DSE

Rigging Innovations made me a super lite-weight hackey with a foam golfball inside. It looks and feels like a heavy hackey but weighs next to nothing. Just last week had an FFC where a heavy hackeysack caused a nasty hesitation.

And I know people that never learned to pack, never did water training...etc. Just because some people break the rules does not mean the process is flawed. If the consistent evaluative process were not observed, we're right back to "my buddy is pretty good, and he's my buddy, so I should sign him off and let him get his D regardless of how badly he flies, how often he S turns in the pattern, and regardless of how many times he's turned 180's in the student landing area...." Without a consistent baseline, it's all subjective so there may as well not be any sign-off in the first place.

+1, having had a premature deployment in the door of an aircraft early on; I was grateful for a hard helmet (that bears the aircraft paint job embedded in it) when I hit my head. I can think of one fatality that would have been prevented had a hard helmet been worn vs a frap hat.

Gonna be hard to shoot yourself with a 300mm. I'd recommend a Peleng 8mm, but add a pistol grip to the camera with a trigger. Set your audible's first alarm for 1K for best results.

Apparently you can't learn in Hawaii anyways if you don't have a B-license You can always do AFF there. I did (started there)

Mountains, powerlines, trade winds, tall trees, o my! The ocean is the least of your worries. Trades combined with obstacles and few outs is the bigger concern, IMO. People come to Hawaii where it's common to jump in winds that would ground most low-timers. If you learn in Hawaii, you can jump pretty much anywhere.

JOS just bested their record, they're up to 13. Now trying for 15

These guys are here kikkin' it out, and doing nicely. Inspiring to be around their attitude and comraderie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAecgM-q8b8 You must have at least a B license to jump there. Not so much a tight landing area, but no outs and winds that will likely be unfamiliar.

Just in the UK, or in the US as well? What if as an American I went to the UK? Would I have to show some proof.... how does it work? _justin Hopefully someone from the BPA might answer this one. I can tell you if you came to the states with an endorsement from someone in the BPA's instructional progam, most DZ's in the US would accept it, but the US requirements for flying a wingsuit are different. I don't know if the BPA would accept a US endorsement from someone not meeting the BPA requirements? Either way...there has always been a PFI, BMI, or PFC endorsement. Back to OP, the Coach Course went well today, jumps tomorrow. The Brits that are here had a couple guys wanting to hang out and learn more about the PF method; they were quite interested in the kinesthetic and isometrics.

JVC is active OIS.

To play devils advocate; I know of one S&TA that was tossed off a DZ (with video support) for being a safety hazard in multiple instances. A different S&TA passively participated in an event that ultimately let to a fatality. Counting on a USPA appointee doesn't offer any fundamental security. If there is to be a mandated course to pass people off for HP canopies or high wingloadings, it would require a consistent evaluative process vs an opinion.

oops, fixed. er...Thanks

Any of the "newer" Canon or Nikons with more accurate focus most ie; multizone focus modes work great as bodies. That said, don't use AI modes, I'm merely using it as an illustration. I'm not a Nikonista...I only use Nikon lenses for motion picture work, so I only have a passing familiarity with their bodies. I love the T2i, the 40/50D, the 7D, 5D. I only know one skydiving photographer that has a 1D, and he's well out the league of *most* skydiving photogs. The 18/55 kit lens that comes with Canon cams is perfect for *most* aerial work without spending an arm and a leg. For tandems, it's more than fast enough. It's challenged in the door of small aircraft such as a KingAir (trying to get the student in the door) but it's great for everything else. A 15mm is a little better, but you'll spend as much on the lens as on the body. It's cheap, lightweight, and is good in well lit to sunset conditions. The Canon 15mm is better than the Sigma, IMO. It's significantly faster to focus.

Vegas capture in the VMS and Pro versions is 100% identical. In fact, it hasn't changed as a capture utility for nearly 4 years. There is NO COMPRESSION when using USB or 1394 as an input/transfer protocol. The compression is done in the camera, known as "DV." Vegas Pro has features that allow for hardware cards to be used on CAPTURE such as the Black Magic Design or AJA cards, while VMS has these features turned off in the system prefs (can be exposed by a knowledgeable geek). Over 1394 or USB, the data transfer is 100% bit for bit the same as what comes from tape. Whether you capture from tape with Premiere, Vegas, Edius, Pinnacle; if the source is the same source, file size will be identical. True, flags/metadata are marginally different but the IEEE spec is the same across the board. Perhaps I'm missing the point?

I'd venture it's a young redtail. Banding, tail colors don't come in until the bird matures. The terminal may never band black where others are solid black, and everything in between. It definitely isn't an osprey nor kestrel (commonly called the Sparrow hawk).

Rich, There are *several* really good canopy course coaches out there with very solid, functioning programs. USPA might do well to work with what's there vs trying to re-invent the wheel. There is also a model of "buying" an existing educational program; maybe now is a good time to repeat it. I'd agree; an advanced canopy course is more what we need vs doing anything differently in the ISP. FWIW, my home DZ does not allow a wingloading beyond 1.0 for the first 100 jumps. There is a canopy program in the late fall that all newer jumpers are "strongly encouraged" to attend that includes a rehash of the canopy portions of the ISP and conversations about jumping at DZ's that have higher traffic/larger loads. USPA should be applauded for participating in a discussion on DZ.com. Somewhere in all these ideas has to be an answer. Hopefully USPA will continue to participate here.

There are none with good lenses, properly set up AF options, and a good body. Depending on the lens, what I"m shooting I may well use AF.

Your last statement first—I’ve never spoken to you about canopy safety, downsizing progression, or any related topic. And I’ve never said to anyone that USPA shouldn’t address downsizing due to perceived liability. (And in fact USPA already does recommend downsizing progression in the SIM.) I don’t know whose words you think you’re repeating, but they’re not mine. As to your first statement, there is no USPA position that holds that restrictions on downsizing or landing areas can only be recommended, not mandated. Recommendations and education may have been USPA’s methods of choice to date for some of these issues, but that doesn’t mean that the USPA board has taken a position that it can never mandate something in this arena. Overall, we’re glad this thread is so active and we’re pulling some good ideas from it. I’ll also invite anyone to give us their thoughts on our new web page as well. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, we want the full range of ideas to consider how to attack this problem; nothing is off the table. Ed Scott, USPA Executive Director Awe gee, Ed, you've forgotten our conversation in front of the Cafe during Nationals? When I was uploading video to Good Morning America for you? That was a special time for me. It was a good conversation. You might recall the PD flags that kept breaking off/falling to the ground in front of the cafe and that while we were talking, there was a person there trying to hammer wooden pegs into the Eloy dirt.

no, no, no. Didn't you read upthread where my position is demolished? The solution is that we're not teaching S/L any longer, so people don't learn canopy skills properly. If they learned canopy skills according to the actual ISP, they'd not be having issues at 500 jumps. Require the canopy course between the C and D licenses, you'd get maybe perhaps possibly somewhere, I think (but I'm not sure). However, a fair number of people don't go for the C/D licenses. A recent collision involved an A license skydiver with 400 jumps. I'm looking forward to hearing discussion on this topic at PIA in a few months. The USPA's position has been they can't mandate downsizing, and that they can't mandate landing areas, they can only recommend. And from Ed Scott's mouth to my ear, they will not mandate nor recommend downsizing progression due to a perceived risk of liability.

You've mistaken me for Billvon or Skymama. But thank you, they're awesome benchmarks.

Gotta take the good with the bad. The same mechanism that allows USPA to inform everyone of changes, or allows us to gather news, incidents, share stories very quickly...also allows people like the OP to make genuine mistakes in attacking someone. And in instances where someone is trying to commit intentional fraud, getting the word out faster is better, don't you think? This thread is simply an illustration of foot-in-mouth-gone-worldwide (Something that we all do from time to time?).

November 8. *maybe* I can get you a ticket to the launch event at 550 Madison on the 13th. I might know one of the presenters.

Ditto Mike...hope to see you on the best coast this winter. It's always fun having your big-ass goofy smile around. And you always have the BEST beer with you!

There is a recent video floating around, where there are very experienced wingsuiters flying 180 to a large formation. In other words, this happens at all skill levels. This is yet another reason (I hope) that folks realize the value in starting small and growing the group later.