skypilotA1

I tend to agree with you. I prefer the fast ride with my students. Consistently, the students say the plane ride to altitude induces the most stress for them. In my opinion, a last radio check, a review of the dive flow and hand signals, gear check….and I am ready to go! Anything longer than a minute of quiet time and slow breathing has adverse effects. True, the KingAir door is narrow…but it is tall, as am I. We easily get a cameraman and 2 instructor AFF out that door without effort. We had a Caravan here for a couple of weeks, all my Instructors (tandem and AFF) hated it because of the short door height. Glad to see it go. But, as has been said…to each his own. One adapts to what is available.

I will leave it up to Mr. Mullins to release exact figures, but the new Super Super KingAir at West Tennessee Skydiving is SUBSTANTIALLY faster than the original N9HW KingAir…and it’s average time to 14.5 was usually 7-7.5 minutes…not noticeably faster, substantially faster!!! I was on it about 26 times last week. No time to relax and get comfortable.

If you think this is an important issue I would suggest contacting your USPA Regional Director and have him bring it up at the next Board meeting.

Why don’t you ask them? You have that ability during the Board meetings, either in person or via Zoom. It’s all open to members. In my personal opinion, I don’t think the USPA S&T committee is the best vehicle for this kind of change, aside from general recommendations and guidance like it has already presented. I think the best method for the change you advocate is as I already presented: At the local level, 1. By personal example. 2. By proper education, coaching and mentoring.

I believe the best way, is leading by example. And show the jumper a clear and positive path toward downsizing, and pros and cons of every decision. If the jumper understands the physics and mechanics, you can then assist them in making educated decisions on canopy choices. A jumper will never react positively to arbitrary directives on what they can do. It is the “mad skills” and “the Man keeping me down” mentality. But if they are given enough information to make the intelligent, appropriate decision themselves, it is a “win-win”.

Same problem here. It is difficult to change the culture when all the “cool kids, including all instructors and mentors, are jumping small canopies. The culture is deeply ingrained.

I have sent you a long private message answering your questions. I hope it helps. Paul Gholson, USPA Southern Regional Director

In replying to BMAC615, I don’t agree with you on this subject and data indicates you are incorrect. Many, in fact most times, a new rule is not implemented at first suggestion. Most of the time a new rule, especially something restrictive, must be presented several times to be passed. The Board members must be convinced to change their minds. Many times, to change someone’s mind, you keep introducing data to support your position. To quote a past Board member, “If it’s a good idea today, it will still be a good idea in 6 months or a year”. On one particular BSR I helped push through, it took a year of Board meetings to finally get a simple safety BSR implemented. If you are convinced, and think you can persuade the USPA Board to see it your way, that is the way to do it. Your Regional Director is the best conduit to get a new rule implemented, convince him, and he can help you convince the Board.

There is no hard data to support your statement concerning USPA. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and this is a good place to express it. What your statement seems to indicate to me is “a keyboard warrior, lots of talk but no action”. I really could not say if this is correct, but it appears to indicate such. Again, I suggest if this is something you truly believe would work, push it up to your Regional Director, try to get it implemented. I, personally, have several suggestions from members I am presenting to the USPA Board in February in Reno. That’s how things get done. I cannot recall any case where a rule was implemented or changed simply because of comments on DZ.com.

On the subject of “under loading” canopies…in my observations of several thousand student jumps, on the students first downsize from the huge canopies used during AFF, loaded at less than 1x1, the students canopy control and landings dramatically improve when they reach a 1x1 wingloading. This assumes the student has gained enough experience, learned the proper flair techniques, and know the appropriate sight picture. Based solely on this information, the “under loading” premise is valid. Of course, the practical aspect necessary rules out higher wingloading of new students. The data (and common sense) clearly indicates it is safer to place brand new students with “underloaded” canopies. I have seen no clear indications or data showing “underloading” of main canopies presents clear dangers, except for high winds and turbulence, both of which are usually observable and predictable. I would be interested in any objective data showing the dangers of underloading canopies, in general, with licensed jumpers.

To respond to sfzombie13, if you are that convinced a new rule is the proper thing to do, I suggest writing up your idea in the form of a motion, and ask your Regional Director to submit it to the Safety & Training Committee to vote on. Actions of a member usually get better results that comments on DZ.com. Most of the ideas for any change come from members.

Yes. the canopy collisions occurred due to opposing landing patterns. The information is all in the USPA Incident reports. The jumpers collided at low altitude, in the landing pattern, with conflicting landing patterns, in both cases.

Both fatalities were due to opposing landing pattern conflicts.

My opinion only…the skydiving industry, because it’s a small specialized industry, is run by skydivers, not business managers. Skydivers will close down Fridays to get some pre-weekend jumps, skydivers may not take advantage of business cycles to maximize sales, skydivers usually don’t have the business training to see advantages in terms of maximizing profits. It is skydivers running a business, not businessmen running a skydiving concern. The industry and thus the profit potential is too small to attract high powered, extremely qualified business people. Thus, we have a small industry struggling during tough times and coasting during good times. I’m sure there are a few exceptions, like Bill Booth, that cornered a specific slice of the industry. But, he is an exception.