Leaderboard

Not topless, it was just alternate clothing.

You and Brent will get along famously.

Do you (or anyone else) remember "Better a transient than me..."?

I get the legality part - was hoping a Regional Director was on this thread and could provide clarification.

Since we’re on the topic of BASE from aircraft: Does USPA BSR 2-1 A.1. cover ALL jumps - even those made outside the US? The Basic Safety Requirements apply to all jumps except those made under military orders, or those training personnel under military orders, and those made because of in-flight emergencies. USPA members must comply with the Basic Safety Requirements, protecting the best interests of both the participants and the general public. As it reads, USPA members must comply with the BSRs regardless of geography or whether or not it is a USPA member DZ. Those USPA license and ratings holders may be in violation of the BSRs when jumping BASE rigs from aircraft, regardless of the legality of the location where the jump is being made. Anyone have an opinion on the matter?

Maybe heroes like Brent should start a movement to refuse the vaccine, no matter which group you are in, until all of the weaklings get immunized? Better, with social media they should all be able to gather together like at Woodstock and infect each other for the greater good. Of course, no going to the hospital like pathetic losers when you start choking. Surely the rule of 3's will tell us how many weeks it will take before the pandemic is over.

Bit late to this thread but, while this may be right for lots of people, my experience is completely different. I started with static line or, as we called it in the UK, RAPS back in the mid '90s which was the only option at my local DZ. I could not get past dummy pulls and was therefore unable to move on to the freefall part. I found that, no matter how much I practiced on the ground, the dummy handle was never where I expected it to be due to the main container missing the canopy. I did more than 30 static line jumps over a couple of months with perfect exits, good form on trying to pull and never once managed to get the handle. I tried grabbing in different places in an attempt to get the handle but nothing worked. Frustrated, I was about to give up but the chief instructor recommended I go to another DZ and do AFF (I didn't know this existed until he told me). I breezed through it in less than 3 days, never having any issues finding the handle when it was time to pull. I'm sure static line works for many people but it was basically impossible for me.

I agree with nwt. Before the 2001 rule change, the regulation was unambiguous -- skydivers were required to use single-harness, dual-parachute systems. Because of poor drafting, the 2001 change addressed only what a single-harness, dual-parachute system consisted of, to distinguish it from a tandem system, instead of requiring its use. But it doesn't matter. It's been litigated, and the commonly-held (pre-2001) position prevailed against us barracks-lawyer types (or sea-lawyers, if you prefer). The incident was Dwain Weston, Royal Gorge Bridge, 5 October 2003.

I missed part of the conversation but I'll try to clarify my remarks. First some of the examples given have been comparing different canopies one being steeper then the other. Often what they mean by that is that one has a longer dive then the other which is not exactly the same thing. In doing this they are also comparing two different air foils, plane forms, break line configurations etc. So for example the location of the maximum thickness may be at a different location cord wise on an air foil. Or it may be thicker. The pitching moment may be different affecting the pitch stiffness. The point is that you tend to be stuck comparing Apple's and oranges which tends to be anecdotal. I'm looking at this from my experience tinkering with crw canopies. Crw canopies are one of the very few examples where you can get the same canopy in different trim configurations. Steep of flat. Short or long. You name it. And that's just the starting point. No crw dog deserving of his hook knife has ever been able to resist tinkering with and retrimming their canopy. I mostly did bigger way stuff but this was kind of the thought process at the time at least among the people I knew. Keep in mind that the ideas of how best to set up your canopy are constantly evolving and vary from one team to another. So of the three disciplines rotation sequential and eight way. Their thought was that in rotation you wanted to be able to drop as fast as possible relative to the formation. Ether by stalling back over the top and dropping through the wakes behind the stack or by turning off to the side and cutting back in behind it in a quick sashay. The thought was you wanted the canopies as flat as you could get away with. You wanted the stack to be floaty. But more important you wanted the rotating canopy to be maxed out on Cl. When he popped the toggles or rears to drag him back over the top of the stack you wanted to already be on the edge of stall so there was no more lift to pop you high up off the top of the stack. Pretty much the same thing if you were going to turn off to the side. You didn't want extra lift. So basically you trimmed it real flat adding an extra link and then trimming the lines. Some of the canopies were so flat that you flared them with the front risers. The the thought process was reversed with sequential. They had the thought that in flying peaches or changing slots that you wanted to be able to float relative to the formation. They trimmed steep to be able to get on the rears and float relative to the other canopies with out dropping behind. Or at least that was the idea behind the old expresses. So you got to play with the same canopies at both ends of the spectrum. This is where my observations come from. That when you trim the canopy flat the fronts become soft and are easy to pull down. When you trim it steep. The load on the front risers increases. One secret of pulling down the fronts on a heavy canopy is to tap the breaks to rock it back before grabbing the fronts as it rocks back forward. It will soften it up enough to let you get locked in. Part of that is the angle of attack and part the dynamic easing of the load. The increase in load towards the front of the canopy is why I tell people that it's in some ways safer to trim a canopy more nose down when tinkering. More lift at the front of the canopy improves the stability and you have plenty of room to increase the Cl so you can have flare authority to kill your sink rate on landing. Contrast that with a very flat trim on the same canopy which tends towards soft front risers. When you try to flare there is nothing left. It just stalls. That is why you wind up doing front riser approaches may be with a bit of turn and killing your sink rate by letting up on the front risers and just finish out the landing with your toggles hoping you can slide or run it out. Going flatter is defenintly trickier and should be approached with more caution. That got longer then I intended. This information is some what out of date. I hear the newer crw canopies are much nicer and not even scarry to land. I would really like to put some jumps on them some day. But right now I'm stuck here in isolation playing nurse maid. Lee

In all fairness, until you've stood in line at a Seattle Starbucks at 6am waiting to order a triple Americano while some purple haired asshole at the front struggles with whether or not he wants a maraschino cherry on top of his double decaf, nonfat mocha with extra foam and a lemon spritzer you'll never see the comparison.