sacex250

Members
  • Content

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by sacex250


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Quote

    I have to say I was a little skeptical that I would enjoy it because it IS a PBS series and they ARE old people giving the recommendation.



    Face it Skymama, you're old, now.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Don't forget to change your clocks before you go to bed on Sunday Saturday.



    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.

  7. Quote

    Don't forget to change your clocks before you go to bed on Sunday Saturday.



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

  8. Quote

    You can solo a glider in the US at 14. This means you have covered the emergency procedures and are capable of landing the glider (aircraft).



    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.

  9. Quote

    I didn't see the part you found funny[:/], to each their own, however that saying goes.

    I saw something similar happen in 2001 to an Air & Space 18A Gyro while I was taxing on my first solo.

    It was one of my instructors and her student. The Gyro shook violently like the video, rolled and broke landing gear, then rolled on its other side slamming the rotor/blades into the ground. Ugly mess. It was ground resonance (uneven rotors) that made it shake up violently.

    Lucky no one was hurt badly in the incident or the one in the video (from what I could see).



    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.

  10. Quote

    to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.



    I'll bet the people at "The Onion" are banging their heads on their desks saying, "Why the hell didn't we think of that?"

    Seriously, Wyoming needs an aircraft carrier? Where would they park it? Classic example of delusions-of-grandeur that a little [piss-ant] State like Wyoming thinks it's the next world superpower. Crap, you can't even see Russia from Wyoming.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  11. 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.