The111

Don't worry Jeff, I'm starting a new instructional program for how to climb back into an airplane from the camera step. It's called the CBIAFCS-I program. You can be my first student. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The analog of increasing a maximum is decreasing a minimum. As the max goes to infinity, the min goes to zero.

+111 www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I have a vivid memory of a cheesy freefly video I found on some Russian site, years ago before Youtube was popular. I wish I could find it now. The whole thing was in slow-mo, and it had some really old cheesy/happy music, though I can't remember exactly what genre. But I remember one scene in particular where two freeflyers did a sit/stand totem, and the guy on top smiled and waved at the camera, and it made me think of the old home movies where a kid would wave to the camera and say "hi mom!" I try to use fairly obscure music in at least some of my videos... though at least some of it does rock, and it's probably not nearly as unusual as what you had in mind. This is one of the mellower ones, and my personal favorite: http://www.matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-videos/Puerto_Rico_2009-HD.html I know some people don't care for that song though, but I love it. Another old mellow one: http://www.matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-videos/Summer_2006-HQ.html This one would be good, but I'm not sure I have the balls to pull it off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg0jOpr1Uhk www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Riiight... because spending hundreds of hours on this debate is so much easier than an outright ban. You've got it backwards, again. And exactly how tall are the antennae around you? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

True. If our only concern is the FAA, your points are correct. However, if we are also worried about safety, then my points stand. I personally think both are valid concerns, but the former has broader impact (the entire community) whereas the latter usually only affects the canopy pilot himself (and an argument can easily be made that licensed skydivers should be allowed to make their own choices when those choices do not affect the entire community). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Good questions, and there is a corollary. With any other education that comes from a USPA certified instructor (A license, Pro rating, AFF-I rating), when you finish (and pass) your educational phase, you get a license or rating. These ratings prove that you took the course and that you are allowed to do what it taught at any USPA DZ. So if we have mandatory instruction for wingsuiters, how do they prove they took it? The only logical response is that we need a wingsuit (flyer) rating to go along with the wingsuit (instructor) rating. And whether or not that is a good idea, it seems that those who oppose it have a very valid point when they say that swooping should be much higher on the "regulation priority list," and we should be making jumpers who want to do 270's take mandatory instruction and likewise present a certification card proving they're educated. At this point I am still not arguing for or against the main topic (WS regulation), but I am arguing for consistency. If we regulate one advanced skydiving discipline, we should consider regulating them all, and we should BEGIN with the most dangerous ones, which wingsuiting is not. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That does sound like a safety concern. How big of a concern remains a debate, and is probably the main source of contention among the various camps. Since you did verify each of those incidents (kudos to you for that), here are some questions regarding those incidents that may help people reach a common ground (more numbers seeking). If this info was already covered then I apologize for missing it before. How many WS jumps did each of those tail strikers have? (if the majority of them have high WS numbers, that may support the anti-regulation camp... if low jumpers, then that definitely supports regulation) How many non-wingsuiters hit a tail per year? (for those that would argue that 10 WS per year is not an issue, I'd say we need to have at least 100 non-WS per year, or whatever 10 times the ratio of non-WS to WS is). Again, a similar question, how many other jumpers land in the ocean in Hawaii on average? I do know I've been on multiple DZ's where wingsuiters have a bad rap for landing off, and many of these WSer's have high WS jump numbers, so they should know better (that could be an argument for or against regulation depending on how you interpret it). I do like the approach of using numbers rather than emotion to get to the bottom of things... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It sounds like you're in the middle of a shit storm, and that sucks. But please don't judge an entire community (ALL of us) on the actions of a few individuals. Most of us do not send harassing emails, lie, deceive, attack, etc. I will say right here that I tried. In this thread, and in person. When I meet people in the wingsuit community that have created a polar division based on some issue like this one, unless there is a very obvious safety issue (which I don't think is the case here), my approach is usually to try to get each side to see the other's stance. I've done that multiple times in this thread. Here it is again: To those in support of USPA regulation: people are NOT dying left and right, and standardization is possible without regulation To those against USPA regulation: sure, we are surviving without it, but regulation does undoubtedly improve on standardization Both sides have a point. Try as I might though, I can't create love and harmony between all my friends, nor can I stop random people from sending you angry emails. I won't make any enemies over this issue because I see it as the two sides being much closer than they realize. I'm honestly ok with either outcome here. As mentioned above, the only time I will take a strong stand on one side of the fence, to the point of losing friends, is when I see blatant safety issues. We're not as subdivided as you think. Some of us just want to fly. Case in point: just a few days ago I met a total stranger who is going to mail me his personal suit to demo (a very new expensive suit) since I couldn't find one anywhere else in my size. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It's not just the pull that benefits from lower pressurization, it's also dynamic moves. For me, the amount of pressure needed is just enough to keep it from flapping around. The rest is done by me. I keep seeing people in P3's and asking them what the biggest improvement over the P2 is, and they all say better pressurization. I don't get it, because my P2 pressurizes fine. I wouldn't want it to pressurize more. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For those of you who have not been caught by the Facebook trap (not to be confused with the Donohue trap), here are my photos from the event: CLICKY Thanks to Taya and Mike for safe and thorough organizing. Thanks to all the flyers for being there. It was great to see old friends and make some new ones. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

If you have the right amount of experience for the suit you are jumping, pulling will not be an issue. This goes for every single suit made and sold commercially from 1999 to present. If pulling is an issue for you, at all, then go jump a smaller suit. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Jeff, it's also interesting to note that some of my photos which I am fairly sure were taken at the exact same moment as yours (like the one on the last jump immediately before breakoff) fit into the grid slightly differently. This is probably due to (a) different barrel distortions in our lenses and (b) centering, or lack thereof, over the flock. I noticed for the whole event I was flying probably 20-30ft further forward than you when taking my "grid shots." So either I am forward too far, you are backward too far, or some combination of both. But it is really easy to see that moving back increases the apparent angle between the two leading edges of the diamond. If that angle (true measure) is less than 90, you can move back to a certain point where it will measure 90 on the photo (although at this point you're much nearer to the rear of the formation, so you've introduced other problems if perspective into the grid). Like you, I don't really care, I just take the pictures. But the above observations may be useful for those who do care.

I can't see your eyes... you're wearing sunglasses! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Sounds like a short in the cable, connector molding, or switch. Easiest diagnostic with no science involved at all is to just get another tongue switch (or any sort of remote control, which you might find at Best Buy and could try out in the store for free) and see if it happens with that one too. If it DOES happen with the 2nd switch... then you have probably serious problems. But I'll bet it doesn't. Side note... trying to plug a switch in while the camera is on most likely will cause at least one shot to fire as the plug slides in and temporarily crosses contacts. Always plug and unplug while off, for the sake of convenience. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I wondered the same thing. On her it is just a big rectangle. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, and standing next to a motorcycle in a parking lot is as dangerous as having one blow by you on the highway doing 180mph+. (In case it was not clear for all readers... that was sarcasm). I am not sure how much effort you put into finding ridiculous things to say, but you keep managing to top the last one with each new post... I really hope this is trolling and not things you actually believe. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I believe that is called wingsuit swooping. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The pilot in the video you are watching is flying way below his potential GR. If there is any doubt in your mind about this, watch how he rapidly and easily climbs at the end of the gravel road. All he is doing there is adjusting to a glide ratio closer to (but still below, probably) his potential. If anything, you could call that move a planeout, but most likely he is just transitioning to a new steady state flight (though there is surely some dynamic lift available in the transition phase). Flying way UNDER your potential GR is a key feature of proximity flight. The point of a flare/planeout is to achieve something GREATER than your normal glide ratio. It is ludicrous to say somebody is flaring or planing out when he is below max steady state glide. It doesn't get any more black and white than that. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The word swoop does indeed mean many things and I agree that arguing over that is not productive. However, you are way off on this one. That is not a planeout... it's steady state flight. He could hug that slope at that angle all day. The turn he did was not to "generate speed for a planeout." It was to point himself where he wanted to go. To generate speed in a wingsuit, for a planeout, you need to dive VERY steeply (like right at the ground) for an extended amount of time. Doing this in a BASE/proximity environment is clearly insane, and is clearly not what is happening in the video. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

This one shows an outside angle (1:45) of the same swoop, proving it is a wingsuit if there were any doubts: http://vimeo.com/45036700 Very impressive to watch, but I would never consider doing anything close to that myself. I've seen wingsuits blow seams in the air. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

From the title of this post, one clear definition of full flight would be "wings not collapsed" (since it is the alternative given "____ vs collapsing wings"). When I sink out my deployments, I collapse my wings which is quite different from sweeping them back. By collapse, I mean this: Arms: folded/crossed in front of body (think coffin pose) Legs: knee bones and ankles touching (some suits make this challenging) During a skydive I will never assume that exact position except maybe on exit, so it cannot be called full flight IMO. When diving fast I will collapse the arm wings but not the leg. The only time I collapse both is exit or deployment. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

They suck! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Right, to clarify on this, your canopy does not care but your body does care. You will get a certain amount of linear deceleration from your canopy, based on total speed when you deploy. You will get rotational deceleration based on what angle the lines come off your back. Rotational deceleration can and will hurt/main/kill if the conditions are right. Not saying it's common or likely, just possible. For this reason, I try to minimize that angle, i.e. I collapse and sink, or if I don't have time for that, I stall my wingsuit and get very head high (this is not a beginner move though). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Sounds really scary! But weren't you the one who said: Both sides in this fight are being way too dramatic. Things are fairly ok right now. We're not killing ourselves left and right, and we can jump most places. That's not to say we don't need improvements. Things would probably improve a bit with more standardized instruction, although there will certainly be some negatives (or we wouldn't be arguing), and the world still won't be perfect. I doubt that EITHER side wants to "kill wingsuiting" or truly believes the other side will succeed in doing that. I hope nobody is that naive, at least. www.WingsuitPhotos.com