pilotdave

Just FYI, since I didn't explain myself above... I chose not to link to them and always try to avoid it when I remember. Linking to them can improve their search engine rankings. A link to igovincent from dropzone.com can associate them with skydiving as far as search engines are concerned. But anyway, yes, they have been a big problem in the hot air balloon ride industry. There are many similar "consumer alert" warnings from balloon operators like dropzones. Don't know about their other businesses. They're trying to distance themselves from the scam warnings with these other aliases. Dave

Luxergy IS Skyride. See igovincent.com (I don't want to link to it) to see some of their other names. IGoVincent, Spagoda, Luxergy, and ThrillPlanet are some of their aliases. Dave

I would stay FAR away from the canon filter. I used to have one on my 18-55. The problem is that it's not coated so you get more reflections than you will with a better filter. I did a bunch of research on filters when I was having problems, and I read over and over again how bad canon filters are. B+W is considered one of the best. Here's an example of a picture sort of ruined by the canon filter: http://www.skydivingstills.com/gallery/2101824/1/108537262#108537262-A-LB. See the yellow spot below spiderman's chest strap? I ended up replacing it with a B+W filter. Still fairly cheap in the 58mm size for the 18-55 lens, but pretty freaking pricey at 77mm. If you get one, make sure it is an "MRC" filter. That's the coating that makes the big difference. At 10mm, it's possible you'll need a slim filter to avoid seeing the edges of it. I'm pretty sure I've read that you don't need a slim filter for that lens, but if you do, that makes it even more expensive. The 77mm version of the filter I bought is at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11994-REG/B_W_66070252_77mm_UV_Haze_010.html... $80. I personally wouldn't do it. The front element of the 10-22 is better protected, and it's just too expensive in my opinion. The filter does NOT improve picture quality and may very well degrade quality. It does nothing but protect the lens. If you do something stupid like me and drop your lens on a hard floor, the filter might help... mine shattered but left the lens apparently perfect. I like having the protection even on my cheap lens, but I'm not sure I'd spend $80 for the small amount of protection it offers. Dave

All set. Link stays the same. Dave

By the way, the shots I got with the 10-22 last weekend are at http://www.skydivingstills.com/gallery/3776203 (along with some shots from the 70-300). You can see pretty big versions of them (~1024 wide). Those are all at 10mm... I think I've decided that I'm not responsible enough to own such a wide lens. I enjoy getting heavily distorted super-closeup shots of people too much. How did you escape from getting a stupid picture taken?? BTW, one of the shots from the second jump has some fisheye effect... that was added in photoshop. I found the distortion at 10mm to be kind of weird when anything was near the edges. Added the fisheye effect to one I printed. I (surprisingly) think it looks better, but I don't think I'd want all the pictures to have a fisheye look. Dave

The fact that you claim to HAVE equipment is the start of the lie. Your websites talk about your equipment, your facilities, your aircraft, your staff, etc. You don't have any of those things in any location. I don't care if you advertise that you have the best or the worst. It's all false advertising because you don't have any. You can't seriously believe that your websites aren't designed to deceive. Why not just forward all visitors to each of your 900+ sites to the main skyride scam website? Then your visitors would know that you are a booking agency, a middleman, not a dropzone. Oh, that would require changing websites. That's not your department so you'll conveniently ignore it. All you can do is give refunds. Retroactive is easier than proactive. You won't fix skyride until you fix the lies and the theft that are right out in the open on hundreds of websites. Dave

Make sure he pays by western union! Or maybe he has a check for more than he owes. Just kindly return the difference.

You don't consider stealing websites, images, and logos something wrong? You don't consider advertising in Utah or other states where you don't do business (and happily accepting money from mislead customers) to be wrong? You don't consider charging pilot chute fees to be wrong? Dave

Wingsuits suck. They're boring. Overpriced, poor quality, worthless. Skydiving is way more fun without them. They look funny too. I'd never use it if I bought one. Total waste of money. I'd have to carry it around in my gear bag all the time even though it would never come out. I'm gonna keep telling myself all that all winter so I don't do something stupid like order one. I've managed to go about 5 years now since my first wingsuit jump without buying one. Stupid Tony Suits ALMOST suckered me into buying one of their awesome, wonderful suits. I even got all measured up. But my willpower is STRONG. I will hold out! I hate wingsuits. I hate wingsuits... breath. Repeat. I hate wingsuits! Must....not....get....addicted.... Dave

Sure, put the arrow on the other end of the weathervane and it will point away from the wind. But did you read the rest of my post? A canopy that weathervanes away from the wind is laterally unstable. It would be impossible to control because any disturbance would cause it to veer off course until it's flying backwards relative to the airmass. There's a big picture and a little picture. The big picture is which direction will a canopy turn relative to "the wind." Will a canopy turn downwind? The little picture is how will a canopy react to RELATIVE wind. That's where gusts and turbulence (which is just a bunch of gusts) come in, as well as control input. Kallend had an interesting theory that explains why a canopy might seem to turn downwind (the big picture) based on the fact that a canopy will turn INTO the relative wind (little picture). That's the only explanation I've seen that makes any sense. But I still don't believe it explains why so many people seem to have observed canopies turning downwind on their own. Canopies HAVE to behave like weather vanes. That's why they fly forward. If they acted like backwards weathervanes, they would fly backwards. EDIT: The fact that a canopy is fabric doesn't matter. This is a problem of stability. The behavior you describe (a canopy that naturally turns AWAY from a gust) would be unstable. I don't care if it's made of nylon or steel. If it turned away from a gust, it would immediately "spin out." Dave

Eh, I dunno. Most of that front page is about the US teams that competed at nationals. But anyway your focus in skydiving is probably related to competition. I'd rather read about safety issues than which rookie 4-way team won a local competition in oklahoma. I think the USPA's site would look pretty silly if it was covered with american flags and only had articles about how great the US is. Would be kinda odd to see a headline like "American teams all in the medals at the FSL Finals" or something. Dave

I really don't see it. Hit "already a skydiver" on the USPA site and it doesn't look all that different from the BPA site. I see a bunch of pics of american national competitors. Dave

Don't know what caused your canopy to turn, but disturbances HAVE to turn a (ram-air) canopy into the wind. Think of a plane, with a tail at the back end. If a gust hit the plane from one side, the plane will automatically turn toward the gust. Or put another way... if the pilot kicks the rudder to the left and then back to neutral, the plane will suddenly "see" a gust from the right, because it yaws to the left. It will automatically correct back to the right. Now think about what would happen if a plane had the tendency to turn AWAY from a gust. If a gust came from the left, the plane would yaw to the right. That would increase the gust factor from the left, causing the plane to turn more to the right. That would continue until the plane is flying backwards (or spinning out of control). Same thing if the pilot kicked the rudder and let go. It would yaw left, causing a crosswind component from the right. It would turn more to the left, causing more wind from the right, and so on, until flying backwards or out of control. A canopy has to behave the same way. Otherwise it would be uncontrollable. Might fly straight in absolutely perfect conditions. But the tiniest gust from one side would whip it around. It would be laterally unstable. Dave

Yep, if we don't have stats to back it up, common sense can't be true. Dave

And maybe they would be right. You're going about your training all wrong. You're jumping a canopy that is not the right tool for learning the basics. Jump numbers aren't everything... there are plenty of old-timey jumpers with tons of jumps that haven't learned correctly and are a hazard to themselves and other people around them. You won't get crap for upsizing and jumping an appropriately sized canopy. You won't get crap when you have the knowledge to understand that a smaller canopy doesn't get a better flare than a bigger one. Dave

I hear all the time that cheap lenses like the canon kit lens are plastic, and this is really bad because plastic isn't as good as glass. I even read that in some magazine recently. It's not correct. The plastic that the photographers hate is the body of the lens, and in some lenses like the 18-55 kit lens, the lens mount. Plastic vs. metal, not plastic vs. glass. The actual lens elements are made of glass. Optically, the plastic doesn't play a role. Plastic is light. Light is good. Plastic is good!

Ha. That's not what I meant at all. What I was saying was that the best deals often come from friends. I've seen a lot of new jumpers get great deals on rigs locally. One jumper is upgrading, another comes along looking to buy. I've seen some deals made between 3 jumpers. For example, one decided to buy a brand new canopy. He offered his old canopy, a spectre 150 in great shape, to another jumper looking to downsize from a 170, at a great price ($800), far below market value. A third new jumper comes along that is looking to buy a 170. Guess what that 170 sold for. $800. And money didn't change hands until everybody was happy. Whole deal worked out great. Saw another deal sort of like that recently with rigs. You're not going to find opportunities like that online. My point was that it's best to ask around locally before shopping online. And then when you shop online, try to find something close by first, so you can buy it in person if at all possible. I'm not suggesting that Europeans are all trying to screw Americans. I'm saying that the chances are that he will not find a good deal on a rig from europe, and it's more difficult to buy a rig from europe. I personally skip all ads from outside the US when I'm looking through the classifieds. It's not because I hate europe (or canada), it's because I don't want to deal with that hassle. And there ARE hassles... like one guy I know that got a brand new rig CUT open at customs, right through the reserve. That'd suck on a used rig, huh? Dave

How do you know how dull it is? Dave

Not saying europeans shouldn't buy from europe. Just saying that it's very unlikely that an american is going to find a good deal in europe when you take into account shipping and whatever other fees that are involved. Skydiving gear is generally more expensive in europe. Makes no sense for a european to try to sell a rig in the US for a low price when he can probably get a lot more for the same rig in europe. Dave

A few tips... Don't buy from Europe. Talk to your instructors before buying anything. Buy in person if at all possible. If not, buy through somebody reputable, like a rigger. Buy locally... New England is great, ask around at your dropzone to see if anybody has gear for sale that might be appropriate. Chances are you can find someone selling gear right at your DZ. They might not be advertising it, but lots of people have their old rig in the closet that they don't use anymore. Good deals don't come from Europe... usually they come from people that you get to know, who aren't trying to screw you. Dave

If you think you need a smaller canopy to get a good flare, you really should get canopy coaching. Unless there's something wrong with a particular canopy, you can get a good flare out of just about any canopy at any size. Some canopies make it easier than others (sabre2 vs spectre, for example). But if you aren't getting a good flare on a larger canopy, coaching will probably help. Downsizing will probably hurt, since it will just make the timing of your flare more critical. You might find that the cobalt gets a better flare than a spectre. Have you tried a cobalt 135? I doubt the difference in the flare is due to the 105 vs 135 as much as it's due to the difference in the flight characteristics of those two canopies. Face it. You like jumping a canopy that's too small for you because you like to tell people how small a canopy you jump. It's a guy thing. Dave

What scares me most about a new jumper under a tiny canopy isn't that he (it's always a guy) might hurt himself. I don't particularly care, as long as it's not on my DZ because that screws things up. What scares me is that he is more likely going to have trouble navigating through traffic or flying near other canopies in the pattern. The smaller the canopy, the faster things happen and the less time you have to plan. When things go wrong, they go wrong faster. I wouldn't want to be flying near a person like that. I can't say I've seen a bunch of newbie hotshots make low turns and kill themselves, but it's usually the new guys with canopies that they can't really handle that think they're so great because they can stand up their landings near the beer line that are cutting people off under canopy to get there. Crap, that was a run-on sentence. Dave

I haven't met those people... Anybody that has browsed through incident reports at least once in the last 10 years knows that opening their canopy makes a skydive more dangerous. Well, statistically... My first downsize was from a 230 to a 150. But my first jump (AFF1) was on a 170, so I don't think going down to a 150 (PD 9-cell, same type as the student canopies I was jumping) was that extreme. Wingloading on the 150 was around .85 or something. Not every DZ encourages rapid downsizing either. Where I jump now (which is not where I learned), I don't think I've seen any new jumper, no matter how small, encouraged to go any smaller than 170. Most of the AFF instructors jump larger canopies and only a few swoop at all. Dave

Dunno how nikon will do it, but canon doesn't shake the sensor. Its the filter in front of the sensor that shakes. Dave

Did http://sdm.crocker.com work for you? Dave