance the development of the training programs, or the government affairs department that keeps them in business. All the legislative effort USPA puts forth, and development of the instructional programs, costs money. USPA can pass 100 percent of that cost along to you and I as individual members, or they can charge a percentage to us, and a percentage to the profit making dropzones that also derive a benefit. I like the idea of profitable dropzones footing part of the bill for USPA services. I think they should pay for those services out of their business income, and I like having my slice of the pie (membership fee) subsidized by the businesses that draw profit from the sport. It bothers me when I see non-group members enjoying the benefits of open skies and quality training programs without paying their fair share. I should qualify this by making it clear I understand their are other reasons not to join, but I think those non-member DZ's shouldn't be offered the same support as those DZ's that are paying the bills. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Read the actual report. It has some interesting detail. It can be easily found under the Education link on PerformanceDesigns.com, at [/url]http://www.performancedesigns.com/education.asp[url] It was available on pia.com as well, but I don't have that direct link handy. Hey, here's a thought...check out the very cool information on BOTH Performancedesigns.com and pia.com. The dual square report is just one of many interesting things available. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Quote Agreed. So leave it as a "rule" and make it waiverable. Allow it in specific individual cases but not as a business plan.>>> So what criteria will be used for waivering it? If your dad or mom is a DZO you can get a waiver? That does not sound fair to me. Quote It should be waiverable in the same way any other rule is waiverable. The person requesting the waiver makes a request to the BOD and offers specifics. The BOD evaluates the request and makes a decision. The most obvious case for a waiver would be the kids of a DZO, but it could be anybody. Perhaps you have a 15 year old cancer patient that really wants to make a jump. You design a program that adds safety by starting with a minimum number of days of observation on the DZ, and then includes tunnel time and a computer based parachute simulator. The BOD could evaluate that program as well as the specific student candidate, and then make a decision. It's not unfair at all. Now the big question...would the BOD ever choose to waive the rule, knowing that if there is an accident it could come back to haunt them? -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Amazing research. The specific element is number 602, for anybody interested. The initial public/media outcry was for a complete ban on children flying. AOPA fought like crazy to limit the scope of the regulation. AOPA has far greater resources than USPA, and I doubt we would be able to hold off a similar attack. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Agreed. So leave it as a "rule" and make it waiverable. Allow it in specific individual cases but not as a business plan. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

First, when the DZ is sued, everybody even remotely involved gets sued, including USPA. Second, if a child is killed in our sport it will bring the wrath of parents and the FAA upon us faster than than you can say "pulverized dead baby." We would be hit with rapid and aggressive legislation in half-a-heart-beat. A few years ago a girl about 8 years of age was killed in a small plane accident as she flew cross country with an instructor. It was the top story on every newscast and in every paper for days, and the FAA made a quick effort to add new age limits for student pilots so that children could NEVER again touch the controls of an airplane. That legislative battle took enormous resources from AOPA, and I hope we learned their lesson. I don't know if 18 or 16 is the best minimum age for skydiving. Or perhaps 14. Or maybe 12. Or heck, the perfect minimum age might even be 6. Whatever. If there is no regulatory limit some dropzone operators will lunge for the quick buck and take little kids. One of them will be hurt or killed, and our sport will suffer. Is the minimum age a safety issue? Probably not, but it is a survival issue. Perhaps we should move the minimum age from the BSR's to the organizational charter, or to the group member agreement. Perhaps we should make it waiverable for special cases like the children of DZO's, or when a special training plan is presented. Whatever. I know I don't want to see 6 year olds skydiving. And I don't want to read about them being killed in our sport. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

OK, someone now must explain this to me. Don is the voice of the "fun jumper." Right, OK. I'm not Don, but I am a FUN jumper, and I want USPA to work for me! One of the things I needed when i started skydiving, as I first attempted to become a FUN jumper, was good instructors and a safe student training program. I wanted to feel like the school I was attending was following a national standard. I'd like that for my friends too, and my future friends. That's something USPA can do for me, as a FUN jumper. Yup, making more FUN jumpers is FUN. As a FUN jumper, I'd also like to have some outstanding teams around to help push formation skydiving, freeflying, CRW, and all the other forms of FUN. It would sure be great if USPA helped those guys to have FUN, so they can pass the FUN along to me. As a FUN jumper I want to know that the FAA is going to treat me with respect, but otherwise pretty much leave me alone. Being left alone by the government is FUN, and I'd like USPA to help with that. I don't want to worry too much about future regulation, or 50 separate state governments because that detracts from the FUN. So, I'd like USPA to maintain a great government affairs division so I can be left alone to have FUN in all 50 states. Hey, it's FUN to not worry about what happens if I crash land my parachute into a parked airplane and do $20,000 dollars worth of damage, as happened to another FUN jumper at my local dropzone. I'd like USPA to help me have less worry and more FUN by supporting a good insurance program. You know what, It isn't much FUN trying to figure out if a DZ is following all the safety rules, so I'd like USPA to do that for me too. Less worry means more FUN. I always enjoy reading my Parachutist when it arrives. It's not something I do at the DZ, but it sure is FUN, so I'd like USPA to keep sending me that magazine. Hey, this just hit me...most of what USPA already does actually helps the FUN jumpers. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

urghhhhhhh!!!! He's done it again. Way back at the beginning of this thread there was actually some interesting discussion about candidates and issues. That's been drowned out but Treetops rants. he has rendered this thread completely useless. Urghhhhhhh!!! Wreck-dot was once a happy place with good discussion. He killed that, and many of us left. I'd hate for him to destroy DZ.com too. Sure, this thread has been mildly entertaining, but I shudder to think what would happen if he escaped to the rest of the site. urghhhhh!!!!! Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Dude, chill. You have a keyboard, and we have monitors. Type your statement exactly as it was presented to USPA. Click on "Post Preview" and make sure it's right. Then click on "Post Reply." Stop telling us. Show us. As for USPA and the use of standard formatting for publication, you are way out of line. Parachutist is distributed to more than 34,000 people, and we expect a standard format that is simple to read. The candidates statements are listed as small elements in tight space. As a reader I don't want some kind of weird new-age concrete poetry. I don't want to figure out odd syntax and punctuation. I don't want to sort through 20 or 30 different styles of type use, or different spellings, or different graphic presentations. I just want to know where you stand on the issues. The USPA position statements are extraordinarily flexible in terms of content. Say whatever you like, but use the established style. If you have some weird or unique graphic statement you want to make, do it on the internet, or buy an ad in Skydiving. Now, chill on the hostility, stop with all the legal action crap, and go make a fun jump. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Unsafe DZ's can be kicked out of the current GM program without inspections, and that's a good thing. In fact, it is a strong reason to keep the current GM program. I think we just need to be just a bit more assertive in that regard. The inspection program would be (is) a separate program that serves as a "top" rating for DZ's that want it as a competitive advantage. We can't keep the media away. They are here. If we don't do something to regulate ourselves the media will scream WOLF and the government will be on us, just to get the media off their backs. We can probably deal with that on the Federal level, but the state level is way to complex and dynamic to keep tabs on. What we have now works, sort of. Let's hang onto it and not eliminate the GM program, the only standard we have. I agree that we shouldn't be pitching the sport as "safe." We need to make it as safe as "reasonably" possible on the student side, but then be absolutely honest about the real risk. I'm not in favor of regulating to make the media happy, just to keep them away. I also think students should be given some consumer level help as they try to select a good DZ. That's where an inspection program can come into play. DZ's that hold to a higher standard should be able to advertise that as long as it's true and verifiable at some level. That helps the good DZ's, helps the students, and hopefully puts some competitive pressure on the weaker DZ's to improve. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy