Hooknswoop

1- Again, the FAA seems to be doing a good job with the airlines. 2- Why would it increase costs to skydivers? 3- I don’t really care what the dzo’s want. I want to be able to go to any dz and be reasonably confident the pilot is qualified and the aircraft properly maintained. Just like I can book a flight on any airline with the same expectations. Derek V

The FAA seems to be doing a great job with the airlines. Why do you think regulation would increase? Derek V

Why do “we” not want the FAA to increase oversight of jump operations? Derek V

It is not illegal in the US. The only place that I know of that does this is the United States Air Force Academy. Solo free fall on your first skydive. Derek V

My impression is that USPA is part of the problem. When the NTSB issued their report in 2008; "The Safety Board's review of parachute operations accidents since 1980 identified the following recurring safety issues: Inadequate aircraft inspection and maintenance; Pilot performance deficiencies in basic airmanship tasks, such as preflight inspections, weight and balance calculations, and emergency and recovery procedures; and Inadequate FAA oversight and direct surveillance of parachute operations." the USPA responded with requiring DZO's to fill out a form each year with their GM renewal with information about their aircraft, pilots and maintenance. So the USPA is giving the appearance of checking on jumpship maintenance, when they actually are not. Chuck, you and I agree. Derek V

Try leaving 12” in a wings W30 with 18” risers. Derek V

Something else to consider when leaving line between the links and the first (last?) stow; reserve container length and riser length will both have in impact on the ‘right’ amount to leave. Basically, leave as little as possible without causing the lines to hang up on the reserve container during deployment. Derek V

I didn’t when I was BASE jumping. The center cell was wide open with 3 cells on each side of the center cell. \\\V/// Is the best I can explain it. Same way reserves are packed. You want a nose first inflation for on-heading performance and to help prevent a line over. If the tail deploys first, the nose can catch a control line, creating a line over. Definitely no rolling of the nose. I don’t roll or stuff the nose when packing a main. Derek V

Great questions and good on you for asking them. 1- the idea is that it slows the opening by preventing the canopy from inflating until after the nose unrolls. Debatable if it works or causes off heading openings. Problem is unrolled noses don’t cause hard openings. I believe most hard openings are caused by either not keeping the slider against the slider stops during packing or going too fast when deploying. 2- you want the grommet towards the reserve container. This help to stage the opening process. 3- 18-24 inches. Why not more or less? If you leave less, the lines can hang up on the reserve container on the side that has to wrap around to the bag. This can cause the bag to rotate during deployment. More and you begin to,increase the risk of a line snagging a flap or helmet, or whatever. Semi stowless bags allow you to stow all the limes and do not cause the bag to spin on deployment. They are also easier and faster to pack. What’s not to like? 4- laying the canopy down gently is more about keeping the control lines from getting in front of the nose. Control lines in front of the nose causes line overs. Keep asking questions. If someone doesn’t give you the reasoning behind their answer, ask “why?”. Compare the ‘whys’ and decide for yourself. Often, two different answers can be correct, but one is better for you or your gear. Derek V

Your RSL shackle is connected backwards. Back to front and the tab will be pointed towards you and less likely to become disconnected. Derek V

The USPA voted to give the museum $25,000 per year for 5 years for a total of $125,000 to a project with no scheduled opening date? Tell me that isn’t true. If it is true, I have a project that could use $125,000. Derek V

To summarize; Chuck went from believing the “The GM program should be scrapped where it stands.”, to the Chair of the GM Program. He says it has teeth now, but is sworn to secrecy and cannot tell the membership what those teeth are. USPA gave $25,000 to the skydiving museum and wind tunnel. The museum’s website says a 2018 opening. That is not accurate and the museum and USPA can’t (or won’t) tell us when the museum and wind tunnel are actually scheduled to open. USPA is supposed to be training the US parachute team. They do not supply any funds to the team (that money seems to have gone towards a project with no schedule), and cannot describe what training they provide. Selecting the team manager is not providing training. What did I leave out? Derek V

The old, “If you don’t like it, run for office argument”. I pay membership dues. I pay to have a voice. I am working within the system, expressing my opinion to USPA. I haven’t seen any teeth being put into the GM program. Has USPA changed it’s charter to include supporting regulating, guiding, or otherwise getting into the business of DZ’s? The USPA selects the team manager. That is the training provided to the US parachute team? I would support sending the $25,000 we sent the museum (their website still says they plan on opening the wind tunnel in 2018, no one seems to know when it will really open) to pay for training the US parachute team. Derek V

USPA’s response to the NTSB report regarding jump ship incidents; Derek V

Irony score 8? What training does USPA provide the US parachute team? Derek V

Anyone?

What training does USPA give the US Parachute Team? When is the museum and wind tunnel expected to open? Derek V

“Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 21:01 The Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame is pleased to announce it is collaborating with Skyventure iFly to co-locate the Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame with a 16-foot iFly wind tunnel in North Orlando, Florida. The museum is currently working with a leading design firm to combine building space and functions and iFly is actively searching for a suitable piece of property as a venue for the combined facility. The co-venture is expected to open its doors in 2018.” When is the wind tunnel expected to open? I can tell you for sure it won’t be 2018. Derek V

Do you think USPA certifies DZ’s? From uspa.org; “No organization rates the relative safety of skydiving schools” What is it that you think USPA does that ensures the peopl on the plane with you meet a certain standard? Derek V

No, I am trying to explain that what you are relying on (USPA), to ensure that other people in the plane meet some sort of training standard, is a bad plan. What do you put your faith in that the aircraft is maintained according to the FAR’s? What do you put your faith in that the pilot is qualified and current? What makes skydiver A with 30 skydives and no license safer than skydiver B with 30 skydives and an A license? How do you know that the skydiver sitting next to you in the plane with 30-skydives has an A license or not? Derek V

The faith you are putting in the USPA to ensure that other jumpers meet certain standards is misplaced. They do not audit student programs. Some are very good, some are not. A USPA license is kinda like a USPA Group Member DZ. it doesn’t mean it is good or bad, it just means they sent the USPA a check. I could give my dog an A license..... Derek V

Nope. Let's look at how things work now and then if the mandatory send your $ to USPA was dropped by USPA. Now; Drop Zones choose how much of USPA's BSR's and guidance to follow or not. If a DZ does not follow the BSR's, etc. there isn't really anything USPA can do to change that. They could suspend rating's and memberships, or even the DZ's GM, but they cannot force a DZ to follow the rules. USPA is motivated NOT remove GM because then the DZ would be released from the requirement that jumpers are USPA members. If USPA comes down too harshly on a DZ, they might piss off the DZO enough that they drop their GM and, again, drop the requirement for the jumpers to send USPA every year. This means less money to USPA. DZ's control USPA's revenue stream. It is a conflict of interest. If USPA dropped the mandatory membership requirement; Most DZ's would probably still require it, if for nothing else, the liability insurance. But some wouldn't bother and I would imagine USPA would seen a small decline in revenue. If an alternative insurance was found that was $6/year, that would meet the individual insurance requirement, I could see USPA having real financial troubles. I think overall USPA is a good thing, but the system of DZ's controlling their revenue stream needs to change. Let them stand on their own. I jumpers feel they are getting $55/year of value, they will pay it. If not...... Derek V

The DZ sets the level of training and safety requirements. USPA not requiring GM DZ's to require membership (If A=B and B=C, then A=C) will not change that. USPA does not enforce any standards. Do you find it reassuring that USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI to address the instructor shortage? This is instead of letting the market self correct. What did an AFFI make per jump in 2001? What do they make now? What does an AFFI with 5 AFF jumps make? What does an AFFI with 100 AFF jumps make? I don't know if I would drop my membership if I could. Honestly, probably not for the reason Mr. Mullins points out, the insurance. As well as keeping my AFFI and PRO ratings. Derek V

This is dishonest at best. Remove the requirement from the GM pledge and let the chips fall where they may. Derek V

Tried that. A DZO doing AFF without a rating. The RD’s response: “What do you want me to do, take away a rating they don’t have?” Read that again, slowly. Love this! Is not worth the paper it is written on. I have seen every one of those pledges ignored. USPA knows they are being ignored. They can’t or won’t do anything about it. Let’s remove the mandatory membership requirement and see what happens. Maybe the insurance alone will make being an USPA member worth it. Let’s find out. Derek V