The111

I am opposed to gay marriage, and it has nothing to do with the Bible. I've made it clear I don't think following the Bible with no rational thought involved gets anyone anywhere, but again, where *in* the Bible does it say that "sex with a woman on top" is wrong? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Why use a book written by someone else to explain why anything is wrong? Why not use a logical explanation? Stealing my wallet is wrong because it deprives me of money that I earned and you didn't. Shooting me in the chest is wrong because it will either kill me or damage me phyiscally for the rest of my life. To me, my life/health is more important than $100. You keep using very vague statements about people using the Bible to rate sins. What is the real issue here? Why does it matter to you if it really is in the Bible or not? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For the record, my religious beliefs are very unique, but if I had to categorize myself it would be Agnostic. I don't really use the word "sin", but I do believe there is a set of moral rules inherent to human nature. I.e., there is such thing as right and wrong. Where are you getting this from? Says who? Not everything that is morally wrong is outlawed. That's part of the basis of a free society (I'm aware ours isn't). We're free to make our own choices/mistakes as long as we're not causing significant harm to others, against their will. Why are you mentioning law? Again, where are you getting this from? Who said this *is* the case? Is there a document somewhere which rates "sins"? From a Christian perspective, which I understand thoroughly but don't necessarily agree with, sin is sin. One is not necessarily worse than the other. From my perspective, I would be much angrier if someone shot me in the chest than if they just stole my wallet. But who's to say the amount of anger an immoral act causes me is a reliable tool to rate its "sinfulness"? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I live near the airport in Orlando, I'll come down to Seb either Fri night or early Sat morning, I'll go home Sunday night. Let me know if I can help on your return trip... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I thought you filmed the 372-way attempts? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It was his first BM, right? I'll probably do mine in a month at Seb from a Van as well, I will have this in mind and probably jump back so far I hit the back of my helmet on the door. That is infinitely more attractive than hitting my teeth on the floor. I actually learned sitfly exits out of the Van years ago and would jump so far out that the top of my ProTec tapped the door for the first 5 times or so until I learned to jump a little less. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Do you know something about the future which I don't?!?! Tell me!!! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Probably $9k, but I made a lot of gear purchases. AFF recert + 150 jumps - $2800 Gear rentals for a few months - $900 First rig - $5300 Suits - $500 Wrist alti + 2 Dytters + 1 ProTrack + JumpTrack - $800 Helmet - $180 FUCK!!! My estimate was low. Looks more like $10.5k. I'm officially in the next range up. I voted wrong... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Sounds fun, I think I will be there. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

When? I think you said Tuesday before, if so I can't help ya... if it's a Friday maybe I could... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Not true, just up the the IAS at exit to 100 kts It's is of course no use at all for working out exit seperation. Heh, I was thinking the same thing. Had to climb out of the King Air at Titusville this weekend (fast than Mullins' - 15k in 7 minutes). Goddamn I could barely hang on. All I had to do was wait for one other guy to climb out so we could do our exit and I seriously almost got blown away. I wonder how fast that plane goes on jumprun? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Just out of curiosity, with regards to Billvon's list, maybe someone who has experience can answer this: Is it possible to do a 90 degree flat turn at 50 feet on a 2.0+ loaded HP rocket? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I am on a Spectre 170 loaded at 1.1 with almost 200 jumps, I'll probably stay on this same canopy for at least several hundred more jumps. While I'd love to downsize I'm simply not good enough with this one yet. When I can swoop this canopy and land on a dime, literally, at the end of the swoop, every time, then I'll get me a 150.

You mentioned the same thing as Ron - that double fronts would cause me to end up in almost the same place because of the extra speed when I plane off. The way I see it, this has a lot to do with how *long* I stay in double fronts. If I stay in double fronts for a very long final approach, then I bring my landing point back considerably, and even if the plane off at the end swoops me forward a bit, it's probably not enough to recover all that distance I moved my landing point back. But if I only stay in double fronts for a low, short final approach, it will only bring my landing point back slightly, and that distance will probably be recovered by my longer plane off. Does that sound right? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Oh, when you said "did my out landing there 10 days ago", I thought you meant in the exact same field as me. Guess you just meant same DZ... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If you have the risers pulled down a tiny bit, and let go of them to pull toggles only, the risers will pop back up out of your hands, right? If you're doing that at 15ft just before a normal flare, the risers popping out of your hands won't cause you to dive a tiny bit? Also... this may sound stupid, but where do you grab your rears? There are no loops, obviously. On the risers themselves, or near the upper end where the lines attach? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yup, I've heard instructors give the 45 degree rule on the plane, and while I'm not totally adverse to arguing with someone with immensely more experience than me, the plane is not the place to do it IMO. I keep my mouth shut on the plane. Along the same lines but slightly OT... I've heard very competent and experienced swoopers (not sure about instructors) talking about the wind hitting the topskin of their canopy and making them dive longer. It's hard to know when to speak up when you have 180 jumps and suck under canopy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You're on the right track, this doesn't have to do with opening high (although it would be pertinent there). Look at Kallend's freefall trajectory modeling applet and observe what happens when the winds change directions before opening, compared to when they don't. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'll be there all weekend, along with my neighbor Alfonso the tunnel rat who just got his first rig. I'll be making my "pre-2nd" helicopter jump. I'll be landing on the airport every jump if all goes as planned. I'll be staying at my mom's house down the road... I don't think they allow camping there, and they do have a bunkhouse down the road but I'll bet it's gonna be packed. If I didn't have my mom's house available I'd probably see if I could camp in the bunkhouse yard... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Bill, I understand the theory behind exit separation and I agree with your points. But I'll be the first to admit that I can be lazy. While I'm capable of making complex calculations, I often look for an even *simpler* method than the ones you suggested, and I suspect other jumpers would do the same because of either laziness or inability. Usually I'm at a big DZ and trust the separation suggested by the experienced jumpers (usually this is 8 seconds or so, and by that time it becomes very hard to see the group that left before me). Sometimes if the uppers are a little higher (it's obvious since the groundspeed is a bit lower when you spot) 12 seconds is suggested. Once the uppers were so high that the plane had a groundspeed of about 15mph. This was very obvious, it looked like we were sitting still when spotting. In this case a 20-25 second separation was the rule. So I'm trying to think of a simple rule, like for example, a range of 8-25 seconds based on the groundspeed of the plane, which is kind of easily estimated if you're used to spotting. At least the difference between 90mph and 15mph was obvious to me that time. I'm aware that could be too simple, since uppers aren't the only concern. How about a "worst case assumption" for winds at opening altitude (i.e. opposite direction, half strength of uppers for example). If you use that assumption all the time then you only create better separation when it's not true. I'm just trying to think of a way we can make a very simple rule that doesn't require accounting for all the variables, that can be used by anyone without much effort... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

How did you handle it? I was pretty scared, but like I said I know my accuracy isn't the best and I mucked up my last off landing. But I stayed halfway calm and set it down at the edge of the field, which I guess is acceptable though not as good as the center. I'm assuming you did it well though, and I remember reading you saying you're confident with your accuracy, which is cool considering when I had that many jumps (which wasn't too long ago!) my accuracy was HORRID. At least now it's borderlining on acceptable. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yeh, I have no problem with the inconvenience of a walk (and as it turned out me and the guy I jumped with who landed next to me both got a ride back immediately), I just fear landing out in medium to small sized fields because I still doubt my ability to hit that target to some extent. I consider the field I chose "medium" size... anything smaller and I would have been terrified, but I knew I could probably make this one. As far as "sinking", which both people have commented on so far... I know it's useless to parrot information, but Scott Miller has told me several times that even deep brakes on a Spectre (and many other popular canopies), in no wind conditions, will simply flatten your glide (the opposite of a sink). In light winds like I had, I would have had to apply very deep brakes to sink, which scares me near the ground (maybe I need to get over that), and also made me more susceptible to any wind shear at treetop level. I trust Scott's word, but I'm still curious... on a no wind day is it possible to sink a Spectre in? Like I said, I don't like deep brakes near the ground, but I could set up in deep brakes at 2000ft, on a no wind day, or aim myself crosswind, and see if I maintain stationary over the ground until 1000ft. Maybe I'll try that out this weekend... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

About two months ago I had my first off landing. It was far from textbook, I walked away from a very ugly landing in a tiny backyard due in large part to luck. My landing accuracy has always been my weakest point, and I've spent the past 50 jumps focusing on it. I've got down to 10-20m almost 100% of the time, but it's still very hard for me to get the 2m required for C, only have done that 4 times. Also, 10-20m should be 10-20m ANYWHERE, but I know that when I have a small target field to shoot for, that means doing almost my whole approach over obstacles which I don't want to land on. Theoretically the 3-leg pattern should transfer fine, and I can land fine in unfamiliar LARGE areas (first time at new DZ can be right at target in middle of field), but an unfamiliar small area can cause me to freak and I'm aware of that. Losing calm is the first step to an incident. So I've been semi-anxiously awaiting my next off landing and hoping I'd be ready for it. Yesterday I had it. It wasn't picture perfect, but I made mostly good decisions, and stood up a nice 30ft surf facing a solid tree line 20m in front of me. I'm going to try to recount what happened, in hopes that I can be offered advice from others, even though I know what I did right/wrong. I apologize for the length of this post, I often get very detailed when telling stories like this. A picture can be found here (too big to attach) which will assist my story. I got the picture from Microsoft's TerraServer site in case you're curious. It's a great resource. This was at Space Center in Titusville. The green shows my normal landing pattern through the day, I was aiming for a tiny towel I set out there for accuracy. From that pattern you can deduce groundwind direction. The turquoise line represents jump run. Uppers were opposite direction from ground wind, with the change in direction occuring around 3000ft. It was nice for the tandems opening high, because they could ride the uppers back to the DZ. But for me, I was opening downwind of the DZ every single time all day (seated at 3000ft or just below), but none as bad as the last jump of the day. The groundwinds were 5-10mph so it wasn't too hard to make it back unless you were REALLY far downwind, as I was on the last jump of the day. Admittedly, the spot in the door looked a bit long (we were at 18000ft so was a bit harder to tell), and I should have probably pulled 1000ft higher, and I knew it. But as it turned out, I was seated at about 2500ft, and I was so far West that I was out of the frame of the picture shown. I was actually over I-95 if you know the area. I flew toward the DZ, and the entire time it looked very borderline as to whether I would make it or not. I knew there was a moderate headwind in my face, and I was flying light 1.1 WL on Spectre, so I decided against trying to use risers or brakes to flatten my glide, figuring with such a light WL and moderate headwind, it would hurt me more than help. I did try half brakes for a few seconds and tried to re-assess the accuracy trick, but at 2000ft the accuracy trick is harder for me to use. The "movement" of the ground objects is not as pronounced to my eyes. Half brakes slowed me down so much I was having an even harder time determining where I was headed, but I looked about the same (borderline I *might* make the edge of the DZ), so I went back to full flight and kept going for it (there were no landing options between I-95 and where I was headed, so that was the best thing to do). At about 1200ft I was starting to cross a medium sized field, and still wondering if I could make the DZ. At 800ft I was just past the field (upwind of it) and still uncertain if I could make the DZ. It's still a shock to me now how hard my mind resisted. My subconscious REALLY wanted to try to make the DZ. But somehow a little voice in my head said, "Know where you're going to land by 1000ft!!!" If I had kept going at that point, I would have been commited to the DZ and possibly fell slightly short and hit a road, powerlines, or a fence. But I listened to the voice, and aware that I had a perfectly good field just behind me, I turned around. I was now at 800ft and the beginning of the yellow pattern drawn on the picture. The green pattern I had been using all day should, theoretically, transfer to the red pattern for a landing in the center of the field. But as I mentioned before, I get nervous when I see a small landing area and my body forcibly tries to "shrink" the pattern so it hugs the comfort zone tighter, which leaves me no room for a final and creates a risk of overshooting. I was well aware of this and trying to fight it, while at the same time being afraid to go too far downwind and *undershoot* the field. Since I was below 1000ft and downwind of the red pattern start point, I figured I would merge into it mid pattern. At the time I thought I did a pretty good job of simulating the ass-end of the green pattern in a new location, but it wasn't until just now when I made that picture that I realized how far away from the red pattern my actual pattern (the yellow one) was. That error was a function of the panic I was feeling... not as much panic as my other off landing, I tried forcibly to stay calm, but I certainly wasn't as calm as normal. As you see the yellow pattern has 4 legs. It wasn't intended to be that way, but as I finished the "base" leg, I could tell I was still waaay too high (obvious why now since I cut the pattern so short). So I did a gentle 180 to circle back for another base. It would have been smarter to do the second base further downwind, but again I have issues getting away from the "comfort" zone of the field, so my base legs were actually just skirting the edge of it at this point, I was overtop the West tree line of the field and those trees felt too close for comfort already, even though I was still 200-300 feet high probably at the beginning of the 2nd base. As I neared the end of the 2nd base, I could tell I was still a bit too high, i.e. if I turned onto final I would probably overshoot my field and hit the east treeline. But I wasn't so high that I had time to do a whole 180 and do a "third base"... the trees were getting close. So I chose to turn 90 right onto my final, but since I knew I was higher than I wanted to be, I purposely did a sort of aggresive 90, a toggle hook if you like, but just to clear things up I still had WELL over 10 seconds of level flight after that turn leveled off. So that "hook" served its purpose and dropped me down a little more than a gentle turn would have, I was now on final and not so high, but as I looked at the east treeline I could tell I was still a bit higher than I wanted to be and there was a small chance I wouldn't touch down before that east treeline. So I did two kind of semi-aggressive 45 degree S-turns, knowing that would cause me to lose a little altitude. It worked, I came in for a somewhat fast landing (still had some extra speed from the turns), stood it up perfect and actually surfed very far for me (someone who doesn't attempt to surf), and came to a stop a little too close to the tree line for comfort (as described earlier, maybe 10-20m away). Again, look at the 4-leg yellow pattern on the picture. In retrospect, the mistakes I made. 1) Bad spot. 2) Didn't open high on bad spot (was last to exit plane). 3) Landing pattern to small field was not very good simulaton of open field landing pattern. Too afraid to go far away from the "comfort zone", which is close over the field. 4) The little "toggle hook turns" I did at the end, a 90 to drop down fast into the field and not overshoot it, and then the two 45's halfway across the field to drop down a bit more and ensure I wouldn't overshoot... I know those types of maneuvers aren't a good idea, especially when dropping below a tree line and possibly hitting wind shear. You're distorting your canopy and swinging your body out from under it, all close to the ground and all close to possible turbulence. I've done it before in open fields when trying to shoot for accuracy, but I was told by another jumper at the DZ a smarter approach would have been to turn onto final and just use double fronts to get a steep approach into the field and avoid the overshoot. That way I'd stay under the canopy and not distort its shape. Obviously, it's not a desirable situation to be in where mistakes 3 and 4 can be made (i.e. I could have avoided the whole thing earlier), but these are the ones I am most focused on, because if and when this does happen again I want to be able to handle it even more calmly and accurately. Here's my biggest concern: Even if I *had* gone a little further downwind of my field (left the "comfort zone"), there's still a chance my straight in final wouldn't have been right on the money. What's the best way to alter that straight in final if you know you're going to overshoot? The winds were light enough by that level that brakes probably would not have worked to steepen my glide, so I'm thinking the best solution would have been to use double fronts as my other friend suggested. I really haven't tried them too much in close comparison to straight in approaches though, to notice exactly how much more they can steepen your glide. Is it significant? Is this a common tool for accuracy? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Heh, your point is well taken. I don't doubt that there are people who can give much better answers than me, but I guess my position still stands that I won't ALWAYS keep my mouth shut. Maybe that's dangerous on my part. There are some questions I won't answer, and there are some I will, but even when I do, I'll add the caveat, "ask an instructor as well." And I understand your point, why open my mouth at all? Why not just leave it at "ask an instructor ONLY"? All I have to say to that is, 1st amendment. I can choose what questions I want to answer, and the people I'm talking to can choose what advice to accept. I respect your position that I shouldn't be answering anything. For what it's worth, 95% of the questions I'm asked I won't answer. But some I will. Tell Kallend that. Comments, Kallend? And whether or not Kallend agrees with me (though I'm fairly certain he would on this), doesn't matter. My next comment may seem in very bad taste and a bit boastful, but if Kallend can have sigs which read "Kallend is right in just about everything", etc, then I can say this. In a thread a few months ago, I brought up jerk (the time derivative of position), explained how it was different than acceleration, and was scoffed at by Kallend who had never heard the term before (quote - "learn something new every day... J/K - Physics Prof" - a quote which to me implied that because he was a physics prof and had never heard of it, it wasn't real). When I explained jerk was different, he commented "No-one seems to have told Halliday and Resnick", i.e. it wasn't covered in his textbook. He eventually consulted a technical dictionary and found it was indeed real. A simple example that asking Kallend about everything is not the solution, despite the fact that he may be right about almost everything, and probably knows 100 things that I don't know, the example shows that in 4 short years of college and my own readings I was aware of something he hadn't been exposed to in ostensibly many more years of education and teaching. (BTW I don't agree...Its about math.) FWIW, I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering. Aerodynamics is not "about" math. Math is an imperfect tool used to attempt to describe aerodynamics. Aerodynamic equations were often derived in a very different way than other traditional scientific equations (which were theoretically derived). Aerodynamics "equations" have been derived by plotting curves through tabulated EXPERIMENTAL data, and approximating the curves with mathematical relationships. Things such as orbital mechanics and electromagnetics can be described perfectly by math. Things such as aerodynamics and thermodynamics cannot. Why do you think wind tunnels exist? Just as it bothers you when AFF students teach each other, it bothers me when someone who publicly asks for help with algebra says something like this about "math". Anyway, getting off topic, so I'm done... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Ron, I'm curious about your take on this. MarkM mentioned in a previous post that one piece of advice he felt ok to give/discuss was, for example, a "big" guy asking a fellow big guy how he learned to fall slower. You didn't really comment on that. Let me set up a hypothetical situation. Two jumpers, both with 50 jumps. Both have A licenses, i.e. they are qualified to jump on their own and make their own decisions. Both are adults who understand the risks of the sport, and understand that the "best" advice comes from instructors. If they want to talk and share experiences, they are both aware of what they're doing. So, both guys are big guys. The other day they tried to do a 4-way with two small guys. Let's call the two big guys Al and Dave. Al is able to stay up with the small guys and make a perfect 3 way round. Dave simply cannot figure out how to fall as slow as Al, though they are both the same weight and build. On the ground, Dave asks Al, "how were you able to overcome the difficulties I'm having now?" What is the risk you see with Al telling Dave how he figured it out? This is NOT the same as a 50 jump wonder telling an AFF student how to exit a plane, stay stable in freefall, deploy, fly, or land a parachute. Once you're at the point where you're stable in freefall, have some degree of control, and can make choices on what caliber of jumps you're ready for (i.e. 4-way RW), what is the harm in discussing freefall techniques? Sure, both parties may be inexperienced and not know all the answers. Sure, the tried and true answers may be easily found through a 2000 jump coach. But I can think of two reasons it may actually be BETTER (or more satisfactory in a human sense), for Dave to ask his buddy Al. 1) People who have just learned something often have a fresher perspective as to how hard it was to learn that thing. This is why college professors who have been teaching for years often lose touch with their students. I TA (teacher assisted) a class for an ancient out of touch professor in college. I taught all of his labs for him, I was only 20 and had just taken the class myself, but all of the students, some of them 5-10 years older than me, came to me for advice rather than him. In the large scale, he probably understood the subject matter better than me, but on the small scale, I could relate better to the students on what it was like to learn it for the first time. I realize the different between college and skydiving. But I have shown that I don't see body position in freefall (once all other safety skills have been learned) as a critical safety issue in the sport. And I have shown why I think Al might be able to explain something (non-safety-critical) to Dave better than the 2000 jump coach can. Even if 2000 jump coach has trained 50 big guys to fall slow, he may be a skinny guy and never faced that challenge himself, and also not have the fresh perspective of a new jumper. 2) It's human nature to explore. To try to learn things first hand, empirically. Again, I understand this is not always the best approach in skydiving. Learning to operate a parachute is best done through careful instruction rather than personal experimentation. But again, once you've established the safety skills to be allowed to jump on your own and make decisions about what type of jump you're going to make, and who you're going to jump with, what's to stop you from learning different methods of human flight on your own? Obviously you need to understand basic principles of the type of flying you plan to attempt, especially if you're at a big plane DZ. You don't want to exit 5 seconds after a 4 way RW team and spend the whole jump blindly flailing about, unaware of heading, trying your damndest to stick a stable head down position. But it's totally acceptable to make a belly jump with one other guy, and see what happens if you drop this elbow, pull this knee in, etc. Sure, the answers may be out there already, but it's an enjoyable part of being human to be able to learn these things on our own! And if two inexperienced RW flyers (but licensed jumpers) make a jump together and are both trying new small adjustments to their body position, and want to discuss after the jump what they thought was happening, what's the harm? If someone with 50 jumps asks me how to track, I'm not going to blow them off. I'm going to be honest with them. "I only have 180 jumps and I'm still figuring it out myself. I've tried several different things and here's what they are. Maybe you should get on a tracking dive and see how you perform in a small group." Someone with 2000 jumps may see me talking to the 50 jump guy and laugh at me. But you know what? I could care less. I've actually asked several jumpers with over 5000 jumps on the best way to track slow and flat (flattest glide), and I've got slightly different answers from ALL of them. There were some similarities, but all of them had a slightly different opinion about foot, arm, or hand position. Aerodynamics is not an analytical science. It's experimental. What's wrong with two low time jumpers discussing what they think works best for them in a track? Sure, if they were to get on a 30 way the next day and try the other guy's advice to breakoff and got no separation, that would be bad. But the bad decision was not having a discussion about tracking with a fellow newbie. It was getting on a 30 way before knowing for sure (by doing smaller and progessively larger jumps) that you had adequate tracking skills to do a 30 way. I would never offer an AFF student, or probably any unlicensed jumper advice about anything. But I do think there are cases where it's different. As I said, if someone with 50 jumps asked me how I did turns in freefall, or how I managed my first dock on my belly, I would not mind answering, as long as they understood my experience level. I would also mention that they might get better answers from a coach. www.WingsuitPhotos.com