• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


dudeman17 last won the day on October 14 2020

dudeman17 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

146 Good


Jump Profile

  • License
  • Licensing Organization
  • Years in Sport
  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
  • Tandem
  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's an interesting idea, but that crater would have eroded away loooong ago, especially in an area where it rains a lot. It depends on the terrain and how hard/compact the dirt is, but bounce craters generally aren't very deep. One notable exception, if any of you are ghoulish enough to appreciate the humor in this. One time back in the 80's, some guy went in at Perris, and impacted in a neighboring nursery. Between rains and their soil preparation, this area was muddy to the point that walking through it, you'd sink in about shin to almost knee deep. Well, this guy's crater was a bout a foot or so deep. After everything was taken away, a couple jumpers who lived across the street in a trailer park known as 'the ghetto' made a plaster of paris mold of it, and set it in their yard as a birdbath. The drop zone owner caught wind of this, and smashed it up with a sledge hammer. Killjoy!
  2. That could be a tradeoff of clues. On one hand, if he asks for the flaps to be lowered sometime during the flight, that could help pinpoint his jump location. On the other hand, giving up the distance range in order to have them down the whole time might indicate a planned sooner jump. What would the range of that plane be flaps up, gear up and higher altitude? Would they make it to Mexico without refueling? As far as them misinterpreting the timing of his flap/gear demands, when they start talking about a fairly quick refueling need, that would clue him in to that?
  3. Some of this talk about how dzo's treat base jumpers reminds me of some years ago when I was teaching at a particular dz. A local jumper asked me about renting a student rig so he could try out a new base canopy. When we approached the school manager and dzo about it, they heard the word 'base' and immediately said NO! As much as we tried to explain that he did not want to use a slider down pack job and stress their harness, and he did not want to pull at 200', he just wanted to get a feel for how the canopy flew, they just didn't want to hear it. However... I think I'm with Joe on this one. It seems that every so often some one post wonder comes in here with some version of the same scenario. They want to get into base without bothering to learn how to skydive. I suspect it's the same troll.
  4. SST Struggle Struggle Thump Some people used to say that as Struggle Scream Thump, but most SST jumpers were not the screaming type.
  5. I'm not sure what your problem is, nwt. You seem to like being argumentative, and belligerent about it. Do you have that 'god complex' that they ascribe to some MD's? I read your above post with an open mind. I am not a pilot, and, our previous discussion notwithstanding, I try not to pay much attention to FAA bureaucracy. (I have been a TI since '91, so I did hold a medical from whenever it was that they started requiring them until covid hit and I stopped doing them.) My question was very specific and legitimate. You asserted that... All I had heard was that they had it hooked up to a cypres, so that intrigued me. Your statement... Would have sufficed as an answer. But... Really? I don't think that I've fallen into any 'trap'. I know how a cypres works. I've been an AFF-I since '90. While I have spent a lot of time with a radio in hand helping guide students down, I have never held a device that could fire their cypres if I thought they were about to go in. So for the totality if your posts here, perhaps you should consider... ...yourself.
  6. So what is the original problem? Why do they have it in for this TI? What's with 'terroristic threats' on the students? Can you shed some light on any of that?
  7. I agree with all of that. I didn't mean to imply that they could just pull a rating for no good reason, I was just saying that they don't need the FAA's permission. But again, I agree with what you're saying here. Although it seems that... might be exactly what they're doing. I'd like to know why, and it bothers me too.
  8. Yes, I read the original posts. The part that caught my attention was... So, like I said, it seems that they just had it in for this TI and were determined to suspend their rating, regardless. I'd be curious to know why, but unless swoopfly knows and cares to share it with us, I doubt that we will know. But everybody seemed to be fixated on the idea that USPA has no authority over the medical. My response was not aimed at the original situation, which I suspect really has nothing to do with the medical. My response was based on an objective hypothetical under a hopefully fair system. And with that in mind, I stand by my assertion that USPA's lack of authority over the medical is superseded by their absolute authority over the rating. But perhaps my hypothetical was optimistic. Because, unfortunately,... ... would seem to be true.
  9. As far as the original post and the TI involved, I have stated that I wish we knew more about it. Like was said, apparently USPA came up with one reason, then changed to another in order to suspend his rating. It sounds like someone had it in for the TI, and they just came up with a reason to suspend him. Whether or not that is valid, we don't know. And I keep using the word 'suspend' about the rating, because I would hope that there would be a review process, and that if the reason for the suspension was in fact invalid, then the rating would be reinstated. It sounds like the FAA did review the matter, but USPA has not reinstated the rating. So who knows? My arguments in this matter have been aimed at a more general circumstance, and not at the original situation. So in that respect, my point has been that... ...DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is that USPA has sole authority over, and responsibility for, the ratings it issues. If it has reason to believe that a TI no longer qualifies for the rating, for whatever reason, including that they think the TI has violated the terms of a medical that USPA does not issue and can not revoke, they have to respond. Consider the following... The FAA is a huge organization that oversees all of aviation. I think they'd rather not be bothered with petty skydiver stuff any more than they have to. If a TI, especially a non-pilot TI, were to do something that would invalidate their medical, how long do you think it would take for the FAA to find out about it, if ever, and respond. But skydiving is a smaller, more connected community. It is far more likely that someone would report such a TI to USPA. So what are they supposed to do? Bother the FAA about it, and wait for them to investigate, before taking action on the rating? In the meantime, what if there is an incident with said TI? What do you think a liability lawyer is going to do with that? So I would think that USPA would have to suspend the rating, at least temporarily, until the matter could be investigated and resolved.
  10. Is there any evidence to suggest that? All I've heard about it is that the BRS was set up to be deployed by a cypres, which is not remote-controllable.
  11. No, you're right. My point was correct the first time.
  12. If you read the words before and after the one you took offense to, you might see that I was not calling you stupid. In fact, I was trying to give you credit for NOT being stupid. I was pointing out that your argument was, and is, willfully myopic. And that right there is the myopia. What I am trying to point out is that whether or not the FAA officially revokes the medical is irrelevant. USPA knows what the medical requires, and they know the circumstances that would likely invalidate it. They don't need to defer to the FAA, or even bother them with procedural details in order to exercise control over the ratings they issue. What was that about being purposefully myopic in order to be argumentative? I believe my comment was an accurate, if simplistic, representation of the argument you seem to be making. ------- I don't know what else to tell you. If you want to continue to argue that USPA does not have the sole authority over the ratings it issues, have at it. Although... ...you seem to be coming around.
  13. You can not possibly be an MD and be this stupid. No, you are being purposefully myopic in order to be argumentative. Oh well, such is the nature of the internet. The FAA has nothing whatsoever to do with skydiving instructor ratings. The only reason they ever addressed TI ratings is because for years tandems operated under a waiver from the FAA reg that said each jumper had to have their own single harness dual parachute system. And all they said about it was that they wanted the TI to meet USPA and manufacturer requirements. It was USPA and the manufacturers that made the requirement for the TI to hold an FAA medical. So while, as an isolated issue, USPA has no jurisdiction over the FAA medical, they DO have jurisdiction over ensuring that the TI maintains qualification and eligibility to hold the TI rating, including maintaining a valid medical. If they receive information that a TI is NOT maintaining eligibility to hold the rating, including maintaining a valid medical, then it IS their jurisdiction to respond. And while it is solely the FAA's jurisdiction to officially revoke a medical, the circumstances that would invalidate it are not classified secrets. So whether or not the FAA actually revokes the medical is irrelevant. USPA can suspend the TI rating if they have reason to believe the qualifications for it are not being met. So by your logic, on Saturday night a TI can blow bong smoke in the S&TA's face. Then on Sunday morning, if the S&TA has a problem with the TI gearing up a tandem student, all the TI has to do is show the S&TA his medical, say 'piss off', and go on his merry way. Sure.
  14. What's not to understand? USPA says a TI has to have a valid medical. There are behaviors/conditions that would invalidate the medical. If USPA becomes aware of such, they are obligated to look into it. While they do not have the authority to revoke the medical, they do have the authority to suspend the rating.