mdrejhon

However, that does not mean you shouldn't practice rear riser flares above 2000 feet. A knot on a reserve brake or reserve toggle falling off, you're going to HAVE to do a rear riser flare on a typical non-student canopy, whether you like it or not! So practice anyway. Just don't attempt to land on rears without consulting your instructor first.

Get Avast Free Edition from www.avast.com The amazing thing is that it blocks viruses better than Norton 360, in many of the www.av-comparatives.org tests. There's also AVG's own free edition. Reviews: http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/alwil-avast-home-edition-4-7.html http://www.cnet.com.au/software/security/0,239029558,339283664,00.htm As you can see, the reviews are very good even for this free software. Some virus-protection makers have basic free editions for personal use, as a method of free advertising for their more expensive products. You should also install Microsoft's free Defender software too, to block spyware. So that you have both a virus scanner and a spyware blocker. Don't bother buying crappy old Norton 360 when there's a better free scanner. There are others that are even better than both, but costs money. For your mother, a good free scanner is probably all she needs.

I think it varies by canopy and canopy size. Your profile says a 230. Rear riser landings on my Sabre 170 doesn't use much strength, and if I pull rears too hard or far down, the canopy threatens to stall on me. Sometimes rear riser pressure is relatively light on some small canopies and some people actually prefer to rear-riser land some of them than toggles. To the original poster (Especially if you're a student): The risks is why it's very important to consult some form of a professional such as instructor in person, and to play at high altitudes to test the rear riser flares many times first. Flare slow, fast, shallow, deep, compare the flare to the normal toggle flare etc. Rear riser landings can be easy when it's done properly but it's a whole different ballpark where you can get hurt if you try to flare it like the rears were just you do with your toggles; unlike pulling toggles on most canopies (of new jumpers) is adjusted where full stroke does not reach stall point, pulling rears too far can cause a stall and cause broken bones. This isn't as much of a concern for big docile student canopies, if that's what you're jumping, but the risk is there. You can stall with toggles, but on most typical canopies, it is much easier to stall with rear risers on most canopies, and crash land as a result. Treat it as if you're learning the flare of a totally new canopy, do the high altitude practice normally associated with jumping a different canopy, the flare is very unfamiliar on the first time. As always, be safe, talk to the appropriate guy on your dropzone (aka the good 'ol instructor) especially if you're a student or new jumper, since you didn't enter jump numbers...

There were major call disconnection problems with the BlackBerry 8830 World Phone that were solved by a firmware upgrade, get the latest 8830 OS upgrade and install it via BlackBerry Desktop. Much better telephone quality with the latest BlackBerry OS firmware. (Version 4.2.2.365 or later -- download here from blackberry.com)

Hello, I have collected a number of backup BlackBerries over the years -- A 7290 and two 8700's. All of them use SIM cards so they all work interchangeably with the same phone number by moving a SIM card between them. Some of these can be obtained really cheap from used cellphone stores. So if my BlackBerry gets lost or broken, I always have some backups I can use. I've broken units before, and at least one come in handy. Even a lowly old color-model BlackBerry bought off eBay for about $50, serves as a good backup -- just get a new replacement SIM card and slap it in, you're back in the running! Also, if your BlackBerry is a Curve 8310, it can be tracked remotely, it has built-in GPS. You can install special background software on that BlackBerry that can be remotely activated by email, and boom -- your taxi driver is being covertly tracked as a dot on a map from any Internet-connected computer. Get the police chasing after him. Stuff such as FlexiSPY or other software for BlackBerry. This may be overkill for some, but at least you have this option if you'd like to do that.

Given insufficient info; so a safe boilerplate answer. (1) Talk to your instructors on dropzone. Although you might be reluctant to, it's something that really needs to be watched and taught in person in order to be done safely. (2) Get Brian Germain's book "Parachute and its Pilot"; very great reading and answers this question too. It is a popular book around here.

I don't do camera, but I have a comment: Depending on your video workflow, one could install a computer-based EIS filter. Basically, let the computer remove the shakes from the video. EIS can be done in post-process. Many video editing software now has an anti-shake filter. But that's still cumbersome, though it works when you're rescuing video that you have time to edit, and need to be included in some final product. So if you have some shaky CX7 footage that needs to be "rescued", there's an option.

You can avoid it by being a little creative. For example, drive Chicago to Toronto instead, have fun in Toronto. Then, catch Porter Airlines from Toronto downtown Island Airport to Halifax. Porter Airlines is an amazing experience -- first class for the price of economy, without the security hassles at all. From a small-town-style airport minutes from a megacity downtown core. It avoids the crowded Toronto airport too, that's far away from Toronto downtown, and you fly from a tiny municipal airport. The waiting lounge is better there than many of the "Captian's Clubs" at big airports; free Wifi, and you don't even need to have airplane tickets to enjoy the lounge -- waiting family members can wait in the lounge too, as it's walk in and walk out with screening at the airplane boarding point. Good seat pitch too, North America's friendliest airline staff. Try this airline sometime if you plan to travel to Halifax again. (flyporter.com) Also, if you visit Ottawa, the new Ottawa International airport is believed to be North America's 2nd most efficient big-city airport from what I last heard two years ago. The main thing that travellers raved about Ottawa's new airport was how quick it was to leave: To disembark and reach the taxi. The bags beat me to the baggage carousel, and I was in the taxi less than 10 minutes after I disembarked the plane. Yes, this was 2008 - my return from my Argentina vacation. The longest delay was 5 minutes at the customs lineup which helped the bags beat me in an already quick baggage system, but that wasn't painful compared to my experience at other airports. Also, recently during a vacation, I flew between two points in Argentina (Bueno Aires to Bariloche, Patagonia) using Argentina's flag airline and the hassles was minimal. Screening was pretty lightweight; similiar to America 10 years ago and not terribly much of a hassle. Granted, it was purely a domestic route, and granted being a mere low-risk Canadian tourist, seemed to help a lot. My biggest complaint is the tight seat pitch of the Air Canada 767-300 going to Bueno Aires, Argentina, but there were power sockets at every seat, so I was able to plug in my laptop and other things, as well as use the IFE. Funky rainbow-color-wash LED lighting now installed in the newer planes, kept things a tad more interesting. The most painful of this trip was the connection in Toronto's big old airport, which I'm not that terribly fond of, but I'm a guy capable of sleeping nonstop in a seat of 31" pitch... Though my companion who is much taller than I, had more difficulty with the seat pitch than I.

More of that, please! I don't own a car anymore, I usually use carsharing these days. I use VRTUCAR in Ottawa, which is similiar to Zipcar (but at about half the price). I pay approx $3 per hour, plus about 20 cents per km (gas/insurance included). Sometimes I even use it for long roadtrips, as it results in $100 all-inclusive weekends that includes the cost of gas, insurance and approximately 400 kilometers and about 48 hours of use. It's an agentless system that's post-billed at the end of the month, giving me flexibility in payment. I just reserve online, walk up to one of 45 cars parked individually city-wide, and drive away using my universal key. I'm a driver that typically use only about 6000-7000km per year these days, so it's cheaper for me to use carsharing: Monthly bills, approximately $100 to $500 and I use the cars frequently. The $500 bill came from a month where I had two big roadtrips and about 3000km of use in one month - that's all inclusive, gas and insurance - still cheaper than car rental + gas + insurance. When I total all my 12 monthly bill payments, I see about $4000 annual cost where I'd be paying $10,000 per year for a leased recent car. In my city, there are choice of recent cars including Matrix, Yaris, Civic Hybrid. I don't need to worry about paying for gas, insurance, maintenance. It's almost like leasing a car, with the additional inconvenience of having to reserve online. Sometimes I can do it spontaneously, during off hours -- if 1 car is already used, I go to one of the other 44 cars -- but for a 2 day roadtrip, I definitely need to reserve in advance so it's not taken when I need to do the roadtrip. A nice convenience is that my city offers reduced rates for nighttime use; Sometimes I can often walk up to the car, reserve in my cellphone's browser, and then drive it away -- and stay at a friend's overnight for less than the price of taxi as a result, typically only $10 for that particular night's car use - where can you rent a car for $10 including insurance and gas? For combined use, some people pay only $50 per month; using it only to haul stuff or go to job interviews as well as areas that's outside of bus service or in a hurry to make it between multiple errands. However, I'm a more frequent user of the carshare. More convenient than car rental, less convenient than owernship. It's a good compromise for me. For the rest of the time, I try to use the train or bus. I also got lucky with a rare discount airfare from Ottawa to Los Angeles for Perris P3. I may find some economy compact, like a used Geo Metro, that has a low cost of ownership -- or if I can somehow keep insurance premiums low enough to make the gas savings worth it -- maybe a motorcycle. I'd still keep my membership in Vrtucar, as there's a wide variety of cars when I need to haul stuff or a bigger group of friends. Currently, I am ready for $200 barrel oil and $2+ per liter gas ($8 per gallon) - even if it means $50 jump tickets in Canada - but I feel sad for many people who aren't going to be ready, all the families who are going to be hurt by this. It may not happen soon, but it definitely is giving me pause when I get the urge to get back into car ownership.

Nobody looks foolish wearing a sweatshirt above a jumpsuit, in a completed 49-way. I'm sure webbed gloves would help too. My first 49-way had at least one of each, I think. I am trying to practice more mantis, tunnel time really helps to untrain boxman and train to mantis. I'll agree that stretching out all the fingers, and toes out like a ballerina helps. Maximum area to the wind. Lots to learn, lots to practice, I think I can still fall a whole 5-10 miles per hour slower than I currently do.

$35 to 13500 here in Canada. Price staying stable (strong Canadian dollar helps), same as I paid in 2005. But, the pressures are now to switch to $40 for Twin Otter flights at many places. And you know -- that's a miserable $40.30 USD with the Canadian dollar a hair slightly more valuable than the U.S. dollar these days...

I am impressed your doctor knew about wind tunnels. It shows that they are slowly becoming more mainstream -- including news coverage and new installations at amusement facilities, etc.

That's the comparision I usually try to use, usually on a annual risk basis. The most common comparision I use is that the cumilative risk level of 17 skydives approximately equals 10,000 miles of driving, which are based on 2004 U.S. statistics. However, this threads brings up a good point: I need to doublecheck if this includes passengers. There is so much difference in how much risk one is subjected to. A safer driving activity can be 1000 times safer than a more dangerous driving activity. The risk difference is huge when comparing a one-time tandem jumper with an approved instructor, versus a swooper doing hundreds of jumps per year. Most whuffos only want to try one jump in their lifetime to check off a "to do in my life" item. In this case, it's okay to claim the statistic that a one-time jump has less chance of death than driving for one year at typical driving mileage. As long as it is clearly pointed out, that it still has its high level of risk as the statistic is cumilative; a skydiver doing hundreds of jumps per year is more at risk in a year than their driving in a year. Also, some skydiver's driving habits are pretty extreme -- so even this may even be a meaningless statistic too.

And a picture of a Looney Tunes bomb on the cutaway.

Please, please get a PD143R instead of a Raven Micro 150. The PD's are much safer, even at 7 square feet smaller. I have no qualms about my Micro 150 in my container, it will save your life, but it's not going to be a pretty landing except at light wingloadings.

i like that one the best so far... Good one. Or the more whuffo-friendly "CUT" for cutaway, and "PASTE" for reserve.

You need to quantify. Among tandems, which the mother is presumably theoretically going to take, a ONE-TIME tandem jump is safer than one full year of driving in an average car at typical North America driving distances. Most skydivers don't dispute that. There's no doubt that 300 jumps a year with swooping is definitely more dangerous than driving. Most skydivers don't dispute that either. I respect both camps. I do agree with you, on average, for licensed skydiver, skydiving is more dangerous however. Some people modify their line to say that skydiving is safer than motorcycling -- many motorcyclists who are in big motorcycle clubs (i.e. 100+ motorcyclists) also know people, at least one indirectly, who have died motorcycling. Although there's overlap in safety based on risk and type of either activity, it's harder to disagree than with cars.

It could very well be in a totally different country -- it's an awfully lot of unballasted helium.

I was doing the 190 versus 170 debate for my first rig. I was a little borderline, but I think I was within reasonable parameters (big DZ with lots of outs and good people, sit-in of canopy course) so I went with a 170 at 1.1 wingload at 59 jumps. I still jump it to this date, 170, about 200 jumps later. I've demoed and rented 150's but am not in a hurry to go downsize, mainly due to expense, but visiting other dropzones on a really hot day, like Perris and its unpredictable winds, can make a 170 feel much scarier than a 143 on a calm day in my actual experience (I've jumped a PD143R demo). It is easy to say that go for the 190. But you will probably get advice, even from instructors, from the dropzone that a 170 is probably fine because many dropzones tend to recommend wingload 1.0 so you'd be right around that. If you can get to a canopy course ASAP (Scott Miller, Brian Germain) then you're much safer on the 170, unless you are one who tend to be daring. It is my opinion a new 170 feels safer than an old used 190 with ZP that has lost a little bit of its ability to hold air, so if you're buying new, then that helps. But rent a 190 several, several, several times, under supervision. Most people agree that a good canopy course is strongly recommended, no matter what... So in brief, 190 if you don't want a canopy course, but 170 is probably fine if you want to go to a canopy course BEFORE jumping it. You'd be within a lot of DZO's safety parameters, assuming you're at least an average jumper. Now.... Do that. Talk to your instructors and coaches who see your landings, talk to the DZO, talk to the gear store. Get a unamious recommendation. If all say 170, chances it's no problem - just get canopy coaching. If one of these people recommend a 190 even though everybody else says 170, go with that.

Hey, thanks for the explanation.... I knew the tunnel operates with the vents a bit open, but I wasn't aware that to ADJUST the vent, it had to shutdown... (I wonder if that's universally the case for all the Skyventure recirculating tunnels?) The tunnel always shuts down between groups, so they would have the opportunity to adjust the vent many times a day, between 2 and 4 times per hour, if needed. Seems to be often enough to keep the tunnel cool...

Duh yes, correct. People weights, DO vary.

I think there is a ferocious debate about digital versus analog for another reason: It takes a little bit of education to be able to effortlessly read numbers, especially numbers bigger than 1 or 2 digits. Basically, distance perception is more of a born ability, but numbers perception is more of a taught ability. Reading an analog altimeter is just about interpreting the distance between the needle and a specific point such as the number 3 (for a common example of a pull altitude). Analog is more friendly when you're not sure how proficient one is with numbers -- since it's more idiot proof especially when one might, by chance, be poor with "numbers perception". However, those proficient with numbers will find better performance with digital... Especially in today's digital age, as long as you've got a good sense of being able to measure fallrate, measure difference between two altitudes, just by a quick numbers glance without needing to calculate. For example, some people can look at 77XX feet and instantly know they're about 2.3Kfeet from their 5500 feet breakoff altitude, without needing to calculate numbers. Some schools often teach addition tables, or enforce a good doctrine of manual addition/subtraction which allows people to automatically instantly recognize the difference between a 6 and a 9 is always 3, with good carryover, so that looking at 6900 feet versus 9600, is instantly recognized as a hair less than 3000 feet, while 9900 versus 6600 feet is instantly recognized as a hair more than 3000 feet. I can intantly tell by a quick glance -- but not everyone can. I stress, this is not calculation, but merely instant recognition of a general number pattern imprinted in the mental capability from proper education. In fast, most only need to look at one digit -- the most significant digit, to guesstimate how close you're close to breakoff, and knowing 9, 8, 7, 6, 5K to a 4500 breakoff. Even in situations where hundreds matter, it's easy to instantly mentally roundoff to the nearest 500 as easily as checking whether a needle is closer to which tick, if you have remotely reasonably good number perception. In fact, there are cases where one have had unintentional early breakoffs using an analog altimeter -- broke off 1000 feet early because of a hurried glace, and read 4500 when they were really 5500 feet -- that is solved by wearing a digital instead. When one is focussing on staying docked stable, and is not wearing an audible, and you see a funnel in front of you, you're not going to always do more than a quick glance at the altimeter. This is actual true case... Many people only merely need an instantaneous glance of a small number (could be just the thousands and hundreds digits only). This can be important in an emergency situation, but only if you've got effortless instant number reading capability on quick glances at numbers. Not everyone is able to do that (i.e. Dyslexics or those slow with numbers, or those who need to concentrate to read numbers, may function much better with an analog) Given an undefined case, analog is more reliable and trustworthy in general -- the human mind only needs minimal education to interpret an analog. Besides, one must always be comfortable and familiar with analog anyway literally by prerequisite (loaned altimeters, student altimeters, etc) but I clearly see it's not always universally the best for universally everybody. Being able to handle digitals quickly, do require more educated numbers perception than analogs. But any halfway-decent school and today's digital world, the ever-diminishing analog faces, is already making at least some of the new generation be able to handle digitals impressively quickly. I agree with people who say one should begin with an analog. But I disagree that people who say that analog is always universally better for everyone (even for finer things such as fallrate and altitude differences), once you're ready to move on.

As long as most people are jumping, I tend to be okay with a vertical or near-vertical descend as long as the winds are steady and non-turbulent (My first two or three nearly-vertical landings, including slight back-ins, was on student status -- Manta 288 on a borderline windy day that picked up). I have had to do that many times before. Or even very slight backwards too (negative groundspeed) I can collapse my canopy quickly enough not to fall over. I do still fly a slightly bigger boat of a 170 so I live with that occasionally when everyone with 135 and 150's are jumping and nobody's de-manifesting. I've witnessed a descent-arresting thermal on a student jump, and it was pretty curious, but that was a Manta 288 again. Granted I still fly a 170 - and you're a 150 - and I often jump on borderline windy days. (My first peas landing was a crabbed "back-in") That would be some scary thermal if it could keep a 150 aloft. I'd be a scared too, especially if turbulence was also involved. Either way, if I'm seeing a full Otter load of RW jumpers when it's borderline windy, I'm probably going to go -- but I'm more likely not going to be landing in the pattern but in a different corner of the dropzone... When I see a erratic winds, I know it's time to get the hell away from being downwind from obstacles, even if I have to land out -- I don't want to stumble my landing because of turbulence from a hangar. Land squarely in that middle of a consistent field. Although your landing is far more unusual than my typical landing I've developed somewhat a fear of flying over transitions when I experience turbulence (i.e. from sand/asphalt to flying over foilage on a really hot day). I often experience turbulence when going through transitions - so that's the thermal effect. If staying in the pattern is remotely scary, I prefer to land crosswind in the middle of a comfortable field -- I'll tumble if I have to, but at least it's a more proportionally predictable risk. I've had enough downwind tumbles that I know what to expect based on perceived groundspeed. But some scary landings in that I've had to cope with more than expected horizontal ground speed - when everybody is landing downwind because the landing pattern happened to be set that way, I'm going to follow suit. Some exciting standups, some exciting tumbles. So I'm no longer shy of landing a comfortable crosswind standup in an out-field if I can avoid a turbulence-prone main landing area that forces me to fly over too much crap.... Sometimes I even head directly to the alternate landing area even at 2500 feet, if I see a big cluster of traffic converging in a way that I can't safely merge into the landing pattern from where I currently am (even if I could, but I know landing patterns tend to suddely become chaotic later.) I mean, I can merge, but when I'm dealing with turbulence, I'd rather concentrate on landing safely without worrying about who's behind me, above, below, and to my sides. I'm OK with lots of canopy traffic if I'm already in a favourable flight line... I've had my past violations of landing patterns for one reason or another (minor sashaying like as you describe -- being too high in a landing pattern isn't a good excuse). The scariest is when people scared to follow a mandated-downwind pattern, start landing in ALL directions in the SAME landing field -- I get totally confused. So if I sense the traffic is going to be remotely chaotic, I'm happy to land out - the truck is going to pick me up anyway... When everyone is grounded or several people de-manifest, I take that as a cue to do the same, though... I think winds fast enough to elevator a 150 vertically, would probably ground me too, but elevators under a 170 don't generally scare me as I've had many soft elevator landings - just need to collapse the canopy fast! The turbulence is what SCARES me though - I'd rather successfully land slowly backwards in nice brisk steady wind, than to land in turbulence at lesser moderate wind, turbulence causing unexpectedly weak flare (I've been there either way). Although I've never been dragged by a canopy or broken anything due to a downwind landing, a canopy collapse is an actual death statistic that I'd rather avoid. So key word is turbulence for me - that's the plague.

Slightly expanded layperson explanation: Terminal velocity is function that also includes air pressure. Your terminal velocity is faster when you fall at 30,000 feet than at 10,000 feet because of lower air pressure. Now, when you fall from space altitudes where the sky is black, it's now almost a vaccuum so terminal velocity can actually be above supersonic speeds.

Actually, I didn't say opening the vents to expel 25% of the air per cycle -- Sorry about not being clear... Please correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding Skyventure can continuously operate while the vents are open a tad. No need to shut down the tunnel. A tiny opening can still replace the air rather quickly enough to keep it almost equal to the outdoors temperature, as well as the SkyVenture has more than 25% "headroom" - i.e. It'd takes a lot of venting to slow 150mph down to a 120mph -- and I don't even know if SkyVenture vents can be opened that big to hurt the airflow by that margin. Still plenty strong enough with enough performance to keep flying, even if the vents are always open a bit, no? Imagine that the recirculator becomes a 99% recirculating, 1% non-recirculating (pick a small number - % of air vented versus % of air recirculated, per cycle) -- just enough to keep it cool. No need to shut down the tunnel... Recirculators, in theory, are more efficient than non-recirculators. I don't remember the exact terminology used, but I think terminology used is "inlet" or something. There are two and I understand that a bit of hot air is pushed out somewhere, and a bit of cooler air is sucked in somewhere, replacing a % of the air that is recirculated. It may not be much per cycle, but adds up to a great deal of cooling in what ends up becoming a fairly efficient method of air-conditioning of the recirculating tunnel (but only as far as down to outdoors temperature). Which makes it excellent at keeping at room temperature under most operating conditions which is what I have always perceived... Even in Skyventure recirculating tunnels, they admit a little external air -- even while running. The vents are adjustable, to adjust the amount of adding external air - and to expel stale recirculating air. You see the panels on the left and right sides of a recirculating Skyventure. (link - see square depression with inwards-opening trapdoor flap on the left side in the middle). They behave as a kind of movable flap that can be cracked open a little by remote control by the tunnel operator. Even while people are flying. There's plenty of excess power in a powerful freefly-capable recirculator to not need it to be a 100% pure recirculator, it can introduce outside air at variable amount of small percentages.... I am sure they have specific operating procedures, such as preferring to run the vents intermittently within specific parameters, especially between groups, but it's my understanding airspeed is still capable of going well past bellyfly speeds even with vents open -- it may only need a tiny bit (say, trapdoor vent opened by a mere few centimeters - which makes it hard to see from the ground), if the weather is damn hot. Just open vent a little more, crank the motor up a tiny %, keep operating, tunnel runs a bit cooler at the same chamber speed -- the slight extra energy more offset by extra cooling of new air from the trapdoor vents. It's my understanding this is all controllable all right at the tunnel operator location... It seems to take them only mere seconds (almost immediate) for the air to stabilize after adjusting the vents and the motor speed, so they can do it pratically "on-the-fly" during hot weather if they need to... At least in theory anyway - they could even program the computer to maintain airspeed by modulating the motor in parallel to the vents - maybe some of them already do this now. (Maybe someone could chime in about how this is currently being done at some of the ventable recirculators)