sacex250

Members
  • Content

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by sacex250

  1. I don't think that's in the SIM. 1. “Advanced” refers to practices that combine equipment and control techniques to increase descent and landing approach speeds. 3. Advanced equipment generally refers to canopies loaded as follows: a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading The problem with arbitrary wingloading restrictions is that not all canopies are the same. For example, a PD Silhouette has sizes from 135 to 260sf. PD's recommendations indicate that any of the sizes loaded to less than .75 is a "Novice" canopy, and any of them loaded above a 1.0 is an "Expert" canopy. None of the SIM recommendations and none of the above proposed BSRs would take this into account. How would a 1.5 wing loading restriction stop someone from jumping a Silhouette at 1.0? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  2. They must not have told you that you were jumping from a Super-PAC! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  3. sacex250

    Awwww man...

    FIFY You're the first person I've ever seen who needed to reset his calendar for DST. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  4. sacex250

    Awwww man...

    FIFY It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  5. sacex250

    Skydiving with 14 ?

    And there's no minimum age to solo any Part 103 aircraft (ok..air vehicle), powered or unpowered. Part 103 aircraft can be helicopters, gyrocopters, fixed-wing ultralights, trikes, hang-gliders, sailplanes/gliders, powered-parachutes, and paragliders. Just as skydiving has the USPA, there are several organizations that "regulate" these sports to a voluntary standard. United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (Unpowered hang-gliders and paragliders) United States Ultralight Association (Fixed-wing ultralights, trikes, and powered-parachutes) Experimental Aircraft Association (Has it's own full-ultralight licensing and aircraft registration system.) It's completely legal to fly an ultralight without belonging to any of these organizations, just as it's completely legal to skydive without belonging to USPA. Only the USUA prescribes a minimum age for issuance of either a student pilot's license (12 y/o) or a pilot's license (16 y/o). EAA once had a minimum age of 16 y/o, but have since eliminated the age requirement. The question is: why is it the USPA that caves in to the demands of the manufacturers and DZOs regarding civil liability when the USPA has no say in it, anyway? The USPA has it backwards. Civil law is there to protect the participants and end-users of the equipment, not the businesses that are profiting from the sport. By basically limiting the sport's participants to a waivered class for the benefit of those making the money from the sport, the USPA has basically sold-out. It's a chicken---- move. For all the anti-"lawsuit" rhetoric among skydivers there's one immutable fact, it's the skydiving community that's doing the damage to itself, not the lawyers. Are manufacturers currently going out of business from currently pending litigation from non-waivered jumpers? Are the USPA age-restrictions a direct result of specific actual cases that warranted the age restrictions? The age-restrictions, especially the new BSR that allows the manufacturers to set their own age-limits are nothing more than a self-serving safety net that doesn't benefit anyone except catering to the manufacturers' fear and insecurities. By listening to the bravado fueled dogma that's used to "nanny" the sport, you'd think that it's the waiver that's keeping the world from ending. It's a good thing that USPA doesn't have any influence over bicycle riding, horseback riding, skateboarding, karting, motorcycles, ATVs, gymnastics, football, soccer, baseball, softball, or swimming. By contrast, look at the organizations that license Scuba Diving, a sport that is at least as inherently dangerous as skydiving, although it takes more brains and studying to understand why. PADI, for example, has a minimum age limit for Open Water certification of ten years-old which then allows a supervised-child using his own Self-Contained-Underwater-Breating-Apparatus and other skill dependent equipment to descend in the Open Ocean to a depth of 30 feet, and to do it while using a hand-held camera, even a GoPro for that matter! And it's encouraged by just about everyone in the sport, and there's even a specific non-mandatory underwater photography class and certification available for it. A twelve year-old who completes the Advanced Open Water certification is even allowed to go as deep as 70 feet, by comparison, the typical backyard pool is 6 feet deep and doesn't have carnivorous wild life, poisonous animals, stinging plants, and powerful currents. Not to mention the risk factors that the biology, chemistry, and physics of such a hostile environment place on the human body. Putting aside the bravado of the sport for a moment, is skydiving really that complicated? Ever seen a kid in a wind-tunnel or pack a parachute for someone? Of course that would mean that popsjumper's use of the word "youngster" wouldn't have the same condescending meaning that it does now. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  6. sacex250

    Not so classic Rock songs

    You know that nightmare you have of somebody taking your list of favorite songs and mocking it on the internet? Well,....... It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  7. sacex250

    Skydiving with 14 ?

    8 y/o It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  8. sacex250

    Holy crap.....

    It's ironic how the video heading asks, "Imagine if this had happened in the air." Taking off again would have solved the problem. Pilot fail! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  9. Washing machine, hell. I have an urge to get on the next load! The next load of laundry? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  10. I have this urge to suddenly go out an buy a washing machine. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  11. sacex250

    Danica Patrick survives violent crash unhurt

    Well, now that she's been taken out of two races by other drivers, you know it's bad when your own teammate is trying to collect the bounty. It reminds me of the scene from Greased Lightning with Beau Bridges having drawn the card to take out Richard Pryor. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  12. sacex250

    Don't underestimate your speed

    FIFY It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  13. Here's my top 5 "major" things that make this jump a significant issue: 1) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so. 2) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so. 3) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so. 4) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so. 5) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so. Now here's my top 5 ranking of the mistakes that were made on this jump which CAUSED the incident: 1) An intentional illegal jump through a cloud layer. The jump shouldn't have happened in the first place. Now to see things as that black and white won't make sense to a lot of jumpers who don't take following FAA regulations in and under Class B airspace as seriously as making up their own rules to keep low-time jumpers from jumping with cameras; so, let's assume that, "well, everyone jumps through a cloud layer at some point, right?" 2) We may never know what the plan actually was on this jump, was it a 4-way that dissolved as quickly as the jumpers left the door, or did the second two jumpers just follow the first two out, just because? Like mom always said, "If your friends jump off a cliff...?" Clearly, in either case, there's HUGE spotting issues going on here. I'm inclined to believe that the second pair of jumpers were solo jumpers that didn't put any effort into spotting for themselves or giving themselves any exit separation from the first two jumpers or each other. 3) The collision itself was an unfortunate accident caused by the above factors; exit separation and poor visibility. Could the collision have been avoided by maneuvering? Perhaps, but it still would have been a close call and the fact of the matter is, given the conditions the jump took place in, a chance collision between two canopies occurred. Is it reasonable to assume that a canopy collision, or even a freefall collision, could occur given these circumstances? Absolutely. 4) Not Applicable 5) Not Applicable It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  14. sacex250

    Talking trash about dropzones.. this one in specific

    Good thing no one was talking shit about dropzones. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  15. Seriously, you can't tell from my posts whether or not they're credible. That's probably the best reason to keep you guessing. The possibilities: A) I'm a skydiver. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I ever need my reserve to open it would be better if I kept a low profile. B) I'm considering taking up skydiving. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, if I don't want to be kicked off every DZ or have to do every AFF level twelve times it would be better if I kept a low profile. C) I've never skydived, and never will. Judging from my hate mail because of my against-the-grain, original, and opinionated comments, it would be better if I didn't put my life in the hands of such maniacs. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  16. Now you want to add a fatality to the progression? I think your standards are a bit high! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  17. Okay, let's call it what it is! 1) A planned jump run into a cloud layer, in violation of the FARs, in which the first jumper spotting at the door says he "can't see shit," probably referring to the DZ. Issue #1 - Cloud Cover/FAR Violation 2) The first two jumpers go and the second two go immediately afterwards without spotting for themselves. At some point it got labeled a 4-way. Watching the video again, it looks to me like there's one 2-way and then two solo jumpers doing their own thing. Issue #2 - Poor spotting/clearing and not enough exit separation. 3) It's difficult to tell how much tracking took place before the jumper deployed, and the cloud cover may have had something to do with it. Issue #3 - Not enough separation at deployment altitude. 4) A canopy collision immediately after deployment. Due to the presence of the camera, it's pretty clear that the jumper immediately spotted the other canopy coming at him and had virtually no time to react. The camera proves that he wasn't distracted by the camera; he wasn't watching his canopy open, he wasn't doing anything other than what he should've been doing anyway. Unfortunately, as soon as he was under canopy the other jumper flew into his canopy apparently causing some pretty severe damage to both the canopy and lines. Issue #4 - Canopy Collision. 5) After the collision, the canopy recovers into basically controlled flight even though severely damaged. The jumper apparently fails to see the situation as an "EMERGENCY" and no significant action is taken to begin emergency procedures, i.e. controllability check. Issue #5 - Failure to test the canopy. 6) Following from #5, the jumper continues flying towards the DZ and commits to landing with a damaged main. This is probably the crux of the incident right here. Why didn't he cut away? The only real risk in a cutaway was that he had several loose lines draped around him, although it's hard to see where they are, or if he made any attempt to clear them, but the risk was likely minimal. Issue #6 - For whatever reason, the jumper misses the chance to exchange his damaged main canopy for his reserve. 7) The jumper has a hard landing, but is uninjured and had he needed any assistance it would have been immediately available. The jumper still seems to be stuck on #5 in that he still doesn't have a full grasp of what just happened because he doesn't even mention to the staff that the canopy was damaged in a collision. He only tells the first guy in the truck that he has "some broken lines." The other staff seems to be under the impression that the canopy was spontaneously damaged during opening. I'll bet the tone of the conversation changed a bit when they saw/heard what really happened. So, in the end, the fact that this jumper was wearing a camera played no role in causing the incident, and the jump and outcome would've likely been no different if he hadn't been wearing a camera. It wasn't the jumper's lack of experience towards wearing a camera that's the issue here, it was his general lack of preparedness in handling a skydiving emergency. Fortunately, he managed to survive a close call, and got a heaping helping of experience to boot, you know, that stuff you need to jump with a camera. What "offends" me here is the witchhunt that is going on to make cameras the scapegoat for every incident when most of the time it doesn't even involve an "incident." Posting a video of a "first solo" on Facebook is not an incident. Standing in line to board an aircraft is not an incident. If this incident wasn't on video and if it happened to make it to the Incidents board, what would it have said? Canopy Collision - San Diego (non-fatal) : After deployment two jumpers collided with each other when one jumper flew through the other's canopy head-on. Fortunately, there was no wrap or entanglement and both jumpers were able to land safely on their mains even though one of the canopies did sustain some damage and had some broken lines. 1st Post - What equipment? How high? 2nd Post - How much experience? 3rd Post - Were they wearing cameras? Just imagine, in ten years no one will care if anyone jumps with a camera because it will be included in the AFF program right from the start. And to think, that it's the inexperienced newbies of today that are the pioneers of the future of sport! By the way, I'm pretty sure I've never pretended to be a skydiver. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  18. Thats why I rarely come here anymore. Anyone with less than 10,000 jumps is a n00b and go pros are the devil. Multiply that times whatever and thats what this forum has become. People start their posts with "im just a newb" because they are afraid of getting flamed on. Yeah, I agree! Here's a thought: Anyone who is complaining about this guy wearing a camera should not be allowed to comment on the video because to them the video shouldn't exist, so therefore, they don't believe they should have anything to comment on! I'm seriously starting to believe that the camera debate should be moved to SC with all the other irrational, emotional issues like gun control and abortion. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  19. sacex250

    Caption this photo!

    Why is that idiot swinging a racquet at me? I said I wanted to ride on the Shuttle, I didn't mean shuttlecock! Speed Brakes - DEPLOYED! This isn't going to end well! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  20. Is this seriously what the sport is coming too? A bunch of old bitties whining about cameras? There have been crappy 4-Ways and idiotic skydivers long before the advent of digital cameras and youtube. To suddenly act surprised that something like this might have actually happened in the sport before is really just naive; and, perhaps the best justification for cameras to start exposing everyone's mistakes to those who live in a perfect world. Or, just go back to burying your head in the sand and ban the cameras because it's the cameras that are creating the problem. As they say, "Don't blame the messenger." It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  21. sacex250

    Why is tandem customer called a student?

    How does that have ANYTHING to do with this? You're still logging flight time, you're still a pilot even if under the training of a CFII, Furthermore, So, you can log the time as PIC if you're the sole manipulator of the controls (say for take off and to the training area)... at least that's how I understand it. But guess what? You're STILL a student, not just a passenger. Right, you're a pilot as long as you're flying an airplane you're rated for. If you're not rated in the airplane then you're a passenger. If you're a properly endorsed student pilot flying in solo flight then you're a student pilot, but a student pilot cannot log PIC time unless he's the only occupant of the aircraft. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  22. sacex250

    Why is tandem customer called a student?

    I'm gonna go out here and say you're still a pilot just not the PIC (because you don't have that category rating). If I want to go get a my chest or lap rating, guess what? I'm still a certificated rigger, just not on that type, so I have to be taught, then tested to add it on.. Okay, you're a private pilot with an ASEL and you're receiving instruction from a CFI-I for an instrument rating in a single-engine airplane, can you log pilot-in-command time? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  23. sacex250

    Why is tandem customer called a student?

    I'm gonna go out here and say you're still a pilot just not not the PIC, maybe student pilot. You're a passenger when you're flying with an instructor. Once the instructor signs you off for solo flight, and you're acting as pilot-in-command, then you're a student pilot even though you already have a pilot certificate. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  24. sacex250

    Why is tandem customer called a student?

    Exactly! How about this? You're a licensed private pilot with an ASEL rating and you're receiving flight instruction from a CFI-ME for your AMEL rating, does the FAA consider you a pilot or a passenger? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  25. sacex250

    Why is tandem customer called a student?

    I'm a flight student, just because the guy sitting in the seat next to me isn't a CFI, doesn't mean I'm not a flight student. Also, using your example, the TI takes the role of a 'qualified instructor', so that would mean they are 'students'. Well, technically, the FAA doesn't consider you a student pilot unless you have a student pilot/medical certificate, an instructor's endorsement for solo flight, and are operating an aircraft in solo flight. Believe it or not in any other situation you're still just a passenger who's being allowed to log flight time towards a certificate or rating provided there's a CFI giving that instruction who's signing off your logbook. If you just go flying with another pilot then you're a passenger. Which begs the question, what do you call a C-License holder who's riding along with a Tandem Instructor in Training? Surely, he's not a student nor an instructor. He must be a passenger then. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.