yoink

You do understand that the US is PART of the UN, right? you can't say 'let the UN deal with it' and 'not the US'. If the UN said action was approved, would you still say the US shouldn't get involved?

Don't let this trick you into thinking that moving rapidly from one canopy to another is the norm. Get a 170. They're great to learn on, easy to find second hand and hold their resale value.

Because it doesn't matter where he got them. Having them isn't an issue. Using them is. However, I think the government does need to be much more open about the 'evidence' it's using as justification to the public. 'We said we were going to do it. Here's the reason we're doing it, and here's the evidence...' Not just 'Assad did it, trust us.'

Well, actually, yes. NBC warfare is far beyond the "normal" hideousness of human aggression. That's the entire point of why it's outlawed internationally. - by 98% of the world. But technically I think the OCPW only requires member states to aid other member states in the event of a chemical attack and Syria is not one of the members... There's the loophole.

Flying the piss out of it means extracting all of the performance you can, in as many conditions as possible. If you're into swooping, for me that means getting to a point where every time in similar conditions, you're getting the same sort of distance. THEN going to a good coach and seeing if they can get you to get any more out of it. If you're not a swooper, then there's less definable metrics, but it's all the usual stuff - can you sink in? Can you land on rears? Can you do all of that crosswind and downwind in decent winds. And not only CAN you do it, but do you do it all regularly? Doing those skills once or twice is pretty pointless - it's practice that lets you say 'yup - I'm getting all I can out of this canopy'.

Skill aside, all it takes is one inconveniently placed stone hidden in the grass that you didn't see and a butt landing will put you in hospital. They're a bad idea in my mind for that reason alone.

Not a maneuver I've ever heard of, or ever heard suggested before... it sound like a daft idea to me. Even if you manage to stall the canopy without causing more issues, how are you going to 'whip' the lines when both hands are holding your toggles down for the stall? Even if you free a hand, do you really think any shaking you do is going to matter in the slightest compared to the battering it's getting from the stall? and finally, as you're descending in a stall the lines are still under tension - you're not going to get any 'whip' motion in them. Skydivers - students and experienced jumpers alike, need to stop thinking they can fix shit in the air. And we certainly need to stop advising people that it's a viable alternative.

I used to play the Alto a bit and took basic jazz lessons when I was younger. I pretty much stopped when I moved into a small apartment - it's not the easiest instrument to play quietly!

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Particularly if you've previously promised to intervene if you see it going on. Been there. Done that and got the stitches to prove it. It was still the right thing to do.

I would hope everyone agrees with me, regardless of political beliefs. I hate being stereotyped into some simplistic definition. I imagine most people do. Believing that, I make conscious effort to avoid doing it myself.

It's pathetic. Recently I've noticed an increasing trend to use 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' as a sort of summary that somehow encompasses everything about a person. Not just here but in society as a whole... It's used as a slur. An insult to wave off the validity of someone's opinions when they differ from you own. "Your opinion on cell biology is invalid because you voted for Obama'... " While this trend seems to be on the increase all over the world, it's extremely noticeable in the US and it depresses me. It's deliberate ignorance and intellectually dishonest. I've been lucky enough to live all over the world. My life is a rich accumulation of information, encounters, history and events which forms the opinions that I've developed. I'm considered an expert in my field and have taken time and spent effort to further my knowledge about all facets of things I'm interested in (sometimes even things I'm not interested in!) and based on all of that information I make my judgements on specific issues - I can be conservative on some items and liberal on others. I'm a thinking human being capable of complex beliefs - as is everybody else. We're not just one thing or the other. But none of that matters when you internally decide that I'm 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. You're taking rudeness to a new level by ignoring any of my experiences; disregarding them as worthless by relating any discussion to a simple black or white political stance. I'm more than that. So are you. If you disagree with someone be polite enough to listen to them and if you want to, form a counter argument. But do it based on the topic at hand. Don't limit your own understanding and education by assuming the fundamental root of the disagreement is based on two meaningless words. Do me the courtesy of that, and I'll do the same for you.

True, but dong nothing in this case is worse than doing this. Doing the proper research would be the best answer. Mark tells me that there has only ever been a single reported tight container situation - maybe Ron would like to address this as he's the guy who brought all this up and said that all this data exists from recent incidents?

Most folks agree because it seems intuitively obvious. Which two harness/container/reserve/AAD combinations would you test first, and why? Mark As we discussed earlier in the thread - I'd personally start with investigating reports from riggers who have identified tight combinations (as folks here have already said they've seen) and see if they're reproducible and then move onto quantitative drop testing for those that have questions about them. I believe BillVon suggested a different approach - only investigating those rig combinations which have been involved in suspect incidents. These are 2 possible options. There are certainly more.

Like any sport, we have our celebrities... and like many celebrities some think the rules don't apply to them.

Ron, I agree with everything you say regarding the problems with tight rigs... so do most folk here, I think. Is there a problem? Probably. Do we need to investigate it? Certainly. Should the USPA be doing more about it? Absolutely. The bit I can't get in line with is that you take this argument, and then make a leap to 'the USPA is doing what Booth and other manufacturers want' - I know nothing about the other examples you've cited, the tandem waiver for example, but for me, you're pushing this agenda when it doesn't logically fit in this example. If there is a suspected problem, this raise of minimum deployment altitude is in the members best interests (it may not be the BEST solution, but it helps temporarily). That it was raised by manufacturers, or industry experts is a 'so what?' in my mind. As we've said before, (and as most people have said) this BSR is only a Band Aid, but is better than doing nothing. The trick will be to either press the PIA for the research they've promised, or do it ourselves to come up with the BEST solution...

Weak troll fu...

If you're interested, try some of the smaller speed flying canopies. It's a completely different flying style - large amounts of harness and tiny amounts of toggle to create a massive roll component, but with a ludicrously short recovery arc. It's a hell of lot of fun, but does require the maturity to approach it as a new discipline. Just because you can swoop or fly velos doesn't necessarily transfer... If you're looking for the enjoyment of relearning to fly new gear (like I do!), i think you'll like it.

Good decision. Good chop. Buy .

Right on. I was just going to ask how we proceed from here... is it to lobby the USPA and what specifically for? Lots of good thinking in this thread, and it'd be a shame to see it just dissapear.

Yes, in an ideal world the manufacturers would test every possible combination, but we all know that isn't realistic so Bill's already addressed this - begin with combinations that have proven fatal in the past. Then move onto combinations that have suspected issues as directed by riggers who pack them. It sounds like you're looking for reasons NOT to do any testing because it'll be hard? I completely agree that the testing needs to be thorough and comparative, but it isn't rocket science - there's no need to make it impossible. The criteria for the tests are all there in the TSO. All we're asking is that the same tests are repeated for new container / reserve configurations. Edit - we're sort of picking on harness manufacturers here, but IMO if they're thrown under a bus by the canopy manufacturers those two groups need to sort themselves out - not just the container makers. And if it's exorbitantly expensive to do testing, there's always the possibility of collaboration with other parachuting organizations. While the TSO may not apply in other countries, it's in all jumpers best interests to know if there is a problem with common gear and as such the USPA could (I think) ask for assistance with funding the testing from the BPA, PASA, CSPA etc...

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

I didn't mean to suggest they did. I was trying to say that the FAA might put pressure on the manufacturers to do the testing to prove that their current designs meet TSO requirements (if there is evidence that they might not at the moment). If the FAA would be completely uninterested in gear being jumped that potentially doesn't meet the TSO, then that's that avenue out of the window and we're back to either doing the testing ourselves, or asking people who have a vested interest in the outcome to do it...

and why would the manufacturers do it? Because the USPA asked nicely? They'll say 'no. It meets the TSO - here's the certificate. Why would we test it again?' They will particularly say this is there's even a doubt that the new designs might not meet the standards. Any sort of retesting must be performed either independently via the USPA, or be forced upon the manufacturers.... and the only people who can do that is the FAA.

All of them. Honestly, your question is so vague that it shows you haven't even done any preliminary research on your own. Try searching here - you'll find over 30,000 results for 'first canopy'. Read those threads and see what the commonalities are between them... you'll be introduced to concepts such as size and wingloading which all go to defining a 'beginner' canopy as well as reading about the major manufacturers. You'll also see that most people recommend a second hand canopy for a first step and why. I'm all for helping folk, but really, try and do a little legwork on your own before asking to be spoonfed.

MY position? for christ's sake I'm the one advocating for serious testing and holding the manufacturers to standards! The axe you have to grind against the USPA is detracting from the more important message. Don't worry - I'll go and talk about safety stuff elsewhere. You might find Speakers corner more amenable to pointless conspiracy theories though.