DexterBase

I'll go check that out. Thanx

I think because of the less-than-legal status of many BASE jumps, this may be a bad idea. What if I'm a half owner of a rig and my buddy gets busted? Now I'm the half owner of a confiscated rig and my buddy may be looking at a couple thousand $$ in fines. If he's in a finacial situation where he needs to have a partner to fund a BASE rig, it's doubtful he'd be able to pay my half back. If you're just doing legal jumps though... may be feasable.

I haven't seen the box for the TRV22 yet, but do you think it would be possible to streamline it? Could Bonehead have built it so it would sit closer to the helmet? Or, would it be possible in any way to sidemount it but reduce the snagability?

If it were up to me, and wouldn't get me banned from skydiving, I would make every skydive with a BASE rig.

I think it's becoming obvious that I'm feeding a troll, so I'll stop posting to this thread. The111, I think the explanation I offered was sufficient and you misread that statement.

Sounds to me like you're comfort level lies closer to the skydiving arena. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

I see the logic behind your conclusions, unfortunately non of them apply accurately to BASE. This is wrong. I think it's beyond the scope of this thread to elaborate, but basically, the parachute must be configured to open at a rate compatible with your freefall speed. Failure to do so will result in an extremely hard opening, damage to the equipment, damage to the jumper, or all three. The application for some of these procedures is for low altitude jumps, yes. But this has nothing to do with why the errors occur. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Not a statistics page, but enough to get you started. The List Read the above list and tell me if you still think that. Then re-read my first reply, particularly the part referring to intentionally using available altitude. My advice to you is to read all you can about BASE jumping. After you have more knowledge of the sport, you'll be able to ask more accurate questions.

Actually, the proximity of that wall is your primary risk. It's also the leading cause of BASE jumping fatalities. Very few fatalities (on BASE specific gear) are caused by malfunctioning canopies. On a BASE jump, there are so many dangers that the possibility of your parachute, "not opening," is completely overshadowed. There is one BASE rig available with a reserve (the Sorcerer) but for most jumps and most BASE jumpers, a reserve would serve no purpose. This is because on a BASE jump you will usually delay your deployment to maximize freefall time. Since you are intentionally using up your available altitude, a conservative delay will put you in a proximity to the ground where you will probably not have enough time to attempt a reserve deployment. There simply isn't enough time to try to get a reserve out at less than 100 feet. Since a reserve isn't really practical to use in BASE it has become accepted to simply get rid of the reserve and focus all attention to getting the main out right the first time. If you ever get a chance to watch a BASE packjob, you'll see an amazing attention to detail. There are also several modifications that are specific to BASE rigs that increase the odds of a successful deployment. A BASE rig is extremely simple. You basically have a harness, a container to hold the canopy, risers, special toggles, a canopy, a bridle, and a pilot chute. There's very few parts that can malfunction, since there aren't that many parts to begin with. As far as risks... they're really endless. Where you can use the same equipment configuration for practically every skydive you do, in BASE you will often need to reconfigure your entire setup for each jump. Any slight rigging error will probably kill you. Once you're in a position to jump, there are many more factors that must be evaluated than on a skydive. You're playing for all the marbles, you have no second chances, and the ground is hard and unforgiving of ignorance. When you're at the exit point, you could very well be inside the last 10 seconds of your life. Suddenly skydiving seems like a better idea huh?

Have you had any problems with riser slaps?

In regards to the width, do you personally feel that the trv-22 is too wide for sidemount? I just bought one, but I'm not sure where to mount it. I'm leaning towards a top mount ( for BASE) but I like sidemount too... Thanx

You may have trouble finding any gear for bridge day right now. As time gets short, all the used gear will disappear from classifieds and the only option you'll have (BASE specific) will be stock gear from one of the manufacturers. If you put in an order for new gear today, you might just get it in time for the event, but it could be close. Conversely, the months following Bridge Day will be a good time to pick up used rigs though. As far as your original question, is it worth it to get new gear? Heck yeah. Any investment in your safety is a good one. If you're doing this as a one time shot then I would probably say go with used gear. If you think you're really going to get into it (something only you will know), then buying a custom rig built to your specs is a good move. I guess the only real answer to your question, from me, is weigh the pros and cons and make a decision based on your true desires to be a BASE jumper vs. your financial situation. edit: clarity

I got into it once in a different forum about this. It still frustrates me. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Hello, rings built into the bridle attachment are usually not intended to connect the bridle to. This is especially true in the design where the ring is sewn flat into the bridle attachment. If you attach the bridle to the ring itself, then the bartacks take the entire load, instead of the bridle attachment tape. The correct way to attach your bridle is to larkshead (girth hitch) the bridle to the end of the bridle attachment tape. The metal ring is typically intended to be a bag stop. Hope this helps. edit:typo

What that FAR means is that you cannot deploy your reserve -on that jump-unless it is needed for an actual emergency. On any intentional parachute jump, you must carry a dedicated reserve parachute to be used only in the event of a main malfunction. You can use a reserve as a main and then return it to use as a reserve, as long as it is okay with the canopy manufacturer. I know the ravens can be used as a main or reserve. Just because you've used your reserve as a main for a few jumps doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be employed as a reserve again. In fact, it's probably a good idea to air out a new reserve and see how it flies before you pack it away. At least it's better than having a low cutaway and only being in the saddle at 700 feet, which is not really a good place to discover the flight characteristics of your PD 113. I just don't know how many jumpers actually do this. Certainly the minority. If you do decide to jump your reserve, it's easy enough to jump it as a main, again, I just don't know many jumpers who would go through the trouble of doing this. I just disagree with the tone of the original reply which suggests that it's a horrible situation to have a packed reserve you've never been under. I've never been under my current reserve and I definitely don't see a problem with that. Andy2, bridle attachment points are typically constructed into the parachute as it's being built. Retro-fitting a bridle attachment would mean deconstructing the canopy and then adding the attachment point later. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. edit: typo

Does the Smart have a bridle attachment point? I know many reserves do not, so it may be difficult for the average jumper to get canopy time with their reserves, until they have a cutaway. What reserve do you have? How many jumps did you put on it before you put it into your rig?

Wow, thanks a lot for giving away the ending...

Hey Tom, I'm just curious... What's your answer?

That's awesome! Wanna sell me one?

Heh heh... Yes, you would get arrested.

I would not jump if there was no risk. Removing all the risk from BASE jumping would take away the significance of every jump. It would take away all the feelings you get from the jump.We would no longer be special (and I do believe that what we do is very special. There's not many people, even in the skydiving community, that can/would do what we do.) There is no risk in bowling or golf, so I choose not to participate. Risk is a big part of what defines me as a person. I cherish the opportunities to test and learn about myself. I even have a tattoo on my right calf that is Kanji/hirigana for, "dangerous,risky" or abunai in japanese. Risk taking is not something one decides to do. You feel it. BASE jumping is not a sport you choose. BASE jumping chooses you. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I would bet that if the NPS were to allow BASE jumping on their land, there would be fewer fatalities than from the other activities being done legally. I'm sure in Yosemite alone, BASE jumpers would die less often than rock climbers. When a rock climber dies there's always someone saying, "Well, these accidents are pretty rare but when you take risks, sometimes people get hurt." Nobody arrests the other members of the climbing party and no gear gets confiscated... When a rafter or kayaker drowns, it's an, "unfortunate accident". Nobody tries to make it illegal to run the rapids in NPS land... Then there's the arguments they use against us. We have to get rescued by helicopters. We create a dangerous situation. Blah blah... How do they think climbers get rescued? Park rangers have always had a hard-on for BASE jumpers. It's an old grudge that won't go away. There are no words that will make the NPS change it's views on our sport. The only chance we have of ever jumping legally in OUR national parks, is to change the laws. Especially the archaic law about illegal aerial delivery. As long as the NPS remains blockheaded and keeps BASE jumping illegal, BASE jumpers will continue to die in national parks. Maybe they don't understand that we will still jump there regardless of what they think. In fact, keeping the sites illegal has made the big walls coveted objects. (Ever tell a kid not to do something?) Until it's legal, jumpers will die because they left the exit point with sub-standard gear they don't mind losing if they get tagged. I've expressed some views in this post that may be offensive. If this post doesn't mesh with the spirit of this forum, Tom, please feel free to delete it.

It seems like getting busted by the DZO is less of a problem than the site itself. 100 feet is low by any standards. If it was 200 then sure, go scope it out without a rig and see if it's alarmed. If you do trip an alarm it would be better to not be wearing a BASE rig. If everything seems okay, go get a rig and do it. If the object is cool enough, then the rewards give you reason to consider the risk of getting caught. If it's not a worthwile object anyway, why bother pissing anyone off? Personally, if my DZO asked me not to do something I would respect his wishes. There's plenty of other stuff to jump, enough to keep you busy every night for the rest of your life anyway. edit: typo

Was that during a boogie?

I think I know what you're talking about. The bottom corners on older containers used to be sewn all the way up to the edge of the flap, forming an enclosed, "boxed-in" corner. Most manufacturers started designing the side flap to wrap around the bottom flap, closing the corner. The thinking is that the open corner would allow the canopy to be extracted without a boxed-in corner possibly inducing a spin to the packjob as it leaves the pack tray. (It also helped with bridle routing for stowed jumps.) With wingsuit flights becoming more common, a greater need was identified for a corner that would all but disappear during deployment since wingsuits were generating higher forward speeds at deployment. Morpheous Technologies answered the call with their, "Dynamic corners". The corners allow the pack tray to completely open, leaving nothing to restrict the deploying canopy. edit: can't type today!

We talked about this one a while back over at Blinc. I wasn't aware that Doggy BASE#1 was completed... Interesting... Doggie BASE