chuckakers

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.

I don't know of any rating that can be obtained through a waiver by demonstrating skills. Please clarify for the sake of discussion.

I don't have a very good memory, but I don't recall when the R in BSR ever stood for "recommendations". Without respect to that, there are currently two distinct categories of "R's" in the SIM - recommendations and BSR's. The discipline-specific chapters outline recommendations. The BSR's - the "requirements" that are actionable when busted - are listed separately in section 2.

Of course. No need for a BASE analogy. The concept you are referring to is equally relevant in both sports. I mentioned demo jumps purely as an example.

Choosing not to implement a wingloading BSR has nothing to do with a fear of being sued. Potential litigation has never even been part of the conversation concerning wingloadings.

You quoted me, saying "In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes." and then replied with the above statement. You may have misunderstood. When I said no one I spoke with was against raising the deployment altitude BSR, I meant jumpers, not USPA officials or anyone directly involved with such decisions.

The raising of the deployment altitude BSR took a while and was approached with much debate and consideration. Several factors contributed to the change: Longer deployments have become the norm. The old altitude BSR's date back to the days of 7-cell F-111 canopies when 400 to 500 foot deployments were the norm and primarily only higher deploying students used AAD's. Many canopies today routinely take 900 to 1,000 feet to open and most experienced jumpers are AAD equipped. A simple math check shows that a 2,000 foot deployment on a canopy that takes 1,000 feet to open puts a jumper dangerously close to the AAD activation altitude, and puts the jumper AT the AAD activation altitude if anything delays the deployment (late p/c toss, burble hesitation, longer than normal opening, etc.) Next, there has been an issue of long reserve deployments after AAD activations. The reason isn't completely clear - possibly p/c in the burble, long deployments after slow speed mal cutaways, p/c temporarily snagged on the jumper, etc. For this reason, some jumpers have adjusted their AAD's to fire higher than the factory setting. This in turn creates the above mentioned deployment altitude conflicts. Less important but still part of the debate was exit altitude. On average, exit altitudes have gotten higher - much higher in many cases - over the years, and that has minimized - in the perception of many, anyway - the importance of humming it to minimums. I know a lot of skydivers and only know a few that routinely take it to the bottom unless they have to for traffic, big-way protocols, etc. In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes. As for waivers, there are times when jumpers have to deploy lower than the BSR minimums. Demo's are an obvious example. There are many times when a cloud base is below minimums but still high enough to allow a safe jump by qualified jumpers, so a waiver makes sense. There are probably nuances I have forgotten and anyone with a better memory than me are welcome to contribute. Hope that answered your questions.

Ask Jesse. https://www.skydivemag.com/new/jesse-pulls-off-a-barrel-roll/

If memory serves, they decided to try an 8-way base in Muskogee over the previous attempts with 5-ways to speed things up.

Not a chance. The rig is 23 years old. The OP stated it was purchased at a storage unit auction, most likely meaning it has been exposed to extreme heat, humidity and all around nasty conditions. The main risers aren't even the right brand. It may not even be airworthy after all that is fixed.. Given the cost of the parts, materials, and labor to replace the housings, guide rings, risers, and who knows what else, it simply wouldn't be cost effective. Good, airworthy containers can often be had for a few hundred bucks. Why would someone pay that much or more to get this relic up to speed - maybe?

Skydive Temple did not close. They ceased operations in Salado and moved 30 minutes away to Harker Heights with plans to rebrand as Skydive Skylark. They are open and operating - confirmed minutes ago.

I didn't scold you. I disagreed with you. If you took it as a scolding that's on you, not me. As I said before, my intent was and is to set the record straight for those who might take a veteran skydiver's words literally. Nothing more. Nothing less. I avoided dz.com for a long time because of situations just like this. I guess I'll go back to the many skydiving Facebook groups where people actually try to be productive. I'm out.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right". Any statements I make are grounded in facts and historical examples. That's where best practices come from. It isn't my opinion that yielding to the low jumper (aviator) is the best practice. It is the opinion of every aviation expert, the FAA, USPA, AOPA, and on and on. It's also the accepted practice for gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, etc., and for good reason. I can cite dozens of cases of canopy collisions caused by a higher jumper failing to yield to a lower jumper - often during a performance turn that causes rapid altitude loss and a collision into a lower jumper flying a routine pattern or final approach. It's a scenario that has been repeated so many times that it should be obvious to anyone who studies our history. I take no pleasure in recommending jumpers ignore someone's advice. My intention is always to educate jumpers - especially young, impressionable jumpers - to help them stay out of the incident reports.

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not.... Yielding to the lower jumper is NOT OBSOLETE! In fact, your suggestion is dangerous and I encourage jumpers to disregard it. The reasons we yield to the lower jumpers are simple. First, jumpers in the pattern are (correctly) focused on their landings, which dictates giving primary attention to what is BELOW them. Jumpers are ALWAYS responsible to clear the area in their flight path - like clearing the area to the left or right AND below before making a turn. This includes pattern flight and final approach. Second, it is often impossible to see traffic above us because our canopies block much of the view. Yielding to the higher jumper simply doesn't make sense and much of the time would be impossible because of the blocked view. It also distracts from the mission at hand - clearing the flight path ahead and below, and landing safely. The "low person has the right of way" is a basic premise in all of aviation. CFR 92.113.g states in part "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way...". Additionally, the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual agrees with this rule. SIM Section 6-1.C.3.c states "the low person has the right-of-way both in freefall and under canopy". Deciding on our own to buck accepted practices leads to confusion, and that leads to problems. As for high performance canopies and the jumpers who fly them, they are ALWAYS responsible to yield to lower traffic. This makes perfect sense. The higher jumper has the best field of view of the jumpers below them, they can monitor lower traffic without looking away from their flight path, they have more altitude to make an avoidance maneuver if necessary, and it's consistent with aviation and skydiving norms. I am a former high performance canopy jumper (and still have a rate of descent faster than many others) and can say in practice that yielding to the lower jumper works. When I am descending faster than the jumpers below me, I have the best opportunity to observe what they are doing and have the best field of view to decide how to avoid conflict. There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.

If you have sincere suggestions, I recommend you (and everyone else) put your thoughts into an email and send it to Ron Bell, director of safety and training. I would also cc Michael Watkins, chair of the safety and training committee on the board. The vast majority of everything in the SIM, the governance manual, and the other documents published by USPA come from the field. We rely on this input and ideas from the membership to hone our documentation. It's a group effort. Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts here. It makes all the difference in the world to know our membership and rating holders are engaged.