tombuch

Another long post from me. Sorry... I can suggest some anecdotal evidence based on backwater DZ's, but I doubt it will be enough to convince many people. There is a DZ north of us that was kicked out of the group member program for using unrated instructors (completely untrained), among other things. That was nuts, and the FAA inspector out of Albany pointed to that revocation action with pride, clearly drawing a line between our DZ and that one simply because we are part of USPA, and that DZ can't qualify. There are other DZ's that are part of the group program and feel pressured into using AAD's because they are mandatory under the BSR's. I think there are a few other elements that have become standards, and without them most of us agree there would be more injuries and fatalities. I can't say a non-USPA DZ is necessarily unsafe, heck Mike Mullins runs two solid programs outside of USPA, so there is a good argument that it is possible to exist without group membership. While I strongly believe in the safety of our program, the real benefit of group member affiliation, and an established national standard, is that it keeps the regulators away. When New York State eliminated regulation as long as 15 years ago they specifically said that it was because USPA was supporting their own standard, and the state felt it was reasonable to get out of the business. I was part of that deregulatiion effort and wasamazed at the power of the USPA program to persuade. When I spoke with the Division of Aeronautics in New Jersey earlier this year I was told that they don't regulate skydiving very heavily because USPA does it. In fact, N.J. has an extensive and bazaar old regulation on the books that isn't enforced because the state officials think USPA has it pretty much under control. Surprisingly, they knew more about USPA programs than they did about their own old regulation. My own state of Connecticut requires a simple annual registration. There were two fatalities at one of our DZ's this year (hook turn, AFF instructor chasing student). When I talked with the with inspectors they pointed to USPA, and were comfortable that the DZ is safe and not in need of further oversight. The media screams about the danger were loud and pointed, but we ducked the pressure and avoided new regulation. Over in Nevada a regulation was passed in 1999 that requires compliance with BSR's. It stops short of mandating membership, but the folks I spoke with at the Department of Transportation were pretty clear that they look to USPA to maintain order. There was a huge case in California a few years ago when a tandem student went in, and drugs were considered a possible cause. Our programs came under heavy attack as the parents demanded stronger regulation at the state and federal levels. Ultimately, USPA standards were deemed adequate and we avoided additional regulation. I called more than a dozen state level aeronautical agencies over the summer while researching a book. I was struck by their confidence level in USPA, and their consistent assumption that USPA certified drop zones follow established rules. That may be a false assumption on their part, but it does keep them at bay, and that's good for the rest of us. The Group Member program is voluntary. No drop zone is required to join, but the best estimates I have put affiliated member DZ's at 80 percent. That's a pretty high level of commitment, and it is easy for government to point to that program as providing the needed safety standard. Likewise we should look at how the media views us. They too look to the USPA standard and assume a high level of safety. Imagine if reporters did their stand-ups saying "the sport is unregulated. Anybody can open a school and train students without following any rules." We'd be in dutch real deep. Well, we all know that in reality anybody can open a dz and train students with out following any rules, but when we talk to the media, or our state/federal regulators, we point to USPA programs, and a basic system of drop zone and instructor certification. The system is pretty simple, but it works. I wasn't sold on the benefits of group membership until I did my research for a book called "JUMP! Make Your First Skydive Fun and Easy." Writing the book forced me to look at skydiving instruction from a whuffo and regulatory perspective. Our government believes they have a mandate to protect the general public. We can argue the value of that and scream that we don't need protection, but the reality of life in America is that our government feels the need to protect us with regulations. Heck, taxi drivers, hair stylists hot dog vendors, trash collectors, and just about every other business is regulated by the government at some level, in some form. Skydiving (Instruction in particular) has escaped regulation simply because we do it effectively ourselves. The group member program isn't great, and it may or may not drive members to be safe, but it absolutely keeps the government off our backs, and that makes it a good program for every skydiver. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It could happen some day, but not soon. The DZO's are in no rush to have inspections now. They each want to advertise that they are the best, but not have the obligation of actually measuring up to any standard. We need standards, and we need to compel anybody working with students or running a student program to comply with a national standard. You and I disagree about this, but I sure appreciate your posting here, now. It's an interesting debate. I think we may get to the world you dream about, but it is a long way off, and we can't risk loosing the group member program in the mean time. Honestly, I spoke with state regulators over the summer in many, many states, and all stay away from us because they perceive the group affiliation program means DZ's are conforming to a national standard. Loose that and we'll have a hodge-podge of state regulators moving on us from all directions. Not all at once, but over time. I don't think USPA can track fifty hostile targets at once, and worry about the FAA. Oh and hey, it isn't just the state aviation regulations we need to worry about. There are consumer interest groups too. Ughhhh. The damage they could do. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

QuoteWe (USPA) are in the red, can we afford to throw money away. Do away with the GM program and start keeping fun jumpers, jumping reply] Most of the functions of the group member program (DZ directory, government relations, airport access) also benefit individual members. If you do away with the group member program we will still have most of the expenses, but none of the group member income. As a fun jumper I think the DZO's should cover some of the cost of our national organization, since they are, after all, the ones making money from the industry. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I was Chief of Photography with WWF for fourteen years...all over the country all the time. Does that count as a carny? It's a circus, sometimes, ya know. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of this issue in such simple, non-industry terms. I think one of our big problems is that many skydivers and dropzone owners are fierce individuals and will not recognize any national standard. We have a hard time even agreeing on things like minimum ages, equipment standards, training or curriculum standards, instructor qualifications, pilot qualifications, or just about anything else. So, rather than offend or discourage the low qualilty operations we water down our standards to the point that they are almost meaningless. Still, almost-meaningless is a huge step away from meaningless. Seeking certification or inspection should be a desirable quality, and DZ's that do that should be rewarded. The one DZ that has participated in the USPA inspection program so far, did so because they wanted an outside evaluation to help them improve their program. The university accreditation is a good analogy. Now, how can we encourage individual dropzones to recognize a national standard and then seek an outside evaluation? Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Why not remove the GM program and create a voluntary certification program, the Gold Seal you mentioned earlier? It's all who has? DZOs or Fun Jumpers? Neither. The group member program is all the general public has. The FAA and state agencies are charged with protecting the general public, in our case that is students. They (students, with the government as surrogate) need a basic standard of safety. That's the group program. It tells the general public and the government that we have an established standard and that we effectively self regulate. That self regulation is what keeps the DZO's and fun jumpers free of government interference. At some level, some part of the BOD needs to advocate on behalf of the public, that's the students, the 275,000 people that make their first skydive in this country each year. We shouldn't forget their interests while looking at the needs of the 34,000 individual members, and the 275 group members. One of the key interests of the students and government is a simple way of evaluating a DZ and assuring that some nationally recognized standard is being followed. The issue is complicated because there are a few non-member DZ's that are actually really solid, and perhaps better than a few member DZ's. I wish our standard was higher, but it's not, and right now DZO's aren't willing to support anything more. Is the group member program perfect? Nope. But there are some really bad DZ's that have lost that basic certification, and I think the (admittedly weak) threat of loosing the USPA label at least keeps others somewhat honest. I don't think we can effectively move from a weak program (current) to a higher standard such as the voluntary inspection program quickly. It will take some time. Right now there is only one inspected DZ. I will consider the program successful when 20 percent of DZ's have been inspected, and I would consider eliminating the group member program if more than half of the DZ's follow a higher standard. That won't happen for a long time. Two standards isn't the perfect solution, but it is a solid way to transition to a single better standard, and the "inspected" program may drive improvements from the consumer side. I'm concerned by a position I keep hearing articulated that says the current standard stinks, so let's eliminate it. I'd rather acknowledge that the current standard isn't very good, but is necessary, and it should be improved. Let's fix the program because it's important, not eliminate it because it's broken. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Treetop---Nice improvement in tone, now, please bring it down even one notch further. I'll answer your last question first because it was a bit antagonistic: No, I do not receive any income from The Ranch. I was on staff as an instructor for many years but no longer am. Now, I pay for my jumps, just like everybody else. I serve as S&TA in an unpaid position because I think somebody should do that, and after 20 years in the sport it is my way to give back. I'm not an evil doer in the pocket of the DZO. Really. Honestly. Onward...You are correct that there is a DZ inspection program in place and only one DZ has been inspected. The program is expensive to participate in, and it doesn't offer much marketing power to a DZO because it is pretty much unknown to jumpers and student customers. It is a much better standard than group membership alone, but without adequate promotion it won't fly. Should it be mandatory? Probably not. I like the idea of two standards, one mandatory for group members, the other voluntary, like a gold seal program. I would like to see more DZ's participate, and I would like more promotion for the program. So, if you make it to the BOD, how about pushing the voluntary inspection program so our group members have a higher standard to shoot for? Would you be willing to offer FREE inspections to the first few participants to get the program rolling? As for my DZ? Well, I don't think it is the safest, nor does it target a consumer looking for a safe program. My DZ generates income in the tandem marketplace where customers shop around for the best price. My DZ competes on price, not safety. We also compete on reputation, but that's a really illusive and subjective element that a student or beginner can't easily evaluate. I would love it if one of our competitors participated in the voluntary inspection program and then added that to their marketing in a prominent place. (Sky's The Limit, Skydive Long Island, CPI, listen up) It would be great if a customer called our school after talking to an "inspected" dropzone and asked if we met the same standard. That would cost us business, but I would love it because it would pressure the dropzone to improve from the consumer level. I would like dropzones to compete based on safety, not price, especially in the student area. If you are elected to the BOD, why not encourage participation in the program by giving favorable listings to DZ's that have been inspected, or cutting their membership fees by the cost of the inspection? You ask how we know by group membership alone that a DZ "is abiding by the BSRs?" We don't, but the pledge to follow the BSR's is better than no pledge at all. Enforcement is up to us, the jumpers who are on the DZ, and the USPA Directors. If we make compliance matter, and drop non-compliant DZ's from the program, it will make it stronger. I agree that we need more than a "promise" to follow the BSR's and FAR's. I think our members need to identify non-compliant dropzones to the regional directors, and the regional directors need to drop those DZ's from the program. If you are elected to the board, I hope you will focus on identifying weak dropzones that do not follow the BSR's and remove them from the group member program, rather than remove the program itself. As consumers we (and more importantly, students) need a meaningful standard to help us evaluate and select a safe drop zone. The Group member Program is all we have. Let's not eliminate it, let's make it stronger. -Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I see your point, to a degree. I would like the USPA Drop zone affiliation standards to be much higher, but DZO's will not let that happen, so we are stuck with weak standards. But at least it is a standard, and a common collection of basic promises made to the student. A first jump student has no way of knowing if a DZ is safe or not, and an isolated fatality record by itself means nothing. You and I can evaluate all the parameters of safety, but a first jump student can't. An agreement to follow a national standard is about all students have. I should also point out that there have been DZ's dropped from the program, and others that have been denied affiliation because of a refusal to follow basic safety regulations. I'd like that to be a lot tougher, but again, at least it is something. Likewise, the government (Federal and State) rely on the commitments of the group member program, and that keeps regulations away. Without the group member program we would absolutely have tougher state regulation...I have talked to state aviation divisions all over the country about that. And, I also think we would have tougher Federal regs if we eliminated the very simple promises of group affiliation. -tb Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

QuoteQuote The other part of the equation is that not too many people agree with me or want to talk about it. I tried speaking to some of the BOD when they were here at SDC this summer. I didn't feel that I got too much support for my views. We had a lull in 2000 after the deadly 1999 season. But we are peaking again and I fear we will have another deadly year in 2003. I started posting on rec.skydiving in the winter of 1998-99 that we had a problem in this industry. I suggested that standardization for jump pilots was needed. I was pretty well told to shove it. Quote Chris: I think it's the same issue with student training. Safety is expensive in terms of time and dollars. Drop zone operators will not commit the resources because they don't see a financial upside. I think we need to educate the consumer a bit better and drive improvements from the demand side. Some things I look for: 1) Smooth flying at all times. Horseplay by our pilots shouldn't be tolerated. We are commercial passengers and deserve the same quality flying in a jump plane that we get from American Airlines, or maybe United. Zero G and high G loads can be fun, but a jump plane isn't a roller coaster. I want my jump pilot to treat me as a paying passenger, not like some dork on a carnival ride. 2) Expect smooth and consistent take offs and landings. Don't tolerate a pilot who makes his airplane "jump" off the runway sooner than other pilots with the same plane. Don't tolerate pilots that do quick turns at low speed near the ground or high G pull ups. Don't tolerate pilots that do 'Buzz job" takeoffs. 3) Demand an airplane that delivers more performance than required by the DZ runway. Getting on a plane that uses every inch of the runway and narrowly misses trees is nuts. The airplane should have performance to spare in case something goes wrong. 4) If your pilot does a dead stick landing ask why. Sometimes it's a real necessity, but often those deadstick landings are the result of running out of fuel, bad preflights, or poor maintenance. Too often we rave about how wonderful a pilot is because he was able to avoid damaging the airplane on a no fuel landing. That's not heroic. 5) Demand an airplane that looks like it's in good shape. A DZ that takes care of appearance probably takes care of important maintenance too. Not always, but pride in appearance often reflects pride in maintenance. 6) Favor a pilot that lives by the rules, even if you don't like rules. Think of the FAR's you know about (cloud clearances, visibility, weight limits). If a pilot is breaking regs that you know of, he is probably also breaking regs you don't know about, and those could be serious. Don't tolerate rule breaking from a pilot at any level. 7) Travel to other DZ's with the same kind of airplane. See if they load their planes the same way your DZ does. See if their plane gets the same performance as yours. Compare runway used and climb speed. Ask other pilots why there are differences. try to understand as much as you can about how different airplanes work, and ask questions. Then, ask more questions. 8) Ask your pilot when he was trained, and how recently he has done emergency procedures in the jump plane. Ask if the DZ has a currency requirement that demands practice of critical loss of power emergencies. The most serious engine out situation is near the ground on take-off. Jump pilots should be practicing high power/low speed engine failure and stall recovery. If the pilots at your DZ say they don't need to practice or do recurrency training, they are badly mistaken. The major airlines require regular practice, and so should we. Each of us is a consumer. We should demand quality airplanes and pilots, and if a DZ doesn't deliver, we should go someplace else. If enough of us speak with our wallets we may pressure DZO's to improve our safety record. -Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'll offer a great reference for Parachuting, The Skydivers Handbook by Dan Poynter. It is loaded with information and will be a good reference text for years to come. It is well worth the cost. I also suggest you pick up a copy of the USPA Skydivers Information Manual (SIM), available from USPA by phone (703-836-2843), or as a free download on their web site (uspa.org). As a purchase it's about 24.00. The SIM is a must have book for students. Now, let me offer a blatant commercial plug for my own book called "Jump! Make Your First Skydive Fun and Easy" to be published by McGraw-Hill in February. It is currently available on Amazon.com as a preorder, with shipping early next year. Jump! is targeted at 1st and 2nd time jumpers, and those who haven't tried skydiving yet but wonder what our sport is about. It is probably not what you are looking for, but well worth recommending for whuffos once it prints. Check it out in February.--end blatant commercial plug-- -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'll chime in for Max Cohen as a write-in candidate. He's a freefly coach at The Ranch where I'm the S&TA. He doesn't have ratings as an instructor, but he does have a good attitude and tons of training experience. Perhaps the lack of formal ratings will help him to see the USPA instruction program in a different light. In any event, he understands freefly and is interested in improving safety in that area as well as canopy control. He works with our newer jumpers all the time and understands their perspective. He has clear opinions, but is always willing to listen to an alternative and say "...hummm," then reframe his own thoughts. So, Max Cohen got one of my votes as a write in. I avoided Don "Treetop" because he is such an offensive and hostile person on wreck-dot. He has debased the group to the point that it hardly functions anymore, and I've been part of that community since 1995. I stayed away from Mike Mullins and any other candidates that oppose the Group Member program. Mike is great, but his opposition to a national certification program for DZ's is bad for jumpers, and especially bad for students---our future members. I really think it is critical that USPA have self regulatory control over most of the DZ's. As I researched a recent book project I had a chance to speak with many state aviation governing bodies, and they all stay out of our business because USPA has it's own program. Eliminate that program and I'm sure we'll face piece meal regulation at the state level. It's an interesting issue that should be covered in greater depth in another thread, but for now, I am using it as a litmus test...oppose the group membership program and loose my vote. Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That was Betty Kabeller who runs the DZ at Lake Wales. Her husband was George Kabeller. They owned the DZ in Chambersberg PA, and the DC-3 called Southern Cross, many, many, many years ago. They sold that DZ and bought an established DZ in Z-Hills, next to where Skydive City is today. That DZ changed it's name to Phoenix after a fire destroyed the gear store and equipment storage area. There were some serious political problems that drove a few jumpers to start the Skydive City DZ, and from there the Phoenix business fell apart. Betty and George split up, and Betty bought the DZ in Lake Wales. You are correct that she isn't a jumper, but she has been around the sport forever, and was a primary reason for the success of the old Chambersberg and Z-Hills DZ's. George could be a bit of a prick, but Betty knew how to keep jumpers happy. If you like the DZ at Skydive City (and what's not to like), find George Kabeller and say "Thanks for making it happen!" Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'd like to see them in the Incidents Forum. When i hear of an accident, that's where I go for detail. News clips are sometimes way off the mark, but they at least confirm that an accident happened, and then offer a few basic qusi-facts. Just my thought. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'm not sure if it's still this way, but the first time I visited The Ranch their waver was one page, front and back. That was refreshing. Jim Nope. The Ranch waiver is very traditional now. Sorry. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My worst professor once returned an outstanding essay exam with no grade, and only one written comment..."Why Bother?" I was so pissed I never went to his government class again, and took a freakin F for the course. I saw him in a hallway the next semester and he ripped me for not going back to class. He said he had enjoyed having me participate in discussions and that i was one of the brightest students, but that my exam didn't live up to his expectations. He had really thought about it, apparently. I had no idea what to say...how can a professor expect a student to "bother" when exams are graded with such disrespectful marks. talk to your professor. Find out what is on his mind, and perhaps make things better. that's better than giving up and pulling a crappy grade at the end. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

i don't even think Treetop has the interests of fun jumpers at heart. He seems to care more about his own interests and self described "entertainment." I think he would bog the board down and become a real problem with regard to the FAA. I know how he reacts now when he doesn't get his way, and I would hate to see what happens if he looses a battle on the board. Treetop might be fun for some people at the distance offered by the net, but I don't think he's a good choice to lead our organization or community of skydivers. Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

There has been some discussion on another thread about an American DZ that closed permanently, and the students didn't have USPA "A" license cards filled out. The lack of cards or logbooks may make it difficult for current students to continue at another DZ. Some dropzones like to keep all the student records "in-house" to prevent students from going to other businesses. These DZ's don't provide take home logbooks or license cards, and the student is really stuck in their program. Other schools like to fill out the yellow license card just once, at the end of the program, but document progress in the student logbook after each jump. The instructors handling cards this way feel that it is easier to fill out the card just once, and that doing it this way prevents the problems of lost cards. Often, students in this kind of school don't even know there is a license card, or what the requirements are until they finish the program. Students should understand exactly what is expected of them, and should be able to use the yellow card as a motivating checklist. Ideally, a school will work on specific tasks on each jump, but if not, a student who has a yellow card can provide a bit of pressure on the instructors to do so. One of the great things about the USPA Integrated Student program (ISP) is that it sets up a clear progression and helps the student to self motivate and direct the training. The yellow "A" license cards are a big part of this self motivation. Suggestion: If you are a student you should be using a yellow proficiency card and asking your instructor to fill out completed tasks on EVERY jump. The school should provide you with a card, or at least a Xerox copy of a card. If the school doesn't provide a card you can download one from the USPA web site at USPA.org. The link is on the left of the home page and is marked Docs and Forms. From that link click on Forms, then Licenses. There are two "A" license proficiency cards available. The four page card is for DZ's using the ISP, the two page card is for DZ's not using the ISP. The four page card is far more specific and can be used by every student. If you are a student, get a card NOW. read the ISP in the Skydivers Information Manual and demand that your instructor provide all the training in that program. Some schools will use a different program and cover the material in a different order, but you should make sure that everything is covered before you graduate. Learning anything requires a good instructor and an involved student. Be part of the process. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, Tandem, IAD) Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The real advantages of the FXC as explained by many users are less maintenance, no batteries, handle rough treatment better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is from my new book called "Jump! Make Your First Skydive Fun and Easy" to be published by McGraw-Hill in February: FXC 12000 Mechanical AADs have been in use since the late 1960’s. A mechanical design uses a pressure sensor coupled with a powerful spring to extract the pin that holds your container closed. These devices are not dependent on batteries or electronic components, and frequently handle rough treatment better than electronic AADs. The disadvantage of a mechanical AAD is that the sensor can sometimes be fooled into deploying your reserve at too high of an altitude if the air pressure around the device is changing extremely rapidly, or if the unit has not been properly maintained. The only brand of mechanical AAD distributed to the civilian market in the United States is made by FXC Corporation, and is called the FXC 12000. This device is designed to open the parachute at an altitude between 1,000 and 4,000 feet. The specific opening altitude will be selected by your instructor on the ground before each jump. A few schools have selected this AAD for their student gear. Some schools like the FXC 12000 because it is less expensive than an electronic AAD, has been on the market for so long, requires no batteries, and is easy to operate. Maintenance It is critical that the AAD you are using has been properly maintained. A poorly maintained AAD might not work when needed, or might deploy your reserve when it shouldn’t. The Cypres AAD requires new batteries every two years or after 500 jumps, and must be inspected by the manufacturer every four years. The Astra has no manufacturer required maintenance or battery replacement cycle, but a chamber test is recommended each time the reserve parachute is repacked. The FXC 12000 requires a manufacturer inspection every two years, and a chamber test each time the reserve is repacked. Since the FXC 12000 is a mechanical device it does not have a computer controlled self test function, so the scheduled chamber and manufacturer tests are the only way to be sure it is functioning properly. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

700 feet on a regular skydive...it was my 700th jump. I repeated by dumping at 800 feet on my 800th, then 900 feet on my 900th. I took a break for my thousandth, then resumed the pattern up to my 2,000th. Jump number 1,000 was a two second delay from a cliff that was only 279 feet...I don't know what my actual opening altitude was. My lowest airplane exit was 1,200 feet It was a winter jump and the ceiling was at about a grand, Once lined up on jumprun at 1,000 feet the pilot (who was the DZO) climbed for a couple of heartbeats, then we got out. Hey, I was once a bold idiot. Not anymore. These days I'm a Safety and Training Advisor, but at least I understand the temptation to dump low. Now, I mostly I like to pull between 2,000 and 2,500...that's legal "D" license altitude and I'm a rigger, so I trust both my main and reserve. In the winter I usually ask for 2,000, but the pilot almost always gives me about 2,300, or a bit more. The younger folks in the Otter can't believe a skydiver can actually get out of an airplane that low and survive. Times have changed, and so have I...but just a little. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It's my understanding that the old Sentinel AAD's were removed from service years ago and that service is no longer available. Is that the case? Is it legal to pack a reserve with a Sentinel for use in the United States? Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That's a pretty good site with a few factual errors, but overall well done. I question the accident and fatality statistic between skydiving an auto accidents. The National Safety Council lists an automobile fatality rate of .156 per 1,000 participants in 2000, but the skydiving fatality rate calculated on a 10 year USPA average is about 1.1 per 1,000 participants. Statistics can be used to say just about anything, so we should be very careful how they are interpreted. For more discussion of this issue see an article I wrote for the S&TA area of The Ranch web site at: http://ranchskydive.com/safety/tb_article7.htm Tom Buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. -tom buchanan Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

There has been a surprisingly interesting thread on rec.skydiving about the need for a jump pilot to wear a reserve. Along the way a writer posted a link to an interesting accident review. See: http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/vh-mmv.pdf. The link covers an accident involving an Australian jumper who had a premature opening while climbing outside a Caravan. His reserve deployed over the tail and the airplane was destroyed. The jumper was killed, but the pilot had a reserve and was able to survive. The airplane in this case was a Caravan with a roll-up style door that is also popular in the United States. The jumpers were doing a RW exit. This same accident could easily happen with an Otter, or any other airplane that has a roll up door. Many Otter pilots do not wear reserves because they think an accident isn't likely, or that they would be unable to get out in an emergency. This accident investigation offers a different take on the issue. Take a look at the link and share the detail with the jumpers and pilots at your DZ...it might save their lives. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

RW flyers rarely look at their own altimeters. Generally, they are looking across the formation, or their eyes are sweeping the formation. It helps to have altimeters within easy view, as you suggested. The alternative is to stop, look at your own wrist altimeter, then get on with the jump, but serious RW is moving so fast that stopping to check a wrist alti isn't practical. A chest or leg strap altimiter is also easy to see when tracking. And, many RW flyers do have audibles. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Not ugly stuff at all! If skiing isn't your thing, try snowboarding. I was out all day yesterday in manmade at Killington VT...top to bottom runs and great coverage. Yipee for winter! Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy