chuckakers

I suggest you call them - like, on the phone. Manufacturers typically want issues to be resolved expeditiously. Getting them involved also gives them an opportunity to analyze the situation for patterns of issues on their end.

Good point. The "tandems first" strategy must include safety personnel on the ground with comms to the pilot to make sure that doesn't happen. Depending on the amount of the up-charge and the aircraft being used, it may not even add much to the bottom line when the extra flight time from leveling off for the first jump run is put into the equation.

Barracks Lawyer? No sir. I am not arguing "the finer points of the law", nor am I arguing the safety factors of various scenarios. I am simply clarifying the FAR for others' benefit. I am stating the actual FAR. Nothing more, nothing less. To be absolutely clear, there is NO REQUIREMENT for occupants to use oxygen. The regulation only addresses the requirement to PROVIDE oxygen. There is a lot of misunderstanding in this area, so it's important to get it right. FAR 91.211 reads.... § 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry— (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes dura- tion; (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those alti- tudes; and (3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supple- mental oxygen.

I have seen a few places over the years that use an altitude based pricing structure for tandems as an up sell. In those situations, tandems were dropped at 9.5k or 10k and the rest of the load was taken to 13 to 15k. Tandems that paid for extra altitude went all the way up and exited after the full altitude fun jumpers.

The FAR requires oxygen to be "provided" to passengers. I don't believe there is a requirement to use it.

Canopies today have a variety of opening characteristics, so that should be a separate consideration in your selection. Wing loading - that would be a 1.33:1 wing loading. I have no idea what your fitness level is, but at that wing loading things can be pretty sporting in light or no wind scenarios for us more "seasoned" guys. For longevity, you might look at staying even lighter. Nothing wrong with 1:1 in most cases. 2 cents

You didn't mention your age, but based on your commentary and profile photo I think that is an important consideration. I am a very active jumper, but have made and am about to make another change in my main canopy to accommodate aging. At 63, my focus is shifting to solid openings and solid landings, and a sacrifice in performance will come with that. Regardless of the brand and model you choose, I recommend considering wing loading as a primary concern.

Interesting. I have hosted numerous FS scrambles over the years, but never heard of an SCR scrambles. How does it work?

Speak to your current instructors about it. There are too many variables to analyze your situation on a forum.

Equipment advancements have had a whole lot to do with our advancements in safety. We all say we want safety. The real question is what are we willing to pay for it?

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what do you mean by that?

Not sure that logic would pay off or that it would matter all that much. A two-out in either configuration would have a very light wing loading, so even a side-by-side would have a slow (or zero) forward speed into a headwind In a two-out scenario (if I chose to keep it), I would be much more concerned with monitoring the stability of the configuration (and having my plan B ready) than I would be about penetration into the wind. For me, if I can confirmed that the main can be released without conflict, I would likely chop. I have seen (several times) side-by-side configurations turn into downplanes AFTER flying stable. There have been incidents caused by this. Just because the canopies fly well together one moment does not mean they will fly well together the next. 2 cents

What difference would that make?

Always love your perspective, Wendy. I hadn't thought about those things.

Why hire a plane when you can just buy jump tickets? https://www.skydive.mv/

All that is assuming a person wants to downsize.

Interesting situation. Shouldn't be too difficult to convince folks what would happen if a wing walker had an accidental deployment. Yikes!

I grew up in Indianapolis in the 60's and 70's. I remember Dick Simon as an Indy driver. His trucking company was his sponsor, so the skunk logo was pretty prominent.

Well when you make international headlines after bouncing on a guy's driveway with 75 pounds of coke strapped to you, you might just piss off the Colombian drug lords you just ripped off. Pretty easy to see why there were conspiracy theories.

You didn't articulate what advice you give concerning full face helmets, but one thing you might want to have in that briefing is to open the visor if a water landing appears eminent. Jumpers - one that I can confirm - have drown after landing in water with the visor closed when the helmet rapidly filled with water. Some may advise to remove the helmet before landing, but submerged items like logs, rocks, and debris can still be an issue.

I travel throughout the U.S. a lot and see more Vectors and Javelins than anything else.

There's a Hard Rock spot airing in Houston right now featuring Jeffro and Miles from Red Bull. No idea if it's the same one you're referring to.

If Cowboy didn't replace a clogged fuel filter, it wasn't because of cost.

Please copy and paste the text from the article for us non-subscribers.

Duly noted, but still not something I think should be learned based on a forum description. "I learned it on the internet" is filled with ER visits and worse.