apoil

why do you want suggestions from girls? why not women? and more importantly, why not men? is your code of acceptable behavior only limited to inappropriate physical and sexual conduct? Because that's just scratching the surface of professionalism. Why not be more inclusive?

PD is cool because they name their canopies after knives.

No application? Perhaps not. At one time it was thought that freefall had no military application. Freeflying increases your overall awareness and power in the sky. Something goes wrong with all that gear and maybe freefly skills could help? To the true freeflyer there is no such thing as an "unstable body" position. Seems like that might make a difference to a military freefaller.

"once mastered" You are either speaking entirely for yourself, or misrepresenting the difficulty of achieving mastery. Anything seems easy once you've mastered it, but you have to respect the discipline and training it took to get there. And everyone is different. Some have natural ability with flying, others, like myself have had to work hard at it. Head down flying is challenging enough that flying a base for a larger formation way formation is never easy, or boring, the way it might be in belly flying. I had heard that once you get it, it's simple to master, but it still took me hundreds and hundreds of jumps to be where I want to be in the sky on my head and I see tons of people with different plateaus in their learning curve at all different stages of learning head down.

you can wheelie a shaft cycle, but saying you can't is basically a motorcycling equivalent of saying you can't swoop a sabre.

It's not a license. It's more like a "diploma" from his school, or just a qualifier to compete in the space games. Olav may like to call it that, but he has no real authority or universality as a license granting body.

Sadly, your friend really should have done a little research on these forums before running out and buying incompatible equipment. The IP5 is basically crap for skydiving. Lack of firewire capability will be the next thing that gets him as well as the poor ergonomic design of the mode switch - it's not multiposition for VCR and Camera, it's a "soft" switch that cycles it through the modes. Without a cam eye it could easily be in "vcr" mode when you want it in "camera".

Funny that you all should say that - over here, the Nitro (european original version of the Nitron) is known for its soft, almost snivelly openings. gree'z chronistin The nitro has a gigantic slider and is made of a different material. My nitron 120 had one of the smallest sliders I've ever seen but I didn't find the openings to be too hard.

And this is specifically the training philosophy of Olav's First School of Modern Skyflying. There are other schools that don't adhere to this specific training discipline, and have produced high quality freefliers. While the A,B,C,D designation was obviously patterned after USPA's, there's hardly any basis for comparison. For one thing, the A is not in any way Basic. It requires a very high level of proficiency (with head down flying ONLY) in order to pass. As a qualifier for the Space Games it was entirely appropriate, as that's a competition for advanced fliers. It offers nothing to the beginning freeflier looking to get to a recognized level of proficiency. But most importantly, you can get an A license at ANY dropzone. You can only get an AD A in a limited number of places, from an affiliate of Olav's. Since it isn't universally obtainable, or universally recognized other than as an achievement it's not appropriate to call it a license. In fact calling it a license, and trademarking "freefly" are the two major points of contention I have with what Olav has done. It's not economic, they are good instructors and deserve to make a living. It's that he has tried to restrict and control what all freefly instruction must be otherwise, it shouldn't even be called "freefly" instruction. except unfortunately, a lot of people got an A when it seemed to matter, and it matters a lot less today. Not to many people have gotten a B, C or D. Not because they don't have the skill, but because by that time they have rejected the notion that Olav, and his categorizations actually matter to them in their progression. And then there are some of us, myself included, who have taken the A test with another school, that doesn't necessarily follow the philosophy that you should take the test with the ball and either pass or fail. But rather that since it is a proficiency level that can be worked towards, there is benefit to using the ball to train for it. So are my skills somehow suspect now? Is my training somehow tainted? Because I "cheated" on my A test without realizing it? I paid for skills training from one of the best freefliers in the world and I got my money's worth. Come and make a jump with me and tell me what you think of my skills. Or do you not jump with "cheaters" ? And I must argue that it is UNSUCCESSFUL precisely because no one really needs the A to do anything anymore, and most people at the B,C, or D skill level are already so good that they have no need to prove themselves to Olav, to the world or anyone. -- I trimmed you for brevity, not to quote out of context. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you say about the AD A, although I think it's at the same time too advanced, and not advanced enough. There should be milestones for the beginning freeflier as well. Olav is selective about who can take the C, it's anyone who has passed the B, which as you know, is pretty bad ass. I trained with one of the most recent recipients of the C. Olav was pretty much grateful that any up and coming freeflier still shows any interest in the tests. Olav does want to personally meet anyone going for the B. I think that's just because the tests, and freeflying itself are his baby, and anyone who can do the B is a really good flier. here you confuse me with the original poster. I don't want to take the A test. I've already "taken" it, and I've already done many ball jumps and I'm working on skills far beyond that level now.

I wouldn't worry about sheer strength in your legs... a little goes a long way, if you use it efficiently. Besides, the best workout would be, um... skydiving slow.. After a day of head down formation flying my lower back and glutes are quite sore. It's definitely not in the quads and calves as much. Get some coaching. Do some drill dives with a friend. Experiment with different leg positions. Also keep in mind that when you are on an intimidating dive.. a bigger formation than you are used to, flying with some hotshot freeflier you want to impress, or with a skyball, etc.... often the first thing to go is fall rate control.. so mental and physical relaxation makes a big difference. That's why sometimes it just seems so easy and at others it's completely elusive.

First, don't go calling it a license. It doesn't qualify you for anything at all, and there's no universal granting body. It's issued by a private freefly school - so there's absolutely no legitimacy to calling it a "license" Now, the issues you bring up here are getting closer to the meat of the issue. So we're talking A test only. So here you are, an up and coming freeflyer on your head and you think you are pretty good. You think you might be ready to get your A. But you can't jump with a Ball beforehand. Seems to me that that just increases the likelihood of a failed attempt or two, and then it starts to look like the design is to make you keep paying for A tests without ever being able to work with a coach on the skills that you need to pass the A test.

I think it's an excellent analogy. The knowledge is already knowing what it is like to jump with a ball. Thus you have an advantage (or cheat sheet). So balls should only be used for testing, and not for training? Everyone says that the ball is an excellent training tool. And what about the B test? if you've taken the A you already know what it's like to fly with the ball. It's not cheating. It's preparing. When I was in engineering school we'd work problem after problem while studying for our finals. They weren't the same problems that appeared on the exam, but they were similar, and we were training ourselves on technique. Were we cheating? No, we were studying for the test. And in the case of a skill test, there's almost no way you can cheat. Either you can do it, in a testing scenario or you can't. And you are preparing for it on every skydive you make.

I specifically asked one of the PD guys about how the no stow band dbags (in development by SunPath) worked out with their competition HMA lines. The report is no problem. SunPath is continuously tweaking the system, when its ready it should be nice. Another plus about Technora (HMA) lines - you can reline them yourself. No bartacking is required and no funky cascades to get you into trouble.

I don't believe you have interpretted what you have heard correctly. To my knowledge there is NOT ONE SINGLE report of a cypres failing to fire when needed. Sometimes it fires when it isn't wanted. And sometimes the fact that it fires isn't all too helpful because the person under their reserve is in pretty bad shape, or in a really bad spot. However it is an electromechanical device and could conceivably fail. That's part of why it is subject to rigorous testing every 4 years, and retired permanently after 12.

yes, I'm sure there's a REASON why a novice jumper, making a solo, who is going out ahead of the freefliers becuase there's this prevailing notion that EVERY flat flier MUST get out before a single freeflier, no matter what the uppers are doing or what the jumprun is, or what the planned pull altitudes are, is sitting there in the door counting the exit count on his fingers, then gettting in the door and then giving a READY SET GO for his SOLO jump. Sometimes, after a day of bad spots, you just want people to get the fuck out of the airplane... is that so wrong? When was the last time you saw a CASA or Skyvan make a go round? They just haul ass along jump run and don't care much if you end up in the next county.

Do you know how long it took L&B to get the Pro-Track to market after announcing it??? Two, maybe three YEARS. It's much more damaging to release a product sooner due to market pressure, and have it suck. This is what killed Time-Out with the Evolution2000. They worked hard to get that out before L&B came out with the ProTrack, but it just sucked. A year later pro-tracks were on the market and they worked perfectly. I don't mind the delays with the Neptune, because it means that they are committed to quality. Alti has a strong reputation with the Altimasters, they would be hurt more by releasing a product that had any issues with it. So, I'm comforted by the delay to market. What it means is that the Neptunes, when they are finally available will be a real solid competitor to the ProTrack.

The Blade which is the next generation Nitro from High Performance research is in a class by itself. I haven't jumped a cf2, but I'd put my Blade up against it without reservation. The Nitron and the Nitro are the same canopy. If precision gets to produce the Blade in the US there will be some fun times. But make no mistake, the Blade is intende to be loaded above 2.0, so it's a high end canopy. Just a smidge below the crossbraces in terms of overall performance. The Nitron can be mid range or high depending on wingloading. At 1.4 it's fun and safe. At 1.8 it's as aggressive as you want it to be while still retaining a ton of controllability. Put a nitron in deep deep brakes and watch what happens. It just STOPS in the air. Very very useful. And the short recovery arc, and deep powerful flare means you can dig out of just about anything. Its only shortcoming is when you really want to build up speed and you need to keep it diving after starting your hook too high.

As much as I have to say about Olav, I don't completely think he designed the test to be about money, although from what I've heard from some of the early tests he conducted (for his own teammates) I could easily be convinced otherwise. And yes, while it's nice to encourage people to take the test cold, it's completely unenforcable. A skill test is something that you should prepare for. I think that the "A" is basic enough, that adanced fliers can do it on the spot. And that's how many of the A's were conducted, as a qualifier for the space games. But the B,C and D? I assert that ain't no one going to pass those without some level of practice, whether they use a ball or not. Tell me you would be banging out the six transitions in order, just a few times before going in for your B? It seems like , it it were up to Olav, no one would be able to jump skyballs, because flying with them would be his registered trademark, and they could only be used for conducting his tests. More: how can you ever be "unprepared" for a skill test when improving your skydiving skills is what you do on every jump? Are you not allowed to practice transitions? Are you not allowed to jump with a ball to see what it's like? See what I mean, it's impossible to actually be "cold" when taking the test. And don't get me wrong, being able to do the transitions, or fly with a ball when it's just practice is very very different from having to perform while being TESTED, and with your cash on the line. So the test has that challenge BUILT into it. But it's impossible to not prepare, because you are preparing on every skydive.

Personally I disagree with Dave on this issue. Because it's a test of skill, it's something you can and must practice for. He's got a point of course, that there's a difference, between how prepared you are.. but there's a difference on any jump you attempt, how current you are and how experienced the moves. Alchemy doesn't win competitions without practicing their routines. If you want to be able to do something you work on it. That's how we get better. Besides this, I personally know people that saw Dave Brown practicing for his B test. And SteveO practiced for his D even though he wasn't supposed to. So Dave wants it to be like sight reading a piece of music you've never seen before. But everyone knows what the test is, so people will practice transitions and docks without a ball if they don't have access to a ballmaster or dropzone that allows it. And if you want to keep coming up with tests that folks have no experience of, then the test have to keep changing and there's no standard.

That's because their configuration really sucks for skydiving. The buttons are not well located for all mounting systems. The switch to put it in VCR/Camera mode are soft, rather than hard - no ergonomic feedback, and no LANC port for a visual indicator of mode. The native format is also compressed, which means a slight loss of video quality.

That's not crazy at all. There are plenty of circumstances where a no pull on level 1 may still result in advancement to level 2. In fact that ISP allows for it, because CAT A (Level I) only has a requirement (TLO) of "assisted pull" - this allows it to be mapped with the first few static line or IAD jumps where you don't pull for yourself or even tandem progression where the TM might initiate the pull sequence. Since Level II is not significantly more taxing than level I sometimes it actually hinders student learning to FAIL them on their first jump, when they might progress better if they are advanced. Now that said, any one I pass on level I is fully informed that they are being given a nod and that pulling on level II is absolutely essential. They are also watched extra closely on II during the practice pulls, for overall altitude awareness and at the moment of truth. No one gets released ever ever ever without having done a solo pull. So it's not crazy.. experienced instructors do it all the time.

Cat G and H do not comprise AFF. "AFF" as it is commonly taught maps onto Cat A through E. AFF dropzones (the good ones at least) still teach something akin to Cat F, G, and H but they call it something else. All the requirements on the A license proficiency card are still covered.

How is the AAD going to help if you cutaway at 600 ft? How is the RSL going to help if you just don't pull? Ron, you know as well as anyone else (I hope) that the RSL and the AAD are two SEPARATE safety devices for two SEPARATE scenarios. I understand when I hear newbies say that don't need an RSL because they have an AAD, or that they don't need an AAD because they have an RSL, but YOU? Come on Ron! I too was surprised to hear that from Ron. But they are not entirely separate either. There are situations where either, if properly functioning, will save you. There are situations where only one, if both are properly functioning, will save you. There are situations where neither, properly functioning will save you. (that's going to hook someone, I know) And there are situations where either one, if improperly functioning will kill you. The relative probabilities of these scenarios will be debated and weighed against each other for years to come.

Metal reserve handles have deployed far more reserves at unwanted times (on at least one occasion resulting in a fatality) than soft ones. Your attitude about RSL's is worrisome because it suggests that you might be comfortable knowing that it's there, rather than taking the steps to pull your handle no matter what. Under nearly all "normal" cutaways your RSL will be activating your reserve before you actually do and kinking your cable in the process. I'm not comfortable with that. I want to be the one pulling my reserve. The RSL saves people who have ALREADY FUCKED UP by being so low that they can't activate their own reserve in time. It is my plan not to be one of those people and the fact that I have bet my life on it, keeps me focused. I do jump with a CYPRES, but I'm not in love with it, I will jump without it if necessary, and if I ever need it, I will strongly consider giving up the sport.

That's cute, and if true, absolutely useless to anyone in this discussion. Because obviously then, airfoil has nearly nothing to do with canopy flight characteristics.