chuckakers

I have not kept up with the laws here in Oregon, but at one time, anyone could post a bond to the minimum value of the req'd insurance for their car & then drive without actually being insured. A classmate in high school had to do this due to so many accidents & drunk driving tickets. It might be an option depending upon the various state laws. Jerry Baumchen Interesting idea, Jerry. I have contacted the sponsor of the bill and she is looking into all this. I will pass that along. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The way the clause is worded and some deeper research into the bill makes it sound like the coverage would be in place as liability protection if there is a claim for property damage, personal injury, or death from skydiving activities AND the drop zone was open to legal action for failure to follow BSR's, FAR's and other regulations. The law would exempt DZ's from liability if the operation was following all the regulations, so the insurance is protection if the operation gets opened up to liability for failure to uphold its end of the law. Still, I have never heard of a company writing skydiving-specific liability insurance for drop zones, so that's the wrench in the wheel. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That would be event specific demo insurance written with verification of the experience and credentials of the jumpers involved. I have never heard of a company willing to write a policy for continual skydiving activities by unnamed persons of varying experience levels including unlicensed novices. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I understand that. My point was/is the law would require drop zones to carry insurance that isn't available. How can a business be expected to follow a law that requires something that is impossible? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If I'm reading this correctly, the bill will require DZ's to have liability insurance that covers skydiving incidents under certain conditions. I haven't been a DZO in quite a few years, but in my experience no such insurance is available at any price. Could you address that for me? SECTION 4. [NEW MATERIAL] INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.--A drop zone operator shall file with the corporations bureau of the office of the secretary of state a certificate of insurance coverage in the amount of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that covers liability of the drop zone operator for any loss, injury or death resulting from a violation of Section 6 of the Skydiving Safety Act. A drop zone operator that fails to maintain the insurance requirements of this section shall not receive any of the protections afforded by the Skydiving Safety Act. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill - here's the contact info for the legislator that introduced the bill. https://www.nmlegis.gov/members/Legislator?SponCode=HARMG Looking at the bill, it appears that plaintiffs could still get a judgment if the DZ was found to be negligent, so I'm not sure what's so different about this vs current law. Also, if passed the bill would require DZ's to carry a minimum $100,000 insurance policy that would cover incidents if the DZ fails to operate under a list of best practices. Unless something has changed since I was in the business, no such insurance is available at any price so as well meaning as this bill is, it may be a moot point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Your theory is flawed. A canopy in flight behaves the same way regardless of its direction relative to the wind. The only thing that changes is the speed and direction relative to the ground. You said "down wind the parasitic drag is less as the air is moving in the same direction of the canopy". That is incorrect. The forces on the canopy are the same regardless of its direction. The canopy is an object moving within a moving mass of air. The only time the forces change is when the speed or direction of the wind changes, and then only until the change is complete. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I'm no rocket surgeon but that doesn't sound right. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Are you familiar with this? If not, give it a try. You'll get the right answer every time. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_SIM_2016.pdf Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There you go, folks. Lawndarter just summed it up in one sentence. Bravo. Case closed. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The title of your post says it all. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Even though people move to elliptical canopies much sooner than they used to, flying one with literally a handful of jumps is ludicrous. At this stage of the game you don't know even a little of what you don't know and haven't developed a tiny fraction of the skill necessary to fly anything but a "square", lightly loaded canopy. Progression should come with a combination of skill development and education. At 26 jumps you simply have very little of either. Go get some canopy training from competent trainers and get some jumps under your belt. In the end you'll be glad you did. Don't be part of the problem. We have enough of those guys. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

And I believe this is the only information the OP was looking for. Just a simple answer on what canopies have the best glide ratios when other factors are not considered. In my experience the Stiletto is one of them. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I haven't jumped everything, but I've jumped a bunch of elliptical stuff and the Stiletto has the flattest glide among elliptical canopies I've seen. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I wasn't saying that the ONLY winds that matter are those at deployment altitude and exit altitude. Obviously ANY wind variances between exit and deployment will affect trajectory. My point was that you said making complete calculations is too difficult for young jumpers and I disagree with that. My inclusion of the winds at deployment altitude was to demonstrate that ground speed on jump run alone does not do the job in many cases. By the way your example is only partially correct. The wind at 3000 feet (deployment altitude in your example) does matter. If the wind is 0 mph at 3000 feet and the plane has a 0 mph ground speed at exit altitude you are correct that the jumpers would open on top of each other regardless of the delay between exits. However, if the wind at 3000 feet is 50 mph (another variable in your example) the jumpers would not remain in that spot upon opening, but rather would immediately move downwind at 50 mph (+/- canopy flight through the air). So yes, the groups would open in the same spot over the ground but would not be close to each other after deployment assuming each group gave adequate delay between exits. This is exactly my point. The distance between groups of equal freefall profiles upon opening is absolutely dictated by the variance between ALL wind conditions between the exit altitude and deployment altitude - INCLUDING canopy drift during the delay time given between exits. Beyond the math that has been repeatedly beaten to death in this thread, the foundation of my position is that too many jumpers are being taught that the ONLY calculation necessary for adequate separation is the ground speed of the aircraft on jump run versus time between exits, and that is a dangerous over-simplification of the concept. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

None of this requires PhD level science or a laptop, and I'm not suggesting anyone needs to dissect the wind conditions in great detail from top to bottom. What is important is for all jumpers to understand that the critical comparison for separation upon opening (discipline differences not withstanding) is the variance in wind conditions between exit and deployment. Years ago jumpers started out on round parachutes because we believed squares would be impossible for them to steer and land without carnage. We put them on single operation cutaway/reserve deployment systems because we believed a two-handle system was overly complicated for them. We made them use main ripcords because we believed using throwouts would be too much for them deal with. We were wrong on all counts. There is no reason young jumpers can't learn to incorporate the winds at deployment altitude when calculating exit separation. We have learned from experience that skydivers learn whatever we teach them. Adding one data point into the calculation is not overly complicated for anyone with enough intellect to skydive. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not exactly sure what you mean by needing separation "over the ground, not the air". The only reference that matters is the distance between the jumpers or groups of jumpers and that is a straight line measurement without respect to anything else. Also, your comment that the winds at opening altitude are "relatively minor in this discussion" is understating this aspect of the calculation. The difference between the wind speed on jump and the wind speed at deployment altitude is exactly why we have to have different delays between exits and the wind at deployment altitude often matters a lot. For example, just recently in Houston the winds on the ground were acceptable for jumping (about 15-19) but at 3,000 feet the winds were over 35 mph, yet at altitude they were only about 15 mph. That changed the calculation drastically versus a typical day. Finally, your assertion that "all jumpers should be flying away from the plane/current deployment area after opening anyway" is not correct. At many DZ's operating large aircraft with multiple groups often place the opening point of the first group or groups downwind of the landing area, requiring those jumpers to fly up the wind line toward groups that exit after them. As an FS organizer my groups are often the first to exit and we discuss this when conditions warrant dropping us short. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

...you yell "hey asshole" on the plane and not a single person yells back "what?". ...you mention a Beach 18 and people think you're talking about spring break for high school seniors. and.... ...half the people you skydive with every weekend are younger than your kids. Growing old sucks, but I hope I do it for a long, long time. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Seminar schedule, although nothing on the list as of this posting.... piasymposium.com/seminars.htm Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My question is why you are interested in this option? I think it is fair to say that the pull out has been shown to be not the best system available. Why do you say that? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Good move analyzing rigs by feature and price, but there are some things that I suggest you consider that a spreadsheet can't present. In particular I'm speaking of the Curv. The Curv is the first rig to offer anything really new in a while. Sandy Reid, owner of Curv manufacturer Rigging Innovations, is responsible for numerous innovations in rigs including tuck tabs that replaced velcro on riser covers and pin covers, the articulated harness that added rings at the hip and chest for a better fit, and most recently the "bio curv" and "bio yoke" offered exclusively on the Curv. I jump a Curv and can honestly say it is - by far - the most comfortable and functional rig I have worn in more than 30 years of jumping. I'm sure you have read about these features so I won't bother to explain them. My point is that there are certain things about the Curv that can't be compared to other rigs. I'm sure the same thing holds true with other brands, so rather than just compare listed features and prices, I suggest you also get opinions on things like comfort and functionality from people who jump the various brands. Welcome to the family, Don and always know that there are many of us here on dz.com including me that are always willing to help. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Is that really necessary? It shouldn't be, but unfortunately it sometimes is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I suggest you get with an instructor or rigger and get a one-on-one briefing. Watching a video is nice, but there's no way to ask questions for clarification and no way for you to demonstrate knowledge after the instruction. The video may also utilize gear that is nothing like you jump or what others in your area jump. Getting a briefing from a local, competent person will complete the learning cycle and insure you are getting accurate information. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Worth checking. Thanks for the idea! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Thanks, Wendy! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hey everyone, I have been contacted by a retired jumper who needs help finding some folks who can verify he made a few jumps at Fort Hood in 1960. His name is Jim Burke and he jumped there in October and November of 1960. Without divulging any personal stuff (VA related), Jim needs to contact the folks whose signatures appear on the attached documents as evidence that he jumped there. He contacted me since I am the USPA Gulf Region Director and Fort Hood is in my region. I'm asking for help from our seasoned skydiving community in hopes of identifying these folks. Step one is to see if anyone can make out the signatures and ID the jumpers. I believe the name on the Fort Hood Skydivers Club membership card is DJ or DG Ashcroft, who was the club Secretary. The name on Jim's logbook may be Don Morrow or possible Marrow. These folks obvious could have jumped anywhere before and after their time at Fort Hood, so I'm hoping someone will know them regardless of geography. Sleuth time, please! Thank you!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX