Shivon

Quade - why the 16-bit audio?

I started with an Optik with a top-mounted DV camera. I then put a 300D on the top and moved the DV camera (d-Box) to the side. (Cameye II and a tongue switch). I'm pretty happy with the final setup, although if I had my time again I would have gone a bigger helmet - probably a Flat top pro). I've moved the 300D as far off-centre as I dare (which is not much at all) to compensate for the weight shift, and have it down to a managable level. I was a little concerned though with the width of the 300D vs the platform, and the chance for a riser strike up under a side of the camera. I jumped two rigs there for a while, one of which has a fairly small yoke (built for a girl). Two riser strikes (the only two I have had in 100+ jumps of camera) in about 10 jumps on that rig changed my mind about using it anymore. One of the riser strikes had a fair go at knocking me out (was dazed for about 15 seconds maybe). Both turned the 300D 90 degrees on the shoe. I think the tongue switch cable stopped them moving more. The second snapped my tongue-switch cable. Switched back to my own custom rig, and haven't had a problem since (50+). All-up, I'm happy the setup. It's solid, fairly hassle-free, and easy to work. I love the 300D - it's fantastic. I leave it on sport / auto focus / daylight conditions and it rocks along quite nicely. I love the DV (year old TRV). They are both pretty-much muppet proof.

The manufacturer knows what they are doing. You would be risking your safety to go against their instructions.

And of course we live in a world where canopies always leave the factory floor with a correctly cut set of lines.... ... one reason why I would like to have a complete set of line trim charts. I think the PD's effort with their website is fantastic. As a side note, surely customers / riggers would place more credibility in a manufacturer that supplies the info over a manufacturor that hoardes.

Would it be correct to say that there are more manufacturers of containers and canopies than when the first two books were produced?

To my way of thinking, a problem with publishing the equivalent of a 'Poynters Vol III' is that there is much more diversity in the equipment in service now (riggers who have been around for a while - step in if you don't agree) than there was when Vol II was put together. There are so many types of containers / mains / reserves now that the researching might take a lot longer to put all the details together (I for one would love to see line trim charts for all known canopies in a Vol III).

When I did my rigger's ticket (in Australia), the written material used for prepare the candidates for the theoretical and practical exams included Poynters Vol I and II, a set of Rigging Advisary Circulars (an Australian Parachute Federation document-set based on service bulletins, etc), and the Poynters Rigger study guide books. The theory exam was heavy with data from Poynters Vol I / II. The practical was heavy in techniques demonstrated in Poynters such as patching, but also incorporated techniques taught in the study guide. Now that I have been rigging for a while, I still find Poytners my 'bible'. I have an infinite amount of respect for a guy that can put the sheer amount of work into a book like Poynters Vol I / II. It was a great publication when it came out, and it still is today, even though some of the information is now becomming quite dated. I think too that it is a sign of the times - where the only rounds I have packed are the ones I packed as part of the prep / exam for my pre-rigger packing rating (one of which came up negative for acid mesh) and the subsequent steady stream of pilot emergency systems. I find that some of the most common rigging questions I field are to do with issues such as line types, and the characteristics of each relative to each other, and while I find educational websites like PD's site quite helpful, I would really like to see the equivalent of a Poynters Vol III. Yes - there is a question in here somewhere: So does anyone know of a project out there to address what I see as the 'Poynters Vol III void'?

It seems that the standards in the USA / Canada are higher than that of Australia. In Oz, the rules are: Hold a 'D certificate' (basically 200 jumps) Hold a 'star crest' (rating to do big ways) Hold a 'Packer B' rating (ability to pack mains for others) Complete a 7 day full time or 12 day part time course (to gain a basic instructor rating). Have 4 hours free-fall. And then complete an AFF endorsement course with exam (of which practical is a part).

Instructors - (of which I am not one) - can you comment on the experience (jump no's, etc) requirements that your country has for AFF instructors, and give your opinion - having been there yourself - as to wether it is set at about the right level. Do you think in hindsight you should have had more experience before starting AFF instructing? Do you think that you could have started earlier in your skydiving career? And also - do you think that any particular discipline (for example Camera work) helped you to be a better AFF instructor? Cheers! Shivon

I don't agree with the comments about it being 'old technology'. The PD170 was a solid canopy when it was released, and it still is today - assuming it is in ok condition. I would recommend getting a rigger to have a look at it though - and maybe check the lines for how out of trim it is. Being in Picton you have access to a few riggers in Sydney and Canberra. Assuming the canopy is in ok condition, it may be worth putting a new line-set on it, giving it some new life for a relatively small over-all cost.

For a while now I have been looking for an in-helmet chute that is deployed after the helmet is cut away. I have seen a couple which are home-made, and I have seen a commercial one which was made in the UK and bought about 10 years ago - very professional looking. I was told that the company isn't around any more. Does anB Vsa vyone know of any companies that still make them?

I have a bonehead d-box. The padding inside my dbox (including the section on top of the camera - the bit that hinges) makes it 'snug' enough inside the dbox that I didn't need a screw, or have to add extra padding to stop the camera moving around. After sighting in my ring sight I can take my camera in and out of the box, and it will still be lined up with minimal error.

I'm happy to pack Racers. When I did my riggers ticket my instructors went out of their way to make sure that racers with / without rounds were part of the process. I can understand why some guys / gals don't like to do them - and 'respect' to those who pass due to a lack of currency on a rig type.

I've got a Rebel, and I'm very happy with it. As was said early, I use the burst capability on the exit, and then I usually take my next series of shots when I get close to the target. That way, I get my initial burst, and then the the camera clears the buffer (by writing to the card) before I am ready to do the next burst. I take a whole bunch of shots, and then while on the next ride to height I decide which ones to keep. I can easily do 10 loads in a day on one battery and one CF card, which is cool. I don't mind the body either - I originally got the Rebel over the 10D for the less weight. It certainly doesn't feel fragile. My gut tells me that with the speed that Megapixel / storage capabilities are increasing, the Rebel was the better option. Good luck!

A similar thing happened at my DZ the other weekend, and to be honest I am still not sure how we should have dealt with it. Two relatively new riggers (of which I am one) were doing an inspection on a canopy when an older rigger (who has been out of the sport for 10 years or so but has recently decided to start jumping again) rocks up, and starts asking pretty pointed questions in an 'exam-like' manner about 'how do you do this, what thread would you use for that'. I put his pretty arrogant manner down to him being new at the DZ after a very long time out of the sport, and him trying to sort out the pecking order. We don't buy into that crap at our DZ, but anyway, that's what I thought he was trying to do. I played along with the questions for a while, but when he tried to shoot one of the other riggers down on an answer to a pretty simple question (what thread would you use to do repair work on reserves) I got fed up and not-so-politely told him to stop wasting our time and go read Poynters. (To which he replied that he had never heard of it, and quoted some other supposed parachuting reference manual that I had never heard of during my apprenticeship or study / exams). Later on the same guy was getting one of the packers to show him how to pro-pack (aparently the sport hadn't gotten that far when he left it). With his new-found knowledge he then went on to lecture the packers on how pro-packing was completely unsafe, and how they should take a leaf out of his book and flat-pack. Anyway. My issue, is that we, like most training DZs, have impressional people around who look up to riggers / packers, and I was just blown away to see some of the younger guys hanging off this guy's every word. But what do you do? Bitching in front of the junior guys / gals is poor form, and only turns it into a he said / she said thing, with the reputation of the riggers in general loosing out. But I certainly wouldn't trust this guy to pack a reserve, and I guess the DZ operators are in the unenviable position where this guy has his riggers ticket (which he renewed the whole time he was out of the sport). Arrrgggh!!!!

I figure if I roll the nose pretty deeply, it should be ok. I'd be quite comfortable with 1000 ft of snivel.

And that's where I'm going with this - I want to use a old Falcon 175 in a spare rig for camera work. I've added a fair bit of weight up top recently, and soft = goooooood

Regards the Falcon. Rob and co. - were any packing techniques generally used to soften up the openings? (without mods like a bigger slider). Role the crap out of the nose?

Other - Single Operating System (SOS). Student pulls ripcord (where cutaway pad is on an experienced rig), which pulls pin covering flaps over a spring loaded pc. Other handle (where reserve handle is on an experienced rig) both cuts away the main and deploys reserve. While the rig has its advantages, the downside is that the student has to hang on to the handle after deployment. Dropped handles are uncommon, but do occassionally happen.

Nathan, I would say that you are ready now. Two of the things I personally value in riggers are competency and good attitudes. You seem to have the right attitude, and competency will follow in time. The next step would be to get some mentoring / support from an experienced rigger, and break out the books. Good luck!

That has been great so far - thanks for the responses. I want to explore the stroboframe / hot shoe option a bit more as well. Does anyone know of a 'reputable' Australian source for similar products? What's your opinion - is such an attachment really worth it? Does it increase the chances of a riser strike? Do the benefits make it worth while?

I am about to top-mount a digital rebel on a platform (optik), and I am trying to work out the best way to a) secure the camera to the helmet, and b) protect the camera while jumping. My aircraft conditions are pretty cramped at best, and I am worried about things getting bumped during the flight up. Issues I figure I have to deal with are: - Is there a ready-made neoprene / carbon fibre housing that the whole camera can sit in? - How to stop the CF door opening during freefall (if not using a housing). - What did you do with the digital / video out / remote door (it being open to accomodate the remote - and access after the jump to download. - I am using the kit lense; has anyone used a filter or guard to protect the exposed lense face; - To change a battery, the camera has to come off the platform. Is there a good way to deal with this? Thanks.

I would also be interested to see if there are any techniques which can help prevent this. I have a friend who is on a Sabre2 170 loaded at 1.2:1, and he has repeated end cell closures (no particular side), with the side dictating the direction of the turn. Usually a 90 or 180.

I did quite a few demos comparing a pilot 168 with a Sabre2 170. I found the pilot to be more responsive, requiring less input to get the desired effect. I found the opening shock to be very similar, but the pilot gave me on-heading openings every time while the Sabre2 was all over the shop (turning in the direction of the (random) closed end cell). And before you ask, yes, I packed it with the PD instructions next to me. In terms of flare, the Sabre2 came out ahead. With the Sabre2 I could easily choose when to level off, then step down when I wanted. That technique didn't work for me with the Pilot, which required a single solid flare to just arrest the descent. Hope this helps.

Thankyou all.