AndyMan

When it comes to what kind of canopy I want to fly, it really doesn't matter to me what somebody else should, or should not jump. I'm all about me. I'm a consumer, and being selfish is what a consumer is supposed to do. If "safety of others" is the standard we're going to use, then let's face it, all of the cross-braced canopies on the market should be withdrawn, immediately, never mind every canopy produced smaller than 150. I'm a bit surprised that you're taking this attitude only with bigger canopies. There's plenty of smaller people jumping canopies ahead of their abilities, but I don't hear you objecting to that. I know one small girl with a few hundred jumps, she barely weighs a hundred pounds and she was demo jumping a 97 Katana, that somebody at PD sent her! So much for PD checking for appropriate canopy choices... If you were campaining for the banning of crossbraced canopies, or canopies smaller than 150, I might not agree, but at least I'd understand it. But to limit yourself to only bigger HP canopies? You know better then that, Bill. As a bigger guy, it really sucks that the market leader simply won't make a canopy to sell me - not because it's unsafe, just their bean-counters say it's not worth it. It sucks even more that they won't admit to it, it's incredibly disrespectful of PD to string people along for years with a line of "just wait, it's coming!" It's clear to me that it isn't coming. I'm disapointed, but moreso - I'm angry with the years of lies. That said, Dave and I are both big guys. I load my current set of canopies at about 1.9. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to play with a Katana, or Velocity for that matter. Every manufacturer except PD serves that market, it's a pitty they don't. Lucky for me, there's plenty of manufacturers who are more than happy to take my money. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I have noticied that the color on the PC1000 is not nearly as nice as it is on the more expensive 3 chip cameras. It's certainly an improvement over the standard PC series, but nothing like what you'd get out of a VXX or high end TRV. I do still have one on my shopping list, though. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Did your instructor once tell you that? Sorry, but the 45 degree rule being false is a great example of something I too, learned on DZ.COM, and it contradicted what my instructors taught me. I sat on the fence for a while, but eventually I figured it out, and last year I taught the safety-day lecture on spotting. The crunch of my speech was "whatever you do, for gods sake don't use the 45 degree rule". Now I'm teaching my former instructors. Unfortunately, in this example - you are wrong. The 45 degree rule is not a good place to start. It makes no more sense than trusting the color of the sky, or the orientation of the planets. You would do just as well as to observe that Venus was ascending into Mars before following the previous group out. Ironically, you just proved yourself wrong. You would do well to read more online, especially about the 45 degree rule. You might just learn something. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

An interesting story on the Canadian Press news feed, describes the succcess of Beards and Hats Photo Video. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1860&ncid=1860&e=4&u=/cpress/20051203/ca_pr_on_tc/holy_cameras _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Erica did not "slip through the cracks". They explicitly told her they would not help her, even though they mesured her for the rig, and it never fit. I'm not going to carry this torch any further, because ultimately that's Ericas job if she wants it. If I were in her position, I would have been screaming loudly when the issue first raised itself. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I've seen how your rig fits you, and the fact the Mirage has been unwilling to help fix your problem is shocking, and to me - speaks volumes about their (lack of) commitment to good customer service. What drives me nuts about this is they say : "If you're jumping a 135, we assume you're a bigger person"... Since when is a 135 a big parachute?!?!? And, what makes it even more crazy is that you are a "bigger" person. For those who don't know her, Ericah is in great shape and has a big frame. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Well, like Doug said in the ad, it's a big increase in the number of people buying videos. Less tangible, is how the person with the video will share it with their friends, and the public site is configured in a way to drive their friends to the DZ. For example, Imagine both CSC and SDC offered the service. (edit: no longer hypothetical. SDC does offer it too) Jane jumps at CSC, Fred jumps at SDC. When Jane sends her video to her friends, the website allows her friends to "search" for DZ's in the Chicago area. The search only returns one option, CSC. When Janes friends decide to do a jump too, they invariably do it at CSC. When Fred sends his video to his friends, the website only shows them SDC. When Fred's friends do a jump, they do it at SDC. It's a good attempt at viral marketing. I really don't know how effective this aspect of it has been, you'd have to ask a DZO. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Not a lot of work. With CSC's setup, they do the realXTream as a separate step from the DVD production. The transfer is done over firewire, and is captured using a custom built realXtream program. The app looks like its written in VB, and it works well. The video guy cues up his tape and starts playing. At key points in the video, he clicks buttons in the app to indicate: - start capturing - the exit - the delpoyment - the landing - end capturing. The 3 middle points are used by the software to do two things: 1), the (royalty free) music comes up automatically at exit, and ends automatically at landing, and 2) the app displays a crude altitude/speed graph, much like what you'd get out of jump-track. Of course the data-points are completely fictional, except for the 3 mouse clicks done by the video capturer. All in all, it's done in realtime and takes only as much time as it takes to play the video. CSC does not include any of the pre or post jump interviews, since real-Xtreme charges by the MB of upload bandwidth. After capturing the video, the videographer hands his tape to an editor who creates the DVD, complete with interviews, etc. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

"Don't fuck with the Jesus". _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

My home DZ signed up last summer. They seemed happy with it, and I presume they'll continue using it into the future. Don't quote me, though. It does require a good internet connection at the DZ, which can prove problematic. DSL or comparable speeds is required. My home DZ uses a long-range wi-fi connection that's 20 miles away. I think it's a great concept and a half decent implementation. I detest the amount of flash used on the public end of it, however. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Edited for accuracy: You can not change your center of gravity while suspended, hence you can not move a swing (or a canopy) by only leaning forward. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Sure. I can hear mine through my z1 fullface without any issues. I have my Neptune chest-mounted, old-skool! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Sorry dude, Try swinging a swing wtihout holding onto the chains. For stability, you can hold onto the seat. Let me know how far you get. You can not change your center of gravity, hence you can not move a swing (or a canopy) by only leaning forward. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

In two years the only time I've ever had my 300D hangwas when using old off-brand lenses. I use mine regularly on hot+humid and cold+dry, at altitudes of up to 16,000. I understand that it's not a "pro" camera, but unless you're somebody who makes the majority of their income from skydiving... Neither are you! . It's the most popular camera at my DZ, and is used by all the the fulltime tandem photographers. I mention this not because they're great photographers (they're not), but because if there were reliability issues they'd be sure to find them. It may not have spot-metering, but rarely do my shots have exposure or focusing issues. Not everybody needs a $2000+ camera. For the most of us, the $800 one works just fine. In my case, the $800 is now worth $500... and it still works just fine. It may not be the choice of famous profesionals, but for most weekend warriers it's more than good enough. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that. It works fine, it's only limitation is the frame rate, which is more than adequate for skydiving. The frame rate is faster than my film SLR. If I was buying a camera today I would probably spend the few extra dollars to get the 350D (Rebel XT), but if I was on a budget a used 300D would be just fine. It has proven to me to be a very reliable camera. I've put close to 400 jumps on mine. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I don't think you understand. The example I described would only happen under load, when you've got a streamering main hung up from your helmet. It's very true that the ratcheting system would not work then either, which is exactly why there's a cuttaway. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Good question. Dunno. No, I'm not sure of that... I guess the insurance would be there if all the BSR's were followed in the jump, including landing area size restrictions. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The nutshell is that the aircraft must be certified for flight with the door removed. I believe there is still a list of such aircraft at the back of the SIM. Often times the door becomes an integral part of the frame of the plane in flight, and you can not safely open or remove the door, except on the ground. Once you found an aircraft that's able to fly safely and legally with the door open, then you would have to get permission of the owner of the intended landing area, and file a NOTAM. Your jump would also have to take place in Class 'D' or 'E' airspace, I believe- but I'm sure I'm about to be corrected. The jump would likely be off a USPA DZ, so you wouldn't have the USPA third party insurance if you damaged something on landing. That may hinder your getting permission from the landowner. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The Canadian Liberal party has a minority government. This means that while the party has more seats than any other party, they have less than 50% of the seats. To ensure they keep in power, they must align themselves with a second party to stay in power. Over the last few years, they've aligned themelves with the far left NDP - New Democratic Party, by promising not to cut taxes. Well, they cut taxes anyways, so the lost the support of the NDP. This means they were at risk for the majority of the house to offer a vote of 'non-confidence'. After a vote of non-confidence, the prime minister must call an election. The 3 opposition parties, The Conservative party (right), the Bloq Quebecois (quebec regional party on the right), and the NDP (left) did just that. They did it thinking they could do better in an election held today than they did in the last election. Me? I don't think it'll change much. I think the parties will do relatively the same in this election as they did in the last, and it'll end up with the government in the exact same situation. I think the NDP and the conservaties will do mildly better than before, at the expense of independents. I'd actually like to see the Conservative party do better than last time, I'd love to see them make inroads in Quebec. The Bloq Quebecois is splitting the vote of people on the right, and its' keeping the conservative party from being a truly national party. Nobody will effectively take on the ruling liberals unless they're a national party. Plus, the conservatives are hobbled by their leader being a complete moron, but that's just my opinion. The riding I get to vote in has always gone Liberal or NDP. I'm not sure who I'd vote for. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Because there's only one ring, it doesn't have the same design issues as the two rings of the 2k helmet. There's no unncesary leverage, nor risk of a jam from cross-loading. I do much prefer the poppable hinge that Bonehead is selling on their new helmets. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The problem is that the amount of force applied to the rear helmet closure is going to be considerably smaller than the force applied by the hung main. I can't do the math because I don't have numbers, but the force applied to the rear would be radically smaller, even if the chincup wasn't taking any load, which it probably is. The nutshell is that force vectors don't make 90 degree turns. I've never heard of anybody having a "hard cuttaway" on a FTP for this very reason. Simple cuttaway systems work well without rings. This leads me to my first statement: Cuttaway rings are not required on a rear entry helmet. Secondly, it's possible - even likely that the back of your head will be applying forces up or down on the back of the backstrap. I have a ridge at the back of my head at the bottom of my skull. On my FTP, the back "bone" site below this ridge, which is part of what gives it stability. In the event of a hung main, before cutting away the helmet will be pulling up against this ridge, applying a downward force to the back. This means that the rings will be loaded crosswise, and rings generally don't perform well when loaded crosswise - they get twisted or just plain jam. We know this from watching how risers work. Rings work best when loaded in a straight line. This leads to my second statement, that cuttaway rings in this arangement actually decrease safety. I'm not going to try to convince you of this anymore, but I think I've explained why I think it's so. Feel free to buy one for yourself. I'd rather not. It's a moot point, since I'm happy with the one I have, which BTW - I bought new with "bonebonds" for less than the price of the Azimuth. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

No, that's not what I think. Maybe the attached images will illustrate. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Of course I have. It doesn't work as well as I'd like. I'd really like to test it under load, but I'd need a 220 pound test dummy to suspend. The problem with the picture posted above, is that by looking at it - it's likely that it will perform even worse than the FTP. it's simply not an improvement, and from the looks of it, it's a monumentally worse design. 3 rings work because the load vector matches the direction of the rings. In the picture posted above, the load vector is (+-)90 degrees off the direction of the rings. It completely misses the point of why rings work. Remember that even on main risers - where the load vector perfectly maches the direction of rings, we still need to disconnect our risers and massage the webbing to make sure they'll release, because there sometimes isnt' enough load to bend the webbing. Now take that load, and turn it 90 degrees off the direction of ring travel... well, I'd bet against it working. From a distance, it looks like anyone with that helmet would be wise to have the rings removed. From here, it looks like they hurt, not help. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It may be a good alternative, but I haven't seen one. I do have issues with the company being located offshore. The bigger issue I see in the picture you posted is from the engineer in me. There's absolutely no reason to have a 3-ring style cuttaway on it, and it's a horrendously innapropriate use of ring leverage. They'd be fare wiser to use a simpler cuttaway system, like on the FTP. Given the pic you posted, I wouldn't jump it on the basis of the cuttaway system alone. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Read the manual. There is a method to test the real loudness, but I don't have mine with me, so I can't tell you exactly how. Trust me, it is a lot louder than the power on beep. It is quite deafening, actually. I'm a bit curious over exactly how loud it is... I suspect it's loud enough to damage hearing. Anyone capable of measuring loudness? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.