Travman 6 #26 December 7, 2009 In Australia we are legally required to log all our jumps, regardless of license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #27 December 7, 2009 It's been a long time since I have ever been asked for my log book. Most dropzones don't seem to be interested in seeing a log book. At least the dropzones I have been to lately. When going to a new dropzone and trying to get on a freefly jump, they don't ask to see my log book. They generally ask where I am at in my freefly progression. I tell them what my level is and then I have to back it up with an actual jump. If I can't back up what I say then I look like a dumbass. In freeflying the bullshitters show very quickly who they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwilling 0 #28 December 7, 2009 Quote I don't know if the standard is reasonable or not, it took me over 400 jumps to get 25 2m landings. Unquestionablely, that is 'cuz I am a slow learner about landings That's not the only reason it took you that long. The accuracy requirements have been in the license checkoffs for as long as I can remember, including back when I made my first jump in 1978. I'm not sure if they've changed over the years, but the difficulty in achieving them has. It was a lot easier to fulfill the accuracy requirements back in the day when we were all jumping big F-111 7 cell canopies that were conducive to steep braked approaches, and the pea pits were gigantic, owing to their 'round' canopy heritage. Imagine that same accuracy requirement on a round! You haven't really lived until you've shot downwind accuracy under a Para-Commander! Most sport canopies in use today are not designed with 'conventional' accuracy approaches in mind, and just the long plane out phase on modern 9 cell makes it more difficult to land within 2 meters. And forget about even trying to fly a braked approach or do 'S' turns at a turbine DZ, you need to fly a consistent full flight pattern there. Trust me, it's a lot easier with the right equipment. "If all you ever do is all you ever did, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 38 #29 December 7, 2009 Of course we still have bad spots and you still have to be able to land a modern canopy in a tight area at times. Not being able to do that has killed many people over the years. Better to practice at the dropzone in good conditions than learn accuracy in someone's backyard. And students don't necessarily have to go for a crowded pea pit. I have had students tell me they were aiming for a certain easily recognizable spot on the dropzone that was farther out and less crowded and I'm more than happy to sign off their accuracies if they land there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dninness 4 #30 December 7, 2009 Quote George Foreman (skydiver, not boxer) must have about 168,000 jumps by now.Old farts will get it... Oh crap. Missed this the first time around. I get it. @#$&! Does that mean I'm officially an old fart? *sob*NIN D-19617, AFF-I '19 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #31 December 7, 2009 >George Foreman (skydiver, not boxer) must have about 168,000 >jumps by now. George? Who's that? I don't recall a George. Although I do recall a Kurt . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dninness 4 #32 December 7, 2009 QuoteGeorge? Who's that? I don't recall a George. Although I do recall a Kurt . . . If its the George Foreman I'm thinking of (and my remembery gets terribly worse every year, so maybe I'm screwed up here) he was a video guy who wound up with a cheesy part in a porn movie. (and by "cheesy part" I believe that to mean "a walk-on part with no sex"..) If thats the guy, then he did video one year (1997?) at Napoleon, MI when I was jumping there. Like I said, my remembery is getting quite poor, and I never did get the whole story. But I seem to recall that someone found the film, realized it was him and told folks at the DZ. He packed up and split the next day or something.NIN D-19617, AFF-I '19 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #33 December 7, 2009 Quote >George Foreman (skydiver, not boxer) must have about 168,000 >jumps by now. George? Who's that? I don't recall a George. Although I do recall a Kurt . . . Might go back further than that, if it's the same George I use to jump with at 'snore...and it sounds like it is! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #34 December 7, 2009 QuoteI think 1 out of 8 jumps within 2 meters is a ridiculus requirement at 200 jumps. So do the STA's and other I's. That is your opinion and your opinions are not the requirements for a C license. QuoteIt is just ignored in the log book checks. And then people wonder why newer jumpers feel it is acceptable to cheat in other areas sicnce they have learned cheating from their instructors. QuoteBe proud of your record, but, don't expect everyone else to live up to your standards. But you expect everyone to live down to your standards. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #35 December 7, 2009 >If its the George Foreman I'm thinking of (and my remembery gets >terribly worse every year, so maybe I'm screwed up here) he was a >video guy who wound up with a cheesy part in a porn movie. Sorry, I was kidding. "Kurt" was his name in the porn. (Both "Kurt" and "Amanda" were jumping at Brown at the time.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #36 December 7, 2009 If thats the guy, then he did video one year (1997?) at Napoleon, MI when I was jumping there. Like I said, my remembery is getting quite poor, and I never did get the whole story. But I seem to recall that someone found the film, realized it was him and told folks at the DZ. He packed up and split the next day or something. Cheezy yes...'walk on' part only...well~'Back in the day' some of us would get rooms at the motel across from Elsinore, I can recall a time or two in the big hot tub full of- (George included) -brew fueled skydivers...someone slappin' a tape in the VCR... ~he definitely wasn't embarrassed then! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #37 December 7, 2009 Quote>If its the George Foreman I'm thinking of (and my remembery gets >terribly worse every year, so maybe I'm screwed up here) he was a >video guy who wound up with a cheesy part in a porn movie. Sorry, I was kidding. "Kurt" was his name in the porn. (Both "Kurt" and "Amanda" were jumping at Brown at the time.) Heck, he told me he was an ex-Vegas law officer, a former Navy Seal, and used to fly corporate jets. So, what was the name of the movie? :) John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #38 December 7, 2009 So, why not update the accuracy requirements to reflect today's canopies? Or, better yet, how about BillV's downsizing checklist, might be more useful to use that as the requirements (a certain number of each) rather than hitting a small space with a sport canopy on a crowded DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhanold 0 #39 December 7, 2009 QuoteSo, why not update the accuracy requirements to reflect today's canopies? Because I don't think backyards have changed that much over the years. You need to be able to land your canopy where you want and demonstrate this ability. If that means picking a target away from others for a few jumps, so be it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #40 December 7, 2009 QuoteSo, why not update the accuracy requirements to reflect today's canopies? Canopies may have changed but the requirement to land it accurately has not. These requirements were written when everyone jumped rounds and were able to legitimately get their license. It would be just one more example of “dumbing down” to meet the “no child left behind” theory. Are we going to reduce or eliminate every requirement that someone finds “too hard”? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #41 December 7, 2009 QuoteI have a former student that has been adament about her 25 jumps within 2 meters for her C. She's done it. Good for her, really. I think 1 out of 8 jumps within 2 meters is a ridiculus requirement at 200 jumps. So do the STA's and other I's. It is just ignored in the log book checks. So are the night jumps. I enjoy them, many people hate them and don't wnat to do another after the first. I understand the arguements both ways. I do not agree with USPAs accuracy #'s for C or the night jumps for D. I keep an accurate logbook (now daily, not by jump), I bet most with over 1000 don't. Be proud of your record, but, don't expect everyone else to live up to your standards. Who said that you would be eligible for a C license simply because you have 200 jumps. 200 jumps is just one of the requirements. Maybe you'll need more that 200 jumps to complete the others. 1 in 8 for the accuracy is only if you complete ALL the requirements in 200 jumps. If you did a lot of hop'n'pops, you might not have the required 60 minutes of freefall time. Or can that requirement be ignored as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #42 December 7, 2009 For sure, I don't want to "dumb it down" either but we're talking about different flight characteristics right? If that's the case, wouldn't that make it harder to land our canopies within 2 meters of a point? I mean if the point is the peas then, no big deal but the peas are what 20-30ft across? My landings are pretty good, even the 90s I've been working on for the last 100 or so jumps have been pretty accurate but I'm not sure what the scale for the "within" really means. On the other hand, I think it's good to have a requirement that's hard so that people really have to do something to get their license. But one thing that I think is human nature is that if something is hard a few people will cheat, if it's really hard more people will cheat. Hence the suggestion that we need something like a set of skills that people should be proficient which would be inclusive of accuracy skills but maybe not to the same scale. Or, maybe I'm just way off base and should STFU & RTFM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #43 December 7, 2009 > If that's the case, wouldn't that make it harder to land our >canopies within 2 meters of a point? Depends on the constraints! In moderate to strong winds I can put a 109 within a meter of where I want to be. Indeed, since I'm used to the canopy, I can do that on a 109 far more reliably than I can on a larger canopy. In light winds I could make the first point of contact within about a meter, but I'd need more runway to slow down after that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #44 December 7, 2009 Right, but I'd guess (maybe incorrectly) that you have more jumps on that canopy than I have jumps, period. I take pride in my canopy skills, I love to fly it, sometimes more than free fall but if I would say that expectations that I'd have the same accuracy as you on my Sabre 2 150 with traffic and other things that I'm way less experienced at dealing with, I'd be a freaking prodigy (which I'm not!!!). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #45 December 7, 2009 >but if I would say that expectations that I'd have the same >accuracy as you on my Sabre 2 150 with traffic and other things . . . Right. I'm not saying that the standards should be higher/lower, but rather that jumpers should be able to meet that accuracy requirement with their chosen canopy. If you have a big canopy? It might be easier to get that accuracy requirement signed off - which demonstrates you can land in a tight area if you really have to. If you have a smaller canopy? It might take longer to get it signed off. Which is as it should be; it just plain takes longer to learn to fly a smaller canopy as well as a larger one. (Some jumpers might see this as "keeping them from getting their C license if they get a small canopy." To which I say - I think that's a good thing! It's not the only problem with getting a small canopy early in your skydiving career, and we would all benefit if new jumpers had some impetus to stay on larger canopies longer.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,351 #46 December 7, 2009 Those requirements were written when people threw wind-drift indicators and got out at 3000' to make the accuracy jumps for their license (if they hadn't gotten the requirements down incidentally). No, we don't throw wind-drift indicators any more. We don't get out at 3000' any more. And most of us don't jump rounds or big honkin' squares any more. But we still might have to land in a back yard after a malfunction or a bad spot or because a friend was hurt there. The requirements mean that someone going for them probably has to actually dedicate some jumps to achieving them, and not just get lucky. Isn't that what skill is about? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #47 December 7, 2009 I'm all for having the accuracy requirement to make sure people can fly their canopies. But my point (I'm trying to make sure I remember it now and make sure I'm not contradicting myself! ) is that I think it's harder for people to land their canopy within a small distance of a point generally on modern canopies. As much as I think this shows one element of canopy control, I think including such things as flare turns, flat turns, etc is just as important in landing in the small back yard as accuracy the way it's defined in the license requirements. I know you agree that these skills are vital because you wrote the article! I guess my question, in generalized form is, do the more experienced jumpers (who actually know what they're talking about) feel that the accuracy requirements should be updated to include less emphasis on point accuracy and more on actual canopy control? What are we trying to teach (or learn in my case) and is there now a better way? It'd be pretty cool to fly a straight in pattern when last down & hitting my point. I could probably do that pretty frequently if I planned to open late & put my mind to it but is that realistic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #48 December 7, 2009 >But my point (I'm trying to make sure I remember it now and make >sure I'm not contradicting myself! ) is that I think it's harder for >people to land their canopy within a small distance of a point >generally on modern canopies. If you replaced 'modern canopies' with 'modern small canopies' I would agree. (It's really no harder to land a modern Omega 189 on target than a newish PD190 IMO) >As much as I think this shows one element of canopy control, I think >including such things as flare turns, flat turns, etc is just as important >in landing in the small back yard as accuracy the way it's defined in >the license requirements. While those are important skills as well, they're not as important when it comes to being able to do simple demos - and that's what the C license allows you to do. The important skill in terms of demos is landing your canopy safely on target, which means demonstrating accuracy. Now, if we added some sort of "you can't downsize until you have a C license" thing then I'd agree that all the other skills become a lot more important. (One big question there - how do you measure them?) >It'd be pretty cool to fly a straight in pattern when last down & >hitting my point. I could probably do that pretty frequently if I >planned to open late & put my mind to it but is that realistic? Is the question "is it realistic for that to happen on a jump without planning for it?" Probably not all the time. Is the question "is it realistic to be able to land last to practice canopy control?" The answer to that is definitely yes - it just takes a little more planning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #49 December 7, 2009 QuoteI guess my question, in generalized form is, do the more experienced jumpers (who actually know what they're talking about) feel that the accuracy requirements should be updated to include less emphasis on point accuracy and more on actual canopy control? No. Good canopy control leads to good accuracy. Canopy control encompasses all areas of canopy flight from pattern flying, accuracy, and actual handling of the canopy (turning, flaring, flat turning, etc). Any canopy can be landed accurately, regardless of canopy size or design. It's the pilot that makes the canopy do what needs to be done, not the other way around. In terms of practicing accuracy with a modern canopy and a busy traffic pattern, the peas is just one target, you can choose any target you want to practice or demonstrate accuracy. You can toss a frisbee into an unused corner of the landing area that will keep you clear of the traffic. Beyond that, how about doing a hop n pop, or a high pull and sitting in brakes? Sure it may cramp your awesome freefall plans, but accuracy and canopy control are important, and worth the time and effort needed to practice them in a low traffic environment. Let's not forget that a good number of jumpers are from Cessna DZs, where there are at most three other canopies in the air with them. They have an ideal opportunity to practice accuracy on every jump. Should we have different standards for them? Trust me, the last thing we need to do is loosen the accuracy requirements. The modern canopies that you suggest create a roadblock actually do the opposite. These canopies are far more capable than older models, but they do require higher performance on the part of the pilot to exploit the higher capabilities of the canopies, and lesser requirements will not help the performance of the pilot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #50 December 7, 2009 Fair enough. For the record, I love doing clear & pulls from altitude. Nothing like sitting quietly under canopy at 11k, taking a deep breath and enjoying the view. I also practice all these things that we're talking about to the best of my ability. I hadn't landed out for 260 jumps but made the mistake of saying that to someone (& hence landed out twice ) but I did so safely. I feel like asking the question is well worthwhile if only for my understanding of the subject matter. What does everyone say about the effort to remove the night jump requirements from the D license? Sorry I took this OT a little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
