TomNoonan

"radio distances"? C'mon John.....those are the distances for the radios.....duh. lol I don't know if I have completely lost my Boston accent living down here in Florida for so long, or if it was just a bad connection on my cell phone, but I said "radial distances" to objects. Given the reporter is probably not a skydiver, I am guessing that when I said "radial" he heard "radio". Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Thank you Chris. We will not be part of the Skyride program at our dropzone. I have a marketing degree from back when I was studying/working in the outside world.....lol and I am really excited about the marketing plan we came up with and where we will draw our customers from and how we plan to reach them. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Mary and I have been involved in an airport access issue in Gilford, NH since July 2008. Now THAT was (still is) an airport access issue. This airport proposal isn't an airport access issue at all. Everyone we have worked with has been completely supportive and 100% professional. We offered to meet with the airport users to let them have an open forum to ask questions and express concerns they might have. It was a great meeting, and even the small handful of pilots that we may not have "won over" were cordial and willing to engage us in a dialogue. We could not be happier about the outcome of the meeting. As for the "99% tandem operation", you have to look at that in the correct context. It was a fairly accurate statement based on the availability of turbines in the New England area. We simply told the pilots at th emeeting the truth as we foresaw fun jumping. As we personally know most of the skydivers in MA, NH and Maine, we hoped/thought that most everyone we were friends with would come down and make a skydive with us and say hello over the course of the season, but that due to jump ticket costs, for a fun jumper to ride a 182 or a 206 to 10,000ft that we would be flying, vs a Twin Otter to 13,500ft at one of the 3 larger "destination" turbine dropzones in New England, that sport jumpers would in all likelyhood spend their fun jumping $$ on turbines. Mary and I are both AFF instructors and look forward to training students there, but the reality is that the close proximity to Boston will inevitably give the dropzone a tandem heavy volume. I don't mind the heavy tandem volume though, as for anyone that knows me, knows that tandems are my #1 passion in the sport, they have brought me around the world and to the top of the world, so for me tandems are "fun jumps". So before this heads down the "they are opening a tandem mill" direction......lol, please understand that both Mary and I are dedicated to giving back to the sport and protecting/promoting it's future. With what few hurdles we have had to overcome in this process, the easiest one to avoid would have been to simply concede to agree to be a "tandem only" facility, and we refused that suggestion wholeheartedly. We want to create jobs for locals by training them to become our future skydiving instructors and we look forward to seeing our friends stop by and make fun jumps with us when they are in the area. We have a few other exciting ideas that we plan to build off of this project as well. Ideas that will allow us to continue to promote the sport. If anyone has any specific questions, as always, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi feuergnom, I don't want to speak for SE, so please take my comments as personal opinion based on my experience and time with the SE program. I can think of two things that can attribute to such an event happening, even with a brand new drogue. The first is the orientation of how the drogue is rolled in relationship to how it is placed in the boc pouch. Imagine that when rolled, the drogue ends up in the shape of a big hot dog bun. The open end of the bun would be the top of that last fold of the drogue. Lay a rig down on the floor with the backpad on the floor and the reserve/main trays facing the ceiling (which represents the orientation of the rig and the relative wind during the drogue setting process assuming the drogue is set while stable) and then pull the drogue out. If you pull out the drogue and the opening of the "bun" is facing the floor, then the opening is facing into the relative wind. That means that as the drogue is pulled out, it is instantly starting to mushroom as the RW is going in the opening of the bun and starting to spread fabric. If, on the other hand, you pull the drogue out and see that the drogue opening is facing the ceiling, that means the bottom of the "bun" is what is hitting the relative wind when you set the drogue. In doing so, the relative wind actually holds the drogue closed as it's extracted from the pouch and with a good tight drogue roll and a strong drogue set, the drogue will actually stay rolled until it runs to the end of the excess bridle that is stowed. That allows the drogue to cleanly clear the tandem pair before mushrooming and greatly reduces the chances of a drogue mushrooming on you as you set it. (SE used to have a great picture of what I am talking about in an old brochure, the drogue was 3+ ft to the side of the tandem pair before it started to inflate in clean air. The other possible cause is a scenario resulting from a launched head high exit into the relative wind. Now, I havent seen your exit, so I have no idea if this applies to you, but here it goes: If you launch from a side door aircraft, say an Otter for example, and you launch 90 degrees towards the wing but keep your bodies facing the line of flight, you will most likely rotate 45-90 degrees or so to your left while still presenting to the relative wind. This puts the drogue pouch pointing almost straight up. The tandem pair is stable (in the relative wind of the hill), head high, and starting that transition down the hill into a stable belly to earth orientation. If you throw the drogue at that moment however, you are basically setting the drogue directly above you in relation to the ground, but also directly into the relative wind that blows the drogue behind you, right into your burble. It can be the "perfect" burble in that it's your "down the hill" burble as you transition from the horizontal rel wind to vertical rel wind, keeping the drogue on your back throughout that entire transition down the hill, and can stay there quite a long time if you don't break up the airflow over your back. This process can accelerate you to tandem terminal of course if it doesnt clear, and as the tandem pair's vertical speed continues to increase, the burble effect gets stronger, making it less likely for the drogue to clear the burble on it's own the longer it sits there. If you have any specific questions I can answer, please feel free to email me at [email protected] or find me on skype (dualhawk, go figure....lol) and give me a call. There is a copy of this exact scenario on video somewhere and I am trying to remember where I saw it and who has it. I will see if I can get a copy of it and bring it to Skydive Expo. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I've been thinking about Ted every day since I heard about his passing. My heart and prayers are with his family and everyone at the factory. Ted Strong was a lot of things, he was an extraordinary skydiver, he was an extraordinary innovator and designer, and he was a visionary in our sport who spent over fifty years of his life pursuing a safer sport for us all. But his greatest attribute, what drew people to him, was that at his core, he was simply an extraordinary human being. For those that knew Ted, they understood that it was his integrity and his principles that defined him. On a personal level, he changed my life forever when he asked me to come down to Orlando in 2006 and work for him at Strong Enterprises. I wanted to say yes, but I was reluctant at first, apprehensive about leaving my comfortable career and expressed my concern to him. Like it was yesterday, I remember walking around Lake Wales with him discussing this idea and my concerns, when he stopped, turn to me, and said "Let me ask you a question". "Okay" I replied, "Shoot." And then he asked me the question that basically changed my life forever: "Do you look forward to Fridays, you know when your work week ends and your weekend starts?" "Yes" I replied, "Doesn't everybody?" "No" he replied. "Not me. I look forward to Mondays, the same way you look forward to Fridays." "Why is that?" I asked. "Because I love my job. Come work for me, and you will look forward to Mondays, the same way the rest of the world looks forward to the weekends." It was the most profound statement I had ever heard at 32 years old, and that was all it took. And you know what, he was right. I am really going to miss Ted. He was a mentor, a motivator and a role model to so many of us. I am grateful that I was able to share in his extraordinary life. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Jerry, I'm thinkin' that's probably me? lol I wrote the BOD, Ed Scott and Jimmy Hayhurst today to share my concerns with what was being communicated both here on dz.com and in the October editorial about raising funds for the US Team. I'm glad I wrote what I wrote and got the response that I got because I now think I better understand the intent of what was meant to happen with this project. USPA elected to provide a loan to another entity, the US Team in an effort to help that team raise funds through the creation of a demo team, so that they can hopefully receive the same level of support through income and/or sponsorship, that teams from other top competitive nations receive,which is an idea (raising funds for the US teams) that I endorse 100%. And knowing that it wasn't USPA's intent to create a "USPA demo team" directly, that too, is also helpful information, something that I must have lost in translation. But with that said, while I now have a better understanding of the scope of this project, I still don't agree at all with the decision that was made on how to get there, making a $10,000 loan. I consider that decision to be fiscally irresponsible given the current state of the national economy. It's a loan to the US Team, so the first question that comes to mind is, what happens if the loan is defaulted? What collateral is there to ensure that the membership will not bear the burden of a default? I may be out in left field on this one, but it jus doesn't make sense to me. Where my real concern is though at the moment, and something that I mentioned in my email was, our collective focus. Like many of you, I want to see our US Team get whatever funding they need, but of a higher priority to me, and i think to many of you, is the safety issue that is plaguing our sport right now, canopy control. I just wish the energy and funding that went into this US Team funding debate, vote and subsequent project green light, went into bringing us closer to a solution for the canopy control epidemic. I think if we read in Parachutist that a loan of $10,000 was made to develop a canopy control solution, many of us would have cheered. And lastly, I think everyone, the membership, the BOD and USPA as a whole can learn from this, this whole issue could have been largely avoided through better communication by everyone involved. I am not anti-USPA, in fact, as I said my email, I think I am probably one of the most pro-USPA members out there. What I hate to see is the "Us v Them" that comes out of issues like this. We really are all on the same team, and while however misguided I believe this project may be, I believe 100% that it was created, implemented and communicated with the best of intentions. I don't have all the answers, just offering my opinion to help round out where that response came from. If anyone wants a copy of my email I sent, let me know, and I'll send you a copy. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Sparky, Still don't know who the TI is, am working on that, this isn't a recent action, its from 2009, don't know if he even still works there, but I just got it, and yes, appropriate parties are involved. Curious though, of all the info presented, that was your only question? Out of courtesy to all involved, I am not going to further comment on the incident, its still in progress. I posted the pic only to illustrate what our industry is facing beyond just the harness issue. Whether it was today or 2009, the thing to take away from this is that it occured after the Ohio incident, a moment you'd like to think our entire industry stopped and took stock of how we were operating. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

The picture is a screen capture after the TI left the plane in a linked head down flower exit with the videographer (also a TI). They held the linked exit until it stabilized head down, then they released and the TI held the head down orientation on his own. This occurred on a USPA Dropzone, the jump was made by a USPA TI, and there is a USPA and UPT T/E full time on the drop zone. Like I said, those of you that enjoy working in this industry as tandem instructors may want to consider earning your AFF or S/L rating, because it will only take one TI out there flying for himself and not the passenger to bring our national tandem industry to a screeching halt. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

The Y-Mod is mandatory on all Strong Dual Hawk Passenger harnesses. I believe there was a date set to have them all modified by, but I am fuzzy on the exact date. I want to say 12/31/2007, but I am not sure. You can email: [email protected] or [email protected] to get the definitive date and the field modification instructions if you have a passenger harness in the field without the Y-Mod. On a related note for those of you in the US that enjoy being a tandem instructor, I would like to give you all something to seriously consider: Tandem skydiving, like all skydiving activities, is inherently dangerous. The truth is, despite the advances in our sport in both training and equipment, we will continue to see sport and tandem related grave injuries or fatalities periodically. It's in all the waivers we sign for a reason, because unfortunately it can and does happen. Here's the thing, as a (USPA) self policing industry, the FAA has and continues to give us a tremendous amount of latitude in governing ourselves. That privilege is fragile however, and make no mistake, the FAA is watching us, very closely. I offer this point for your serious consideration, that the next time a passenger is ejected from a harness, do not be surprised when you show up for work the next day and find all of your DZs tandem equipment grounded by your FSDO. If the FAA decides to eventually (eventually in terms of years) let tandem resume, it will be under their watch, not our own, and we will be commercial pilots, having to go through the same certifications and expense. If we lose tandems, we lose most of our turbines. If we lose most of our turbines, we lose a considerable ability to train new students. If we lose new student volume, our member decreases and we basically end up back a Cessna industry outside a few destination dropzones. If you are DZO, DZM, S&TA or instructor I would like to ask that you use this as an opportunity to conduct a staff meeting and review proper harness fitting, and give every instructor a copy of the passenger harness fitting instructions of the gear you use. If you are unable to find a copy, contact your respective manufacturer or contact me at [email protected] and I will arrange for you to get a copy via email. Whatever your brand is, UPT, Strong or JS, you MUST properly fit the passenger harness completely PRIOR to boarding the aircraft, following the manufacturer specific instructions. To do anything less, jeopardizes our ENTIRE industry. Lastly, I like to believe in our sport, our industry and the people in it. And for the most part, I do. It seems though, every time I travel and see the right things being done and I start to feel better about the future of the tandem industry, I get an email or a phone call from a concerned skydiver somewhere else in the wolld that shares with me something like this (see attached), and I think to myself, "I better go get my Static Line rating, because it's only a matter of time before we lose the tandem industry with people out there like this still flying for themselves and not the passengers............ Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

The intent of reporting cutaways goes beyond just did someone get injured or not. There are so many tandem canopies out there today being operated on different systems with different line types, different sizes, exit weights, etc. With today's modern technology seeing trends in potential gear issues/combinations is much easier than it was years ago. Let's face it, the reports of premature main container openings in freefall led to the advancements used in today's modern tandem systems to prevent that specific malfunction. That's the thought process behind such a request. To see any issue trends out there today that can potentially be resolved for tomorrow. 19) I don't know where the idea of 3 questions came up, but the module is intended to be a little more in depth than that. The idea being each year a TI reverifies they are aware of certain operational criteria (minimum exit altitudes for example), or as things change at the manufacturer or USPA rules level, it can be validated yearly who knows the new rules and who doesn't, hence the idea of continuing education. I can be just as skeptical as the next person....lol, but trust me on this one, the intent is to actually do something exceptional here. Raise the bar, raise the standard in tandem jumping. We are after all, professionals. (I don't speak on behalf of the manufacturers, I have just been fortunate enough to have been a part of this 19 Commandment process) Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Rob, nobody is struggling that I am aware of.....lol. There are currently seven people involved in this process: 5 live in Florida, 1 in Kansas and 1 one up there by USPA. It was just an idea (I don't know who thought it up, I could have and I just don't remember maybe? ....lol) at a meeting we had in Deland like a week before we left for PIA. Nobody wants to rush this. The idea of a legitimate continuing education module is something everyone wants to see and when it's done it will be a good thing. (I don't speak on behalf of any of the manufacturers, I'm just offering my personal observations of this process that I have been involved with.) Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

We're bringing the Katana, Pulse, Storm, Sabre2, Velocity and Optimum demos, in pretty much every size we make of each canopy. And maybe a case of GoFast! if we can fit it in the truck after we pack the tent and canopies...... Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hey Chris, Save some room on the field next to manifest for the PD tent! We're coming up to the boogie with a fleet of demo canopies. See you in a few weeks! Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Hi Bryan, I am in the factory all day tomorrow (Thursday), give me a call at (386) 738-2224 or email me at: [email protected] And I will be happy to answer any questions you have about canopy inspection and recertification. The Parachute Maintenance Department at the factory is an exceptional resource. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

We just lost one of the kindest, most charitable, most fun to be around, skydivers that many of us will ever know in the sport. Senior was everything skydiving was supposed to be. He was a fun jumper in the purest form. Whether he was at Jumptown, Pepperell, Skydive New England or any of the other local area DZs, his presence warmed the mood where ever he was. He embodied the word "fun" in everything he did. Everything about him was fun. The 4th of July demos in Danvers, the Plum Island beach jumps and bbq with Butch, the Great White North Boogies, the Santa jumps for the local kids, and all the amazing demo jumps that he did, they were always about the enjoyment of the sport, the fun of it. He told me once the remote control to his TV didn't need a "channel up or down" button. When I asked "why not?" he said "because I only watch the weather channel." He just loved skydiving. What a great spirit. Our lives are all the richer for having known Senior.

You are basing practically your entire argument on the HUGE assumption that they had any clue at all about the connection between the event and skyride. When requests for event support or ads such as this are received, they aren't always directly from the DZ, they can come from individuals, and alot of times those individuals aren't even staff at a particular DZ. Based on the sheer volume of events and ads out there in this global industry, it's impossible to expect that any entity is able to assure every event or ad has no connection whatsoever to skyride. I mean where does it end? What if you found out that your home DZ, that does not accept skyride, has an instructor there that USED to work for a skyride DZ? Would you demand they be fired? Or would you leave? What if a fun jumper that got an A License from a skyride DZ and showed up at your DZ to make a fun jump, should your DZO turn them away? Would you leave your DZ if the DZO sold a jump ticket to a fun jumper that got an A License from a skyride DZ? You also claim that even if they didn't know, that they should have known.......that they have some sort of social responsibility to check this site and know whether or not every DZ in the nation has an affiliation with skyride or not. How this is possible is beyond me. From the little I do know about the production of BSM, it's produced by people working side by side of other jobs to pay the bills. Like having a 40 hour work week on top of a forty hour work week. Obviously skyride is in the forefront of your consciousness, to expect or to ask that it also be paramount to BSM's consciousness on top of everything else they are tasked with doing, is well extreme in your thinking if you ask me. And again, if anyone jumped on here to start a "crusade" without contacting someone from BSM first, then shame on them. When we (skydivers) stop giving each other the benefit of the doubt, we lose a big reason why we are all in this in sport in the first place. Unity. All I am asking of anyone that happens to read over this thread before BSM even has a chance to respond, is to just use some common sense here and not get caught up in the crusade "epidemic". Wait a week to do anything drastic like cancel your subscription. Chill out, it's the weekend, go make some skydives and see how BSM responds next week. Skygod (still) > Me Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Couple of things mentioned here that bear repeating. 1) Does anyone even know if BSM even knows it's a Skyride DZ event yet? 2) Did anyone address the issue with them privately before creating this thread/hunt here? Here's what I speculate (the dirty word on here) would have happened if a concerned jumper called them about it: Concerned Jumper: "Hi BSM, do you know your supporting a boogie that is hosted by a DZ owned by the Skyride machine? BSM: "What event are you talking about? We get requests from event organizers all over the world on a weekly basis?" CJ: The xxxxx boogie in xxxxx." BSM: "Oh okay, I think I got an email a month or two ago from a skydiver up that way asking for some Skygod>U t-shirts for a boogie contest or something." CJ: Did you know the event is being held at xxxxx DZ owned by Skyride?" BSM: "No we didn't now that, thank you for letting us know." CJ: "So.........now, what are you gonna do about the event?" BSM: "Well we already sent the shirts, but now we know for next time to check on the skyride affiliation of the boogies that ask for our support. If our readership disagrees with supporting those types of events, we want to try to respect that." CJ: "Thank you, blue skies.' BSM: "Blue skies to you too, oh wait hold on.....Skygod says not to forget that he's "> U" whatever that means. He's been in a bad mood all day since the coffee maker broke." BSM is a fledging operation that needs our support IMHO. While I have yet to have a beer with Lara, Kolla or Pierre at the Perfect Spot, in the interactions that I have had with them, they have always conveyed that they are undertaking this massive project called BSM to make sure the skydiving community as a whole continues to have a real world outlet for skydiving information. I believe their huge efforts are vital to the continued growth of our sport. If someone doesn't agree with a decision they made about supporting an event there are numerous ways to help them understand that perspective in a positive way that results in a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved. Why do things like this have to be gloom and doom, instead of being a positive opportunity to learn something? Skygod > Me Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

You bring up a very good point here, especially with the Strong system that has Safety (or "Chicken" as they are often called) handles that allow the jumper in the student position to activate both the cutaway and reserve from the front. In the tandem courses I teach, we actually have a section that addresses the use of the handles. the idea being that any disagreement that could occur on whether or not to chop a canopy, is gone through on the ground before the jump and resolved prior to making the jump. It goes like this: "If we encounter a partial malfunction that is debatable in whether or not we cutaway or not, and altitude permits, we need to agree now that we will work as a team to resolve the issue together prior to deciding on a course of action and following it. If we cannot reach an agreement, here is the flow diagram of action on a disagreement: Examiner in front/Candidate in Back = Defer to Examiners decision Candidate in front/Candidate in back = defer to candidate in back as they are acting as PIC on the jump and literally have a better view of the situation. Experienced jumper in front/ tandem instructor or candidate in back = defer to tandem instructor or candidate in the back. Those are the rules set forth in the course, and I get the candidates to agree on them on the ground prior to the jump. I ask them to reach the same agreement with anyone they may take on a recurrency jump or Phase II jump. If the experienced jumper doesn't want to give up that right, that's cool, just find another person to do the jump with. Why do this? One of the WORST possible scenarios that could occur in a disagreement on whether to chop or not would be the person on the back wanting to keep it and the person on the front chopping it anyways. The person on the back could have their hands up in the lines trying to clear something and then POOF they are gone from the main, except for the TIs hand or hands now stuck in the mess above them. The chances of disagreeing on EPs like that are very very slim, but.....it costs nothing to put a plan in place just in case to prevent it from ever becoming a mutiny at 4000ft. As for whether or not to chop 4 blown cells, here's my thoughts on that: Based on what was described in the malfunction, I would have chopped it. But bear in mind, as Ron said, it's not a black and white decision, its a grey area. A 4 cell failure, even in turbulence, is more than likely survivable. Break an ankle or worse? Yeah, probably in turbulence, but your alive. Imagine the speculation that would occur here if you went in on a reserve that malfunctioned AFTER chopping a blown out main that was still flying. I'm not saying that them keeping the main was the right thing to do. I didn't see the amount of damage that "blown out" referenced, and I haven't talked to the people under it, so I don't know what they could actually see. In the end, bad decision or not, they survived. There are so many variables involved in such a decision, such as elevation of DZ, wind conditions, where they are landing (open farmland versus metro area), the weights of the two people, etc. So many variables beyond just the canopy itself. And if you remember back in the day, some of the first ram air parachutes were DC-5 five cells. So, if a tandem instructor is Old School, he (or she) may think, "Hey, I'm back on my DC-5". Again, I am not advocating whether what they did was correct or not. I know so little about the specifics that I don't feel justified in making a call like that. What I can say though is that in my experience, based on what was said, I would have chopped it, but also recognize that there are a number of factors involved that I may not be aware of that could have possibly justified them keeping the main canopy. Last thing to mention, tandem parachutes are built bigger than sport parachutes for a variety or reasons, one of them being to simply put more fabric than needed over our heads to give us an extra margin of protection in situations such as this. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I've read through this entire thread and there have been a lot of interesting and valid points brought up. At it's core though, the above letter and this issue here is simply about the tandem waiver, a legal contract. The tandem waiver signed by the participant is the best form of protection afforded to the equipment manufacturers, and unless the person signing it has the legal authority to do so, it cannot serve the sole purpose that it is intended to, to release the manufacturer of the equipment from the liability of it's use. Removing manufacturer's from the rating process will not remove them or reduce their likelyhood of being named in a lawsuit. As long as their name appears on the equipment being used, they will be subject to liability and the potential of being named in a lawsuit. A legally binding tandem waiver (meaning signed by someone with the legal right to execute the contract) is the only really viable defense that is afforded the manufacturers in getting them dropped from the suit after being named in it. Precedence is out there, it works. Here's a manufacturer liability example that is in the public realm already and bears on the topic: Some time in the 1990s? There was a tandem incident where a Tandem Instructor rated on one system decided to take a girl on a tandem system manufactured by another company. He had no training on that system whatsoever, but jumped it anyways. It's reasonable to assume he knew of the rating requirement of the other system as he had gone through a rating process with another manufacturer, yet jumped this other gear anyways. The girl gets killed on the jump and a lawsuit entails. The manufacturer of the tandem system was named in the lawsuit, despite having no part in the tandem instructors training and to the contrary could prove beyond a reason of a doubt the instructor was not endorsed to use that equipment. None of that mattered in court, there was no waiver signed for the equipment being used, and the manufacturer paid for it DEARLY. Despite having done nothing wrong and playing no part in the jump. Their name was on the equipment. That was all it took. So......as I said at the start of my post, there have been alot of interesting and valid points brought up in this thread, but at the heart of this issue, it was and remains about the waiver. The ability of a person making a tandem jump to be able to execute a legally binding contract that protects the people that manufacture the equipment. (All of the above is my own person opinion, I don't speak on behalf of any of the manufacturers. Since the letter was only addressed to US based organizations and offices, I am only addressing this as a US based issue.) Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I've never heard of the guy, but I have heard of that tandem jump....

My response here is only my personal opinion/perspective of the events that led up this letter, I do not speak for any of the manufacturers. I went to July 2010 board meeting with the intent of asking the BOD to vote on the age of majority question that is cited in the letter sent by Ted Strong. I had actually hoped to have the letter in my hand for that meeting, but it was still in draft form and review and not ready for distribution. Where did the letter come from? Since my departure from Strong Enterprises, I have stayed in contact with bot Ted and Bill Morrissey, and one day Bill and I were talking, and he asked something along the lines of "What is it going to take to get USPA to do the right thing and protect the manufacturers (who are all USPA members as individuals), and remove tandem jumping from this age 16 thing." My response was "put it in a letter, get Ted, Bill Booth and Nancy LaRvierre to sign it and I will put it in front of every other BOD member at the meeting and call it to a vote." That's pretty much where this letter came from. Without the letter, I stood up at the July BOD meeting and told the BOD and the gallery that three USPA members in good standing, Ted Strong, Bill Booth and Nancy LaRivierre, are asking USPA to protect our sport and our industry by removing tandem from the "age 16" minimum and return it to age 18 or the age of legal majority, whichever is higher. Why? The answer is that minors cannot sign waivers. Period. No parental consent will make it okay. If you take someone on a skydive that cannot legally sign a waiver in the US, then there is no waiver at all. You might as well save the paper, because it's worthless if they are under the age of majority. (Even if they are fine on the jump, they can still come back AFTER they are 18 and sue the DZ, the manufacturer, USPA, their parents and everyone involved for traumatizing them or something crazy like that). It's that serious. So.........the arguement came up about minors riding BMX bikes are no different. WRONG Honda and Kawasaki sell 100s of millions of dollars of products each year. They have legal teams that are full time employees, that's sole job is to fend off these frivolous product liability cases. My hope for the next BOD meeting is that this issue is put before the board in a public forum and that every BOD members vote (Yay or nay) is recorded by name and published to the membership. This way, if the motion is defeated, and the price of a tandem system goes up to $30,000 a system to offset legal costs of hiring in house legal council, we will know exactly which BOD members put us (the membership) in that situation. When the list comes out, my bet would be the only BOD members that would vote to ignore the letter, would be BOD members that themselves take under age tandems already. They would be the ones already jeopardizing the system and the ones the letter is aimed at in the first place. None of the tandem manufacturers want tandem instructors taking anyone on a tandem that cannot sign their own waiver. Period. This isn't a new conversation, it is simply one that has been largely ignored at certain levels. That is the reason the FAA was cc'd on the letter. Good idea. This way, if USPA or a DZ continues to ignore the manufacturer's regulation, then if/when that underage incident occurs, the manufacturer can go to the FAA and say "we did everything we possibly could to get them to adhere to our rule, including notifying you." As for the question asked about outside the US? I cannot answer that as I don't speak for any of the manufacturers. What I see in the letter though, is that it's only addressed to US based contacts. Take that for what it is worth. One last item to address, special cases like "Make a wish" requests? That's what waiver requests are for. I can't imagine a manufacturer refusing a Make A Wish request. But they should be individually approved by BOTH the manufacturers and USPA on a case by case basis. That helps protect everyone involved. So.........I was debating even posting this, as I am sure it will cost me some votes out there for my ND bid, but I am essentially the catalyst for that letter. The issue was created by USPA years ago by ignoring the manufacturers. As the SE Regional Director, I simply brought the concerns of three of my constituents (Ted, Bill and Nancy) to the BOD and assisted them in finding a way to effectively communicate the seriousness of their concerns to the board. If I lose votes for my actions, I will have to live with that, but I know I did the right thing. The tandem industry brought more people in the sport and gave us more turbine aircraft at DZs across the US then ever thought possible. It is our responsibility to protect these people that keep our industry moving forward. The tandem waiver is the only thing proven in a court of law to offer any form of protection to the manufacturers. That is all this is about. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Admittedly, they are very expensive, the price is in GBP, so it can fluctuate depending on your currency. Assuming your in the US, it's around $32,000USD for a tandem and in the low USD $20k range for sport jumpers. I actually just wrote an article for Blue Skies Mag that helps explain the costs a little better, am submitting it today, so hopefully it will be published in an upcoming issue. The primary reason for the high cost is simply the demands of getting aircraft, equipment and people into one of the most remote locations on earth. The upside is that it's not just a jump ticket in the purchase price, it's a 2 week expedition into the Himalaya. Despite the cost, everyone that has ever jumped there and been a part of the expedition has said it was worth every penny. Hope that info helps. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

I agree.

I just registered online today. Quick and easy. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com

Greetings to all, I think I can help shed some light on the motion that passed and how it came to be. I would just like to say first thought that I don’t speak for USPA (only the Pres and Exec Director can do that), I am simply offering my personal opinions and observations on what occurred and what was voted on. - Coach Rating increase to C license and 200 jumps I brought this to the Safety and Training committee and it was discussed amongst the members of the committee, and the committee’s advisors. There were both pros and cons mentioned and in the end it was concluded that to raise the coach rating requirement at this time would put undue duress on smaller dropzones with SL/IAD programs that still rely on their jumpers to be able to earn a coach rating at 100 jumps and earn a SL/IAD at 200 jumps. This issue isn’t dead in the water, to the contrary, I think a lot of good info came from meeting and I plan to bring it back to the Safety & Training committee in July after I get a chance to talk with some of the above mentioned DZOs and SL/IAD instructors. So while it didn’t pass committee today, that doesn’t mean it can’t pass in July 2010. - AFF Rating Requirements Increase I also brought this to the Safety and Training committee and it too was discussed at length. Prior to (and during the BOD meeting) I consulted a few of AFF I/Es that I know to get their thoughts and also brought up the petition created by Rich and the general industry concensus that we have to do something about the fly by night Coach to AFF one week courses. I believed the intent of the petition was to address the issue of jumper seasoning, preventing the above mentioned one week Coach/AFF courses. No one disputes that, but then the question became “how much seasoning”. 12 months holding a coach rating makes sense for the newer jumper, but what about say, a member of Airspeed? Do they need to wait a year? The truth is that there are numerous jumpers out there with many hundreds or thousands of jumps that may not necessarily need to wait the full year because they were seasoned before they took the coach course. Add to that, as JP pointed out above, that there is still (has always been) a jump requirement between the Coach and AFF rating. That an I/E could or would skirt that, is a problem to address up stream with I/Es, not with the Coach candidates themselves. So, if you saw my Motion form on this, you’d see all the scratched out corrections. I started it with 12 months between Coach and AFF unless you had 1000 jumps. But….through the discussion process, it became apparent that at 500 it had a 99.9% chance of passing the full board, which it did, but at 1000 jumps to divert the year requirement, it was any ones guess. And to be fair, I think most agreed at the meeting that once you get to between 500 and 1000 jumps, some form of seasoning has occurred. Can someone do 500 jumps in a year? Yes, of course, but that brings up a different issue, time in sport. Personally I am in favor of the idea of inserting a 3 year time in sport requirement for AFF Instructor candidates attending a course, but I believe that it needs to be a stand alone item/motion and based on the conversations I had in the meetings and in the hallways, we need more research and time to present it. I fully intend to present some time in sport requirement at the next BOD meeting if that is what the instructors in the industry want/demand. So, if you wanted a bigger wait/more jumps, don’t give up hope. This meeting proved one very valuable thing. We can make changes. If it takes 2 meetings to get us where we need to be, I think that is an acceptable thing. Anyone know how many times the night jumps/D license issue has been going on.? Believe me I am with you guys on this. - Tandem Rating Issue Someone above mentioned that the AFF rule doesn’t prevent someone from going to a Coach Rating right to a Tandem Rating, and they are right. I left Tandem out of my motion for a reason though. I believe that any change we make regarding the USPA Tandem program should have the input of the tandem manufacturers. I am going to attempt to sit down with UPT, Strong and Jump Shack in April and discuss the concerns of the industry instructors and what recommended changes are being discussed and get their input. We need to work together with the manufacturers on tandem items like this. Is it time to increase the overall jump numbers from 500 to 750 or 1000 before a tandem rating can be earned? Maybe it is. Should tandem rating candidates hold a coach rating for a year? Maybe they should, let’s see what UPT, Strong and Jump Shack say before we put it to a vote. Six months from now I can present the Safety and Training committee and the full board opinions from everyone involved here, and under that context, I believe we can make a noticeable difference in what is motioned and what gets passed. So, that’s my thoughts. Is the 12 month wait with under 500 jumps the perfect solution? No, of course not. But is a step in the right direction and it shows that we can accomplish something and is a piece of the solution. Can we up the number to 750 or 1000 in July if we need to? Of course we can put up for another motion if that’s what we need to do. In the interim, what we have done, is preventing the jumper with 5:59 of freefall and one year in the sport from going to a Coach course and AFF Course in a week. That is a good thing. Beyond that, I think most people/instructors realize that it’s more of an issue up stream at the I/E level. What is the saying? “There aren’t bad students, only bad teachers.” This issue was also discussed and address in S&T and we are going to focus on tryin to improve the standards at the I/E level. That can then trickle down to the instructor level. I know with these types of issues we will always have differing opinions to one degree or another, but I really don’t consider what happened at this meeting a failure, it was the first step in the right direction. I’d also like to add that the petition was very helpful. Member turn out at these meetings is traditionally low, so it’s often hard to validate that an idea is represented by the masses. Having the petition and the numbers it represented, helped to validate that the concern was not isolated. The only downside to a petition is that it can't participate in discussions. JP was really one of only a handful of USPA Instructors at the S&T and plenary session meetings who is not a member of the BOD to actively participate and share his opinions, the good ones and the bad ones on this issue. That sort of dialogue is incredibly helpful. The next meeting is in Boston, the more instructors we have at the meeting, the more dialgue we can have. This is my invitation to you all, Boston is my home town. Come on up! Okay, sorry for the marathon response, but I just wanted to share my thoughts in hopes it would clarify what happened. If anyone would like to contact me directly with concerns and ideas, please feel free to send them to me at [email protected]. Whatever I receive, I will bring to the next S&T meeting and advocate for. Namaste, Tom Noonan www.everest-skydive.com