riggerpaul

Hmmm... On metal rapide links which connect lines to risers, we put a small line of red nail polish or paint along the nut and the link. That way if the nut starts to unthread itself, it's readily visible because the paint marks will no longer be aligned. I'm thinking it might be possible to do the same thing with paint on a ripcord pin and cable, so that any slippage would be noticed. Is this a viable idea? If the telltale on a rapide link is damaged, you can easily check it and remark as needed. What would happen if the mark on the ripcord was physically damaged by something other than cable slippage? Would you toss the ripcord?

WooooHooo! One more logical reason for teaching night jumps earlier...if you're gonna teach it, it'd be nice to know what your talking about and have the experience to back it up. On the other hand, if you want an Instructor to have that experience, make it a requirement for the rating.

Using the logic of the underlined sentence, I would need to swoop to know I don't want to. If the night training is needed earlier, make the training a requirement earlier. The night jump requirement for a D license does not in any way address the problem of untrained people making jumps for which they are not prepared.

Since you don't need a D to get on that late sunset load in the first place, how does the D night jump requirement help? For a long time I didn't want to make night jumps, though I eventually did make them. But as long as I didn't want to, nobody was going to make me do one from the late sunset load either. Now, I suppose we could have taken off an hour early, and managed to be climbing for two hours, and so it was night by the time we were on jump run. But in that case, I'd stay with the plane. My point being that nobody forces anybody to do these things. Am I missing something here?

As I pointed out to S&T at HQ, license requirements are not recommendations. As requirements, they cannot be ignored. What we are left with is that the words that were written do not properly express the intent of the license requirement. SIM Section 6.4.F.1 already mentions that the first night jump is RECOMMENDED to be a solo. This establishes the notion that what is written in SIM Section 3.1.E.4.C does not represent the intent. I have already suggested that 3.1.E.4.C be changed to something like, "2 night jumps, at least one of which is a group freefall." Since I agree (with Pops and others) that the night jump requirement should not exist in the first place, I won't try to justify it. But we should still do our best to be sure that the requirements as written represent the intent.

Well, I've gotten some information from HQ. Actually, I've been back a forth a couple of times, and here's what I have now. The first response was that stuff in the SIM that is not BSRs are recommendations, and so, while the solo is recommended, it is not required, and the 5 group jumps would fill the requirement. So I pointed out that license requirements are REQUIREMENTS, not recommendations. Further, I asked if the "(one solo, and one in a group)" was a recommendation, then are two solos acceptable? The response to that was that the matter would have to be considered by the BOD, so it has been added to the agenda for the July BOD meeting. No help to the OP, I know. But at least we've gotten the ball rolling to get a clarification.

While I am sure no one will disagree, it is also an easy thing to send an email to USPA HQ to get their answer. I just sent that email, and I'll post the answer when I get it.

If squeezing the rig makes the pin loose, wouldn't that mean the loop was too long?

Funny, I saw, "So long, and thanks for all the fish!"

That might work at some DZs (and if so, that seems equivalent to declaring a target before hand), but my DZ does not have a specific target. And the landing area is huge, about a 1/2 mile E-W (the main landing direction), so to be realistic and force me to set up my approach properly, I have to pick some spot before hand (and recently I've been mentally "foresting over" a lot of the excess area to try to simulate a tigher spot). Set your own target. Get a traffic cone and put it where you like. Tell an instructor or your S&TA that this is your target. When you land sufficiently close, and someone sees it, you get your requirement filled. If "declaring" the jump is the method to get someone to watch, then fine, declare it. Agree and Agree. And I think, for me, (I hope!), it's not an issue. But if you search the fatality database, student collisions near the ground where target fixation might have been a factor is common enough that this advice alone is unlikely to solve things. So one way to help might be to add an element to the requirement that forces the student to maintain proper separation. (and so if they find themselves too close at 300ft, they know they won't get their "target" item on this jump even if they land spot on, and so won't make the situation even worse trying to force their way in). Please explain to me why we need to force the student to do anything. I am not a cop. I am an ADVISOR. If the student does not understand that he should not hit things and people, how is a rule going to improve the simple fact that he doesn't get it? At that point, the rule serves only to alienate the new jumper. Looking at all the threads about cameras and wingsuits and other advanced disciplines, you quickly see that there are lots and lots of people who think that all the rules are for someone else. Making a new rule is not going to change that person. Self preservation is a personal thing. If you have a sense of it, great. If you don't, I cannot force you to have it. It seems that you have at least some of it. I get it that you'd like others to have it too. But rules are not the way. You don't seem to actually need the rule, and the person who doesn't get it feels that the rule is not for him. So that new rule won't actually help keep you any safer. About the only thing that will get the job done is peer pressure. This is why I say that the proper teaching aid is restriction to solo skydiving. Enough of that and either they improve, or they get bored and leave. Either way, I'm fine with that. You know what? We don't even need a formal system to restrict that person. If you and your friends refuse to jump with him, he'll be solo, and no rule was involved. You want to make things safer, take it on yourself to not let people put you in danger. Get your friends to do the same. The problem is not that we don't have enough rules. What we are lacking is people who will just say "not with me around, you don't!".

True. But in the real world, the DZO needs bodies filling the aircraft so the S&TA who just grounded "that guy" is overruled. After all, it's not like the person violated a BSR. He's not breaking any rules, he's just enjoying his freedom to do whatever he wants in the air. The wingsuit BSR gives the S&TA something concrete to point at when they have to tell someone no, you can't jump a wingsuit yet. It also gives them something concrete to point at when they have to justify that restriction to the DZO. A BSR limiting canopy size/type/wingloading based on jump numbers would give S&TA's the same tool to use when they have to say no, you can't jump that canopy yet. It makes no sense to give them a tool to keep someone from going in with a wingsuit and not give them a tool to keep someone from taking out someone else with a canopy they can't safely fly in traffic. So let the person make solo jumps. Make him land far from the main landing area. The DZO still gets the jump ticket, and we don't need any new rules.

I'm a student in my solo phase, and in the process of accumulating "target landings", I'd like to offer my thoughts on this. I have been picking tragets before hand, although in one case I had to modify it on my downwind leg because 2 people had landed near it and I couldn't be sure they would be gone by the time I was on final. So I think any declared intent should requirement should have a safety exception. (Obviously there would be no way to communicate a change to an instructor at the last moment, but the current regs don't require announcing it in advance anyway). More importantly, IMO, is that in light of the possible contributing factor of target fixation in the recent dual student deaths in Texas, it seems to me that an additional requirement for a target landing is that the whole landing pattern be completed with some sort of minumum separation from other traffic. IOW, you don't get a "20M target landing" if you were dead on, but came within some distance (50M? I'll let the experts pick a safe distance) of other canopies anytime when in the landing pattern (1000ft and below). This additional requirement will force students to pay some attention to other traffic, and will preclude someone (knowingly or unknowingly) creating an unsafe situation in a desparate attempt to bag a proficiency card item. (And perhaps a target landing could be awarded if it exceeded the 20M distance due to presence of traffic. IOW, if safety requires a landing 30M left to avoid another jumper, give them the landing if they landed within 20M of a target that is 30M to the left of the original target.) Students tend to be more likely to create low level canopy collisions (outside of the swooping area), and other than general safety requirements, the A-license card doesn't have a specific item related to landing pattern separation. (Perhaps reword the 25 jump requirement to something like: "25 jumps maintaining a minumum 100M (50M?) separation from all other canopies from deployment to landing." So if you create (knowingly or unknowingly) a dangerous situation, that jump don't count.) Is there some reason that you care that you take an extra jump or two to meet the license requirement? After all, you plan to be doing this forever, right? Personally, I don't see any real value to declaring the target intention. You should be intending to land on the target every time. Traffic in the sky with you is just something you have to deal with. If it prevents you from landing on the target this time, then you failed to work with the situation. If the situation really really made it impossible, and it wasn't your failure to plan, then there's always your next jump. Forget the licenses. Learn how to skydive. The licenses will come when they come. If as a student you are experiencing "license fixation", that's a problem in its own right. In formation skydiving there is a saying, "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast". There's really no wisdom in hurrying to your accident. Slow down, do every jump as best you can. Don't fixate on anything but safety. The rest comes in its own good time.

Unless a partially cut closing loop goes undiscovered during a day's jumping (such as would have happened here if the loop hadn't failed during the main packjob) and the reserve is released in the middle of a skydive. Or in the door. Or in the plane when the door opens. Or Etc. Yes, it's the user's fault for entering the activation zone, but I still don't see an upside to the Argus cutter problem. +1 There is no upside. The reserve opened unexpectedly shortly later. Reserves should neither stay closed when you wanted them to open, nor open unexpectedly when you did not. Two out avoided or not, since the jumper was wearing an AAD, we can only say that he wanted that reserve to open when the AAD fired.

As much as I hate to use this term, EPIC FAIL on the part of all involved with this incident. +1 (Nice to see we can agree on something.)

I dont want to spin off topic but this has been a point of contention for me for sometime now. I think that there should be some sort of S&TA community or Blog, or group email that we can diseminate information to all S&TA's from all DZ's. Very similar to UPT, Strong, and USPA having a reciprosity (sp) for various suspensions; Why cant all DZ's honor diciplinary action or grounding from other DZ's? I have had the younger jumper tell me that he will just go jump at xy dropzone. Luckily in the north east we all know each other fairly well so all it takes is a call. There really should be an online community of just S&TA's so we can share experiences and learn from each other. Not to mention ask for advice if needed. Sure, it sounds nice to have the community of which you speak. But, even without it, if the dropzones really commit to making people jump solo when they make problems, the matter will take care of itself. And, as I said, if he fixes his behavior so he doesn't get "solo'd" elsewhere, that's fine too. He still took steps to not do whatever he did to get the restriction. Besides, your S&TA community thing presupposes many things. I have to be watching the community for the information. I have to be aware of the jumper arriving at our dz. If I miss a weekend, the process can break down. If the local community is tightly knit enough that he has friends at the other place too, then it should be tightly knit enough for them to have heard about the problem. If his friends aren't at the other dz, he's still missing his friends and will want to get "back home", or he will be an outsider for a time at the other dz. All in all, he is still significantly inconvenienced for his mistake. Now, if the jumpers over there have no problem jumping with him, despite his problem, then we are right back at the starting place, with people not taking the danger seriously. If he does the same thing again, and nothing happens, again, we are back at the start as well. Don't put this on the S&TAs. Put it on the whole jumping community. If they don't take it seriously, there is nothing the S&TAs can do, and the community will have only itself to thank for the carnage.

Keep in mind a DZO or S&TA or Chief Instructor has the right to ground anyone they feel is that guy for any reason. There is no BSR requirred. An S&TA has the authority to also suspend a instructional rating for up to 30 days under the governance manual 1-6.6b1. The funny thing about "that guy" which by the way I love for a national campaign on canopy safety. Are you that Guy? would be a great way to really get people thinking about this. Especially if we tell them they are that guy or girl and let them prove otherwise. Rigger Paul, Even if I agree with what you say, I agree most with,"Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish?" We cant just throw our hands up and say why try because it will not accomplish anything. The goal is to offer as much education from inception on through continuing canopy . or better put, It sure as hell cant hurt. I often say those in a canopy seminar are not the ones I am worried about, it is the ones who think they dont need it that worry me. Back to the proficiency card and section 6-10 and 6-11: if we require it prior to a license (B or C) then we are forcing That Guy to sit down and listen to us. It is giving the instructors another chance to educate and hopefully reach that guy. As it is now that guy gets his A and doesnt have to really do anything. We are dropping the ball. I am a strong advocate of this one proposal: What I have done in the past is go over those sections at water training. Do you know why? Because they have to be there and they have to listen to me. It works, or at least helps. Dont give up the fight I see the frustration, believe me I still crack up at the you tube Teach me to swoop animations. Usually when there is a joke we laugh at there is some truth behind it. Thanks Rich. After your encouragement, I'll post my suggestion for action to take in response to seeing poor canopy discipline. Some people have discussed grounding, but I don't think that is a good direction to take. I propose that we restrict the person to solo jumps, maybe hop-n-pops, for a number of jumps after we see a serious problem. The important point is that we separate the person from others that he put in danger. Taking away the ability to jump with others keeps him jumping, and gives him a motivation to improve. So, to recap, I believe that the facilities are already available to solve the problem. We have the training. We have the rules we need. What we are lacking is a workable response that encourages improved behavior. I suggest that putting him back to solo jumping for a while will get that done. It doesn't even matter that he might be able to go elsewhere to circumvent the restriction. The safety problems such a person presents do not go away when he leaves. And even if they did, that would be fine, wouldn't it? But when he does the same thing elsewhere, and gets the same solo restriction, the problem will quickly resolve itself. He will either fix his behavior, or he'll quit the sport in disgust.

Okay, not a dz.com user. But you are. Could you ask if he would be willing to publish whatever he sent to USPA? There really shouldn't be any need for secrecy about this. After conversations with a number of people, I have learned that there is hard evidence that the loop was partially cut. Had the available information been published in the first place, I would not have started this thread.

The canopy proficiency card? If so, that's perfect; an even better choice than requiring a course be taken. Most items on the card can be checked off during a course run based on the one in the SIM; requiring the card be completed instead of requiring that a course be taken would accomplish the same thing - verifying a base level of knowledge/skill - without forcing those with geographical issues to travel to find a course. I'll admit it. I'm impressed. That would work. But I still really think a BSR limiting canopy choices merits at least a serious discussion. Give your instructors and S&TA's and DZO's and gear dealers something to point at that has some teeth when they try to tell "that guy" not to buy or fly that parachute. They have it to keep "that guy" out of a wingsuit and wingsuits haven't killed or injured nearly as many jumpers as fast parachutes in inexperienced hands have. The problem I have with more training or a BSR or whatever is simple. How is it that we have jumpers out there that aren't afraid of this stuff in the first place, and will more regulation really replace a proper attitude of self-preservation? With the last few years having a tremendous focus on how people are dying under their open canopies, how could anyone with an ounce of sense not already being taking steps to be sure that they are not a problem? If people don't get that this is dangerous, are a few extra rules really going to fix it any? Not that we shouldn't try, or course. But what do we really expect to accomplish? The result I see is that we will feel better about being as proactive as we can, while still having the problem continue. That's not an entirely bad result. But it isn't really what we're all thinking as fixing things, is it? Consider - we have lots of laws about driving safely. Do they stop the tailgating? Speeding? Running traffic signs and signals? Nope! Those problems remain and are as bad as ever. If someone believes that it won't happen to them, that they are invincible, rules and training are not going to change it.

Hi, I just read the USPA newsletter that includes the story about an Argus in Texas that did not properly cut the closing loop. I am surprised that I hadn't heard of it before. Was it reported here and I missed it? Does anyone have a better description of what happened than USPA printed? Does anyone know how it was determined that the loop was partially cut and tore apart later? The details in the USPA newsletter are pretty thin. I just want to hear more about the whole thing, hopefully from people who actually saw what there was to see. Thanks!

While PeteS is legendary (with plenty of good reason) in his own right, Lodi is not quite the SF Bay Area or "peninsula". I can think of at least 6 riggers in SF or San Jose or on the peninsula between the two who could help you. Hopefully, one of them will get in touch with you.

The Sunpath website has a sizing chart. Here is a link to it - http://sunpath.com/web_en/index.php?menu_level1=3&menu_level2=5 It says that the J1K containers (J1KS, J1KL) will fit a 143 - 150 reserve. The whole issue of whether your reserve should be bigger than your main might affect your decision that a 150 is really right for you. Reserves are not mains. Whatever you do, make your choice carefully. If you MUST buy the container right now, and if you think that you MIGHT reconsider your reserve size, you can always sell the rig for what you paid, and then apply the money to a different rig.

Yes, I know! That's why, since I am looking for a 150 sqf reserve, I'd like to know if I'd be able to fit it in there. Otherwise, I am not buying the rig. I'm just hoping it does, because it is a good deal. But yes, definitely, safety first! Okay then. Sorry to have jumped on you. But you did not ask, "Will a 150 fit in this container?" You said you were about to buy a container, and had to put a reserve in it. If you want to know what will fit in the container, you'll at least need to tell us what the container is. Finally, is the 150 reserve the right size for you? Or is it the smallest you are willing to risk? If it is the right size, great. If it is the smallest you are willing to risk, what would be the BEST size for you in the first place?

If you buy a bottle of milk, do you call the farmer and say thank you if it wasn't sour? The worker that installed the airbag after a crash? Why should reserve packing be special? I write this assuming you do charge for your services. What do you pay for a repack? Do you think that represents a fair hourly wage for the work? It might be different if riggers were rolling in cash from their work. I don't know any that are. Do you?

The size reserve you need is not dependent on the container you have. It depends on your weight, your skill, and your thoughts on how the system should perform when you are faced with less than optimal conditions. It has been said before, and I will say it again, don't pick the rig first, and then look for a reserve. Pick the reserve first, and then look for a rig.

Last April (2010), USPA and PIA published their "Skydiver Advisory", asking for input regarding a disturbing fact that we seem to have rigs that are not performing to spec with regard to deploying the reserve. They cited incidents of containers being open, but not deploying fast enough to save the jumper. They were particularly interested in rigs that were extremely tight that might possibly delay extraction of the freebag. If we addressed this problem more directly, maybe we wouldn't need to adjust the AADs or the minimum deployment altitudes. TSOs and other certifications require certain performance milestones with regard to the time and altitude needed to deploy a reserve. If we have systems that are not meeting these milestones, we need to fix that, not adjust everything else to accommodate rigs that aren't performing to spec. The AADs we have now were designed with these performance goals in mind. If it is not working properly, it isn't the AADs that are at fault. So raising the firing altitude, either by design or by using altitude offsets, is just fixing a symptom, and not addressing the root problem.