riggerpaul

More silliness. When I started jumping the second time, in about 1983, the dz I went to had a DZO who used square student parachutes. My goodness, he was an outlaw. He was also an old timer. (He is still older now. His name is Bill Jones.) So please don't lump all old timers together. They are as diverse as any of the young jumpers we have today.

So, you have never said "I told you so" without pleasure? Or do you claim that you have never said, "I told you so" at all? Either way, I do not believe you. The most common emotion that I associate with "I told you so" is the frustration that comes from being ignored by the person who got hurt. As NWFlyer said, it can be a reminder that the opportunity to learn the easy way has been wasted. Whenever I see someone get hurt, I feel pretty bad. Unless one is a masochist, that's not pleasant. It seems to me that the person most likely to think that "I told you so" is gloating is the person who was told, got himself hurt, and still failed to learn the lesson that was there to learn.

Gloating requires pleasure at the misfortune of the victim. Check the dictionary if you don't believe me. One can easily say, "I told you so" without getting any pleasure from it. It might not be constructive, but that doesn't mean he's getting pleasure from saying "I told you so". So, though the comment might (or might not, for that matter) be useless and non-constructive, it might not be gloating either.

What moves are giving you trouble?

As MEL said, "LS" is the PD product code for a first generation Sabre canopy. Linesets are still readily available for this canopy. Call PD or one of the non-factory lineset suppliers. Be sure to be clear that the canopy is a Sabre, not a Sabre2.

I don't understand why skydivers think their lives would be better of if they were more regulated by the FAA. There is more bad than good. Do you want to be subject to DOT drug-testing policies? How about 8 hours bottle to throttle? Class III Medicals? I am happy flying a canopy without the government looking over my shoulder. The USPA is benevelant compared to the alternative. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we want to be considered aircraft. My point was only that the particular regulation that was mentioned is specifically intended to be about aircraft in relation to other aircraft. Since parachutes don't appear to be aircraft, the regulation does not apply.

The quoted regulation only applies to aircraft. It is still not at all clear that parachutes are considered aircraft by the FAA. One the one hand, parachutes seem to fall into the general definition of aircraft found in FAR 1.1. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.But there are many many rules that apply to aircraft that do not seem to apply to parachutes. This is not to say that pilots should not see and avoid parachutes. Of course they should, just as parachutists should see and avoid things they encounter in the air. But bill's question was to point out which regulation was broken. You say that 91.113 was violated. But since it is not clear that a parachute is an aircraft, it is not clear that the incident in question constitutes a violation of 91.113.

I've read all the posts in this thread, and I am a little surprised by some of it. I don't see this as a new requirement for a test or anything like that. A while back, the PIA and USPA issued the "Skydiver Advisory" message. That message mentioned having riggers test for the problem that might exist. John Sherman pointed out that there are no clear procedures by which riggers might make meaningful evaluations. Parachute Labs is now publishing a method that will allow a rigger to make a meaningful evaluation of the performance of a Parachute Labs rig. What the big deal? It doesn't say that this procedure is required to be done. It only offers that if you want to test a rig as suggested by the Skydiver Advisory, here's a way to do it for their rigs.

Here's a clicky https://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/142/APF_TD_03-2010_Issued_July_12th_2010_Argus_AAD.pdf.aspx

Are you talking about the recent announcement distributed by USPA? If so - I've had a couple of emails with Aviacom, and they say that the cutter recall does not apply anywhere other than France. There seemed to be some surprise to hear that USPA had published the bulletin. I don't know quite how I feel about that, but Aviacom's not going to replace my cutter or the cutters of my customers here in the USA. At least, not at this point. Anyway, it seems to be Aviacom's position that there is nothing wrong with the cutters, but that the French have required replacement nonetheless. (Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.)

(Oops. I see that the other responder said just about the same thing. But his response wasn't posted when I started my reply.) It isn't just about pulling the slider down. There are bad things that can happen when you go to release the deployment brakes, like one can hang up. If this happens, it might be a distraction from the immediate concern for nearby traffic. As the opening completes, I am scanning for traffic, and getting my hands up to grab the risers. So I am ready for a turn without concern for what might happen when I attempt to release the deployment brakes. By the way, I have Type 8 (fat) risers - I never pull the slider down.

You mention "catch a cutaway main". If you really mean "catch", as in snag in the air before reaching the ground, I urge you not to do it. More than a few have found that such an air-caught main can do some horrible things, like partially inflate, at just the wrong moment. Regarding the idea that an opening after a cutaway would be around 1500 feet, well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. For example, if you are flying a long sniveling high performance canopy, for instance, you might open higher than the minimum your license allows. If you have a violent spinner, and you decide to delay the cutaway, you might find yourself unable to cutaway at all, as the G forces can build quite quickly. So the advice in such a situation is to chop before you lose the chance to. Actually, this isn't just limited to high perf canopies. If your main is treating you badly, and things could get worse, get rid of it while you can, and sort the rest out later. Sure, try to see where the main is going if you can. But don't put a whole lot of priority on it. I wouldn't suggest that you follow your main to an off-dz landing unless you are quite familiar with your reserve and are comfortable with landing it under less than ideal conditions. If you are injured landing your reserve off the dz, you are further from help, and maybe nobody even saw it well enough to know you need help. At my home dz there are usually folks watching who will notice a cutaway and do their best to figure out where it lands. Some will likely go to fetch the canopy before you land, because they are really nice folks and want to help as much as possible. After a cutaway, your first priority should be to get to as safe a landing area as you can, and finish the jump with the least possible injury. Worrying too much about the main could distract you from this, and the result could cost you a whole lot more than a lost main would.

Yes, I understand that renter's insurance will often cover things stolen from your car. The question I asked is if stuff stolen not from your house and not from your car is covered. AndyMan says he has a rider for sports equipment that will cover such a thing.

Is your rig covered by the renter's insurance if it is stolen but not from your home or your car, for instance, from the packing area at the dz? Back when I was a renter, I don't think that situation was covered.

Maybe the better approach would be to learn tracking before the skill is actually needed. As I see it, if you look, barrel rolling or otherwise, and find someone in a bad place, then the tracking has failed in the first place, since the whole point of tracking is to get you some clear air for deployment. So maybe our approach to the whole problem needs some modification. Tracking is such an essential skill that it really should be a prerequisite for the rest of one's formation skydiving progression. It might work something like this - (please don't just pick on me for deficiencies in this sequence. This is just a first cut at how we might better approach the whole problem. I don't mean to say that this is ready for prime time. It is meant only to encourage more discussion.) First, get a briefing from a good tracker and then do some solo tracking to work on the skill. Then do some 2-ways so you have someone who can maybe tell you about what they saw. It would be good if one of the 2 people can track well enough to make both safe. At some point, get a coach or an instructor or someone else who knows about tracking to evaluate the tracking. When that evaluator thinks you track well enough for a bigger formation, you can then be confident that you have the skills needed to make the bottom end of the freefall as safe as you can. It just seems to me that this whole problem of what to do when someone is tracking poorly indicates that we are moving too quickly into bigger formations without insisting that the participants have demonstrated the required skills. And, just to be clear, even a 2-way is too big if neither person can find his way to some clear air for deployment. Just this weekend I heard a newer jumper complain that his solo skydive was boring. What that says to me is that he missed a great opportunity to work on skills that can always be made better, like tracking.

What is it that you would like to ensure against? Loss/damage during use?

The classic sizes listed for the Ravens are 181, 218, 249, and 282, for the I, II, III, IV. With your posting that it could be 218 and it could be a Raven III, either one or the other might be correct. If the name/model of the canopy is correct, the size would classically be 249. If the 218 size is correct, that would be a Raven II. Is the packing data card not clear?

Recommendations are certainly a good place to start. My questions are primarily regarding the hardness and/or fastness of these recommendations. I believe we need to allow for some variance from the recommendations to adjust for actual conditions. These variations can work both ways. A candidate might find a mentor a little earlier than the recommended number of jumps, and the mentor might take him past the recommended number of jumps before the actual goal is accomplished. Or, if the mentor has been satisfied that the candidate is ready, they may start doing the actual thing a bit ahead of the recommendation. The point is that the candidate is going to do better by having a mentor who can adapt to the candidate's needs and skills, than just having the SIM as some sort of self-study guide. I don't have a problem with the recommendation that you not jump camera until 200 or a wingsuit until 500. I just think that a mentor/instructor/something should have the ability to make adjustments.

I was talking about the 200 jump camera number. Guess I am still stuck in the other thread. You fill in an appropriate number for whatever discipline you want to talk about. I guess you were talking about a wingsuit. So. maybe it would be like 450 or 475 or something like that. I wouldn't expect a person with 200 jumps to get the sort of reaction I wrote from a wingsuit coach. Sorry for the confusion.

Ratings and rules don't fix this. We have had scandals involving Course Directors doing about the same things. We'll surely have rating holders who do the same things. We have plenty of "hard rules" that are ignored all the time. When was the last time you saw all the drivers on a freeway holding themselves to the speed limit? Putting lots of hard rules into the skydiving book just invites people to treat it the same as they treat the vehicle codes. We need to do better than that. Hard rules often just piss people off. Recommendations that can be reasonably adjusted can draw people into the system. If people bend them too far, pull or suspend their USPA membership. Then they won't be messing around at USPA dropzones anymore, or at least not for a while. USPA doesn't really have a whole lot more power than that anyway, since it is entirely possible to have a non-affiliated dropzone. The stick has not worked so well. It is time to try the carrot.

And your point is that, since there are no persons anointed by USPA, there are no persons who can accomplish the task? The role of being a mentor is not a new thing. Every new discipline began with mentors who were not anointed by USPA. News flash - Standards come from people who set them for themselves. They don't magically appear in the S&T committee meeting. S&TAs didn't become responsible because they became S&TAs. S&TAs became S&TAs because they were responsible. A rating does not create anything - it acknowledges what was already there.

You don't seem to trust anybody, do you. You don't think that an S&TA can manage to find people who can work within the spirit of the thing? You don't think that there are responsible people available who will take the recommendation seriously enough? Right now, there is nothing that the 175 jump wonder can do at all to be "on the way". This makes them resentful. They want to ignore the whole damn thing. We need to create a process that engages them instead of a rule that alienates them. Look, 199 jumps doesn't mean you automatically die. 200, even following everything else in the SIM, doesn't mean you will automatically live. A responsible mentor could make all the difference. The objective here is to get people to take the danger seriously and proceed accordingly, not to lord over the pack.

Were getting somewhere now. Now, if you trust the evaluator, and a person who has 175 jumps comes to him and asks about whatever we are talking about, what happens? The evaluator, being of good intent and proper state of mind says, "you have fewer jumps than are recommended, so I will have to do some evaluation to see if we can proceed even though you don't yet meet the recommendation. Let's go make a few jumps, you and I, to see where your skills really are. If all goes well, maybe we can start your training a few jumps early. But, if I don't think that's right, we'll just keep working on your skills until I am happy that you can proceed." Maybe the person gets to jump a few jumps early. Maybe not. But the evaluator has the skill and judgment to make that call, and does not necessarily need some hard and fast rule upon which to fall back. It seems to me that always being clear that whatever happens will depend on the judgment of an evaluator is what we need. As they stand now, recommendation don't necessarily require any evaluator, rated or otherwise, and therein lies a problem. Some of these low jump wonders think the recommendation represents a qualification which allows them to proceed on their own. There is a certain feel to the current SIM that supports that notion. I am sure that you and I both would say that's not the intent at all. I just re-read the camera flying section of the 2009-2010, and nowhere does it recommend an evaluation of any kind. In fact, it appears to attempt to provide a "self-study" guide to approaching camera flying. Now, it does say that you should get an experienced camera flyer and/or a rigger to evaluate the safety of new gear. But it doesn't actually tell anyone to get instruction from someone who knows. It seems to me that the recommendation should at least say that you should get some supervision and guidance from the most experienced camera fliers you can find to help be sure you don't make mistakes. Even without having an explicit rating, this would be better than allowing the incorrect interpretation that the SIM is a self-study guide. If they are doing that, then raw jump numbers as absolute requirements become a bit less necessary. They can remain in the nature of recommendation that will be considered by whoever is providing the supervision. Just making it clear that you should be getting help/instruction/supervision/evaluation from someone who is skilled in the art changes the whole nature of the problem. Even without a formal rating, it is still possible to tell the novice that he should consult with his S&TA to find a person who can help him. Now we will have more than one person doing an evaluation of one sort or another. To me this seems far better than trying to write down a set of hard and fast rules that may or may not be totally appropriate in all cases. It give the candidate novice a feeling that there is some flexibility that he can has some influence upon, and he will look forward to the interaction with someone who has knowledge and skill to impart, instead of making him feel as though he is being treated as a child. Of course, there will still be some who gripe and moan that it isn't right for them. We will always have them. But I imagine we would have fewer of them than we have now if we can incorporate some of what I have said here into the program.

Kallend began with the supposition that you trust the evaluator. You would never trust an evaluator who would do the 10 jump thing you propose. If you truly trust the evaluator, you don't need to worry that he needs jump number requirements to make a proper evaluation.

Please be clear. You were not referring to the popular non-USPA NorCal dz that has a reputation for being no rules, but has a hook turn ban?