lug

Veis thank you for providing an image that illustrates the real issue of this thread. This thread went wrong, not productive when the debate started about equipment or what could/should have been the proper course of action made by NWT. The thread should be focused on the management of the excess break lines and how well they were not secure and then show methods on how to improve securing the excess break line that can help prevent this type of unusual malfunction.

I am not a fan of Uranium or Plutonium fueled reactors because of the potential risks are high. I have looked a little into Thorium and I think it may be the better option. Nuclear power is our future what other option are there that will meet the demand of the hungry growing population.

Interesting In the United States the VCR (voluntary compliance rate) is estimated by the IRS at being consistently over 80%. This places the US rate as being one of the highest or if not the highest country in the world, excluding communist, to do so year after year. It would however be very interesting to see the VCR for those 1% and how timely they pay their quarterly estimated taxes.

I am interested in seeing the new SIM with the revised BSR 2-1.G.6 and the ISP section 4 categories A — C in addressing Tunnel to AFF Training. For now, I am skeptical but I remain open to the idea of early category ISP tunnel instruction mainly to judge for myself if the horror stories I have heard are more exaggerations then fact. The question I have is, will and should DZs let the green instructor with their freshly minted rating work, in air, with an early ISP level tunnel trained student? Memento Mori

FUBAR Correct me if I am wrong but in this video the TI did not initiate proper procedure for a Horseshoe malfunction. Make an attempt to clear the horseshoe, in this case release drogue, and if doesn’t clear, cut away insuring full risers release, and then pull reserve handle. Good thing the cameraman was there, aware, and skilled enough to help, he likely prevented a double fatality. Memento Mori

Pissed off! Awesome… an example of two AFFI with a laissez-fair attitude and the same might be said about the DZ. Memento Mori

This sounds like the factionary DZ you are talking about has the landing direction policy of follow the tetrahedron, so I would be setting my landing up accord to DZ policy regardless if I agree or not with the DZ policy. I can only assume that everyone after me is following the policy so ideally there is only one fool on the load jumper #1. On the topic of visitors, every skydiver should go through a DZ orientation where one of the points covered is landing direction policy then at this time it becomes our responsibility to remember. If the DZ does not have an orientation, what would you do? Memento Mori

First: Look 90 degrees in the direction the student going to turn with their chin up and both eyes focused on the desired new heading. (The student should be looking above and over their arm.) Second: Push the elbow down that is to the direction they wish to turn and raising the opposite while eyes remain focused on their desired new heading. The spine does not twist. When a student maintains the Lazy-W and twisting the upper body, using their spine, into the direction they wish to turn, like an airplane banks left for a left turn. I have found the student has the tendency to do any or all the following that counter act the input of the upper body, drop a knee, skew the lower legs, and twisting at the hips. Memento Mori

Complacency comes to mind, but I could be wrong. Those pushing for Tunnel time toward AFF requirements are looking for and easy way to get the ticket. Memento Mori

I think the instructors’ evolved should write on the backboard 1000 times “I will never deliberately leave my student unattended in an aircraft while in flight for any period of time until that student has earned their “A” license.” I may have my ratings striped from me, but no pilot in the world will command me to exit without my student in an emergency. I am responsible for my student and I believe it goes with the rating. Memento Mori

This is just for the USPA Tandem I/E rating an excerpt of the IER-Course. C. What Is Required To Attend This Course/Earn The Instructor Examiner Rating? 1.This course may be attended by any USPA member in good standing, once any of the following criteria have been met: d.Tandem Instructor Examiner candidate (1)Current USPA Tandem Instructor rating (2)Completed at least 100 actual tandem student training jumps (3)Completed at least 100 actual freefall student training jumps (4)Conducted at least 15 solo student first jump courses 2.Below are the requirements necessary to earn the Initial Instructor Examiner rating in each rating discipline: d.Tandem Instructor Examiner Rating (1)Current USPA Tandem Instructor rating (2)Completed at least 500 actual Tandem jumps (3)Conducted at least 50 solo student first jump courses (4)Conducted at least 50 Tandem evaluation jumps under the direct supervision of a Tandem Instructor Examiner (5)Manufacturer Examiner Endorsement for the equipment type in use for the rating course (6)Successful completion of the Instructor Examiner Rating Course (7)USPA D License Memento Mori

I guess I am too tough more then 45 degree rotation from wave off until they let go of the PC, this is a no pass on a AFF graduation skydive. As for what I see in the video this is an example of lost heading control during the pull. I would not pass him he needs to demonstrate better control especially on the (Cat-E) stability recovery skydives. Memento Mori

In a sense, yes, ones log book but more to the fact the USPA license application form filled by the applicant and compared to the log book by the official who is verifying. Good question. I would say you have brought something that is vary real in the sport and may be going beyond licensing and into the ratings. All I can say is when I verify a B—D application form I check it against the log book and if something is not right I sent them on there way with what they need to accomplish. The knowledge test is the last accomplishment the applicant makes because I want them to satisfied their skills before taking the test. When they take the test and pass, it will be the last time they will see their application form. I keep the form and fax in. I practice that no applicant will carry the correct answers for a passing test for a license. Who many I/E, Instructors, and S/TAs may not be doing this? Maybe it time. Memento Mori

I though that’s what the log book was for, to document ones personal history of skydiving that is signed attesting to the fact by the pilot, a licensed skydiver, or while one is a student/non “A” qualified a coach or instructor. The proficiency card is just a document stating requirements have been met and signed attesting to that fact on one or two pieces of paper. Those same satisfied requirements on the proficiency cards should also be found documented and signed in the log book of the proficiency card holder. Over and above SIM requirements? Are you thinking along the lines of changing or editing license requirements for licenses B though D? Memento Mori

I agree the term is misleading and so is cleared to self supervise. I like to use cleared to self jumpmaster, meaning they are cleared from direct instructor supervision and may jump solo or with a coach. This does not remove the instructors’ involvement with the student, as stated earlier on this thread; there is the coach when teaching group free fall skills may do so under instructor supervision. I would assume it could be said the instructor is still supervising the student but indirectly though the coach. Memento Mori