chuckakers

USPA conducts exhaustive analysis on each fatal incident that occurs in the U.S., and when it comes to canopy-related fatalities there is a well-documented pattern. There are three traits that are consistently connected to these incidents: 1. The skydiver is male 2. The skydiver has less than 1,000 jumps 3. The skydiver was downsizing rapidly. My recommendation for young jumpers - including you - is to forego the downsizing and spend your money on professional canopy coaching. When I say professional, I don't mean whoever is the best you have locally (unless they are truly qualified). I mean real-world canopy coaches - like the folks who run companies focusing on the discipline. These coaches are in the best position to assess your skills and offer sound advice.

That stuff wasn't dangerous back then.

Why even ask the question? Any entity that can afford high speed aircraft can also afford aircraft that can be safely flown at slower speeds. There is simply no need to complicate things. If you require tailgate birds for tactical military freefall exits, just acquire tailgate aircraft like the Skyvan for initial training. This has been a routine practice for military freefall training for years.

Stats for this will be all over the map, if available on a mass scale at all. Student programs and retention efforts vary widely from DZ to DZ, and many don't track it beyond a guess. I can tell you from experience that the best student retention at my DZ came from getting first jump students to stay after hours for our parties. Seriously.

Jack Pyland might know.

I've heard the "needle on the dial" argument for as long as there have been digital altimeters and it may be true with pilots for whatever reason. When I ran a DZ in the late 90's I put my AFF students on digitals (the "digitude" - the first and at the time only digital on the market) using the logic that the display read the same way we taught students to think - in 2 digits. 10.5 - 9.0 - 5.5 etc. I'm sure there are opinions in both directions, but we found that our students liked the simplicity of a 2-digit, numeric display. It also completely eliminated the "I couldn't read my altimeter" issue students sometimes had with analogs.

Not replying to the Monkey as much as posting for the benefit of those who are here to learn... As I stated in a previous post, skydivers in clouds - whether in freefall or under canopy - can't see or avoid aircraft (or other jumpers for that matter). If the clouds are below the exit altitude but above the deployment altitude, jumpers are forced to freefall through them. As for the assumption that any of this has to do with egos, no one needs to come to terms with anything. The FAA has rules in place for a reason. We follow them for a reason. Pretty simple concept. It's usually a good idea to pick your battles wisely.

Not completely sure what all that means, but I can say this. Skydiving in the U.S. operates under the FAA's "visual flight rules", also known as VFR. Under these rules, pilots are required to maintain clearance from clouds so they can see and avoid other aircraft. Much of the airspace in the U.S. is uncontrolled, meaning there is no air traffic control dictating aircraft movement. These areas require everyone to watch for and avoid everyone else on their own. Put simply, skydivers can't freefall or descend with a parachute through or near clouds because we would be unable to see and avoid aircraft. Specific clearance requirements are covered under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) section 105.17. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-105/subpart-B/section-105.17

I've used the small stick-on mirror provided with the Viso altimeter for years and like it. I don't have to rely on any aircraft I'm in for a mirror and I don't have to bother anyone to check the indicator light. As for checking my own gear - in this case camera gear - being a distraction, I disagree. I see it as being the same as checking my handles, harness connections, altimeter reading, etc. If checking an indicator light is too much of a distraction for a jumper to stay safe they should leave the camera on the ground.

Well played, brother. Thanks for the reply.

Mine was stable in fronts, although the force to use them was excessive. I always described the openings as "snivel, snivel, BANG!"

There is one case of a canopy that had a nasty disposition when not loaded on the heavy side for the performance of the day. The Nova. I had a Nova 135. At 220 pounds in street clothes, it had two speeds - fast, and f*ckn fast. It was blamed for several low altitude, light loading canopy collapses and at least one death if memory serves. When people called me out for jumping it, I would tell them that "I got a good one".

I would be interested in the details as well.

I agree. Paul is spot on.

USPA has not "refused" to implement a wingloading restriction. Wording it that way suggests the organization should implement one but won't. That would be incorrect. Wingloading restrictions have been discussed on numerous occasions and the collective opinion is that there are simply too many variables to have a one-size-fits-all rule. I am pretty well educated on performance canopy flight and can attest to this. There are jumpers who begin formal performance flight training early in their careers and others who have thousands of jumps before testing the CP waters. Some jumpers take to performance flight quite easily while others struggle with their progression. The list of variables goes on and on, and that's the point. What is safe for one jumper of a given license or jump numbers may not be safe for another. Local leadership is in the best position to evaluate, educate, and enforce. While we're at it, why do you not mention D license holders in your suggestion to make a restriction? I know some D folks that I would never want to see playing with higher wingloadings. License levels do not verify skills beyond those required to achieve the license.