LearningTOfly

Agreed cheers

Opinion appreciated, but remember this is the internet, and we have not jumped together... why make calls so soon? That's cool, no offense taken... In resp. to an above speculation- it's a 159... for whatever that;s worth.

Bingo

The crossfire moves slow compared to some other things out there... In general, you just need to be able to pick up the rate changes and be tuned enough to realize what needs to be done to stay safe and how to do it in a timely manner. It's the speed at which things happen that is the issue, not the 'things that happen' themselves.

I'm on a Crossfire loaded at about 1.2 I've read here on the site here that that's way too aggressive for my 'level' etc, but I haven't heard that thought in words, yet. Total experience is not reflected solely by the number of jumps someone has. I have fun with the canopy at any rate.

When you're on the approach, try to 'defocus' your vision- don't look at a single point on the ground, as you may get tunnel vis- instead, take in all visual cues that are in front of you. Practice the techniques at home- its sort of a case of focusing your eyes on a far point, and then specifically ingnoring that point, and seeing everything else in your field of vision. This way, you get the 'big picture' and you can really see how youre moving, and what your rate of change is, and thereafter, how to time the flare. Practice it at home or in the car, then try it for a landing if you feel comfy with it. Just an option, do what you will- stay safe. Another note on the flare... think of trying to not land, while you are landing. Flare progressively to keep flying- streching out the glide at three or four feet off the ground- or in reality: really close to the ground but not touching it. This way you dissipate most energy in the air as opposed to when you contact terra firmer.

I remember hearing once that voodoos tend to wiggle around in a sitfly. Just to say...

Red top, yellow bottom, black inbetween.

Thanks Billvon and Rob- those are two insights I'll remember. All opinions posted appreciated.

Is the general consensus that it's preferrable to open the riser covers of a (thoroughly) freefly friendly container prior to a hop-n-pop? I was thinking about it, and imagine that if you have stiff riser covers, and they're closed on a h/p, and you manage to have a malfunction- like a baglock, specifically- the mess might not have enough drag to separate cleanly after cutaway (due to 'low' speeds- I don't know if it'd be a factor though at 80 mph instead of 120) ...leading to other potential complications. Thoughts?

Mostly a jettison/ slide back the canopy and roll out the side sort of thing- a lot of the details have to do with personal preferance. The hung up on the tail comment is interesting- I can't imagine that being a very pleasant feeling encounter. There may be a few details lost in the wording. This would mark Mr. Tucker's first *return* to the silkworm club... great to hear everything worked out without further incident.

You mean off key?

Cool- curiosity satisfied- for now.

Just wondering if it's ever been done- details?

Their philosophy is 'follow your dreams' How does this tie into the way in which RB holds events, and why all the hype? It looks like RB pours a ton of money into various events, but why (advertizing is the obvious answer, but it seems that there is more to it... some events are obviously eccentric)? What strategy do they use to legitimize and profit from these events? How is the company so strong that it can sponsor so many atheletes, hold so many events and still, as it appears, make such a profit.

Doesn't the conversation go: "Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane?" "Well, there's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane" "...there's no such thing as a perfectly good parachute, either." "Thats why we carry two..."

Thanks for that frame grab- that was the one that had me thinking 'wow'. The distance between those two deployments is a bit close in my opinion... given differnt opening speeds on the canopies and an off-heading for one of those two, and the margins for safety become slim. I guess one question would be: is stuff like this really a safety hazard- such close quartes when deploying is something I would not be comfortable with- but there really seems to be little oppostion or criticism to this... it seems close deployments are just the punchline of a joke when everyone lands.

True, and I considered that for a second, but if you see the nature of the two pulls, they looked *very impromptu... I guess this topic doesn't hold much intrest, but I thought I'd say something becuase seeing such lack of procedure by 'experienced' jumpers really surprized me.

I watched the "Crazy Train" video off of skydivingmovies a few times, and noticed a peculiar habit... In a few instances, when a formation reached breakoff altitude, certain jumpers would, instead of tracking, find the nearest camera and pull. I'm sure they had the intention of tracking, but the camera was convinently close. My issue with this is that in both cases, the jumpers gave a single wave, but then dumped so fast afterwards, that IF there was someone above them, the higher jumper wouldnt even have a chance to react. Therefore I recognize this 'find the nearest camera and pull' habit extremely dangerous... Any comments? Has anyone seen this occur at their dz? Insight into the stupidity?

Point noted...

...and if you knew you were going to land in water, you'd probably have enough time to remove your er... pants. So I'd guess that that's not such a big issue, but relevant nonetheless. I see another potential issue re-adjusting straps in the plane prior to exit. I find that one of my legstraps always seems to loosen a little, and adjust the two to symmetry as part of my ritual on the ride up. Having pants on would make this awkward.

As for interesting situations- I was thinking, say BDU pants were worn... seeing how they can be done up pretty snug without a belt- okay, I guess I'll have to add that these BDU's have a zipper too- so they're BDU-jean hybrids. You're tracking along and the button comes undone- and soon after the zipper. I would assume that the jumper really wouldn't notice much until the pants start to come off. The interesting part comes as part of the wonkyness of trying to fly stable with a pair of pants around your ankles. Might not be an entirely dangerous situation if you have altitude to work with- but it would certainly be out of the ordinary and something to think about beforehand. Probably would look hilarious on video... come to think of it, I think there is a video out there somewhere on which just that happens.

I've seen this is the fad for tracking dives in BASE- and the standard for ws jumps due to suit setup. Does anybody out there jump often, say wearing shorts, donning your rig, and putting on pants afterwards? ...I have in mind the interesting situation of what could happen if the said pants came unbuttoned...

I have this funny feeling that I might somehow be linked to this thread, so if I may give a 'low timer' point of view on it. To address the original question of this thread: In my experience, this varies with the individual- but generally speaking, most experienced jumpers seem willing to dispense information to the inexperienced, especially when asked specifically. This information, though, is usually accompanied with a word of caution if the mentor feels it necessary. I think that the concept of 'holding someone back' is in the minds of a few- an individual, if motivated enough, will not be held back by one or even a group, as there is always the other half who are willing to help/ give advice or information. As a note, this is not 'swooping specific', but rather can be applied to most aspects of jumping. Just because someone asks a canopy control question, dosen't mean they're so gung ho on swooping in reality... The discussion here has seen some very insightful posts on 'advice'... I'll add my view for what it's worth, please take it as a continuation of the above paragraph: In my opinion, the whole truth on a matter has less potential to introduce a hazardous situation down the road than limited, or worse yet, denial of information does. But, a healthy warning accompanying that information is a very good idea. After that, it's the recipient's responsibility of what to do with what he has learned (which if I might add, is hard to monitor over an internent forum); and I agree with the idea that if the 'student' makes a bad, or dangerous decision based on this advice or information, then witholding advice next time would be a reasonable thing to do. My view that complete information is better that part or nothing comes from my own experience being asked for advice on things such as flying aerobatics- if somebody (most times a student fresh of a license) asks 'how?'- I tell them, in detail, how a maneuver is performed. Like was said by robap, the description is not encouragement, rather an honest (objective) response to the question. Knowing that they are flying an (insert training aircraft here), I follow up right away with what stresses occur on the airframe, dangers involved, and how it could potentially be the start, and shortly thereafter- end, of a really bad day if things go wrong. Every time I have made an explination in this manner, the vibe I get is 'thanks, that's just what I needed to hear, and now I know and understand' (...why I should wait for the proper aircraft/ instruction etc). I feel this explination method is better than leaving it at "get flight instruction (coaching)..." etc, because (a)if they cannot find an instructor (and they are rare for acro), then they may reason for a while and come to a conclusion of 'how hard can it be', try something naive, and the next thing you know I'm reading an accident report; and (b)because half the time it appears that the interest is of the 'pick your brain' variety. On a personal level... I'm the sort that like to learn every aspect of an activity I'm interested in- if I overhear a 'pick his or hers brain' conversation, I'm usually there in a heartbeat just to soak up what might be said. To tie that back to the post I made the other day... I have hard links on my risers anyway, so I'm thouroughly euchered when it comes to extending a 'swoop' via use of rears (thereafter, I have little 'swoop' to extend). In the end, this is an internet forum... little about a person can be understood about a person via a number in the corner, although very much is usually assumed. edit:speling

On the note of the whole "good idea/ bad idea" conversation which this has turned into (not that I mind, there was some very good souding information in a few of the initial posts): I really appreciate the helpfulness of people like chachi, robap and YI... I made this post intially to gain insight into a detail of a skill I hope to learn in the future- these people have been very helpful by putting themselves in a position of a mentor, and giving a brief but very helpful tidbit of information to the public in this thread. Who knows, maybe other jumpers will wander by and pick up some insight from this that's going to reduce the risk of them dropping a toggle in the future. Back to the GI/ BI... I asked this question because yes, I am going to try landing with rear riser input- yes I do have low jump numbers, but I'm comfortable with the idea, and that's my call- I won't defend myself any more. Anyways, I've seen in a number of places on the forum where a low time jumper asks a question only to be responded to with a barrage of "you shouldn't be asking"s or "why don't you know that by now"s... I think that these sort of responses are not only not helpful, but will deter the next guy from asking a question they're interested in because they don't want to be berated for asking a simple question. Once again, my thanks to those who added their two cents...