floormonkey

Helmets and their ratings are specific to the sport they are designed for. A bicycle helmet, for instance, has increase protection in the front-where the majority of impacts from a bicycle crash occur. Skateboard helmets have the extra protection in the back. The current European Standard for downhill skiing has the most impact protection for the entire head, EN 1077. The EN 966 standard is lower, but still provides more protection then say, a snowboarding helmet. The problem with a full face helmet with the extend back (such as some paragliding helmets) or front (such as the one DFF posted) is that the extension will often cause a rotational injury that otherwise would not have occurred i.e. whiplash/spinal cord injury. The vast majority of "skydiving" helmets are not intended to protect the head in a crash like a bicycle helmet does. They are intended to protect in a similar speed collision, i.e. bumping heads in freefall, impact with plane on exit, and fall-down-go-boom on landing. Many are not intended even for that, the helmet is simply a way to mount a camera, or, like the old Gath helmets, to skirt a restriction. Very few skydivers put on a helmet with the preconception that it will protect them in a serious crash. Some, like me, wear a helmet with crash protection to prevent brain injury in a crash. I am firm in my belief that wearing a helmet with true impact protection has prevented me from having at least one concussion. While it is (relatively) easy to function in life with a busted extremity or permanent physical disability, functioning with a high level brain injury is not. I don't think that the statement "Jumpers are willing to accept the level of protection provided by the current offerings" is completely true; I believe, like many things, many jumpers have not fully contemplated the consequences of a massive brain injury and the impact it would have on their lives. Physical limitations can be adapted for, being a vegetable cannot. DFF-be careful extending a big "fuck you" to any skydiving company...it is a small sport with an even smaller group of manufacturers. Pissing them off is not the best idea for your long term satisfaction in the sport. Oh yeah, before you start dissing everything, try doing some research next time and posting GOOD reasons, not just angry drivel. It doesn't go far in this community. As a plug for a company I am not associated with except as a customer, Icaro helmets http://www.icaro2000.com/Products/Helmets/Fly/Fly.htm builds some of the best out there. The link is to the one I wear, and can be had for under $200. The chin strap isn't perfect, and the sizing runs about 2cm on the small size. They also have a great video somewhere on the site about testing and how it works.

Here, let me google that for you http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sunpath+container+size second result This manufacturer's extensive testing would definitely count as real world experience, and an OP126 packs slightly smaller than a PR113.

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-25A.pdf The standards. Or you can search FAA-S-8081-25A

Can't speak to the angelfire, never flown one or seen one. I've jumped (after cutaway) and demo'd both the PDR143 and OP 143, as well as demo'd the PDR126 OP 126. I also demo the OP 143 (or whatever reserve I own) at least once a year. I've packed both many times, as well as numerous others. The OP143 hits the sweet spot for comfortably survivable for me, at 1.4:1. The OP 126 @ 1.6:1 did not seem to be comfortably survivable with one toggle popped, all weight on one side of harness (to simulate unconsciousness) for me. The PDR 143 also has the same feeling of comfortable survivability. The OP143 has a stronger flare, as well as flies "better" (take that how you want). I felt the OP143 could be easily landed at 1.4:1 as a PLF only. I felt the OP126 could have also been landed with a PLF only without injury, but I preferred the 143 in worst case scenario. I have never flown a Smart, only packed them. I have not been impressed with watching them land at any wl over 1.2:1, nor have the pilots who landed them. Of course, that is only anecdotal, so I can't verify that statement, so take it for what it's worth. Structually, the PD reserves seem to be one of the best, and their qc and customer service speaks for itself. The downside to the OP is you can't get dacron lines. Dacron lines are highly recommended for any jumper whose exit weight is over 220 or puts a camera on their head. The PDR is available with Dacron lines. The Precision R-Max seems like and is built like a very strong canopy, but then you have to deal with Precision customer service, which, historically, can be lacking (but the owner often is the guy answering the phone, which is awesome). My recommendation: Which one do you have a local dealer for? Jump Shack and PD both make good products, and both have great customer service. Ask your rigger which he'd prefer to pack. Buy Local and ask your rigger! Rarely does shopping online in this industry save you much, provided you ask and compare with your local gearstore. Keeping your sales tax in your community is better for you as an individual. Keeping profit at your DZ helps for improvements to your dz and possibly staves off a jump ticket price increase. In general, though, most riggers will say PD because they are the most common and have great support and a great reputation. The problem with asking for advice over the internet is that you don't know who is answering. Believe it or not, all these companies WANT to sell you equipment and are happy to talk to you about it. Realistically, at the level you are and your wingloading, most equipment will serve your purposes. You may look at TSO limits, though, because some DZ's enforce them. This limits your container brand. Try giving the manufacturer's a call. They don't care if you are buying new or used, they'd love to help you out. PD- (386) 738-2224 Jump Shack(386) 734-5867 Aerodyne-(813) 891 6300 Sunrise (Wings) (813) 780-7369 (Higher weight TSO) Icarus 877-216-6958 Precision 423-949-9499 VSE (Inifity) (253) 445-8790 (because they are awesome) Call them, don't be shy!

Reprinted with permission from a letter sent to his DZ's mailing list: A personal message from Lee Schlichtemeier USPA Southwest Regional Director [First two paragraphs omitted, not relevant to this discussion] .... Third, there will be a 'beauty contest' vote also on the ballot. This will be a membership non-binding vote on whether or not to create a special instructional rating for Wingsuit instructors. The proposal is on the USPA website (even though it is a little hard to find). I hope you will vote 'No' on this issue. This vote will not institute the rating but will give a semblance of guidance to the next USPA Board of Directors with regard to developing this rating. My reasons for asking for a 'No' vote for this issue is as follows: The issue of whether or not to create a Wingsuit instructor rating was not the idea of USPA Headquarters or the USPA Board of Directors. It was a request by a faction of the Wingsuit community to the board. The issue has not been staffed [note: I'm pretty sure he meant to say studied] by USPA Headquarters. Therefore, no cost/benefit analysis or resource requirements have been examined by the USPA Headquarters department (Safety & Training) that would be called upon to institute this rating. And, again, it was not requested by USPA Headquarters (Safety & Training), the staff who would be called upon to institute this rating. There is no measurable evidence that this rating would have usefulness with regard to the safety of Wingsuit flight. Most importantly, this represents an entirely new direction for the USPA instructional system to embark upon. Specifically, there currently are no 'advanced ratings' for the average skydiver. If this proposal is instituted, it represents the first additional requirement for formal instructional training beyond licensure. It is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent.' It opens the door for additional training requirements for licensed skydivers to participate in other skydiving disciplines such as freeflight, formation skydiving, canopy formations, canopy piloting, etc. While we would all argue that additional experience and preferably training is desirable for these activities, you need to picture a world where you would be required to receive that training from a USPA-rated instructor (in that specific discipline) before being allowed to participate. This expansion of bureaucracy and rules (beyond BSRs) represents an unnecessary and complicated intrusion into the choices that are currently available to skydivers. This issue and even placing this non-binding poll on the ballot was very contentious at the Safety & Training Committee level and at the full Board of Directors level. The issue was extensively debated and original motion modified several times and the final motion that allowed this non-binding membership vote passed the full board by a plurality, not a majority. Several board members abstained on the final vote and if they had voted, there may have not been sufficient votes to carry even this motion. Again, I ask you to vote 'No' on this issue if you want the freedom of choice of skydiving disciplines that you currently enjoy to continue, if you feel this proposed instructional rating is unwarranted and unnecessary or if you feel that this issue should be more adequately evaluated by the proper and time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs. Thank you. Lee Schlichtemeier USPA Southwest Regional Director D-16256 uspaswdir@aol.com I did not include his phone numbers, but I believe they can be found in the front of your Parachutist. If you aren't a member and can't view one online, pm and I'll send it to you. I changed formatting for the post, but it is otherwise unchanged except for noted changes in [brackets].

Have you tried asking your local rigger about it? S/he will be the one working on it, and it's best to start a relationship early. Do you even know the qualifications of the random, unknown people on the inter web you are asking for advice?

I don't feel the view is extreme. Instead of creating a rating, how about the USPA try to educate? There is a publication that goes out to all active members...publish the SIM section there. The USPA has an email list of their members-publish the info there. USPA sends out emails to all persons with ratings-publish the info there. USPA has a facebook page-publish the info there. USPA has a blog-though it is almost dead and rarely updated-publish the info there. USPA has the ability to communicate with all group member dz's. Contact them all and send them the info. USPA has a website-make it the front page issue. To say experienced instructors don't know it's there means the USPA is failing in basic communication. Try the communication route BEFORE regulation. A question: Of dz's that provide some sort of briefing or instruction, how many tail strikes have there been at those dz's? Also, my statement "Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the >users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a >special class for that. Must be more dangerous). " is not the same statement as the example you give. I'm talking about adding a rating, and the de facto approval of a discipline and the actions resulting from that instruction; you are talking about individuals doing something of their own volition where they have not received discipline specific instruction from a USPA rated canopy coach. The two are not the same and the liability would be different. Whether the increased liability stands up in court is a different matter, I'm simply stating that it will increase liability for that subset. For example, if an up jumper goes in or is injured because of his/her own error, how much liability does the dz hold? Very little, except for providing the airplane and some sort of gross negligence related to their operation. Now change that to a student under supervision of an instructor...now the dz, instructor, rigger, and all those associated are in a situation where they could be liable. This does not necessarily mean I am for a canopy coach rating, but I definitely believe a canopy coach rating would take precedence and improve our sport more then a wingsuit coach rating would. "Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every >conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline." Point taken on commentary for this statement. My statement should have been Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline unless every skydiver participates in said discipline. Every skydiver has to learn to skydive-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training. Every skydiver has to learn to land a parachute-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training. What percentage of skydivers will actually fly a wingsuit? What is the total number of active skydivers who fly wingsuits now? If it is truly a liability issue with wingsuiters hitting airplanes...it won't take long before the owners of said airplanes take action. Let them deal with it.

Do you mean like this? http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section6/tabid/169/Default.aspx#984 Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website. Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat every other discipline. Adding a{n} (unnecessary) rating will add to the cost of our annual group membership. Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the same requirement. Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a special class for that. Must be more dangerous). This is a sport of personal responsibility. Let the DZ's take responsibility for what they allow on their DZ. Let the jumpers take responsibility for their actions. Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline. Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for the ONE, SINGLE thing all parachutists do-namely Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline. Unless the USPA is going to make and advanced coaching requirement for the discipline/activity that causes the most fatalities in the sport-Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline. If the USPA makes a rating for wingsuit coaching, then by the same logic, there should be a rating for each discipline listed in Section 6 of the USPA SIM.

http://www.cypres2.com/userguide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_english.pdf Page 22 page 25 Specific to what you are seeing...Page 29, paragraph 4-the paragraph by the clock image

What about Skydive Chicago, Chicagoland Skydiving, Tecumsuh, Start Skydiving...oh, you said only 8. Since when is Oklahoma in the midwest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States Must be those Oklahoma schools... Most Oklahoman's prefer to be labeled southern...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States Not that it matters, just interesting how people like to define categories in a way that helps their own image. It reminds me of the guy who claimed to have the largest rigging loft in the southwest...he said Florida didn't count, and he counted 1000ft of shop space he used for storage.

Same thing, but (mostly) cheaper: http://www.roadid.com/c/RoadID The interactive style lets you create an online profile. Also, you can fit more information on the id so a responder doesn't have to log in to see that you are allergic to xxxx or to get your significant other's number. Also, has been around so long most responders know about it.

So, if we start standardized wingsuit training via USPA, does that mean the USPA should also create standardized training for other disciplines? RW standardized coaching Freeflying standardized coaching Classic Accuracy standardized coaching Style standardized coaching Sport accuracy standardized coaching Performance canopy standardized coaching Camera flying standardized coaching Freestyle standardized coaching Skysurfing standardized coaching Demo jumping standardized coaching High Altitude standardized coaching etc. When I read the mission of the USPA, it does not mention advanced training as a function of the USPA. The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving. The association is incorporated in New York and follows the constitution and by-laws contained in the USPA Governance Manual. The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs. The USPA has already established minimum safety recommendations for wingsuiting, just as they do for every other discipline. The recommendations and wingsuit FJC outline are in section 6-9 of the SIM. What makes wingsuiting so different that users can't read the SIM and the instruction manual that comes with the suit, as well as the warning labels? I believe USPA resources would be better used by focusing on the only part of skydiving we all do: Fly and land a parachute safely. We have enough ratings and requirements already. Adding another rating will only raise the price of general membership and tax an already overburdened system. I know your document says it won't, but it will increase work load, so prices will increase. If USPA does not believe that a canopy coach/instructor rating should exist (something 100% of the membership uses, and something that causes most of our fatalities), and left that for each individual dz to mandate, what would make wingsuiting a better candidate for a new rating? As a serious question..What percentage of active skydivers jump wingsuits? (and where do those numbers come from?) and another...Are the number of wingsuit incidents/problems so pervasive that it is more important to create a wingsuit instructor over a canopy instructor? I know you aren't arguing validity or qualifications of one rating over the other, I'm just wondering.

Used google.com, typed in Wings parachute container sizing chart. This is the first result. http://www.garlyn.co.nz/wings/Wingsizingchart2.html

An interesting read is the dual parachute study published on PD's website. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf This gives a little bit more info on dual parachute situations, as well as some gear insight. I have heard (but cannot find or cite the source, so take it for what it is unless someone verifies) that it is not necessarily the size of the parachutes, but rather the difference between the leading edges of those canopies. Again, I cannot cite this source, so don't consider it reliable.

Do you mean above the cat-eye or below the cat-eye? Most of these responses assume below (the actual BK-TOG section), where your description seems to indicate the lower portion of the LSL (lower steering line). (Yes, I know it is a continuous brake line, but I also know Chuck has been jumping for a long time and will understand what I am saying). If it is the BK-TOG section, examine what happens when you release your brakes (when the loop is under load). If you follow directions and insert the excess from the top, through both pieces of tape and then stowed by the pin, then when you release your brakes, your brake line "drags" across the top of the excess keeper, thus creating a friction point. If you stow by inserting your excess from the bottom, then when you release the brakes there is no friction or dragging against the keeper, thus causing less wear. Making a bend in the line will not cause excess wear, unless it is on the "shoulder" of the fingertrapped line. Even then, it normally only causes the fingertrapped section of line to work it's way out. My Velocity with Vectran brake lines have not needed a replacement until recently, around 600 jumps. (This is beyond manufacturer recommendations.) I'm just doing a lineset. My previous VX w/ Vectran brake lines, same story. Other jumpers at my dz who stow "correctly" while having type III keepers (UPT,VSE style) have to replace them closer to 350-400. Well, not have to, but most riggers would recommend it. I find it seems to accelerate wear on spectra lines as well. Risers with elastic keepers tend to have less of an issue in my experience. However, sometimes the bulk of the elastic makes it more difficult to pull your slider down, depending on the design. FTR: Velocity, HMA lines, Vectran brake lines, VSE risers If it's above the cat-eye, then it may have something to do with your slider grommets or how you handle your slider after opening. For instance, if you have "hats" and pull your slider down, the excess bulk may cause extra friction. Examine the lines above the soft link. Are they dirty/showing signs of accelerated wear? Examine the slider grommets for nicks/abrasions. Good luck, and let us know what the result is. A picture would be nice, if you are able.

Many DZ's are on private roads or airport roads that are not recognized by GPS. We have students every weekend who get lost trying to use GPS or Internet maps when we specifically tell them "Using GPS or internet maps WILL get you lost. Please use the directions on our website. Our DZ is on a private road that is not mapped for GPS or Internet maps." It is not about making it convenient for your GPS, but rather getting the customers to the DZ on time. If the GPS will get them lost, perhaps "Turn at the yellow church" is better. Also, since DZ's are often outside of town, road signs are often stolen or used for target practice, so permanent/semi-permanent dz signage is often better. Also, the 555-JUMP number is about marketing and being able to remember without writing it down. Maybe your phone doesn't have the letters, but (everyone of) my Android phone(s) and my wife's Iphone both have the letters, as well as every landline phone. I believe your 93.2% number is simply a wild ass guess, and I believe it to be wildly inaccurate. (Check your phone, does it really not have the letters, or do you just not see them?) There is a reason most large business' use some sort of letters/mnemonic for phone numbers. I doubt they would continue to pay for this service if it wasn't effective. Just because it is newer doesn't make it more effective. Besides, if you can use the Internet to look up their web page, I would imagine you are competent enough with your Google-fu to find the actual address, or be qualified to dial 10 digits and ask. It would add 30 seconds on to your total planning time. Since you don't have to pack jumpsuits, it wouldn't even phase you.

You can find the general recommendations at USPA.org. (You can also get it as an app on your smartphone). Look at the SIM (button top right of the page), and go to section 5-2. Depending on the license you hold, the minimum you must do is make one jump under the supervision of a USPA instructor. At most dz's, they would have you talk to an instructor. The instructor would spend some time with you, and then decide what would be best depending on your recall and performance. Options would be: Briefing w/ a jump: typically only former instructors, coaches, pros in the sport get this. There seems to be a correlation between those who achieve hyper currency combined with teaching that improves retention (imagine that). Extended briefing and a jump: This costs money. You made the instructor work, so you gotta pay. Instructor decides whether one or two instructor jump. AFF First jump course: Again, something you'll pay for. Instructor decided the amount of work you needed would be better suited to a FJC environment. You may have to do either a two or one instructor course, depending on your performance. I've had people do a FJC, clear them, but recommend some coaching to get their skill level up fast. All the ones that did a coach jump or two were back up to speed and having fun much faster. Much has changed in the past 6-7 years (though the basics are the same). My advice: Download and read the SIM, at least the student parts (section 4), with special focus on emergency procedures (section 5) and Canopy fundamentals (Section 6-10 and 6-11). If it's financially feasible, do 15 minutes in the tunnel. Check out Skyventure.com. Pick the best one for you, all will have a program you can fit in and benefit from. Call your local DZ, even those where you might have to drive a bit. Tell them your story, and pick the one that fits you. Each DZ is different, and the way they interpret/adhere to the SIM is different. What each DZ charges is different. Whether you can jump your own gear is up to the dz, to some extent. It's probably better to do a jump or 10 on a larger canopy, though, depending on your gear. There's a chance your gear isn't really ideal anymore, and may need maintenance or to be retired (especially if it's the equipment you are jumping in your profile pic). In short, call your local dropzone and ask! All we can do is paint wide generalizations for you. And finally, don't forget to show up with a case of beer.

No, it is not a strawman. JohnRich is not asking for a judgment on the first statement by replacing it with a second. He is asking a completely separate question, with different substance than the first. One's response to JohnRich's question would not change one's opinion on the original statement (which is the purpose of a strawman). Besides, it is only a strawman if it is used to replace an argument. Though this could easily be a strawman in the correct context, in this case (as with others that you are trolling JohnRich in), it does not strictly meet the criteria of a strawman. JohnRich's arguments/statements are much closer to a red herring or an argument from adverse consequences than a strawman. In other words, you are committing an argument of prestigious jargon in your accusation of JohnRich's question (which, admittedly, heads towards a slippery slope/fallacy of composition argument), while also using a red herring to try and undermine his question while providing nothing to the conversation. In other words, you are trolling.

From the bev suit website: There are lots of ways to get ahold of us. Address: Bev Suits 8398 Lyon Valley Rd. New Tripoli, PA 18066 Phone: +1 610-285-6994 Email: Info@bevsuit.com And, if you are going through a dealer (you should; always support your local dz gear store), Ask your dealer! They will know the product. You should use a local dealer. That way, if there is a mistake, you can let them take care of it.

we use an old wire spool with casters on bottom and a padded top.

If candidates didn't experience this during the course, perhaps they should have picked a different evaluator. We did some hard spin stops, resistant students, etc during my course. We talked about turning the "piece" off the hill to get stable more quickly. We talked about how to get the student out of the airplane in an emergency. My course covered many things that did not seem to be covered by other evaluators, or at least not recalled by their candidates when comparing notes afterwards. In 500+ AFF instructional jumps, I have yet to have a student work me out to the same level as my "graduation" evaluation jump, and I've had some "dynamic" students. The blanket statements people make about how easy the AFF eval course is, or how well they prepare a potential instructor are broad generalizations that do not apply to every examiner or candidate. I have worked with new instructors from a few different examiners, and there is decided difference in the resulting product and how well they are prepared for the (somewhat) real world of AFF. Quality of instruction counts. Sometimes the course that comes to you is not as good as the course you have to travel to attend. And, as instructors, we all know that just because you teach something to a student does not mean they will retain the information. The performance of a FJC student is not always a correct reflection of the quality of instruction they received, and I am sure it is the same with newly minted AFF Instructors. "Before anything else, preparation is the key to success" -Alexander Graham Bell

Texas law is different, as we are a Right to Work state, as well as the Greatest State in the Union.

In my experience, each fatality results in the loss of at least one up jumper (not including the deceased)-usually a close friend of the deceased or a newer jumper who previously believed skydiving was safer than driving. In addition, it often takes a year or two for the dz to "recover", both in terms of number of jumps and socially, depending on the reputation or social importance of the deceased. There have been many lawsuits related to dead up jumpers. Whether the case goes to trial or not, it generally costs the dz. Both of these are direct losses of income.

Negative. Flight plan was done. Corrective training was done. Canopy briefing was done. Instructional staff did give corrections. Student still made a poor choice on following jump. We've all made those type of mistakes. It's easy to quarterback from behind the keyboard. This is the reason many experienced and knowledgeable skydivers avoid this website and/or do not post. Every post is analyzed and judged without trying to get the entire story or situation. People throw out damning critiques when revealing questions are more appropriate. This has resulted in a great potential loss of knowledge to the skydiving community. Perhaps before criticizing the actions of instructors responding to a situation you have no personal knowledge of (the instructors being the ones who have spent hours with NvyZero, were there for the entire day, know about his motivators, what he responds too, etc.), you might ask the OP, NvyZero, if the actions taken were beneficial in his growth as a skydiver, and if the importance of making the correct decision was impressed upon him. Every student is different. Every student responds differently. The goal is to make the best decision for the student one is working with at the time. Our goal is to produce the best skydivers for the ENTIRETY of their jumping careers, not to take their money, pass them up a level, and send them on their way. Besides, fatalities and injuries result in paperwork. Paperwork cuts into skydiving time. I've experienced enough fatalities and injuries to be absolutely sick of them.

His grounding was followed up with instruction the same day plus extended canopy instruction the following day. And Andy, if you'd send me your email, unblock your PM's, or a way to get in contact with you via PM, I'll gladly lay out all the circumstances that led to this choice. Perhaps after you read them, you could let us know what would have been a better choice for this individual student under these specific circumstances. NvyZero- you didn't ruin her jump at all. We instruct for the love of it, good and bad. Each jump where our student lands safely is a great jump. The rest is just details we can fix.