brettski74

There are plenty of hot women out there that can polish a good knob. You've got to be happy together. If you're writing here, then you must be pretty serious about skydiving - at least for the moment. If she really can't get over her fears, and you're really not willing to give up skydiving, maybe it's time to cutaway. I tried to appease a non-skiing (now ex) girlfriend by limiting my skiing and snowboarding a few years ago. In the end, I ended up feeling guilty when I was skiing and resentful when I was giving up skiing to spend time with her. I could have saved myself a year of hassle, so now one of my qualifying criteria is that prospective girlfriends need to be able to accept my hobbies and leisuretime activities, including skydiving, skiing and snowboarding.

I wasn't saying that an intentional cutaway isn't scary. I imagine it will be, and I really want to do one - as soon as I can find someone with a tertiary system that's in date and training on how to use it. I imagine that a cutaway in order to save my life would be a lot more scary, though. I assume you've done an intentional cutaway. Have you also had to cutaway a malfunction? If so, which was scarier in your opinion?

I'm not arguing against risk homeostasis. It's a reasonable theory and there appears to be research to support the theory in several different contexts, including ours. I'm arguing against the comment that AADs should be banned. Having AADs hasn't increased the incident rate. If anything, the research shows that the incident rate has remained largely unchanged but that the mechanism of incident has changed as new safety equipment has become available. I'm also not sure that the rise in landing fatalities and collisions is explained by the use of reliable AADs. This is what has offset the reduction in no pull/low pull incidents. I would suggest that the advancement in canopy design is at least as much, if not more responsible than AADs for the rise in these types of incidents. For one thing, swoopers are not always keen on using an AAD. For another thing, if we didn't have the high performance canopies that have developed over the last 20 years, would swooping even be a discipline? Is there any research to conclusively link the rise in landing and collision incidents to AAD use as opposed to other factors? For clarity, I don't think AADs should be mandatory, either. I'm pro-choice in that matter. I have an AAD and so I use it. If for some reason I had to jump without it, it would not affect my decision to jump.

Yes - that's part of the problem. At the SkyVenture tunnels, the term instructor seems to be used to refer to a guy who's responsibility is safety, not instruction. Someone who does instruction is called a coach. At least, that's what seemed the case at SVAZ, and from the discussion here and elsewhere, that seems consistent with other SkyVenture tunnels. Once you're aware of that, it's a little easier to follow how things work.

How would you effect appropriate training and testing? I would hope that most people know the correct actions, but the problem is whether they have the presence of mind to do them in a timely manner in a high-stress situation. I can't think of any ground training that would simulate such stress. Even a practice reserve ride wouldn't be quite the same, since you're expecting it, you're probably going to pull higher and you have a tertiary system as an additional backup. I'm not sure that everyone would experience the same levels of stress that they would if this were to happen unexpectedly, under a highly load spinning malfunction at 1500' or less. Wouldn't a better solution be to give them the training and also give them an AAD and the knowledge of how it works, it's limitations and that it's nothing to be relied upon.

I don't have any empirical evidence to show the path of a PC after release in varying situations, however, the statement that the pilot chute's horizontal velocity does not magically disappear is well supported by Newtonian physics. It takes time for the horizontal component of the throw to be countered by any force that does so. I can't say that there won't be some kind of turbulent flow which might provide a larger toward-body force in one situation than the other, but: but inertia, the weight of the handle and the influence of the bridle is likely to maintain a PC attitude similar to a track or slide forward and out from the bodywhile the bridle is still unfurling, it's less likely to impart inward forces due to tension on the bridle, however, after the short delay required for it to become fully horseshoed, the tension on the bridle is likely to draw it back closer to the body This is only theory, but we could test this theory using video of a number of deployments taken from a moderate distance in front of the deploying skydiver. Anyone game?

Yes - there is research to support the airbag culture theory you're referring to, but that's a long way from supporting the idea of banning AADs. Earlier cars were more prone to various types of accidents due to inferior brakes, suspension, no airbags, etc. Are you suggesting that we should also revert to 1950s car technology so that people start dying in lower speed traffic accidents, instead?

Maybe I should rephrase that. There have also been incidents where AADs have fired and either created a dangerous situation and/or fatality, but suggesting that AADs should be banned because they create dangerous situations is a ridiculous statement. I believe that the evidence shows that they do more to save lives than endanger them. Like everything we use, however, they are devices designed for a purpose and with certain limitations and should be used accordingly. Nobody should be relying on them to save their life.

Yes - you need to take responsibility for your own actions in the air, but having additional safety devices to improve your chances of surviving high stress emergency situations makes a hell of a lot more sense than not having them. The ban AADs comment is sensationalist rubbish. The suggestion that people feel safer from wearing AADs and therefore take less safe actions in the sky is about as supportable as the suggestion that the people in these recent incidents didn't clear their airspace properly because they figured they had a reserve parachute if anything went wrong. Maybe we should ban reserves. Why stop there? None of these would have happened if people didn't feel safe jumping out of airplanes. Why not ban parachutes? Or airplanes?

Link please... A search for the word boobie returned over 2600 results. I was actually surprised that it wasn't higher.

What do you mean by changing your brake settings? Are you referring to replacing the brake lines or getting a rigger to shorten the distance to the loop or something?

Just in the interests of physics, the drag force is non linear with velocity, which introduces a coupling between the horizontal and vertical components of velocity when determining the drag. So the horizontal drag in this case (opposing the "throw" velocity) is much much larger at a 120mph fall rate than it would be for a static throw. So if you can throw the chute 6ft sideways on the ground, it doesn't mean it will go 6ft sideways when you're in freefall. Isn't physics fun? I wasn't suggesting that the drag wouldn't be higher during freefall then when exiting the plane, nor am I terribly interesting in knowing how much further away the PC goes. The fact remains that the horizontal velocity does not magically disappear when we release into the wind. If you release it with some horizontal velocity, it will go further away from you than if you release it at the same point with no horizontal velocity.

Not to mention that tunnel time is cheaper than time in the sky. What do you pay for a minute of freefall in the sky? Around $20-22. Get together with 3 other friends and buy an hour of tunnel time between you and you will get tunnel time for around half that price per minute. Add another $50 for coaching and you're still way ahead of the cost of 15 solo jumps without coaching, and I'd expect that you'd learn more about body flight from the tunnel time than you would from 15 coach jumps, anyway.

Why PM? Post in the forum for the benefit of everyone.

Plus all the other costs like: Pilot's wages staff wages aircraft maintenance aircraft ownership costs debt servicing maintenance of the dropzone and buildings tax And probably several others that I'm not listing. After all that, they might even be lucky enough to make a little profit so that next season they can build you a better swoop pond or a bunk house or something. You may also want to keep in mind that the US has some of the lowest jump prices in the world.

Actually, I think the opposite would make more sense. Swoopers generally have the fastest, highest performing canopies on the DZ, so they will sink faster, and the nature of their landing approach will also produce much higher descent rates, so even if they did pull high, that's no guarantee that they're not going to get down before the 110 pound student flying a 200+ square foot boat. It will be far easier to take steps to ensure that swoopers land before everyone else. It would also be safer if there weren't a bunch of people standing around gathering up their canopies or walking back to the packing area when they come zooming through. A separate HP landing area makes a lot of sense if there is room for one. If you don't have room, then maybe restrict them to hop 'n pops and have the swoopers come out first on the hop 'n pop jump run.

I'm not an instructor, nor do I have your level of experience, but I am about to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points. You can throw the pilot chute. Just because the relative wind will accelerate it away from you much more rapidly in the vertical direction does not mean that any horizontal speed your arm movement has imparted suddenly disappears. Even if that only gives you an extra 6 inches away from the burble in the time that it screams away from you, that's still an extra 6 inches away from a potential problem. I'd also suggest that we don't want people acting like they have all the time in the world at pull time. You don't, and so you should be acting with a certain sense of urgency in those moments before under a stable canopy. The word "throw" tends to impart this sense of urgency. If you throw a ball properly, you will release it at or near full arm extension, but you'll also do it quickly. I somehow think it's better to have someone getting the pilot chute to or very near to full arm extension quickly and probably with some additional latent horizontal motion away from the burble than to have them worrying about whether they're at full arm extension, yet. I've heard and read several people who've experienced pilot chutes in the burble comment that their throw was rather lazy. I wonder if they were thinking at the time that they don't really need to throw, but just put it out there somewhere?

Then I think we can agree.

Yes - you're right. That was the original question, but you were the one who brought up that people should tip - your words, not mine. Your original post gave the opposite impression. So does your emphasizing of the words "non tipper" in this post. I'm not sure I understand this talk about waves. Are you a surfer, perhaps? I agree, but I see how my original post may have been misconstrued. I've edited it to hopefully more accurately convey what I was trying to say.

I agree with your general sentiment about tipping, but the culture in North America is different, and you're fighting a losing battle if you're going to try to change that. It's also worth noting that the instructor being referred to here is not being paid by the tunnel for training, but for safety - to stop you before you do anything stupid that might hurt yourself. In that regard, he/she is more like a lifeguard at a swimming pool. If the lifeguard also offered to teach you to swim, then that's above and beyond duty, and that's essentially what's being discussed here. While there is value in tunnel training from the tunnel rat, if he/she expects to be paid for it, then he/she should say so up front, otherwise you're doing it out of the goodness of your heart as far as the customer knows. If the customer chooses to pay you anyway, then great. If not, then so be it. It should still be perfectly acceptable for someone who wants to fly in the tunnel and do their own thing without coaching to be able to do so - assuming that they have some basic skill level to begin with.

Do a search. I'm pretty sure this and similar questions have been asked many times before. In general, though, try to downsize on student gear until you get down to around 1:1 wing loading, and then consider buying your first rig. That way it will last you perhaps 200 jumps or so before you get sick of it and want to get something more sporty. In terms of what is suitable for you, that's a question best directed to your instructors. They know your skill level, size and weight. We don't.

I'd go even further and say that it's a bad idea not to ask. It'll suck royally if you get there and find out that they would have been happy for you to jump if you'd just brought X along with you, but you didn't know and therefore didn't bring it. Even once you get your licence, it's still a good idea to call ahead, just so you know what to expect and what they expect you to have when you arrive.

The .VOB files are what you want. These are DVD video objects, which are essentially tricked-out MPEG-2 files. In CD Roller, after you've identified the .VOB files, you have a couple of options, and what works best for you will depend on what you want to do with the recovered data. The first option is to use the Recover option. This will simply copy the .VOB file to somewhere on your hard-disk unaltered. Some DVD mastering software may like working with .VOB files, but I don't use them, so I couldn't tell you much about whether this will work well for you or how. The other option is to use the Split Video option. This will take the recovered .VOB file, and split it out into separate MPEG-2 files. There is probably only one scene in each session on your DVD, although it's possible there may be multiples. Assuming that you have appropriate DVD mastering software, you should be able to take these files and create a new DVD with them. Alternatively, they should be playable in just about any media player you like to use, such as Windows Media Player, VLC, MPlayer, etc, or useable in video editing software such as Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas.

Did you try CD Roller? The disk will show up as blank or unidentifiable, but the Identify Raw ISO Data feature should allow you to copy the unfinalised video tracks off the disk. You can then write them onto a new disk and finalise it, or whatever else takes your fancy.

Does anyone know what difference pleated booties make over non-pleated booties? I'm assuming that it probably maintains the shape of the fabric in flight better and gives more positive leg turns, but I'm just guessing.