DSE

They use it in the hospital that I was in for the past two weeks, and it works very, very well. You can concentrate on anything, but keeping your breathing and heartrate down helps to keep blood pressure in line and oxygen saturation in the high 90's. I learned a lot about it. No tin-foil hat required.

Strange, it was the first time in my life that my ball finally matched the size of my unit. At one point, it weighed 11 lbs all by itself. It was an impressive sight. Yes, we took lotsa photos in case I ever have the ball to post em'.

but can you do that while making it vibrate at a high speed? (otherwise known as a trill)?

It's not about the jump numbers. What it's really about is: -Getting manufacturers out of incentivizing instructors (which in turn gets a lot of them taking people out with low numbers) and the training game. -placing a cohesive instructional method and syllabus akin to IAD, AFF, S/L, and Tandem instruction that is one color, one message, and that everyone who instructs uses so that confusion amongst the "wild wild west teaching methods" are eliminated. -Bringing instruction in line with USPA guidelines so that instructors are also accountable for their mis-steps (ie-Scott's comment) But this isn't about the jump numbers of the Sebastian fatality, it's about procedures, consistency, and conforming to a long-established methodology of instruction. -Regardless of jump numbers (ie;500 jumps) anyone wanting to jump a WS will need an FFC. At 500 jumps, you can be a TI, too. With training. I'll use Jay Stokes as my example. Jay rec'd his FFC from me. More than once he commented "I'd never considered that." John Mitchell, an AFFI/TI with 5000+ jumps made similar comments during his FFC. I'm sure anyone who instructs has run into this sort of commentary. A wingsuit skydive isn't just another skydive. There is a lot to know, a lot to do, and it can't be taught in 10 minutes. When has Birdman or PF _ever_ pulled a rating from anyone for taking someone out with low numbers? Rolf Brombach, a Birdman I/E sends out a newsletter pleading with people to follow the rules, and less than 2 weeks later takes out someone with only 70-odd jumps. We _all_ know stories like this. One BMI/PFI looked me straight in the eye and said "I'm an AFFI, I'm a BMI/PFI, I can tell if someone is ready for the wingsuit or not." One of his students is dead at 118 jumps. Was his rating pulled? I'm told this discussion is no different than when AFF was brought to the USPA; no one thought it was necessary, a number of jumpmasters fought it. Yet AFF has proven to be one of the greatest assets of the USPA, and adopted in some format or another by nearly every other governing body in the world. It has opened another door for USPA to promote skydiving. USPA doesn't promote wingsuiting, we're not a recognized discipline by the FAI. This is a great first step towards achieving promotion and credibility, IMO.

As others have mentioned, if you want to shoot in a fixed shutter speed, shoot at least 1/500, but more importantly, you'll want to use auto-focus. Autofocus used to be too slow for a lot of what we do, but these days...it's plenty fast. As far as holding your head still, keep in mind you're moving relative to the tandem. Effectively, you're not moving at all because your fall rate matches theirs. As Saskia mentions, holding your head steady will make for a better shot.

This is not terribly intelligent, as it allows the exact "grandfathering" Glen mentioned up-thread. If you have a BMI or PFI, you're automatically a BPA instructor. Couldn't agree with this more. Get the manufacturers the hell out of the training aspect of wingsuit flying. They did a great job of identifying the necessity for training, and a very good job of identifying the parameters of a training program. However, they also incentivize trainers to sell suits, and therein is where the first part of the problem begins. I agree, Mark made some significant strides towards improving the credibility of wingsuit instruction in the UK. It's my understanding that the APF (Australians) are looking at a similar system. Does anyone know what the acceptable percentage of incidents/fatalities is for the USPA?

I don't think jump numbers have all that much to do with it, frankly. There are some absolute shit instructors out there, and some absolute gold ones out there. Unsuspecting kid that wants to jump a wingsuit and has 50-100 jumps doesn't know the difference. That's merely one point in favor of a rating system. Obviously, it's been felt for over a decade that quality wingsuit training is necessary. Jari/Chuck and others started it, Phoenix Fly continued it. Both programs have become so saturated with "first cousins" that it makes the genepools in Alabama look downright brilliant. Both are somewhat of a joke, IMO. The myriad reasons for a non-manufacturer-operated wingsuit training program is obvious, IMO. That doesn't mean that the number of totally awesome wingsuiters will increase, but I'll wager hard that the "no shit, there I was" stories will decrease, and the quality and advancement of wingsuiting will exponentially increase.

not necessarily. If the owner had purchased the name prior to Jackson's death, or can show any relation to anyone else named "michael jackson" or doesn't have a website already up in conjunction with "the" michael jackson....he's probably free and clear. The Lanham Act is where this falls if disputed through ICANN, and it's unfortunately not so easy. Of course, what kind of fool would pay 5M for the domain anyway? Business.com sold for more, but I can see the reasoning behind that one.

In Australia, a "cloud stamp/endorsement" is required to be in your log book before you're allowed to jump through clouds. I don't see the USPA requiring a wingsuit stamp/endorsement as being any different, thus demonstrating to a DZO or manifest that the bearer has been through a USPA wingsuit instruction course.

111. MattHoover.com? 8. Randy (Bones) 9. DSE-(I just won't be jumping)

two points: ~fill the gaps ~A lot of guys put on cameras and say "I'm just shooting whatever happens, but not looking to get a shot." Then you get down on the ground and review the "whatever happens" footage, which often enough, is not very good if anything is seen at all. Then you'll find yourself thinking "If I'd just lifted my head a little more" or "If I'd just held that position for a second longer..." and next thing you know....you're flying as a cameraman instead of simply flying a camera and the camera is the distraction. Be careful out there....I allowed myself to be distracted and it nearly cost me my life.

Well...iMovie can edit it after conversion, or you could use the demo of StreamClip or Titanium to convert them. Converting the MPEG2 to IAC or ProRes is no big deal and takes little time.

you'll have to convert it first then. StreamClip is a good tool, there are others. The SD content is standard MPEG2 with embedded AC3 audio. Apple just doesn't like MPEG.

First question is which version of FCE are you using. Phil nailed the second part; Is it an Intel-based proc? If not...game over. Then, be sure you're importing entire file structure/folders intact. This is CRITICAL with Apple systems.

I wish mine was merely "uncomfortable." My pelvis wasn't just cracked, it separated approx 4" on the top and 2" on the bottom. My left leg ended up 5" shorter than my right leg. that's not to mention the perf'd bladder and other organ damage. I feel the same way about dropping my toggle, "what a dumbass." I'll be glad when it's pain-free. Having friends from the DZ visit and the posts/PM's here really do help keep a positive attitude. As far as Vegas...anything I can do to help, I will. For the next few weeks, I'm just lying in bed doing almost nothing. Have laptop, will type. :-) BTW, for the OP. When you get your 'puter, it'll probably have anti-virus installed. Make sure you disable antivirus before trying to edit video. Video and antivirus don't go together very well.

None of the above disciplines require unique equipment that dramatically affects flight. None of them incur significant forward movement. They do not have unique deployment procedures, they do not require unique post-deployment procedures, they do not involve unique navigation skills, They don't have specific recommendations for equipment, and none of the above have a high potential for flatspins. None of them offer the opportunity for parts of the rig to be hidden or sucked inside the jumpsuit. A wingsuit skydive is more like a tandem skydive than any other discipline, IMO, simply because of the unique equipment and flight characteristics. All that having been said, I submit it's a valid debate that the USPA is negligent in not offering an "advanced coach" or similar rating for swooping/canopy control, and perhaps for other high-risk disciplines. I'd think that a wingsuit instructor rating would essentially be that; an "Advanced Coach" or "Coach II" rating.

Happy birthday John. You look terrific for an old guy.

Back up the bus. I'm not putting ANY responsibility for the fatalities on the instructors, and if it appears that way, mea culpa. These young men knew they were violating the rules; they're 100% responsible for their failure/fatality, just as I was responsible for the fuckups that occurred on my first flight. That said... A responsible skydiver who wants to learn a new discipline responsibily seeks out someone who can train them, guide them, and teach them. If the instructor fails to teach something critical, is it the student's fault for not knowing what he doesn't know? An example I recently used: A new skydiver wanting to know more about flying camera with a tandem came to me asking if I'd show him some things. We started out with safety discussions such as being aware/clear of the deploying drogue, being under/over the tandem, cone of danger, etc. Suppose I forget to teach him about the trap door that a tandem might catch him with, and he falls into that burble, taking out himself, the TI, and the student. Do I or don't I bear some accountability as an "authority figure" asked to train? I submit that I do. I'm not responsible for the incident, but I should be held accountable for what I failed to teach, just as an AFF instructor is accountable for what he/she may fail to teach? Glenn says: Agreed, these guys knew they were stepping out of the boundaries, and were determined. In Kulpa's case, he drove all the way across Florida on New Year's Day to get to a DZ where he knew he could get coaching. No one should be looking to place blame on the instructors involved in either of these fatalities. The "blame" has to lie with the deceased in both of these instances. I don't agree it's a huge assumption that they wouldn't have died, however. They may have still gone in, but they wouldn't have gone in on THAT particular day, were there a fear of official repercussion from an officating body. At least that's my take on it. If I know I could lose my rating, license, ability to skydive because I take someone out on a wingsuit jump before they reach required or recommended numbers, then I'm not even going to think twice about saying "no." The risk/reward is just too high. Perhaps I simply feel a higher degree of responsibility to my students than others may feel. If in my non-skydiver training world I fail to teach a critical component of an exercise, no one will die, they simply may lose their job. But they'll look to me to bear some level of accountability for failing to fully inform. In other words, I might not be indictable, but I believe I'm guilty of dereliction of duty. I find that reprehensible.

both are common, I use Permacel simply because it's what we keep in the production trucks, too. I think Permacel has more colors, too. I usually buy from General Theatrical, but this place is about the same price.

I know with a 100% certainty that Race Price and Dan Kulpa would not have died at jumps 118 and 110 had their instructors followed the currently established recommendations. Dan Kulpa would have turned 23 years old today. Of the two proposals I've seen that were going to be submitted to USPA, neither of them allowed for "grandfathering" of anyone. The recommendations for becoming a USPA-rated wingsuit instructor are significantly more stringent than those currently required by PF or BM. There may be a third, fourth, or tenth proposal that may allow for grandfathering, I dunno. I think doing so would be a huge mistake and an immediate hit on the credibility of any USPA program. I'm not in favor of more regulation either, but at least with USPA-designed/collated training, training would be consistent, instructors could be held accountable, and instructors would be tested or have documented evidence of their training for their renewals every year just as we are now. Will a rating system make for a perfect world? Hell no. There are a lot of AFFI's, TI's, coaches, S/L, and IAD instructors out there that shouldn't likely be allowed to be within 10 feet of a student. But a rating system overseen by the USPA would at the least, force SOMEONE to test and observe a potential wingsuit instructor candidate. I would expect the USPA to initially appoint a few Instructor/Examiners that would be responsible for certifying a candidate to be a wingsuit instructor, but at some future point in time, the I/E rating would have to be earned, just as it has happened/is happening with TI ratings. I can easily see people like Chuck Blue, Ed Pawlowski, Scott Callantine, and others like them being tapped out to be Examiners given their time in sport, current ratings, and wingsuit skills. That's a very valid point, and a scenario that can't be easily addressed, just as you can't prevent a 100 jump wonder from buying a Velo 90. Hopefully the GM program and S&TA oversight, plus common sense will help prevent this from occurring. If nothing else, hopefully a better educational focus on the part of the USPA will help reduce the number of "stooge instructors" that are out there.

A little more than 30 years. I was nominated for a Grammy with my tongueing techniques.

Can you tie a knot in a cherry stem using your teeth and tongue? Ask a flute player to teach you how to trill using a tongue technique. Really, really difficult, but you'd be amazed how well flute players can use their tongue.

They won't touch my ACL until my talus/fib/pelvis/peroneal nerve have healed. I'm at least 15 weeks away from being able to consider ACL repair. Missing the MCL doesn't make it any easier, however. A friend was over last night and he was lamenting my lower body damage and Monty Python came to mind...."It's only a flesh wound!"

I would agree with this rhetorical, Jarno.... As the guy that gave Jay Stokes his first flight course, it was enlightening for both of us. He was treated in much the same manner as I treat AFF students; as though he had no jumps. There are many aspects of a wingsuit jump that Jay had never considered, suit issues aside. Yet you'd struggle to find a skydiver more experienced in a wide variety of skydiving experiences than Jay Stokes. He had a lot of questions, and admitted that he'd never thought about this or that in terms of a wingsuit skydive. He knew why the number of recommended jumps existed, but hadn't thought about what those numbers may or may not mean. Flip side to that; 3 months ago there was a newsletter from a wingsuit manufacturer's examiner pleading that "we gotta obey the rules, guys," who a few days later took out a student without even 100 skydives. Self-regulation only works in a perfect world. The last two deaths alone have proved that it's not a perfect world. The Sebastian fatality would not have occurred had his instructor followed recommendations (USPA or manufacturer). He was turned down by more than one instructor, so he searched til he found one that would take him. The Moab fatality would not have happened had his instructor followed recommendations; I was there when the S&TA at my DZ told Race he couldn't fly a wingsuit jus a few weeks before. There is no acountability nor responsibility placed on their instructors shoulders. Both young men died with fewer than 118 skydives. Both might not be alive today had their instructors "followed recommendations" but they sure as hell wouldn't have died that day. Requiring 100 wingsuit skydives and having a beer with a buddy who is an "examiner" for PF or Birdman is a joke. 100 WS skydives isn't shit, and everyone of us know it. Couple that with the fact that most wingsuit "instructors" don't have coach or AFF ratings, they likely don't know how to teach in a manner that is effective and embedded. I believe when the Birdman program was initially set up by folks like Jari, Chuck Blue etc, the intent was that instructors would maintain integrity and uphold the standards they'd agreed to. Yet the lure of manufacturer incentives to sell suits is pretty strong and provides a provocative temptation to take someone out for a First Flight when they're maybe "just a few jumps short of the recommendation." In the case of one of the two deaths, I personally heard the "instructor" say "I'm a wingsuit instructor, I'm an AFF instructor, I can look at a student and know if he can do it or not. Numbers don't matter." We've all watched "instructors" give FFC's without teaching COA's, PCRP's, flatspin management, emergency procedures, navigation, waveoff, and stabilization techniques. One instructor (the one who inspired me to want to be an instructor) gives a first flight course away from the DZ that lasts about 10 minutes, and then expects the student to jump without his instructor being there to brief, observe, and debrief. There is a video of a guy on YouTube bragging about doing his first wingsuit jump, shows his Birdman "instructor" and the jump, and the guy later talking about how he celebrated his 75th jump in a wingsuit. It ws pretty obvious he didn't have very many skydives under his belt. Comparing wingsuit instruction to freefly or swooping instruction/coaching are absurd. They're irrelevant (IMO) for the reasons Jeff mentions above and more. Who's training the trainers right now? No one, really. If you've got a wingsuit, 100 jumps, and a few bucks, you're a "rated instructor." The jokes about ratings over a beer were once funny. My own first flight course included nothing about flying 180 degrees to others, navigation, emergency procedures, practice touches...It was just about putting the rig on the suit and deployment. Nothing more. The DZM pleaded with me to not go on that jump but I stupidly did anyway. It took a long time after that jump til Scott Campos convinced me to do another FFC with a good instructor. I don't know if I'm a good instructor or not. I'm an AFFI, professional trainer outside of the sport of skydiving, professional motivational speaker, and I feel I do a decent job of building blocks and goals for my students. I didn't feel remotely qualified to "teach" until I had 400+ wingsuit skydives. And I'm still learning various methods of teaching and flying. Yet there are guys hanging out shingles as "instructors" that have 100 WS skydives or less. Self regulation doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It can't work. That said... I'll be surprised if the USPA board will pass a wingsuit rating program, as they foolishly didn't pass an advanced canopy coaching rating program either. Many members of the BOD don't skydive anyway. At least Jay Stokes has sought out every discipline of skydiving there is, and has recently added BASE jumping to his repertoire of experiences so that he can better understand the relative aspects of the sport he's responsible for leading and guiding into the future.

Sony Vegas software will practically run on a kitchen sink. Seriously, it'll run on any PC, but faster is always better. For about 1200.00 you can get into Vegas Pro 9 and a laptop with a 16x burner.