michaelmullins

On 11/8/2023 at 4:16 AM, davjohns said:

As I try to figure out true retirement (all play - no work), I am trying to locate someplace to live / have a base. I want to be close to a DZ, major airport, SCUBA, hang gliding, etc. It seems I need Google Earth layers to show me where the stuff I want is located so I can figure out where I want to live. Anyone know of a layer or database showing where DZs are in the US? Or a significant effort to create one? 

The function we have here does not appear to translate to a map well. If I could get access to the underlying database, I might could create a layer. Not sure.

 

Appreciate any help.

 

David

go here:  https://www.uspa.org/dzlocator?pagesize=8

6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mods,

I suggest that this thread be locked down.  Nothing new in the last few days; just the same old crap back & forth between two people with a difference of opinion, no one else.

Jerry Baumchen

I agree!

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Your DZ, your call. While I would never dumb down my operation to USPA standards, I am still a fan of the structure USPA puts up for we operators. I will say that if you are not willing to meet those basic standards for any business reason the last thing you should be doing is representing the organization as a National Director. And before you cork calling that out as a PA please note that I have said the same thing to the face of others in your position.

USPA has requirements that are written in our BSRs that we expect our members to follow, and these are our "basic standards", and I do follow them.  We also have recommendations, these recommendations do not fit everyone, or every situation, and we allow our members to use their own best judgment.  Please feel free, obviously, to use those recommendations as your personal "basic standards".

 If you also feel that a USPA recommendation should  become a BSR then please feel free to put it on the Safety & Training agenda for the next meeting by sending an email to Michael Wadkins, Chair of the S&T Committee, and it will be discussed at the next meeting.  You can find his address on the USPA website.  I know of no case where a member has not been allowed to put an item on the agenda.  You can even come to the meeting and address the Committee, and you can address the full Board of Directors if you choose.  

If you wish to put forth a minimum number of jumps, or other requirements, for a tandem videographer BSR,  then I would suggest that you provide statistics to show that the current system is flawed and is causing problems, such as injuries, fatalities, or any incidents. 

 In my 22 years on the board and on the Safety & Training Committee, I cannot recall any significant problems with the status quo in regards to tandem videographers. 

Just now, JoeWeber said:

I repeat, putting a 100 jump whatever you'd like to call them on a Tandem is irresponsible. My comment on your personality is no more than an understanding that a tough minded DZO who is an accomplished pilot, USPA National Director, and who has long experience  might get something out of their staff than the DZO at the odd small, underfunded,  DZ in the middle of nowhere might not. No PA,  just fact. The bigger question,  Mike, is what are you trying to prove? Is it that we don't need a National Organization to make guidelines that you can show are too restrictive?

Not trying to prove anything, I am saying that "guidelines" are just that, and by definition cannot be too restrictive as they are not compulsory, and they are not compulsory for a reason, and that reason is that is some situations a comparable level of safety can be accomplished by good judgment and experience in training and qualifying cameramen. Such good judgment is not geo-located, has nothing to do with being "odd, small, underfunded", and I believe you are showing disdain, or at the least being patronizing, to the "odd, small, underfunded" and such characteristics, even if true, have nothing to do with good judgment on who is qualified to video a Tandem. Again, tandem videos seem to be going well and whether it be from heeding strictly the guidelines from USPA, or using your own judgment on who is qualified to video tandems, it makes no difference as long as the result is acceptable, which it clearly is on any statistical level.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Unlax, Mike. You aren't alone in having other businesses that support your DZ habit. My apologies, I'll reconfirm the USPA 200 jump minimum recommendation on flying a camera. But the big bitch I have with your response is that you give this horseshit response: "Love how you know my business and how I evidently "need to put a newbie with a camera in front of a Tandem to keep the doors open". In my post I put myself in that position, not you. If you are sensitive about it that's your problem not mine. I wouldn't do it. You apparently think it's wise. I will tell you straight up that I think putting 100 jump wonders with a camera in the air to film Tandems is irresponsible no matter how many times to date it has worked. But here's the real issue: you are a powerful personality and demand control. Would you recommend that a 182 Dropzone in the middle of nowhere do what you do?

I have never put "100 jump wonders" in the air to film tandems.  I have put qualified individuals in the air to film tandems, regardless of the number of jumps that they have, period, and without incident.  As far as problems with cameramen and tandems, I have not seen a real problem, it seems to be going fairly well, and I can recall only one incident that there was a problem and that was with a cameraman with many hundreds of jumps filming his mother on a tandem.  He decided he would go head down to film the opening, flew into the TI, knocked him unconscious and left him with lingering brain issues, Tandem landed and passenger broke both legs, threw a blow clot, and died on the way to the hospital.  I am not sure what a "182 DZ in the middle of nowhere" has to do with anything, but if they have good judgment in selecting who they have do their video I would agree that they should do what I do, that is, have good judgment.

Any reading of your post would infer that I, and others, were "putting newbies in front of a camera to keep the doors open".  You could have said "I would not put anyone in front of a tandem with a camera with less experience than I thought was necessary for safety", and, that is exactly my position, and it has been a very successful position ever since there have been tandem cameramen.  

I am not sure why you think you should be able to comment on my personality and that I "demand control".  I thought this forum discussion was on tandem cameraman, unsure of why you choose to make personal comments, other than to detract from the issue.

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So you're not a big fan of USPA recommendations, fair enough. Personally, if I needed to put a newbie with a camera in front of a Tandem to keep the doors open, regardless of the BSR's, I would take down the sign. But then I'm a safety outlier I'm beginning to see.

I am a fan of USPA recommendations, and that is just what they are, recommendations.  Not sure how you slipped a BSR in here as there are no camera BSRs.  Love how you know my business and how I evidently "need to put a newbie with a camera in front of a Tandem to keep the doors open", nothing could be farther from the truth, I do not need my skydiving business, I could close the doors tomorrow and be doing just fine, I do it because I like it , I like to see the results of our team at work,  and I like seeing skydivers growi from students to licensed to rated. 

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

How many jumps experience with a helmet mounted camera before they can practice filming Tandems?

We base it on their individual ability, not on a fixed number of jumps.  Some cannot do it adequately or safely with 500 jumps, others can do it well at 100 jumps.  We have been doing it this way for 40 years and have never had an incident caused by a videographer.

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm surprised this didn't catch on.

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Doe the student do their own hand cam? 

We have done quite a few of these, only one static line.  Instead of static line, it could also be done IAD just as well.  We don't do handycam at my DZ, only outside video.  We grow our own staff, video is where they start, if we did handycam there would be no pathway forward for those that did not have the money to readily get the required jumps in for TI or AFFI.  All our TI were video at one point, some are still multi-discipline doing video, tandem, and AFF.  We pay a $2.00 per jump override for every rating that you have in addition to the first rating.

I do think it is a good idea to practice a cutaway as a cutaway can be disorienting due to the zero G involved as skydivers do not routinely experience zero g on normal skydives from an aircraft moving horizontal in flight at over about 40 mph.

To experience the actual zero g of a cutaway, I have designed, and it has been used many times, an interface that allows a solo jumper to attach themselves, with complete rig, to a tandem.  The tandem pair can exit the aircraft, open, and the solo jumper can cutaway from the tandem with a pull of a handle, thus simulating the feeling of a cutaway.  Or, if you wish to do something unusual, the solo jumper can cutaway from the tandem in freefall and then make a 2 way with the tandem pilot.  

On one occasion, we had a static line student come to our DZ, we don't do static line, so we attached them, with rig, to a tandem pilot, they exited at 14,500', tandem pilot opened at 6,000', then cutaway the student, with static line attached to the tandem.  Student had a perfect opening, fell about 200' below the tandem.  Before releasing the student, TI was able to point out where they were, where the DZ was, the landing pattern, and have the student get in an arch with feet tucked up.  Worked great.

8 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Yes, 60-year-old King Airs can be picked up for a song.

Consider that Beechcraft started building King Airs in 1963 and more than 3,000 have been built. More King Airs have been built than all of the other light turbine twin executive transports combined (BAE Jetstream, Embraer Bandierante, Cessna 4??, Piaggio Avanti, Piper Cheyanne, etc.).

A DZ can pick up a 60 year old King Air for a song, barely more than the value of the instrument panel and the time remaining on the engines. But long-term maintenance is far more expensive on King Airs with their pressurized cabins, retractable landing gear, de-icing boots, IFR panels, etc. King Airs also require hard-surfaced runways 3,000 feet (1 kilometer) or longer.

All those extra systems also make King Airs more complicated to fly, hence not suitable for freshly-minted commercial pilots. Complex airplanes are also more expensive to insure.

When my boss bought a 1960s vintage King Air, I asked him why he did not buy a simpler Cessna Caravan and he replied that his 1960s vintage King Air was the most that he could afford. A few years later he was complaining about spending $45,000 on a landing gear inspection due every 5 years. A few years even later he crashed the King Air because of some neglected engine maintenance.

Bottom line, King Airs are the cheapest turbine jump-planes to purchase and you get what you pay for.

I have advised numerous people to not buy a King Air unless you have a very experienced pilot to fly it, a very knowledgable mechanic on staff that can maintain it, and that you are very knowledgeable about all aspects of flying and maintaining one.  Otherwise, the costs of maintenance will eat you alive and an inexperienced pilot will have a good chance of crashing it or landing it gear up.  I have told them that "you don't know what you don't know" but this advice has fallen on deaf ears on occasion.  I have had very good service from my King Air B90 with -34 engines, have flown it over 45,000 loads.  I recently had an engine failure when a $0.25 "C" clip fell out of the oil pressure regulating valve.  We had never touched that clip, whatever defect it had was from the last overhaul, engine shop said they had never seen one do that.  So, we sold the other engine, parting out the rest, and bought a C90 with -10, 1000 hp engines to replace it.

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Relax Mike,

I can calculate the difference in the of number of loads possible in an aircraft with half the climb time, too. So here's a question, I've flown 36 loads a day in a Super Caravan on back to back days too often. Have you flown 72 loads on back to back days in a Super even faster King Air? You are promoting the machines production advantage after all.

Geez, I never said I could do twice as many loads, I said I could put out more jumpers per day, I have flown over 50 loads per day on many days.

28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Well that's all fine and dandy, for sure, and fast jump aircraft are pretty cool. But even if it was twice as fast as that why would anyone want to jump a King Air when Super Caravans or -34 Otters will get a load to 14K in 12 minutes in comfort and then have a nice big door to make life happy for the jumpers? No time to relax and get comfortable is hardly a selling point for practicing a dive flow, calming a student, or doing a few safety checks. To each their own, I guess.

As I have made over 45,000 loads in my original King Air, 9HW, I would say that a bunch of jumpers seem to be very happy with a fast King Air, and now we have a faster King Air.  The additional speed means that we can put out more loads/more jumpers per day, with either King Air, than any Caravan or Otter, burning less fuel, with a much less expensive aircraft. But I am sure that some can find a negative in anything.

Mike Mullins

16 hours ago, skydive80 said:

Any idea how fast the new King Air at West TN is ?   The King Air with Garett’s ?

Yes

4 hours ago, billvon said:

I hope that means you are using a demand or diluter/demand system that does not set flow rates.   

As I have said on numerous occasions we use a diluter/demand/pressure regulator, A-14, which is good to at least 45,000'.  We never set them on diluter, they are always on 100%, and they have pressure breathing settings for 41K, 43K, 45K, and above 45K.  They will automatically start pressure breathing if you do not select the pressure breathing.  At around 30K, we put them on 45K and they put out a lot of oxygen, in excess of 12 LPM, which is far more than you can use.  The system does not technically set flow rates, the flow rates are the result of how much pressure is coming out the diameter of the hose.  The pressure is way more than sufficient, it is uncomfortable until you get used to it, it is akin to being waterboarded with oxygen. 

5 hours ago, cdcollura said:

Probably in a sense.

The chart says $11k per jumper to 41k with 6 jumpers. I think there were 4, so $15,000 per jumper. Either a brand new jet ski (or small car), or 3 mins of free fall. I think most of the cost is towards the required FAA paperwork and not just equipment / Aircraft. Remember you are also jumping from RVSQ "special qualifications" airspace (above 28.5k MSL which was imposed in 2002 after 9/11) ... Things like this simply ARE NOT CHEAP now. Especially in this day and age.

Actually there is no cost for FAA paperwork to do the actual jumps.  The procedure for a specific jump approval is just tedious and time consuming but, other than the time invested, there is no cost.  There was a large, one-time, cost for the approval for flight with door removed, flight testing, and the interior configuration. 

The term for the airspace involved is actually RVSM, which is Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums, which requires very special digital altimeters, special auto-pilot, and other equipment for flights above 28,000'. 

As the aircraft is used for nothing but these jumps, and would not be practical for normal jump operations, the cost of operation must be absorbed by a limited number of customers who can afford such jumps. 

There are many things that are not available to the average person, or skydiver, due to cost and that is why everyone does not own a Ferrari, go to the ISS, and live in mansions.  But, there are some that can and do.  A private citizen went to the ISS, cost him 28.5 million.  An 18 year old went up in Bezos rocket for the 15 minute flight, cost 2.8 million.  Virgin Galactic ride to the edge of space sold out 800 slots for $250,000 each, now the ride costs $450,000.  Very special things take very special money.

Michael Mullins

On 12/28/2022 at 5:00 PM, pchapman said:

Yeah there's something wrong with the math there. Double check your sources.

I don't have good sources at hand but have seen it written on aviation sites that 40,000 ft on 100% oxygen is like 10,000'.  And the alveolar partial pressure of oxygen (what counts, after removing the partial pressure of water vapour), at 42,000ft looks like it is the same as at 14,000', according to a big 2008 aviation medicine text (although using data from an earlier study).

That's why something around 41,000' is the typical limit without pressure breathing, as that gets you to around the equivalent to the height where you normally want to start looking at going on oxygen if flying for a longer period.

(....assuming the best case where your oxygen system is working perfectly and you have a good mask seal.)

As you say, partial pressure breathing (your term was overpressure) can get you a little bit more oxygen, a bit higher.

 

We have recorded data on oxygen saturation on actual jumps from 41,000' and 15,000', both in the aircraft and in freefall.  The jumpers from 41K have a higher oxygen saturation with their supplemental oxygen than the jumpers from 15K without supplemental oxygen.  To my knowledge, we are the only ones to record such data.  Actual data and experience trumps theory and speculation.  We will continue to record such data.  Our systems, both onboard and freefall, provide much more oxygen than is required by the generally accepted formula of 1 LPM per 10,000', and we check all the systems with a flowmeter prior to each jump.

Mike Mullins

West Tennessee Skydiving

3 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

The altitude when pressurized isn't important to this discussion.  

I have repeatedly brought this up because the description of the incident jump sounded like the pilot was impaired, which is not a surprise at that altitude.

The pilot was not impaired, the pilot was monitored constantly by a pulse oximeter, and the same pilot has flown test and actual jump flights to 41,000' on many occasions while having to operate the aircraft within a 5 mile radius and maintain exact altitudes in this RVSM environment.  This pilot has likely more time at 41,000' unpressurized than anyone on the planet, could be wrong.  Also, oxygen saturation at 41K on 100%, pressure breathing  oxygen is actually higher that oxygen saturation on a normal jump from 15,000', which we have documented.

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There doesn't seem to be a rule.
I looked. If anyone can find an actual 'unpressurized aircraft altitude limitation' rule, I'd appreciate it.

I dug around a bit a while back, and it seems that unpressurized aircraft don't go much above 25k. It reads like it's a 'best practice' that everyone follows, rather than an actual FAR.

In general, nobody but the military goes above 50k. There's a bunch of different reasons for that.
The Concorde went up to 60k, but it had a few reasons for that. Less dense air meant it could go faster up higher. It was also able to do emergency descents (down to survivable altitudes in case of depressurization) faster than 'normal' airliners. 

Citation X regularly flies at 51,000'

Sorry but you don't know what you don't know and you should not proceed with this.  Such a jump can be made by someone that is highly experienced, knows the FAA and USPA rules, with a pilot that has jump experience.  It does not appear that any of these things apply in this case.

On 8/4/2022 at 11:34 PM, [email protected] said:

Hey Everyone, 

My wife is going to kill me, but I'm checking to see what I would expect if I showed up at a DZ as a Class A who hasn't jumped in 15 years. I don't expect much at all, especially since I have no proof that I completed AFF. I used to have my Class A card but I think it's long gone. Will I have to do AFF all over again or just do a tandem for a one time jump? I honestly don't want to do go solo even if it was an option but I don't want to tandem either. I think one or two AFF instructors would be plenty. Let me know if you've encountered a similar situation at your DZ.

THANKS!

If you had a USPA license, you still have a USPA license.  There are no currency requirements for licensed jumpers and, technically, to be a current license holder you need only renew your USPA membership, which you can do online. Having said that, it is very unlikely that any DZ would allow you to jump without some currency training and that could consist of everything from a full ground school, or, to just spending an hour or two with an instructor who can evaluate your skills and knowledge, all depends on the DZ.

On 10/8/2021 at 12:05 AM, michaelmullins said:

West Tennessee Skydiving has one slot available for a 41,000' HALO Oxygen Jump on Saturday 16 October with a weather date of Sunday 17 October.

This jump is being offered at the discounted group rate of $11,000.

For a description, see: https://www.skydivekingair.com/index.php?p=2800

We have filled the avialable slot to 41,000' on 16 Oct 2021, sorry if you missed the chance.

On 9/20/2021 at 12:52 PM, MickPatch said:

@michaelmullins are you still going to be offering the 28,000 ft Halo as before as well?

Nope, only 36 and 41