TomNoonan

Robin, Your response is on like a 4 level, my initial response was maybe at a 2......I'm just participating in a casual conversation here. My initial point was I don't see this trend today that was suggested in the original post. Maybe I don't get out much.....but I just don't see bad AFf Is landing off all day and flying bad patterns. If they are, if you know of them and see them, then say something, point it out. As for "justifying land off". AFF Is occasionally land long on an airport. Or even off. From your generation all the way through today. Read: "occasionally". That could be one in a season at a DZ, is that cause to restructure an entire program? Outliers exist in all disciplines, all areas and can be nit picked all day. All I was saying is that there could be a reason beyond canopy skill level of an AFF I as to why they don't land in the pea pit. As for me, when I go North for a weekend where I might be doing AFF over a populated area, I fly a big, flat gliding canopy, because I know that no matter how current I am on AFF, and how (relatively?) proficient of a canopy pilot I believe myself to be, I know that on any given AFF jump, through no fault of my own, I could end up long or have to land in a back yard. So, I go big and flat up there. In Florida where its wide open where I jump, I choose smaller wings. I'll end here by saying, I've never landed off on an AFF jump, but I also ackowlegde the human element (fallibility?) of myself and anyone that I might be skydiving with, and plan accordingly. That said, if you want to suggest that the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing? I'm all ears, provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to me directly and I'll bring it to the board. [email protected]. Edit to change the score to a 4....lol....I just reread your post and absorbed more...lol Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

There exists atleast one photo (outside perspective) of a tandem master using such a pole. The story behind it escapes me, but from my recollection it has been communicated "BAD IDEA" to the person using it. gopoles are great for snowboarding, etc, but they have no role in tandem skydiving. (The pole itself has a wrist strap to of course prevent losing it if you drop it.) Imagine an EP situation. If you will. After exit, the TIs right hand is trapped,or he experiences a hard pull on the drogue, cannot extract it, and must then activate the reserve, with the same hand holding a 4ft pole....while in drogue less free fall..attached to their wrist with a strap...... Or better yet.....what about a tandem bag lock? It can happen. now cutaway the bag lock, your left hand is in or reaching up for the reserve handle, while the main risers go,right past the pole and your (snag point) gopro camera. Or, you cutaway, and the risers don't release and you have to reach in and clear the risers manually, with. Go pole in your left hand, right up in the lines and risers as they release. Not a single US based tandem manufacturer nor USPA endorse the use of a gopole type device on tandems. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I agree with you John. I don't have the same time in sport as the OP, but in say the last 10+ years or so, I simply don't see any great volume or increase in AFF Is or I/ES failing to make it back to the DZ or exhibit problematic accuracy skills. Add to that, there are many reasons an AFF I or I/E could find themselves landing away from the primary LZ. AFF student or I/E puts the AFF I in the basement, AFF course eval jump goes to shit and low (they can sometimes, it's the nature of a course), maybe the AFF I or candidate is jumping a canopy that comes out of the sky fast, versus a flat glider and occasionally doesn't have the glide to make it back where another canopy choice could? My point is just that there certainly exists a number of situations, beyond just "today's AFF instructors and I/Es can't fly their canopies". I guess my only gripe, if you even want to call it that.....is a broad stroke statement that is given without specifics. For example: "I see today's AFF Is landing, and they can't land on the DZ it seems." (Lacks validity. Where do you see them, how often do you see it?) Versus "At DZ XYZ, I saw 3 instructors land off 6 times last weekend on AFF jumps. Is that normal for AFF today?" (That type of statement is easily quantifiable, and a statement of fact.) One question I would throw out there to anyone that sees that sort of thing and questions it, would you go to the S&TA and/or the DZOs in a constructive manner and inform them of your concern, to help correct the situation? We're a small sport and not everyone is on here or has access to modern evolutions in training or performance changes and it may very well be that the person we see failing to meet a standard of some sort that others hold themselves to, just may not know what they don't know and would welcome a friendly infusion of information. just my thoughts. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Chris. Thank you for the endorsement, very much appreciated. The short version DZ status report is: I opened Bay State Skydiving Center last year in Boston while working full time in Deland, so it was a "fly home every weekend" between April and October, kind of thing to set up, get approved and open. It took a few months with getting FAA and MassDOT permissions, all sorted, and we opened some time in June. Then there were aircraft lease issues and bad weather, so I ended up buying a 182 with a friend in late July which I am keeping in Jumptown so they can use it while I'm in Deland. The DZ has been more of a bucket list project thus far, so this year (2013) I'm flying when I can, by appointment. It's an amazing facility, gorgeous views and the town loves us, but it's not (this year) a full time, open every weekend, facility. I travel a lot for my day job, so I am only planning to fly one weekend a month this summer till Labor Day. I am happy to email you ahead of time each month to let you know when I'm flying if you want to come out. We can make some jumps together, I don't get to fun jump enough any more, so it will be a good excuse to jump my sport rig. For what it's worth about skyride, living social, groupon, etc, I am not involved in any of that. I will not work with Skyride or whatever it's new name is? Just on principal. As for Groupon or Living Social, I dont use them, but don't have an opinion either way on them. Nationally, I have seen it work well at some DZs and not so well at others. It's not my thing either way though, so I don't really have too much to offer either way, good or bad about it. So, that's the scoop.

I'm all for conversational banter, but I think this thread may have run its course. To the Original Poster: In summation: Consider yourself fortunate to be in a geographic location that offers a number of exceptional AFF programs and access to turbine aircraft. Whether you choose, SNE, Pepperell or Jumptown, you will find all three AFF programs turning out well trained competent A license skydivers. Best recommendation I could make would be to suggest that you contact each school directly and speak with one of their instructors. Ask your questions about wind conditions, lift capacity, length of program, avialable staff to work with you, etc, anything and everything you can think of as it relates to your ability to accomplish your goal. Take all the input, form a well educated decision and then wherever that decision takes you, trust that you have made the right choice, as there is no wrong choice in AFF programs here. Hope that helps, just make sure you enjoy the experience, where ever that may be. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I'd have to say this was probably one of my favorite skydives I'm made taking one of my best Nepali friends on a tandem skydive. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Agree with Jerry. As with most things in life, a small amount of pre-planning saves alot of headaches down the road. As for my personal thoughts: 1) As of today, no one that hard to get a hold of. Between a work phone, a cell phone, a yahoo email account, facebook, etc, I've been contacted within minutes 15,000 miles away more times than I can remember on time sensative items. 2) Most riggers have some "commitment" to the understanding of how skydiving stuff works, where as there are alot of sport jumpers, justifiably so, that skydiving is just a part of their lives, ie, we can't expect every sport jumper that drops a rig off to truly grasp what SBs or what repair needs may be found after they leave it with us, thus, it is our obligation if we choose to take the work, to inform the customer A) if we find repairs under $XX, that we want their permission to do so, and that we will contact them if it is over that amount, AND it is their responsibility to be reasonably available to contact in that time frame, otherwise, we agree ahead of time, the work will not get done if I cant reach you. 3) For a rigger to perform hundreds of dollars of work on a rig without prior consent of the owner, thats a gamble on the riggers side of things, and if the customer refuses to pay it, if it hasnt been agreed upon prior, its on the rigger to eat the cost. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is mostly labor costs, which the rigger can choose or not to eat if the customer refuses to pay for unauthorized work. In the end, most every rigger/customer issue is caused by lack of communication. Education is key in preventing these sorts of scenarios from occuring. Both sides, customers and riggers alike would do well to use this opportunity to revisit their current SOPS (riggers) and expectations (customers) when it comes to getting your next repack done and use this experience to have a 5 minute conversation with your rigger to ensure your both on the same page. Last thought, as it relates to this incident, I dont know anyone involved, but knowing as many riggers as i do, who are all forethcoming with info, and assistance, I doubt this, or most any other rigger would do work without consent just to make some extra $$. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Maybe I can help shed some light on this. The 19 commandments (Bill Booth actually came up with the name if I remember correctly), came from a series of group meetings in UPTs factory between UPT, Strong, and Parachute Labs that took place in late 2010 to address the relative lack of synergy in the field regarding tandem SOPs (or best practice parameters) across the board. Jim Crouch was there as well, as the USPA rep, with the intent of all involved, to bring a unified set of regulations and recommendations to help clear up some of the disparities between USPA and the manufacturers. As we presented the 19 commandments in 2011, one of the closing comments made, was that this was a work in progress, encouraging feedback from the field. Over the next two years, UPT, Strong, PL and USPA received feedback. And when the 16 commandments were presented this time around in 2013, it was acknowlegded that the new 16 commandments were current SOPs based on feedback from the field on the original 19. As for UPT, they support the commandments 100%. Mark Procos actually has done quite alot of work this year with them with Examiner courses. We're heading to Perris in 2 weeks to present them to the west coast UPT Examiners at the UPT Examiner standardization meeting at Perris, and I believe they were presented at Expo as well during the East Coast standardization meeting. I don't work for UPT directly. I work across the street for PD, but have been very fortunate to have been able to help navigate this process with Mark and the company, and I can speak from a first person perspective, that UPT wants to see these commandments accepted throughout the industry. I have provided over a dozen Tandem IEs copies of the presentation at PIA to bring home to their staff and would be happy to provide it to any others that want it as well. Closing thought. One of the coolest examples of manufacturer synergy on tandem operating procedures is Bill Morrissey's influence on this commandment creation. Even though retired as the Tandem Director for Strong, it was through his encouragement that these meetings kept to schedule and on track at UPT every few weeks in 2010. It was awesome to see Bill M., Bill B, and Mark all working together, alongside Nancy and Jim to bring the original commandments to life, and even now two years later, every so often, Bill still pops his head into UPT to check on all things tandem related and it's awesome to see him up here still wanting to push this project into the future and keep giving the tandem community anything he has to offer. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

As do I. As, I said above, I agree with you and if it came to a vote, I would vote Yes, by name, for such a measure. Maybe I'm just niave, but I can't imagine anyone lying about how they voted to you. I could see perhaps if someone didn't want to share their vote for some reason, they might say "I choose not to share my vote with you", and if that was the response you got, you could choose not to vote for them next time around. But I guess my real point is if any of us wants the info right now, as the current system is in place, we should be emailing our RDs, and the NDs we voted for and asking them directly. It takes a matter of minutes, about the same amout of time it would take to log onto uspa.org, navigate the site to the minutes and scroll through them to find the votes we're looking for. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't take that long to email a person or a group of people. I agree that we shouldn't have to do that, but as of today, before any new voting by name proposal gets put on an agenda, debated, voted on and then possibly implemented, it's the best viable option and not a very time consuming one if we want to know how our BOD members voted in this past election. So.........again, I would suggest to anyone that is curious of how their BOD members voted, or would like them to vote by name at the Summer BOD meeting, please email them and ask them to share their votes, and to vote by name next time around. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi John My apologies, I wasn't ignoring the question, I just wanted to take a moment and attempt to convey my thought in a manner that would make sense as I hoped to convey it. With that said, with all due respect, (as I'm not the one that requested the secret ballot), I don't believe it appropriate for me to be publishing a name here on the forum. Not that the name is a big deal, it really isn't, but from a perspective of following proper channels, I think it more prudent for you to email your RD and ask them the question and then, after receiving an answer from your RD, if you feel it is in the membership's best interest to publish the name here, you are of course welcome to do so. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I stated in my election campaign, and post election in another thread, that I would put key to keyboard and explain votes on the Wing Suit Instructor Rating Proposal. Here are my votes, and reasons behind them. For those that may disagree with me, I may or may not be able to respond to your statements directly on this forum based on my online time at the moment, suffice to say, if I do not respond in a timely manner, it is not that I am ignoring your opinions and responses. Every vote that I made, I made with what I believed was the best interest of the membership, and I believe I did the job I was elected to perform. Wingsuit Instructor Rating Proposal: Voted No, by name. I voted No on the WSI proposal for a number of reasons. They are, in no particular order: - After some 2-3 years of development (of the question, should we implement this process), their still appeared to be a genuine lack of synergy amongst the WS community regarding whether or not this should be implemented. For every Pro opinion brought forward, there was a Con opinion that could be mustered, and so on. I am a firm believer that any action that USPA may take in this direction, must be palatable to the membership at large, to have any true chance for acceptance and success. And for better or worse, as of today, we simply arent there. "We've been at this for 3 years now, we need to make a decision". - I heard that a couple of times during the BOD meetings, and I couldnt disagree with that statement more. That it has taken us 3 years and we havent reached a unified front so to speak, only enforces that we need to take more time and polish this concept with input and investigation. If it takes 6 years to find a path to a resolution, then so be it, it takes six years. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and I refuse to vote for something just to get it off the table because we have been at it for 3 years already. One brief comment on the 5400 member poll response. I wasn't concerned with whether the "no opinions" were a Pro or Con vote, what I took issue with was that we had no way of knowing who the Pro, Con, or NoOp votes were. Were the Pros and Cons cast by I/E, Instructors, DZO, S&TAs, the people that may be able to best cast a vote that will change the landscape of the entire USPA Instructional Rating process? I was told that there was an other poll that was directed at I/Es directly, an idea I would support, but I was not provided the results of the poll prior to being asked to vote on this WSI. (To be fair, I was told that poll was Pro WSI, but no information was provided to the BOD (myself anyways) prior to being asked to vote on the WSI. - I am all for standardization, and getting ahead of this WS process before it turns into what is happening with canopy related incidents, but through this process at the most recent BOD meeting, I saw nothing to indicate to me that a Yes vote for a WSI at this time would accomplish that while at the same time being palatable to the membership as a whole, and thus stand a chance for success in implementation. - I believe that to try and vote the WSI in today, is a band aid fix. We need to do what skydivers have always done first, remind each other of the personal responsibilities we take on as skydivers. DZO: You are responsible to ensure that anyone on your DZ that intends to WS has been properly trained to do so AND anyone that is teaching as a WSI now, is using proper training information, most of which has already available in the SIM. Aircraft Owner: You are responsible to ensure that you are leasing your aircraft to DZOs that are ensuring that their WS fliers and WSI are properly trained and using proper training techniques. S&TAs: You are respobsible for knowing your role in this process. Not sure? Work with your DZO, work with your USPA RD, to ensure you are doing what you are tasked to do. And most importanly, to the would be wingsuit flier themselves: It is OUR (Im one too) collective responsibility to seek out the appropriate training needed to safely learn to WS. The info is out there, its not hiding. USPA, DSE, and every other person involved in this process has published volumes of good information. And if questions still exist? Ask people before putting the suit on. During session, we heard a story of a jumper that won a wingsuit, and when it arrived at the DZ, because there was no rated WSI, the people around this jumper, did the best they could do to explain what they knew, and then this jumper went up to make a WS jump. I challenge anyone to respond that 1) if standardized training is so important, that that was the appropriate decision of the jumper in question, and 2) who's responsibility in that chain of events was it to say, "wait a second, why dont you not jump the suit yet, and lets review your options? For me personally, I was in the exact same situation with skysurfing 12 years ago. My DZO took responsibility and said, "if you want fly that thing here, you will get the appropriate training and show me the videos that you can safely do this". My response was, "we're in Boston and the closest skysurf schools are in florida and houston". Two weeks later, at a cost of $1200 round trip with the course, I was in Houston learning to skysurf...... My DZO did the right thing then, and I don't see any change in that expectation today. I believe in Standardization and would LOVE to see standardized training in the WS community. But I would love MORE, to see our infrastructure operate as it was intended, a collective effort from DZO on down to person putting on the suit, to be working together to achieve the common goal of standardization. Why? Because unless it is a unified group effort, no WSI implemented will ever work to achieve that goal. So.....I voted No for that reason, among others, we need to fix (through better education) the current dissemination process of information within USPA and the GM DZ interactions from top to bottom, and THEN, when we get there, we can actually have a reasonable expectation of standardization, because the framework will already be in place and functioning, to ensure that the standards are upheld. After the WSI rating was defeated, a second motion was presented to add a Wingsuit Coach rating. I voted No by name on this one too. - A Coach rating is an instructional rating, so if I voted No on the above WSI, I was voting No on this one too, for all the same reasons. - It felt like there was this need to pass something WS related with this request, and I just couldn't in good faith vote on ANYTHING that would effect the entire membership without it being debated in committee, questions asked and answered in debate, not in plenary session at the 11th hour. I do not believe that was the time or place to present such a motion. Im not a political spinster, but it felt like a consolation prize thing, "The WSI didnt pass, so how about just a coach rating?" I didnt like it. - And again, in a proclaimed by many, broken system, I saw no correlation between a new USPA WS coach and an increase in standardization of training. Last item was the BSR proposal. Something like, "you must have 200 WS jumps to teach WS." It was tabled. No vote. Had it gone to a vote, I would have voted No by name again. - The goal is STANDARDIZED training. This measure will NOT ever ensure that. Im sorry, but if standardization is what we want, a BSR like this is NOT the answer. Why not? 1) Everyone currently teaching WS, will STILL be teaching WS and there is no requirement to follow any standard training in the proposed BSR. - I will petition against this proposal at the next BOD meeting for that very reason. Why put a BSR in place to do something that DZOs should arguably be doing anyways? And if a DZO does have a phenomenal trainer but they only have a 150 WS jumps, but can train circles around other WSIs with thousands of jumps, why not let the DZO make that call themselves? In closing, if it were me, wait it is me for the moment, with a voice on the BOD, I would look at "training for hire of licensed skydivers on USPA dropzones" across the board. - If your a USPA member and you are training for hire, regardless of WS, or Freefly or CRW, should USPA take a position, that anyone training on a USPA DZ have exhibited the basic understanding of USPA training philosophies, and thus require, by either BSR, or ammendment to the GM pledge (the softer version), that anyone teaching for hire, be required to pass the USPA Coach Course? Ideally, the Coach I/E would lead the candidates through the SIM to the recommendations in teh SIM for that very discipline, and through the coach course, the candidate is educated on how to use those standards. I couldn't imagine any professional trainer on a USPA DZ not being willing to step up and take a USPA coach course, or atleast testing out of it. Im not saying this is my idea, my agenda, its simply a suggestion to consider, as it outlines thinking Macro to Micro. Looking at USPA policy as a big picture, and then filtering it down to the individual discipline. Not the other way around, voting on a Micro (WS) that will then have a backwards ripple effect potentially on the Macro (USPA). OR A less intrusive option, if WS is truly in need of method specific oversight, create a WS proficiency card similar to the Pro rating card and place the responsibility, and thus liability of the training caliber on the S&TA. For those that would argue "the S&TA program is broken", okay fine, Macro to Micro, we fix the S&TA process first, then look at the proficiency card idea again. Phew.....I am exhausted.......but a promise is a promise. These are my votes, and these are the reasons behind them, and a couple of ideas outside the WSI rating process that I also think deserve atleast a little debate before we drop the final gavel on this whole WS training process. Some of you will agree with me, some of you will disagree with me. I would just hope that agree or disagree, that you will respect that I am here sharing my thoughts and giving you my honest opinions. I thank you all for confidence in me to do my best to help steer this ship we call USPA as we head into some exciting, yet uncharted waters. I'm always open to listening to ideas and look forward to flying WS with you guys as I see you on the road. Blue skies. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I agree that we deserve to know. But I will respectfully disagree that contacting one's elected officials directly (at this time) to ask them how they voted on important issues isn't too much of a burden in the digital world. One email to your RD and the NDs you vote for takes a matter of minutes to draft and send. If the info is that important to us, then its a small burden of our time to get the info we are looking for. Should we move to a recorded "by name" voting process? Absolutely. I would endorse such an option, but in the interim, until such a system is in place, we, the membership need to be proactive in our search for the information we seek, otherwise, we stay in idle, nothing moves forward, nothing changes. So, I would encourage anyone that wants to see recording votes by name brought up at the next BOD meeting, please email your RDs and any NDs you voted for, and ask them to put it on the agenda. While sending that email, also ask them to provide information on how they voted on the items you are interested in learning about. Respectfully, I agree that it can be done better, but that process requires time to investigate, decide and (possibly) implement. In the interim, contacting every board member via email is a task that takes minutes to accomplish and will provide quick timely answers to the questions of who voted for what. Its the best process in place at the moment, so I sincerely encourage you and anyone else interested, to send that email if the information is of genuine interest. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Here is my understanding of the secret ballot. It can serve atleast three purposes that I am aware of. I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with any of them, but these are the three answers I got when I posed the question. 1) Lets say you have two camps on a close vote, yes and no sides. And through debate a no is swayed to a yes, or a yes is swayed to a no, an "open vote" in opposition of your "camp" can strain the relationship of that person with their camp. It basically allows them to vote their conscience, without damaging their work group relationship. 2) In any political venue, USPA or even Congress, people can hold grudges. If someone votes down anothers idea publicly, months or years later, the person that got voted down, may vote against that other person's proposal. Is it right? Of course not, but in the real world it can happen and while I'm not a political spinster, I do recognize that the goal of this volunteer group of BOD members is to do the right thing, so if the outcome is just, then if it takes an occassional secret ballot to reach that outcome, the greater good of the membership is still being served and while I would prefer all votes by names, I don't hold it against anyone for requesting a secret ballot. 3) Believe it or not, every so often a vote is so controversial that the person voting for or against something faces concerns/backlash in the real world that can affect them outside the realm of USPA. A harmless example would be someone suggesting a boogie to "honor" all those that voted against something they wanted or didnt want, kind of put the voters up on a public shame display, and while thats harmless, and somethiing we all sign on for as a potential ramification of this process, there is also the occassional person that wishes to do real harm in real life by calling the employer of the voter, signing them up for spam mail accounts, etc, etc, basicaly taking it out into the real world so to speak. And for anyone that doesn't remember the Dallas USPA meeting, we had an armed officer at the door for that very reason. So......occassionally, a secret ballot can be a neccessary tool. And last thought on that, rarely is the person requesting the secret ballot the one that actually wants it. Remember that before going after the person. Last thing on this before I run off to a tandem seminar. While we would love to be able to say to everyone "please vote by name" and I did request that in committee for the WS rating proposal (im only an advisor to the committee, so I didnt have a vote in committee), if we as a membership really want to see that happen, its up to us to contact our RDs and NDs and request that of them directly. So, before the next meeting, contact your RDs and the NDs you voted for, and ask them (nicely.....lol) to vote by name. In the interim, if your curious how they voted on the WS rating, or anything else, contact them directly and ask them how they voted. As for me, I voted No on the Wingsuit rating proposal by name, so it will appear in the meeting minutes, and then when a secret ballot was requested for the Coach WS proposal, I again voted No publicly by name, by using a big piece of paper to write "Tom Noonan - NO" on it, and placing it in front of the gallery so that everyone that saw it, would see what I was voting as the votes were being picked up and tallied, and then myself and a few others, had our names recorded in the minutes with our respective votes. It was an easy decision for me, I campaigned on the promise to vote by name on important issues and defend them publicly if asked to do so, and I kept that promise and will continue to keep it. At some point after PIA, I will put "key to keyboard" and write up why I voted as I did, for now, it's suffice to say, given what was presented and how it was all presented, I believed I acted in the best interest of the membership at this time. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Thanks guys! Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Not replying to you directly, more of a general statement. I've never understood the "200 lbs of stupid" comment. I hear it occasionally, but it always puzzles me. I'd have to check my numbers, but I think I've made 4000 tandem jumps, not a huge number by today's standards, but enough to be able to evaluate things I believe. I'm gonna guess I have made those jumps in probably 8-10 different countries over the last decade, and I can't think of a single instance of looking down and seeing "stupid" hanging off of me under canopy. I guess my point is, if I have one, it's that our students are only as smart or "stupid" as we train them to be. If I were ever to look down and see "200 lbs of stupid" hanging off me, I would consider it a failure on my part, not theirs. As an industry, we must remain vigilant in training our students to the best of our ability, otherwise someday we may collectively lose the privilege of doing so. I know some TIs use that phrase as a joke, but there are those out there that genuinely believe it. Tandem skydiving is a serious business, a training business, and at it's core, it is a responsibility business.......we are in the business of acting responsibly. That responsibility starts with treating every student we work with as thought they are the most important person in our lives and training them accordingly, because for that period of time that we re with them, they are the most important person in our lives. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

*** Perfect. I am in transit to Kathmandu, will tentatively be back in Deland Nov 17th. Email me and I will send my cell #. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on things. Talk soon. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

USPA's "Call To Action" was just that, the wake up call. Honestly, I get your line of reasoning, but if the tandem industry needed a threat that "if this happens again, you will lose tandems" in order to ensure that student harnesses are fitted properly......then we are in big trouble as an industry and an organization...... Introduce yourself to me at the Perfect Spot next time we are both in town, and then you'll know someone personally. I was directly involved in the investigation of the incident in May 2006. I speak from first hand knowlegde of the incident and the conversations that were going around with the FAA at the time. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

*** Hi Ron, I wish it weren't true, but it is. Most people in our industry don't know how close we came to that in May 2006 when it last happened. It is only through the immense efforts of the tandem manufacturers and USPA working with the FAA, that we were able to continue on the way we did without any grounding of tandems. If you remember that almost immediate "call to action" reminding tandem instructors to fit the student harness according to manufacturer instructions, that action was us (USPA) telling them (the FAA) we were on it, fixing the problem. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Robin, A couple of thoughts I wanted to add to this line of thinking. - As scary as a concept as that is, that we lose tandems five years from now due to over regulation by the FAA, I wanted to offer a different scenario that I am not sure many people out there are aware of. If the woman involved in this jump had actually been ejected from her harness, there would have been a 99.9% chance that the following day the FAA would have grounded tandem jumping across the United States until they figured out what to do with us........That grounding could have been a month, a year, three years, as one thing we know, the FAA doesn't rush to report on anything. So......for all of the TIs out there, myself included, that depend on their tandem income to pay mortgages, car loans, feed their families, imagine showing up for work the next day and finding out that your FSDO just grounded all of your tandem gear indefinitely. We came that close to it over this incident. And to be fair to the FAA, from the outside, their perspective, could you really blame them for wanting to get more involved? What did we just do as an organization in the last couple of years, we actually voted to remove the requirement to give our tandem "students" altimeters, thus reclassifing them from "students" to "passengers" as a result. When we (the tandem industry) become a commercial passenger based business instead of a training based business model in the FAA's eyes, that's when we are going to wake up and see that we have been brought under their direct control and oversight. It's on the horizon for sure, where we go from here, remaining self regulated versus FAA controlled, is up to us at this point, but if we keep allowing things like this to happen, that choice could eventually be taken away from us. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

A couple of observations on this topic, not necessarily about the incident, but about the topic in general. - One of the most critical and often overlooked components of tandem instructor training is the continuing education component of it. If you attend a rating course, any rating course, whether its tandem, coach, AFF, etc, the course, no matter how exceptional the examiner is, the course can be described as trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. Massive amounts of vital information are passed on from teacher to candidate, and once the course has concluded, if you are able to show competence in the material and meet the standard to pass and earn the rating, it then becomes the new instructor's responsibility to continue to review and revisit the information post course, as long as they actively hold the rating. Obvisouly that doesnt always happen unfortunately, and as a result, 1) instructors start to forget some of that vital information they learned in the course, and 2) as time goes on, they begin to make subtle deviations from what they were originally taught, which over time, evolves into glaring deviations that still seem normal because they happened in small incriments over time. That is how these sort of things can occur to otherwise seemingly professional instructors that learned from the best in the business. We all know (USPA based) that every USPA instructor is supposed to attend a instructor safety seminar each year. Yet, how many of those that get signed off are held over a beer at dinner after safety day? For me, March is one of the busiest months of the year, as I trave to 4-5 DZs and hold specific tandem instructor refresher courses and training seminars, some are a couple of hours, some all day events. And its these types of seminars, reviews of manufacturer rules and regs, that are vital to ensuring that we keep from deviating from the manufacturer regs. I applaud UPT for putting together a tandem examiner standardization meeting at Skydive Expo for all systems, because the issue goes beyond just Sigma or Strong. Its an industry issue. So, as the 2012 season is coming to a close, I would encourage you to start planning an instructor safety seminar for your dropzone for your pre2013 season. I have some materials that I am happy to share with anyone that wants to hold such seminars, just email me at [email protected] - Based on the above idea, I would also like to mention that there is a certain mind set out there that is starting to emerge occassionally, that suggests that if you were trained by certain examiners, one versus another, that you are exempt from the stupid things that occur out there. That its the other guys that are the problem. Obvisouly the training is only as good as the person providing it, but be careful in placing too much weight on the idea that since you were trained by A or B that you dont need a Y Strap because you wont make that mistake. History has already shown us that is not the case. We all want to have belief that if we hire a great examiner, that we too will in turn be great. Thats why we seek them out, its human nature. But its also important to remember that we are all capable of making mistakes, or use bad judgement, and its not typically because somone is an idiot, its usually a smart, professional instructor, who experiences a fatigue based lapse in judgement or misses something on a busy work day at the DZ. We can all say "well that shouldnt happen", but we all know that it can happen and does happen. even to the best of them out there. No one, not even the guy involved in this event, sets out to allow themselves to lose control of a situation, but it happens. Ive seen alot of the videos and the photos, and its not always attributed the bad apples, it can be the all stars as well. So, the best we can do as individuals and as an industry is continue to remember that tandem instrucction is a priviledge afford us by the FAA, the manufacturers and USPA. I call it the spider man principle. With great power comes great responsibility. It is our collective responsibility to be diligent about continuing education and keep this stuff fresh in our heads. I can't tell you how many times a "pro" with thousands and thousands of tandems quoted a EP from Sigma for Strong and vice versa. It happens. Why? They haven't studied the EP tree since their course 5-10 years earlier. If every instructor that is active as a USPA instructor and/or examiner does not use this incident and subsequent fine, to make a concerted effort to pull out a student passenger harness fitting guiude and review the materials to ensure compliance, then we as an industry, deserve everything that can come down the road from the FAA as a result of this. Lets mind our own house instead of having the FAA do it. Let's be responsible. (Something I justt remembered): At these tandem instructor seminars that I hold, after we get done with a passenger harness review, I have started offering to sign off on instructors log books, like being signed off by a CFI, that said instructor has reviewed the material and satisfactorily shown competence in proper harness fitting. With this FAA fine coming out, I wonder if that type of Examiner log book entry into an instructors log book might be of merit down the road should the FAA ever inquire about currency. Thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Im interested in your feedback. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hello Raymond, I'd like to offer some thoughts that might be helpful. - The chest strap on the Sigma harness is not prone to sliding up or down on the main lift web as there isn't any force pulling or pushing on the main lift web friction adaptors once the instructor has properly positioned it in the fitting process. What you are experiencing when you see a chest strap that is properly fitted on the ground that appears to have risen after opening is that when the canopy deploys and the student is pulled vertical, that their body sinks into the harness. It is an avoidable event (the appearance of the chest strap rising, and the vast majority of the sinking), provided that the instructor fits the harness properly and considers a few key points. 1) When fitting the passenger harness there is no weight on the leg straps from the body. After properly adjusting your next harness. Take each leg strap at its apex on the side of the leg, and give them a firm pull upwards (warn the student prior to doing this). You will see the leg strap travel up 1-3 inches, which simulates a majority of the weight loading on the straps when the weight of the persons body is suspended. That few inches of travel is enough to create the appearance of the chest strap sliding up on opening shock. Suspending a student in their harness on the ground is the best way to assess this and readjust as necessary. And 2) Despite the most perfectly fitted harness on the ground, even when judged from a suspended harness, the human body is both gelatinous and pliable. That means that when you put an object of the weight, composition and flexibility of the human body through a rapid deceleration from 120mph to 16ft/sec over the course of a few seconds, the body will sink into the harness a little deeper than you could duplicate on the ground. One of the best indications of a properly fitted harness after the canopy is open, is the position of the back pad on the student while under canopy. If the student sunk so far down into the harness that the top of the backpad is at or even above their head, then the diagonal adjustments were too long. And as always check your students harness a minimum of three times. Once after donning and fitting the harness, a second time before boarding the plane and a third time before exit. If I can be of any further assistance, don't hesitate to shoot me an email at [email protected]. Blue skies Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

General Reply (not to Chuck directly): I have had a considerable amount of experience communicating with the FAA over the last four years regarding an airport access issue I have been dealing with for four years in Laconia, NH. It's a typical "NIMBY" scenario, not in my back yard. The airport (KLCI) is ideally suited for skydiving and is federally funded. In the last four years I have communicated with every level of the FAA directly, from Boston area Airports, to director levels in Washington, DC, including communicating directly with Chief Administrator Randy Babbitt up until his untimely resignation last Fall. (As a side note, Mr. Babbitt actually grew up with a pretty well known skydiver from these parts, I'll let you guess who.......lol). At the peak of all this communication, two things happened. One GOOD, and one NOT SO GOOD. The Good: Of of the FAA's resident experts in skydiving (and yes, they do have them and they are legit) came to a meeting with us at the airport. On one side of the table: Mary and I and our USPA hero, Mr. Randy O. on the other The city attorney, a seven member airport commission, the local FSDO, the local Airports engineer, a state aeronautics manager and the airport manager. All said, I think it was 3 to 12 on each side of the table with the FAA expert in the middle. What transpired next was simply amazing. The FAA expert went through a list of risk v risk mitigation scenarios and advocated for not just skydiving, but for all airport sponsors out there to embrace access to airports and to work together. We then all walked the field and in the end, he reported back to the FAA that there was no risk that could not be mitigated. The problem was at the time though, there was no standard to measure his evaluation against and the report vanished into the FAA heirarchy. The Bad: Shortly there after, the airport commission requested two flawed airspace evaluations, and led by an overzealous local FAA rep without any knowledge of skydiving, put together two completely erroneous reports, labeled them FAA and they were subsequently published as fact by the local airport sponsor and used as grounds to deny our access. For example, the local FAA rep stated that "see and avoid" could not be expected of pilots based on the size and complexity of the aircraft. Basically stating any airport with private jets could not sustain skydiving...... (I actually managed to fly into Crossskeys in a private jet last year just to see if there was any validity to that statement.......lol......there wasn't). My favorite "factual concern" however was katabatic winds....lol The cold air rolling down Gunstock Mountain (2900ftMSL) 4.5 miles from the airport, would "affect our ability to land accurately", thus jeapardize our safety and the surrounding aircraft. I informed the FAA engineer, that in my very limited, less than expert opinion.......I had been landing parachutes 4.5 miles from the peak of Mount Everest (29,035ft MSL), a peak that was 26,000ft higher than "Mount Gunstock", and that I was landing at 12,350ft, yet, for 4 trips out there I had never missed our cosiderably tighter landing area............(The director level of the FAA got a kick out of that one by the way.......lol) Long story short, as I took these reports up and up within the FAA, I got no where, until I finally got in touch with Randy Babbitt and things started to change. I for one am all for a standardize national process. In the end,it helps us. Obviously in it's current draft, it's not what we need, but that is where USPA comes in. Like a few others of you out there, I have worked extensively with Randy O. for the last four years, and if could elect him to Congress, I would. He knows what needs to be done and both he and Ed Scott are fully prepared to go the distance on this one for us. Okay, that's my marathon post for the month.....lol Last thing though, while I am here, and it's only my personal opinion. A couple of you have mentioned that the FAA has put us "on notice". I never really got that vibe from talking with the people i worked with in Washington. They are all good people at that level and they understand that skydiving, like any aviation based activity is dangerous. I honestly don't believe they want to regulate skydiving any more than we want them to do it.....lol. Yes, we can clean up our act and yes, they do watch youtube and see some of the dumb stuff we are doing, but at the end of the day, the FAA isn't the evil empire, very far from it from personal experience. So, like many of you, I am anxiously awaiting the end of this process. As it stands now in current draft form, I will be able open in NH when this is finally resolved. I hope USPA is able to trim it as needed for greater good of all DZs and I fully believe they will. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Just wanted to provide a quick update: I walked onto the airport Friday after Thanksgiving, November 2011. During the next 16 weeks, I flew back once a month to Boston from Deland, met with the airport commission, then the pilots, then the neighbors, and then finally 16 weeks in, I sat in the gallery of the monthly airport commission meeting as they voted to give the Bay State Skydiving Center a tentative approval, pending an FAA site survey. I flew back in April to meet with the FAA on the airport to do a site survey and was thrilled to be sitting across a table from some of the most knowledgable and professional FAA personnel I have ever met. A few weeks later, mid May, and that was it, with the full backing of the FAA and their endorsement of the airfield, the airport commission voted unanimously to bring Bay State Skydiving Center onto the airfield at KTAN in Taunton, MA. Approximately six months from the first day that I showed up on the airport, we made our first staff jumps onto the airport last weekend. Local pilots and neighbors stopped by to wish us well as we packed our parachutes, and this weekend represents the official opening of the Bay State Skydiving Center. It's been an educational experience the last four years. And I am still holding out hope that some day in the near future that Skydive Laconia will see the light of day, but until that day arrives, I am content to know that USPA continues to lead the charge on airport access issues. Randy Ottinger and Ed Scott continue to do an amazing job working with the FAA to keep us skydiving. I got to witness that first hand. Thanks guys. Time for me to go skydiving at my new dropzone. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom www.facebook.com/baystateskydiving and if anyone is interested in reading about a pretty fierce airport access debate that has lasted 4 years and received 65,000 page views, here is a link to a thread that will have you shaking your head over what some people think of our sport: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7143 Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Unfortunately, at the moment, suitability for skydiving is incredibly subjective. The bad news is that this sort of subjectivity, what constitutes a safe and efficient use of an airfield for skydiving, is all over the place across the country. There really isn't a formal standard on a national level that holds all airport sponsors to the same standards. The good news is that the FAA, with the help of USPA, especially Ed Scott and Randy Ottinger, are in the process of correcting this problem. The better news, for you in St Mary's, after watching the youtube video, is that your in the right, and eventually, you will be vindicated in this process. The reason being is that only the FAA, not the Airport Board can make safety assessments. And while I am not part of the FAA, I have done tandems and AFF jumps for Cathy last summer there, and I can assure you that the large main landing area is more than suitable for landing parachutes. And even the PLA next to the tent is suitable, but what the airport board seems to be arguing is whether or not object free areas are suitable, and they most certainly are, as parachutists are not objects. For anyone that knows me well, they know that Mary and I have been in a 4+ year airport access issue in Gilford, NH, and I have repeatedly advocated at every level of the FAA, reaching direct correspondences with (then) Chief Administrator Randy Babbitt. I have over 100 emails sent and received within the FAA, all the while patiently and methodically documenting every injustice (as I foresaw them) implemented by the local government bodies I was working with. Today, I am happy to say that "Skydive Laconia" helped spark a national dialogue on both sides of the table. Our airport access rights versus the opposing opinions of airport sponsors that would prefer to keep us out. The details are exhausting, and there isn't enough bandwidth here on DZ.com....lol, but for anyone with three days of down time, and an interest in an intense airport access dialogue that is going on 4+ years, have a look here: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3 Scroll down till you see "Skydive Laconia?" and click on that link. Before you click, notice the 61,000+ page views and the 548 posts to the topic in comparison to practically every other post on the board....... I'm not on here as much as used to be due to my schedule, but some day I hope to be able to share all the effort that went to working with the FAA and USPA's amazing assistance, that brought us to where we are today with this project. The Skydive Laconia story is about to write it's final chapter in 2012, and either way, whether we win access to the airport, or are by some random chance the airport is found to be unsuitable for skydiving, we will know either way that the answer is fair, impartial and completely unbiased. It took 4+ years to get to this point, but the journey was a valuable one. The upside though, is that there are airports out there that do want skydiving, so despite the odds, if anyone wants to open a dropzone, just keep your spirits up and be resilient. Skydive Laconia took a toll on us, that's for sure. We are both mentally and physically exhausted. But we never gave up. Never backed down. Today, while we wait for Skydive Laconia to play it's final round in this process I am happy to report that just 16 weeks ago, we found another dropzone, one with a fair and supportive airport commission, an excited airport manager and welcoming community. With all the we learned from Skydive Laconia, the process here ran smooth and efficiently, and what will be pretty much 20 weeks to the day I first set foot on the airport, we are planning to sign our lease and opening our doors. Perfect fits are out there. And for those fits that aren't perfect, if your in the right, keep fighting for due process and moving forward, eventually the finish line will be crossed. Sorry for the marathon post, this issue is just really important to me. Cathy & Co, I wish you the best of luck and if I can do anything to help you, you know where to find me, jus down the road in Deland. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I am very sad to hear of Howard's passing. I used to bump into Howard randomly yet regularly over the last few years, and we always had these great conversations about skydiving history and the goings on in PIA and USPA Board Meetings. I'm glad I got to spend time with you Howard. You were a wealth of knowledge and an enjoyable person to be around and interact with. Fly free Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com