DiverMike

A quick and dirty edit using Paintbrush - I don't have access to Photoshop here.

The big reform is you only have to take a Class III Medical exam once. After you pass that, you only have to see a doctor every 4 years and watch an online medical powerpoint every 2 years. That assumes your health hasn't changed since the initial exam.

I would bet big money you will still have to pass the Class III medical exam once to become a TI.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you may be screwed. I also have a PPL, but was denied a 3rd when I checked the box for sleep apnea. There is no 3rd class medical for skydiving only.
If you want to be a TI in the United States, you pretty much need to pass a 3rd class medical.
Like you, I'd love to hear from anyone who successfully became a TI without it.

Interestingly enough, I started skydiving 5 years ago when I could no longer fly because I couldn't pass a 3rd class. I didn't think I would get hooked on it as much as I have, and never thought I would consider becoming a TI. Now that I have the experience and desire to become a TI, I am running into the 3rd class medical issue.

Quote

If you cannot pass a Class III medical, then I expect there are a number of things that you should not be doing....

The FAA has determined a diagnosis of sleep apnea 10 years ago does keep me from piloting a plane, primarily because a commerical pilot fell asleep and overflew one of the Hawaiian islands.

It seems unlikely I would fall asleep during the time it takes to perform the duties of a TI, but there is only one 3rd class exam that is designed to evaluate pilots and not TI's.

I have had one for months. For the most part, pretty lame.

Quote

the USPA will enter the 21 century before it is 1/5 over.

+1

I buy maybe 4 stamps a year. One of them is to snail mail my application to USPA every year because of the signature required to keep my coach rating.

Quote

I think Start Skydiving in Ohio is worth looking into.

http://www.dropzone.com/dropzone/Detailed/1310.shtml

There is a public page on facebook. I have jumped every month. They will drop loads if it warm enough and enough people show up and/or give advance warning. We usually have a large group of Michiganers come down on a warmish winter weekend.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/StartSkydiving/

Quote

Both jumpers are "policyholders" under the same group policy.

This doesn't pass the smell test to me. "The" policy holder is you, the Insurance company is the second party. I am the third party. If you land on my car, I would think it would be covered. IMHO, if you land on your own car, it won't.

There must be some skydiver who is an insurance professional who can clarify this.

1. Is it there?
2. Is it square?
3. Will it flare?


But most importantly, remember what your mama told you when you were 5 years old.

DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS

Discuss with your AFFI's.

Quote

Slavery was also the norm in the British Isles at that time. The slaves referred to in Key's poem were indentured in England and sent over to America to fight the Colonists. In other words, they were the enemy and not innocent.

Not sure I fully agree that the slaves referred to in the poem were Brittish only. Historians believe about 4000 slaves were recruited from plantations by the Brittish to fight against the Americans.

I hope we can all agree the institution of slavery was a low point in America.

Having said that, the slaves fought against America and aided a country against which we had a formal declaration of war. I personally feel they were morally right in doing so, but certainly not legally.

It is difficult to make any comparison to the current day, since nothing is as horrible as allowing one human being to 'own' another.

How can you dis wrestling? It is one of the most basic and pure sports in the olympics? I'd understand a problem with rhythmic gymnastics, or Ice Dancing, but wrestling?

Quote

His claim of not wanting to hit innocent people is Monday morning horse-puckey. I saw him on the local news; yup, he was doing nothing but crapping his pants.

We disagree.

I have a CCW permit. I feel no obligation to start shooting to defend strangers. Every bullet I throw is likely going to create multiple lawsuits against me.

I also have a commitment to my family to come home at night. If you want to defend yours, carry a gun. Don't ask me to protect you, and don't complain that I am 'crapping my pants' by not responding to a firefight when I can flee or avoid it.

Quote

That's really an example of his idiocy.

I couldn't agree more, however, I think the point is all politicians are full of shit. You can't argue that we "should be building bridges and not walls", and advocate erecting a wall (albeit temporary) to protect yourself.

wow - step away from the keyboard. Go jump and clear your head

As I see it, you have two choices:
1. Get a new Hobby
2. Get a new Wife

Option 1 is probably cheaper.

Sorry - you are right, I meant Greg Lake wrote that song

He wrote that song when he was 12 years old. Amazing.

Quote

Again, it's a rule created to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

I guess it depends on what you define the problem to be. If the problem is there is unregulated activity causing additional risk to the cash cow of skydiving, this rule is solving the problem.

The USPA took the easiest course and banned all close flybys. They could have regulated the wingsuiter has 500 wingsuit jumps and the TI 500 tandems, or something like that, but they didn't. They could have made it waiverable by an S&TA, but it probably isn't.

I remember that song from the 70's. I had no idea it had so many great musicians performing it. According to wikipedia:

Quote

Musicians who appeared on the record included George Harrison, Billy Preston, Tom Scott, and Carole King (so the record became the highest peaking single on which she appeared during 1973). The Blossoms and Michelle Phillips (from The Mamas & the Papas) performed vocals as cheerleaders on the track.

I contacted USPA and got a prompt, professional, and polite response from some people rather high up. The BSR when it was in committee had "under canopy", but they were concerned that wingsuiters would start buzzing tandems under freefall, so instead of adding 'or under freefall', they took out 'while under canopy'. The feedback I got was:

Quote

The way the BSR is written now, we believe it implies while in free-fall and under canopy.

I have never had an issue prohibiting flyby of tandems. I think it is a stupid idea to buzz them. I think the USPA did a good job of addressing the issue before anything bad happened. I would give the USPA grade of 'A' in safety oversight and a 'C' in the implementation of the BSR.

I think they could have done a better job writing the regulation. As others have stated, the process of creating a BSR is flawed. There probably should have been an 'Announced Proposal for a New BSR' and allow the members to comment on the proposal. Instead, we as members had no input and the actual intent of the new BSR has to be discerned by implication.

Quote

If you have an actual gripe then call/email USPA and suggest they edit the wording.

I have.

Adding 'under canopy' would clarify the USPA's position.

As a point of order, I think wingsuiters buzzing anybody is a fundamentally stupid idea. I think anybody lurking, buzzing, hanging around tandems who isn't part of the tandem jump and is fully qualified to be there is just as stupid.

I agree completely in what I believe is the intent of the new BSR. I think it is poorly worded and as such has unintended consequences.

Quote

We all know what a wingsuit is, it's defined elsewhere

I looked through the SIM and could not find the definition of a wingsuit anywhere.

I guess a wingsuit is like hard core pornography. As Supreme Court Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it"
Oops - found it in the glossary. Nevermind. Your point is correct

The following statement, as written, isn't open to interpretation:

Quote

"Wingsuit flight within 500 feet vertically or horizontally of any student, including tandem students, is prohibited."

By not including the condition 'under canopy', it requires that wingsuiters must always exit last if students are on the plane (which generally is what happens anyway). Is that really USPA's intent? Why the hell did they specifically include 'under canopy' in the recommendation about licensed skydivers and not include it in the BSR about students? Maybe USPA really does want to prohibit wingsuits from exiting a plane carrying students. Maybe they don't want to expose students to the higher possibility of a tail strike by a wingsuiter.

As written, there is no ambiguity. You cannot exit a plane with a wingsuit on if there are students on the plane. That would include any student on the plane who backed out of doing the tandem and wants to ride it down.

I don't know if they have actually published the wording of the BSR, but I hope it includes 'under canopy' if their intent is to avoid buzzing.

Not all wingsuiters live to buzz tandems. I personally don't buzz them.

The greater concern I have is the degree of precision used to write the BSR. It must be written to increase safety and decrease liability. The preliminary wording prohibits flying a wingsuit within 500 feet of a student. It does not include 'while the student is under freefall or canopy', nor does it define anywhere what is considered to be a 'wingsuit'. What about camera suits with wings? This BSR might be increasing liability if a videot flying outside video bumps into a tandem student. I hope this is addressed in the final BSR.

I haven't seen the actual BSR, but I hope it is written with more precision than what has so far been shown. In addition to adding 'while in freefall or under canopy', it should probably clarify what a 'wingsuit' is.

A camera suit has wings, and I am pretty sure more camera flyers have bumped into tandem students than wingsuiters. I think to the general public (and legal counsel) any skydiving suit with wings would be classified as a wingsuit.

I guess the only rationalization is zero tolerance for additional unnecessary risk to tandem students. You don't want to screw the pooch.