rhanold

I did a few close to the ground on a 90 velo back 13 years ago now. I don't do them near the ground anymore (thanks to a good friend talking some sense into me) but still enjoy doing them on high pulls or planned in flocking jumps. I've done them on 111 FX's down to 71 Leia (220 lbs exit). I think it is more about the responsiveness of the canopy than it's size. outside view Inside view

I recently went to a AO(N2) brilliant pebbles http://www.aon2.co.uk/brilliant_pebbles They do not have the lead up alarms that other swoop audibles offer but they do have 20 customizable alarms that you can easily program with your smart phone. They beep at every altitude you set whether on the way up or down and you can set tone, tone speed, and duration. rechargeable battery as well. You do have to turn on the device before use. I bought the thing to try something new and I am really glad i did.

This sounds eerily like a tandem I was the instructor on. I had to look at your profile to see that you were not my student. Like I stated above this almost exact incident happened to me a while back and I have to say it was serious. I nearly stopped doing tandems that jump. My fellow skydivers talked me through it and encouraged me to jump again that same day and it probably kept me from quitting. I have about 800 Tandems and 3500 jumps overall and have not had anything close to that scary in my time in the sport. You did a good thing keeping calm and your instructor sounds like he addressed the situation by the book. Even though I consider this a serious incident I hope that does not discourage you from the sport... I am still here.

I have 1000 + jumps on PD's RDS the vast majority are terminal. I have used them on Velo's and JVXs and my experience has been positive. I would say the openings are "snappy" but have not turned me off to using them. Just my experience.

This strikes me as a little vague. If I may ask some clarifying questions: Does the above statement mean you agree that cameras are a distraction, that they are an entanglement risk, and that these risks do apply to you?

I don't know my prescription, I just know I have trouble making out signs in time on the highway with out my glasses. I have jumped twice with my glasses (I've never worn contacts) once on one of my night jumps. I did not like it either time. I told people at the DZ (jokingly) that when I see how scary a swoop is it makes me not want to do it. The real reason is the distortion in my periphery throws me off... I think someone is near me in FF and the ground in my lower periphery during plane out makes me flinch. If you can see well enough without correction (even though it is RX) why add a failure mode?

Well if you agree there is a problem that needs to be fixed then maybe it is a misunderstanding on how the USPA works on the macro level. In general terms "The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving." if the elected body sees a need to address an issue at a cost the cost needs to be covered by the organization. If you see a cheaper solution please detail this but saying there is no problem, or there is but someone else should deal with it is not productive.

+1 (shakes head) Sparky WOW! I made >1300 posts already ?! Criusin ... Actually, almost all those jumps were made last year. I didn't start AFF right after my first jump. Not bad at all w/my work schedule. Regardless, my point stands. Negating it due to my jump numbers is decidedly lame . Mike's point still stands. He has formed his opinion based on data from the people that handle all the cards submitted plus has reviewed and signed countless cards with other instructors himself. You have offered up the fact that your 1 card was filled out properly therefore we do not have a problem. Your point never had a chance of standing.

98? That is awesome. Can we see the list?

I guess that is part of what I am trying to see. Do I borrow gear more or less than most? I do like to play the field with canopies.

Just going through some of my stats and came across a breakdown of my canopy usage. Thought it may be interesting to some. Anyone else use an electronic logging system that can get their stats? I would like to see other's if you have them.

When I was doing 270's I used to say the swoop is won or lost at 1000 ft, meaning if you put the thought into it before the turn it will pay off and if you are not in the right place at 1000 ft don't force it. Now days it is won or lost at 1500ft.

+1 Nice, well thought out response to a safety issue which it sounds like he is still actively open for solutions on how to bring wingsuiting back.

I do love flying my canopy. But I love swooping too. Why would I give up swooping if I can have both?

really? you didnt seem to have much control on this jump. Oh you... I see what you did there. You are a clever one. How about "I like control over the timing of the reserve opening."

I could do this fairly easily on my 111 XFX but I can not seem to pull it off consistently on the 90 velo. I did not think the platform would have that much effect on the heli flight.

waiting............ Take care, space D. definitely D. I just didn't mean to tell it to go away completely.

I guess the simple answer is I like the control. I have had 3 malfunctions like this one (the others were not self induced) and on the first one I cut away and deployed the reserve while still on my back and the pilot chute and free bag hit me in the back of the head. Now, if I have the time, I wait until belly to earth to fire the reserve. In this situation I knew I had the time so I took it to get back to my belly. Ryan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFNAWZGAf9M&sns=em Above is a link to a heli that went well I did a few years ago under a 111 xfx. On the jump posted in the op you can see I did this maneuver at about 12000 ft. I lost my freebag on this jump. I definitely would have spotted it better if I intended to cut away.

I am not really sure where to post this. I did a 14,000 ft High pull a few weeks back and at about 5000 ft I put myself into line twists that I could not get out of and cut away at 2500 ft. It is interesting if not entertaining. The trouble itself starts at 2:37 if you do not want to watch the whole thing. I did not edit it so turn down the sound if you do not want to hear the wind. I welcome any feedback. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZdxbXXnfo

Ron, I have no doubt that you have a ton of experience and wisdom that I would be lucky to have. And you are right, some people learning how to swoop will "shop around" and hear what they want to hear. This does not mean we do not re-evaluate how we teach things. When I learned how to swoop some of my mentors told me to do 180s and some told me to skip them. I chose to do them. I did them because I thought it the safe course. Now that I mentor upcoming swoopers I advocate skipping them, mainly because they put you in a dangerous position when people are above you doing 270s. 90+% of my turns today are 450s, so everyone doing 270s along with 180s in the HP area are in my way so if I was just justifying what I want I would discourage 270s also. As for predictability, when I am holding in breaks at 2000 ft waiting for my pattern to clear I can see people setting up for standard patterns in the standard pattern area, their flight path fairly predictable, I can see people setting up for 270s in the HP area (it looks like a standard pattern only ~800ft higher) and predictably they will start their turn when they reach the their landing vector, then once in a while I will see a person flying right over the landing area opposite landing direction at 300 - 800 ft and you will see all the HP landing people hold in breaks because you don't know where on this line he will turn or in which direction so the whole HP area is an abort until he makes that turn. It seems very simple to me, you don't track line of flight, you don't open and fly line of flight, and you don't fly through someone else's pattern. 180s (and 360s) don't fit in the standard landing pattern and they don't fit in the HP landing pattern. If you are on a solo pass, have at your 180, otherwise think about how your pattern (setup) fits with those you are jumping with.

What do you mean by "traffic" in this statement? Are you saying these turns don't fit in with the standard pattern or these turns should not be done even in dedicated HP landing areas if there is someone else in the air?

I would say your conclusions are wrong. Nothing in the setup of 270 or any other speed inducing turn makes it safe in the pattern. This has been proven over and over again. http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ Sparky Just to be clear I was talking about how hp patterns fit with other hp patterns. I fully believe in the separation of standard and hp patterns.

I am not arguing the turn itself... it is the setup for a 180, 360, ect. that does not fit into patterns nicely with other turns (or with each other for that matter). I never claimed a 180 turn is more dangerous. My point is the set up for this turn does not fit with other patterns. The set up for a 180 is dangerous when others are doing 90s, 270s, 450s ect. That and the timing and direction of a 180 is less predictable for reasons mentioned in my post above. Again, the setups for these turns have significant differences. I will talk to anyone who wants to have a conversation on the subject. If you are not the correct person to argue your point let me know who is. I still believe my logic is sound. You really haven't argued anything except 180+90=270 and I can't argue with your math however the conclusions you are drawing from it are false.

Hey, I am the pilot in that video. below is the link to another video that has inside footage of the maneuver at 1:45 flying relative to another canopy and 2:55 near the ground. As stated in the other thread it is done with harness and rears not toggles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=756g1YJKZNc