sacex250

Members
  • Content

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by sacex250


  1. Quote

    Quote


    I think this is the case at many DZs. I think there should be a clear written policy posted where everyone that rents gear can see it. I fail to see why a business owner would leave something so potentially expensive in a gray area. In my opinion though a lot of DZOs seem to have the "everything is cool and no big deal" attitude till the shit hits the fan.

    My gear is insured, I don't know why a DZO wouldn't do the same.



    That's what the "rental fee" should be for. By my calculations, I've spent $1125 in rental fees since I started skydiving in July. I haven't had to cut away so far, and I hope to make many more jumps before I do. Now you watch, on my next jump my canopy will explode or something and I'll need one...

    Most of the time when they do have cutaways they recover the canopy. But you know, sometimes shit happens and they cant find it.

    If they're getting bent out of shape due to a lost canopy, they're probably not charging enough in rental fees. They're running a business, they should be charging enough to cover expenses and grow their business. Having people get injured or killed because they were afraid to chop when they should have is not good for business.



    Exactly. The DZO is responsible for normal, anticipated use of the rig; it's legally considered the "cost of doing business" even if it's in the waiver that the renter is responsible for loss or damage. The DZO would lose the case in small claims court, so make him go through the trouble of suing if he's being that big of a knob about it.

    On the other hand, when a jumper who just cutaway lands and starts looking for high-fives while he's jumping up and down with glee because he just had a cutaway then he isn't going to get a lot of sympathy from the DZO while the canopy flies away. It's probably a good idea to show some immediate concern for recovering the canopy and minimizing the DZO's liability.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  2. Quote

    Quote

    My post was about uncontrolled airspace, what part of what I said did you not understand?

    Akers said notification was necessary in uncontrolled airspace, I said it wasn't. Why are you arguing about controlled airspace?



    Good grief. I'm not arguing about anything. I was simply trying to point out that it's only "not necessary" because in most (all?) cases, it's not possible to fly a load of jumpers and remain within Class G (uncontrolled) airspace the entire time. ;)



    Static line 'em!!!!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  3. Quote

    What did I miss? Unless something has changed, the pilot still has an ATC notification requirement in uncontrolled airspace before dropping jumpers.


    You missed the part in Part 105 that says notification only needs to be made if jumping in or into controlled airspace. Jumps made in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace don't require ATC notification.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  4. Quote

    too many to list, but...

    I hope I am never furthest away from the door when we are low, and the pilot gives the instruction to bail.

    imagine you got two perfectly good parachutes on your back and the plane is passing through 2K, descending rapidly, and you still got 10+ bodies in front of you, with everyone hesitating in the door.


    Having to bail out of said airplane but logjammed in the door because some guy ten spots back won't stop trying to shove his way through while yelling GTFO OF MY WAY, YOU MAGGOTS!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  5. Quote

    Anybody on the forums have experience with large scale (military or commercial) parachute drying towers that can give me some pointers in private messages?



    Bring lots of quarters and don't forget the Bounce.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  6. Quote

    Quote

    Quote


    Quote

    D. Age requirements

    1. Skydivers are to be at least EITHER:

    a. 18 years of age [FB]
    b. 16 years of age with notarized parental or
    guardian consent [FB]




    Think about what you are reading.
    Point a. is saying that the 18yr old age limit is waiver able

    Point b. is saying that the age or need for parental or guardian consent is waiver able.



    Point A would be waiverable for an emancipated or married minor who has full legal adult rights.

    Point B would be waiverable for a minor under the age of 16 who has parental consent.

    A dependent minor shouldn't be able to get a waiver without parental consent.



    There are emancipated 16 yr olds.



    In California, minors can be emancipated at age 14 which would allow them to sign their own liability waivers, but they would, according to the BSRs, have to get a waiver from the full board.

    But then they'd have to go find a DZO who would allow them jump. It's too bad the BSRs only seem to work in one direction, against the individual members, while the DZOs get to enforce the rules any way they like. And don't get me started on the manufacturers using USPA to enforce age limits on tandem passengers.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  7. Quote


    Quote

    D. Age requirements

    1. Skydivers are to be at least EITHER:

    a. 18 years of age [FB]
    b. 16 years of age with notarized parental or
    guardian consent [FB]




    Think about what you are reading.
    Point a. is saying that the 18yr old age limit is waiver able

    Point b. is saying that the age or need for parental or guardian consent is waiver able.



    Point A would be waiverable for an emancipated or married minor who has full legal adult rights.

    Point B would be waiverable for a minor under the age of 16 who has parental consent.

    A dependent minor shouldn't be able to get a waiver without parental consent.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  8. Quote

    Quote

    Quade, you're wrong!



    I welcome any and all USPA documentation proving your statement. Go for it.



    Someone else already posted it but just to reiterate:

    D. Age requirements

    1. Skydivers are to be at least EITHER:

    a. 18 years of age [FB]
    b. 16 years of age with notarized parental or
    guardian consent [FB]

    As Mullins already said, a 16 or 17 y/o skydiver who has notarized parental consent does not need to get a waiver as it is already expressly allowed within the BSRs.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  9. Quote

    What it means is;

    18 and over, no problem.

    Below 18, the drop zone will have a waiver granted by the full board of USPA directors.

    Additionally, at 16 (or possibly below) you'll need a notarized parental or guardian consent and the previously mentioned waiver.

    Generally speaking, those waivers are going to be issued on a case-by-case basis for extraordinary circumstances; think Make-A-Wish terminal illness last wishes. The purpose of the waivers is to allow extraordinary circumstances; not routine jumps.

    Or at least that's how it was "sold" to the USPA by the folks that lobbied for it. That was the intent of the rules when passed. Feel free to search the web site for previous discussions on the matter.



    Quade, you're wrong!

    Now stop arguing, this is your one warning!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  10. Quote

    My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE. If the jumper did what he was trained to do, he would have survived.



    What is so complicated about the term "back-up device" to you? A back-up device is something that is supposed to operate in place of a primary system that, for whatever reason, fails to operate correctly.

    A net under a high-wire walker is a back-up device. By your argument if a high wire walker falls it doesn't matter to you whether or not the net is set up correctly, you blame the performer for falling.

    Just because a skydiver is told not to use an AAD as a primary means of opening a canopy doesn't mean that it's not supposed to work when called upon. In this case, there's even a Federal regulation that required that the AAD be installed correctly and the rigger FAILED in his duty to follow the law. I'd also like to remind you that the rigger was facing criminal charges for his culpability in this fatality, and in my opinion should have been brought up on them.

    It makes absolutely no difference to me in this case that the jumper failed to manually deploy a parachute, he paid for his mistake(s) with his life. The issue left to be settled is to what extent the rigger/DZO's actions contributed to this jumper's death. To argue that the rigger is not in any way responsible is ridiculous.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  11. Quote

    Quote

    uh oh, first photo that comes up now when you type "skydive" on google, i didn't think this would affect tandem numbers that badly at first, now i'm not so sure



    No real damage done to the sport. I've seen a number of posts saying this has motivated them to book their tandem. People are funny and will figure that falling out of their harness is less of a risk. I mean an old lady managed to hang on so how hard can it be? (I'm giving a whuffo viewpoint, not mine)


    I'll bet that in the mainstream media an elderly woman comes off as a fool, and the TI comes off as a hero. After all, he did save her life!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  12. Talk about a matter of semantics.

    First of all, she's not suing the insurance company, she's suing the pilot/owner of the airplane who is covered by the insurance company. Of course, when the accident first happened she and her family clearly said that they didn't blame the pilot for the accident.

    Second, the claim that she wasn't a passenger is also ridiculous. Insurance companies have tried this tactic also, and lost. One insurance company tried to deny a claim to the family of a scuba diver who drowned because he couldn't climb back onto a dive boat saying that since he wasn't a "passenger" on the boat at the time his death wasn't covered. The insurance company lost on that one.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  13. Quote

    It is in the SIM. That is one of the problems in the sport. Nobody reads the damn thing in the first place!
    Read section 5.3 Equipment main parachute section.



    So are you saying that it makes sense to you that a 100 pound jumper jumping a Silhouette 150 at a .75 psf (Novice) wing-loading should have a D-License, have completed an advanced canopy class, and consult with an S&TA?

    It also says in the SIM to follow the manufacturer's recommendations for canopy size. Why does there need to be an arbitrary one-size-fits-all wing loading limit when it may actually mislead jumpers into believing that they're safe under their canopy when they may not actually be.

    Why have so many contradictory rules in the SIM? If the SIM says follow the manufacurers' recommendations then why isn't that good enough?
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  14. Quote

    I'm thinking of the SIM recommendation that anything 150 and below be reserved for D license holders.


    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.