sacex250

Members
  • Content

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by sacex250

  1. FIFY It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  2. 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.
  3. Good thing no one was talking shit about dropzones. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. I'm still pissed at Emperor Daley for tearing up Meigs Field! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  8. 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.
  9. Full story: WBEZ Maybe somebody should tell the Mayor of Chicago that he's the mayor of Chicago and not the Governor of Illinois! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Wait, what? The Sheriff is the Sheriff. He's an elected official, but most hold a TCLEOSE certificate. The Chief Deputy isn't elected, but he is the most senior Deputy in the department. Think of him like an Assistant Chief or a Captain. All others are just Deputies. There is typically some sort of rank system within the deputy ranks. Law could bite most of them in the butt, then again, most of them weigh north of 3-bills! Notice the change I made to the thread title. Anyway, it was just a wind-up for the punchline. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  13. That's funny! What planet are you from? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  14. The Chief Deputy is normally called the Sheriff. All the others are called Deputy Sheriffs. Although the real irony here is calling a Texas deputy a "lawman"; most county Sheriff's Departments wouldn't know the law if it came up and bit them in the butt! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. I thought the question was "student" or "passenger". I already quoted the FAA regulation that defines that person as a "passenger parachutist". I'm still waiting for the explanation of why it would matter to the FAA, and how it threatens the sport, if that person is called a "passenger." Does it make a difference to the FAA whether a "student" or a "passenger" flies an airplane? No, any pilot can take a passenger up and let them fly the plane. However, a passenger doesn't become a "student" unless there's a qualified instructor present that makes the logging of flight time legal. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  21. I don't get where you're going with this either. The FAA has already made several specific determinations towards what constitutes a "passenger" during certain flight operations: a) A parachutist is not a "passenger" as it relates to Part 125, meaning that an airplane can carry more than 20 parachutists and be exempt from the complexities of Part 125. b) A parachutist is not a "passenger" as it relates to seat requirements or limitations contained in a Type Certificate meaning that a skydiving airplane can carry more skydivers than the maximum "passengers" an airplane is type certificated for. c) A private pilot may be compensated in glider towing operations because a towed glider and its occupants are not considered passengers or cargo. I'm not sure what slippery slope you're talking about. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  22. I'm not exactly sure what your point is since the FAA already has a definition for Tandem Passenger. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  23. I haven't had a chance to see the final score, does anyone know if the cheerleader boobies won? There should be a little "view" hyperlink next to the voting buttons for you to see the Poll stats... but in case, I'm attaching the stats Boobies Won. I wasn't asking about the poll, I was asking about the Super Bowl. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  24. It really leaves me shaking my head, especially compared to when Brian Westbrook did it. Was it really that hard for Bradshaw to fall down, or was he just waiting for a Patriot to push him into the endzone so he could have his Super Bowl touchdown? Well, at least Bradshaw wasn't asked to punt the ball out of bounds by Coughlin. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  25. I haven't had a chance to see the final score, does anyone know if the cheerleader boobies won? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.