FrogNog

I subscribe to the theory that there is no single protection against bad software problems. The "No Execute" CPU trick is something that some old OSes have done before, I believe, and is a smart addition. Basically they mark all memory as to whether it contains code or data. The CPU normally can't tell the difference - memory is memory. But programs really only ever want to run code; running data is generally a bad thing. So now they are having the CPU (or another piece of software) keep an eye out for if something starts accidentally executing data, and they stop the program if it does. It would be nice to solve BOs by telling people not to write them. And more recent, higher-level programming languages will have far lower incidences of BOs. But old code, new code written in old languages, new code inside higher-level languages and their compilers that must be written in lower-level languages, and human mistakes will all continue to exist. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

The knot on a closing loop serves the additional purpose of anchoring the loop to the container in at least the pull direction. It would be hard to keep the container closed for long without it. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I'm pretty sure my wrist alti reads 500 feet high in totally stable bellyflying (like I do on hop-and-pops). I figured this out by noticing 5 seconds out the door it sometimes looked like I was _higher_ than before I left, and between pull and slider-down was a lot higher than I could account for time-wise, and finally I looked at my alti, didn't believe it, rotated my hand 90 degrees so the alti was off to the side, and noticing it immediately read 500 feet lower. OK, this makes sense. It also handily explains the "+/- 500 feet" accuracy statement the altimeter comes with.

A bitter end is the end of a 180 curve in a line. ("Bitter" coming from "bight", which we are familiar with from making line stows during packing.) The end of the line where it goes straightish away from a knot and eventually ends would be called a "running end", I believe. Yeah, I know, really important details. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

It looks like the second fingertrap is very close to the first one. The spec I read said the second fingertrap should be .5" below the first one. (And the running end tucked inside should be at least 2.5" or 3" - not sure which that was). Perhaps having the second fingertrap too close tends to tug the excess line out? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

-=-=-=-=- Pull.

The business case problem I see with any of this is suing. Just one person suing after injury or worse could cost more than the tower, land, and everything else connected to either. And while it's obviously expensive if someone sues the owner and wins, it's still expensive if someone sues the owner and loses. The owner has to pay the lawyer fees no matter what. I don't think there would be any way to get around this. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Consistency of deployment has at least two deviations, not just one: the first one is how consistently a canopy's openings are. The second one is how consistently other canopies of that same make, model, revision, and assembler are in having the same consistency. For example, a Model X 150 canopy Joe owns may always open soft. But another Model X 150 canopy Bob owns may always open hard. Each canopy is consistent itself but not with each other. A Model Y 150 canopy Fred owns may sometimes open soft and sometimes open hard. The other Model Y 150 canopies Al, Charles, and Freako own are exactly the same - with their eyes closed and 100 jumps on any random one of these canopies none of them can tell whether it's theirs or one of the other Model Y 150s. The canopy is not consistent with itself, but it is consistent with each other. Unfortunately, I don't think this is measurable. It's hard to tell whether a canopy opens well. Some people somehow pack and have body position that works really well for some canopies, vs. others. Line trim would always be an issue, too. I don't think that can be controlled for by just using new linesets, either, because I recall at least one manufacturer saying they mistrim them just a hair at the factory so some of the lines will actually shrink the canopy into trim for a great part of the lineset life. Just my little addition to the response that "this is a hard question." I think for best chance of success, the formula has to answer as small a question as possible. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I think for a lot of people that's a phase. I've moved back to "it's something I do", although I must admit it's something I do a lot, and I've had some confrontations between skydiving and other things. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Maybe you started to think about how you were going to jump out of a plane. For my first 50 or so jumps, I just made sure I was always at least a little hungry when I got into the plane. I don't recommend this, as it can cause other problems, but at least when I was really scared, I usually didn't feel sick to my stomach. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I'm sure if you sign up, someone else will ski the video.

Dang, I wish I had a frame-capture from this one jump we have on video at my DZ. One of the guys was trying hard to sitfly with the group and struggling because they were going too fast. He gets just about in the camera's face at breakoff time and flips a double-bird right as he rolls over and pops out of frame. Classic that he communicated his feelings in such a timely manner... -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I wanna see her make a skydive in those undies. That would be great. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

There have been some situations, which I won't get into details about, where I chickened out on some stuff. I regretted that. But I remembered my regret, and when similar situations reappeared, I thought about it and did the stuff (which I won't get into details about). And it rocked. Especially when the stuff I was chickening out about actually happened. The place I turn this around is safety. I value my skin, my ass, my bones, etc.. So there are situations where I didn't do something because if I won, I would have gotten some minor glory, but if I lost I would have gotten fscked up. I don't regret that - I consider that being smart. Some of the planes I've jumped out of, though, I'm not sure. Those were on the edge. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Great, so you don't post about a quarter of the posts you type, and you give us a poll with "10%" and "50%". WTH? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Some rigs have the option of wider legstraps. I have these on mine and like them (I personally couldn't see jumping without them) but they pinch me around the perineal area when I'm walking on the ground. Women complain more about the pinching. Just saying you may want to try a rig with double-wide legstraps and see if it's better or worse or what. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I haven't had to recover from any injury (yet; knock on wood). But if I were coming back after an injury serious enough to stop me jumping for a while, regardless of the layoff, I would want to jump a canopy I could just about land softly with my eyes shut. So that depends on the jumper and his/her recent experience. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Never exited below 4k? You're missing out. The thing I love about 2.5k exits is they really make me work on being relaxed and having good body position. After two days of low jumps due to clouds, I started getting way more on-heading openings on my regular jumps. (Me = 15k / 2.2k.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Nah, that's just BASE. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Having started jumping up in Wa. I know where most of the people up there get there gear info from. I can't believe people up thier are still listening to this certain person. I won't name him, but the guy is full o shit and will lie to his own mother to sell her what he has in stock. I bet you asked him about he Pilot and he wanted you to buy a Hornet and told you that story to sell what he had around. I may be wrong about that , but I have a real good feeling about who it is. In this particular instance I can defend everyone who sells gear everywhere: nobody told me to buy a Hornet. I needed "first gear" and I had experience with Triathlon and Hornet and one was 100% more my style, so I went with it, and I've been very happy with it right up until I try to fly it with the front risers. Regarding this guy and what he'll tell people, I don't have anything to say. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I'll spill: local slack-jawed yokels at my DZ. (A.k.a. sky-brethren. ) Argh, that figures. OK, it's on my list of canopies to get around to demoing. Definitely sounds like an update to the Hornet: (Lead Canopy Engineer's voice:) "OK, lessee, we got the Hornet. What do we need to change here. Ah, openings should be more reliably soft... tighten up the control range a bit... and make it harder than hell to pack when it's new. That should do it." -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I was told they were exactly the same; not even the line trim was different. I think I even heard the Pilot used Gelvenor like the Hornet. What are the real differences? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

You say the problem is either leg straps slipping or chest strap is too high. Can you determine which it really is? A forum search for legstrap slipping suggests that your options are to try and baby the legstrap hardware by putting the elastic keeper in just the right place (and possibly using an additional keeper), or sending it back to have better hardware put on. With regards to dimples vs. smooth, I was surprised to jump someone's Mirage the other day with mirror-smooth strap hardware. The legstraps didn't move (not that I thought they would) and the chest strap was like a steel trap! Usually I like to loosen my chest strap under canopy, and the mirage was not going to let me do that until I had all the tension off it (by squeezing my MLWs together). So I'm saying hardware finish alone doesn't make or break whether the hardware holds stuff in place. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

And something very hard, up against your body, if you land on land (something I do often) and don't land softly (something I do periodically). -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Oh crap, that's the bar I always hang off of! I was wondering why it was bent. -=-=-=-=- Pull.