The111

Some of the most experienced canopy pilots in the world have died with good canopies over their head. It happens fairly regularly, actually. Getting a good canopy over your head is really one of the smallest risks/concerns in most canopy flight related sports, so removing that risk is not as big of a selling point as you seem to think it is. In nearly all aviation pursuits, incidents happen when you are close to the ground. Speedflying, by definition, increases your time spent close to the ground, therefore statistically increase your risk exposure. Yes, it's still possible to minimize this risk. But no, it is not in general a low-risk alternative to traditional methods for learning canopy skills such as CRW or accuracy. And when the ground you're close to is steep variable terrain littered with boulders, my points above hold even more true. I can't argue with the post title; it is probably great for both canopy control and fun. And it's certainly cheaper than skydiving. But far from the safest way to learn those skills, and safety is worth a higher dollar cost IMO. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Stability comes from the pilot, which comes from skill. None is inherently more stable because they can all be perfectly stable. I did however state that the traditional student position is more forgiving, which makes it perfect for people with low skill, i.e. students. When I trained students I did teach the traditional pull method, and I still believe it's best for them, because it is forgiving (which often does have correlation to stability). My comments in the post above were not meant as an instructional for students, and they were directed at somebody who is already apparently doing differently than he was taught. That choice is his, but I agree I've seen the dipped shoulder and legwing wide open thing you mention many times on FFC's, I remember one girl who actually did a front flip on her first reach. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Pulling in flight is indeed a good idea, when you consider that "in flight" describes any controlled descent. In that respect, the alternative to pulling in flight is pulling while spiraling out of control, so yes please do pull while in flight.

Put at least 5 jumps on each and see what you think. Never buy a suit you haven't jumped. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

To answer some confusion from a few posts up (re: the definition of a circle jerk), it's a lot like the quote above, but with more than one person congratulating himself. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Still too ghosty, Keanu: Bodie ghost town www.WingsuitPhotos.com

He would be the world's most patient advertiser ever if that's what it is, since he posted that he had the problem himself nearly a month before he posted that he had a solution. And now he appears to value making jokes more than giving up the URL to his hypothetical product. There are dozens of solutions to this problem in general. My post was only meant to point out that an "I solved my problem" post helps nobody (and doesn't really say anything significant, for that matter), while a "_X_ solved my problem" post is actually worth the space it's posted in. :-) It's a common problem in tech forums (i.e. people making a post just to say "this issue is closed" rather than why it is closed). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It would be helpful to future readers of this post if you explained what the solution was rather than just that you found it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Everybody being on the same page, for the sake of being on the same page, is terrifying and dangerous. Good riddance to those days; I would not romanticize them for one minute. We can thanks those deeper thinker of "the same page" throughout history for the deaths of (among many, many, many others): - more than one scientist who suggested the world may not be flat - hundreds of thousands in the American Civil War, because a giant dumb group couldn't get off the page of enslaving blacks - MLK, who a century later asked a giant dumb group to get off the page of denying blacks complete civil rights Sharing a belief with a large group does not inherently make it a bad belief. But a rational man really needs to ask himself where his beliefs come from. And unfortunately even in enlightened countries today there are still those who grow up with unquestioning acceptance of the belief system "inherited" from their parents/state/country. The reason everybody is not on the same page today is because fortunately many people realize they can form their own beliefs, and morals and law can be shaped by logic and rational compassion, no magic books or inherited beliefs needed. We can thank wider information sharing at least partially for this, as the above post alludes to. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

isnt that a reference to something which should not be referred to ? I know, it's such bad form to quote the Coens. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I happen to love The Dude. I just don't think a single line about pedophilia translates particularly well to friendly shit talk shouted across the internet. Maybe in high school I would have found it funnier, although rumor in this thread has it that I may not have been cool in high school, so what did I know then either? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

isnt that a reference to something which should not be referred to ? Rules, common sense, and class don't apply when you're cool. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No commercially sold biteswitches that I know of do the "half push for focus" thing. Most short the focus and shutter wires together (i.e attach them both to the same pin on the switch), so when the switch is closed both of those circuits close at the same time, which will result in the camera first focusing, and then immediately firing in my experience. With most Canon cameras I've experimented with, this works best when the camera is in "AI servo" mode rather than "AI focus". I can go into more detail on that but it's kind of complicated. Alternately, some people short the ground and focus wires together so that the camera is always focusing. I don't like this idea, but I think it can be done with the right combination of lens and camera settings. In theory you'll get a shot off faster since you're already focused, but I'm not sure if it actually works out that way or is worth it. Also it will drain your battery (and wear out your lens' moving parts) if you leave your camera in standby on the plane. I've posted much more about this in similar threads: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3250051#3250051 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3577502#3577502 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3044936#3044936 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2900323#2900323 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4349728#4349728 You can use a simpler switch and autofocus.

Step 1: pick an internet forum; extoll your religion's virtues for years on end Step 2: claim to be skeptical of religion Step 3: achieve epic troll status Internet kids these days have no clue how to play a long game like that. They could learn something from you. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The biggest irony here is that the video in the OP promotes this idea. The video purported that religious people choose to obey the law because they are "accountable to god." What this literally means is that they are afraid they will have to pay (settle the account) if they don't follow the law. And settling your account with god is presumably much more difficult than settling your account with city hall. This is IMO a very weak reason to do the right thing. Do it because you know it to be right, not because you feel accountable for it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Morality is determined by fear of the law, and the law is determined by morality. Round and round we go. Excellent circular logic. Non-circular version, for those who didn't figure this out shortly after learning to speak: Logic determines morality determines the law. That many magical books contain similar morals as dictated by logic, does not really mean anything. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Dangerous to expect a newbie to get that sarcasm over the internet. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Usually people hate the brandwar posts. But apparently if you make your post in enough of a joking tone, you can flame on and shit on whoever you want, up to and including the dead. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yep. Last year we were jumping over the water because the wind was so strong... There's an inlet and then a strip of land, but honestly I don't see how anyone could have landed in the water unless it was a beach jump... Nope. near != on www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Does "off landings" mean in the ocean? Is there an ocean on the DZ? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Anybody know where I can find something like this but for a N2? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The two examples you gave have minimum jump numbers plus S&TA approval. If you want to make cameras no different, then we need to add S&TA approval to the current jump number limits.

Are there actually any places where S&TA signature replaces a jumper number minimum? I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is just an added requirement on top of a jumper number requirement. A 5 year old should not be drinking no matter who signs what. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Agreed, which is part of why I question wearing them if you're going to remove them just before deployment. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is it at all possible that your hacky could somehow entangle with the free loop? That would be a nightmare. I know I would never want to be blindly pushing a closed fabric loop toward my hacky in the sky. I fly a Ghost 3 and do not use the thumb loops at all, but instead of letting them dangle free in loop shape, I roll them up tightly into a little tab shape and then wrap packing stows around them. I did the same on my P2 for hundreds of jumps and the bands never moved. A more permanent solution would be to remove them altogether. Also, would a loose loop even do anything for you in flight? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

While I applaud you for your honesty, the general statement "I don't know where x comes from and I don't care" isn't something that I would see a religious person ever saying. Religion exists as "the answer" to all of life's impossible questions. Perhaps this is why people willfully fall into the trap of trying to prove biologicial causation. They suspect that if the meddlers believe that "God made homos gay" then the argument and political meddling would most likely disappear. Although, the meddlers know that nobody can ever prove that point, which is probably why they stick to it as their main defense. Ironic, considering that the divine basis for their beliefs is also beyond proof. www.WingsuitPhotos.com