brettpobastad

That was one looooong sentence... As soon as I figger out what you're trying to say, I'll formulate a response. PPB "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

the money and the babes! "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

On a Racer tandem rig you can configure one (or both) drouge release handles on either side of the container and in a number of differant places on the passenger or on the instructor. When I worked for Blue Sky Adventures in Paso Robles several years ago I set up my Racer rig like the fleet of Vectors that were already there. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

I agree with your response completly. I would add a couple of thoughts. First, a little brakes to smooth out the bumps works really well for me. But I use that tequnique well above landing pattern altitude. As you said, it's important to keep the canopy flying with as much forward speed as possible. I used to be against the idea of turns to increase speed for landing when doing tandems for several reasons. One, you can't effectivley use your front risers and we all know what low toggle turns can do. Two, the passenger gets absolutley nothing out of it. And three, you don't want to set a precedent for new tandem instructors. I have since changed views on that somewhat. I little induced speed on landing really helps flatten out the final approach and touchdown. This is particularly helpfull with heavier passengers. I would highly recomend new tandem instructors (under 1000 tandems) not do this! As far as dealing with turbulence under a grand, what I do is find the best and most open spot on the DZ, do my last turn higher but longer (180 instead of 90 or so) and fly it straight in from there. If the turbulence is that bad, stay on the ground. $25 bucks ain't enough money to hurt yourself, and your passenger will appreciate it as well. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Thanks TK. I'm in the process of building a harness similar to the one you described. I'm glad I saw your reply before I got to far on it because I was going to build way to much into it as far as getting the legs up and out of the way under canopy. My concern was leverage and location. I wondered if I would be ab;e to pull the legs up with a direct pull so I was going to build in a double pulley system deal. I was also concerned about how and where to locate this system to keep it contained and out of the way in freefall but still allow easy access and use once under canopy. From your reply, it seems like it might not be an issue. Thanks again. Do you have any advice on exiting from a C-182? I planned on doing the sitting exit with help from the cameraman with her legs. She is also somewhat of a big girl. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Make jump number 101 "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Why are they in a class by themselves? Outside of the obvious, what makes them so much different than the others rigs? I am certainly not saying anything negative about the Sigma because I have never jumped one. I have seen one up close and I have near 3000 tandems. I'm rated on all the other rigs and have put hundreds of jumps on all of them and most all of the different canopies (in some pretty unusual and creative configurations, I might add). Outside of the Eclipse, which I just don't see any need for, they each have their benefits and drawbacks and their own unique features. Please tell if I’m wrong, but the Sigma seems to be set up to perform the same way as the Vector II tandem rig but with a slightly better drogue attachment location. All of the same handles are there in pretty much the same location and you pull them in the same order right? One of the supposed (and mostly perceived) drawbacks of the original Vector was the drogue placement. Shoobi addressed the issue on the Eclipse by making the rig shorter and wider (which caused other negative side affects). The Sigma is addressing that issue by physically moving the location closer to center, as with the Jump Shack and Strong rigs. Other then that, how is it functionally different than the original Vector? And for the record, I’m a charter member of the Bill Booth fan club (We got a secret handshake and everything). Guys a fucking genius! I’m curious about this statement for several reasons. What kind of repairs would you do on a Racer? Are you referring to a Racer tandem rig or a sport rig? Is the work being done mostly on older (let’s say, pre-1990) Racers? In reference to the Jump Shack tandem rig (and not including the obvious benefits of superior reserve pin protection and comfort). You must know that there are two very significant and real world advantages to the rig (as much as 25 lbs lighter than other tandem rigs and a drogue attachment system that is integrated into the passenger harness). On a related note, the feature that all the other rigs are addressing on newer versions, Jump Shack built in into the original design. I’m of course talking about the third drogue release point integrated into the cutaway system. Jump Shack’s cutaway / drogue release system makes more mechanical sense and wasn’t put in as an afterthought. Please don’t take this the wrong way because I don’t mean to turn this into a ‘Racer pros and cons’ discussion. I find it amusing that supposedly in the know jumpers and riggers still make a statement similar to yours. Almost to a person, everyone praises the comfort of the Jump Shack Racer but then adds something to the effect of ‘but they’re bad’ or ‘they’re inferior’ or ‘they are hard to pack’ or ‘that’s old technology’. But nobody can come up with a real reason, let alone a valid example to support their argument. Every manufacturer out there today makes a good product. But a Racer made today is an updated and improved version of a superior original design accomplished years ago. And visually the appear alike. Uninformed jumpers and riggers call this old technology. What it really means is the thing was done right the first time. With all due respect to Bill Booth, he ain’t no John Sherman. An old Vector is a Wonderhog and a new Infinity (sorry Kelly!) is a Vector III, and so on and so forth. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Anybody got any info on taking a parapalegic person on a tandem? Special harness pics or drawings? Brett Martin "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Quotewill psycho packing give faster or slower openings, or about the same? *** In theroy, you can control what you do with the nose and tail easier with a psycho pack. In practice, if you pack correctly, it shouldn't matter whichever method you use. The main advantage to the psycho pack seems to be that it takes less time and you can pack it up smaller. If you go with the psycho pack, add a bridle extension of about 4 inches at the canopy. Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

This is the point I have been trying to make throughout the entire thread but some people just don't get it. Good job Junkie-man! "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

It's an upsidedown pro-pack that's rolled instead of S-folded into the bag. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Pookie Bear I've already responded to all these quotes. Most of the quotes were responses. Go back and re-read the thread from the begining. Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

What does IMHO mean? And how do you do that thing with the line through the word? That's cool! "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

You're right about the negative waves, Moriarity! But it still has to be dealt with. Right is right and wrong is wrong and I ain't gonna let this one stand. We got fucked and they're blaming it on us! That's bullshit. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Yea, well you heard wrong. Shelly DePietro is the person who put up the money to buy the Turbine 207 for Skydive Toledo back last fall. She has been an off an on skydiver for several years. I have personally retrained her on three different occasions and jumped with her as an instructor several times in a couple of different locations. There is way more history between her and the jumpers and friends of Skydive Toledo. She is NOT a skydiver. She is a shit-starter and turmoil lover. This is not the first time. Eric Todd Pelky goes by the name of 'Big Head Todd'. That's a nickname that I gave him back in 1990. He was a student of mine at The Toledo Parachute Center, now known as Skydive Toledo. Todd is, how shall I put this, 'associated' with Shelly. Todd is persona non grata at Skydive Toledo. He was informed that his services were no longer needed at the DZ exactly two days before Shelly and two hired pilot took the turbine from us. Coincedence? Todd has no current ratings an no gear. The camera and helmet that he uses belongs to a mutual friend of ours from Southren California who wants it back. Todd owes money to me and many other skydivers and friends that have come to his rescue over the years. Todd is wanted in California for domestic violence and DUI. He has not paid child support since his divorce in 1998. He is not to be trusted. What does this have to do with Toledo and a turbine? I'll get to that later. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

aaahhaa, ha, ha. That's pretty good! I just packed a reserve on my buddy, Dano's Reflex. Came out nice.... "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

I'll say it again so there is no confusion: Soft links are not 'bad'. I never said they were bad. "I never said that Rapide links (French links) are 'better' then soft links" I'll put this in every one of my posts on this subject from now on. But with that in mind, I'm stiil not seeing any 'proof' that soft links are 'better' than Rapide links! The only tests that have been done (as near as I can find so far) have been done by Performance Designs. Here are the 'results' of those tests: I believe this statement to be true. What I also take from this statement (which we all knew anyway) is that a properly installed and maintained link (soft or hard) will survive well after the risers or the lines fail. Where in any of these words is it said that soft links are 'better' than metal links? Or that metal links are bad? Or that metal links are more likely to fail on opening than soft links. Keeping in mind that I'm not asking any of you for 'proof' that soft links are 'better' than Rapide links, the only other evidence you seem to have is a dropzone.com poll. I'm not sure that qualifies as 'proof' or 'evidence' or even 'valid speculation'. The only 'proof' I ever asked for is when someone way back on page 2 or 3 of this thread wrote something to the effect of 'having many examples of Rapide links failing' When I asked for some examples I was sent a bunch of other dropzone.com threads and a couple of pictures (the same picture twice, actually) of a bent link. How is this 'proof' that soft links are 'better' or 'stronger' than rapide links. (Note: In all of those 'examples' provided to me, all of the 'failures' could be attributed to poor installation or maintenence.) With all this in mind, my 'proof' (your term, not mine) is that I have owned, jumped and serviced an uncountable amount of canopies with Rapide links in the last 15 or 20 years or so and I have seen one example of a bent Rapide link due to poor installation. I have seen many examples of slider grommet damage due to uncovered links. I personally own half a dozen canopies at the present time. Some old ones and some made within the last couple of years. Some with thousands and thousands of jumps on them with the same slider and the original links. I have never had a problem. I have never had a broken link I have never had one come loose. My slider grommets have always been in great shape. Never a problem. And I can get my slider down over my links, if I want to, and I don't feel the links through he backpad of my rig. Never have. Now this is not 'proof' or 'evidence' that Rapide links are 'better' than soft links or that soft links are 'good' or 'not evil' ....or somesuch. I didn't ask for any proof nor did I offer to provide any proof. Because I don't have any and neither do you. One fact we do know for sure is that Rapide links have been around doing their job for a lot longer than soft links. That is not an indictment of soft links. It is an endorsement of the 'history of service' of Rapide links. Go back and re-read my first three posts on this thread (or maybe it's the other 'slinks' thread, I forget) I'm not trying to talk you out of your 'slinks' and into a set of French links. I don't get a percentage of sales or anything like that. I shouldn't have gotten personal about it back awhile ago and again, I apologize for that. But for chrissakes, use your heads, man! "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Where did I say 'slinks are bad'? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

You must have a lot of experience jumping Racers, huh? Have you tried a Firebolt yet? How many jumps do you have on a Batwing? It sounds like you might have a bit more experience than I do on those types of equipment. Maybe you could give me some pointers. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

You must have a lot of jumps on a Racer, huh? Have you tried a Firebolt? Or a Batwing? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Well that's a good point, Hooknloop. It's worse than I had imagined. They are charging more and providing less. Para-gear lists #4 Stainless Steel Rapide links for $4 each for a total of $16 for the set. Assuming that PD (and other manufacturers) get their links from a distributor, as opposed to Para-gear, they pay way less than that. Let's say half, for arguments sake. So that means they are paying $8 for a set. That's way more than the cost of the raw material it takes to make soft links. Raw material that they most likely already have in stock!. And then they mark it up to $25 AND $30?? You don't really think it cost that much to make those do you? And what is the difference between soft links for the main as opposed to soft links for the reserve? You don't think they use different material, do you? Maybe they gold plate 'em or something? Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

The reason I jump a square parachute is because it's more fun to jump and it packs up smaller and I don't have to wear jump boots and I like the colors and It's easier to make it back from a bad spot and a whole bunch of other reasons. Not because it's better. That's like saying big tits are 'better' because they're bigger. No, they are just bigger! And if you like big tits than that makes them better to you, not to everyone. A couple thousand posts and replys ago, you kept asking for evidence that soft links 'were not worse than' rapide links. Or something like that... And now the best argument you can muster is whether some thing is 'better' than something else? I'm going to resist the urge to get all 'insulting' with you because I ain't going down that road again. But, oohh, it's hard not to.... Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

I gotta K&N filter on my sporty! Is that bad? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Good point. But what is done in a situation like that as it works now? You would purchase a shorter or longer set of risers as nescasary. If someone purchased a used canopy with this proposed integrated riser line system and they needed shorter or longer risers, the would have their rigger, or the factory, perform the work. That actually might be a benifit as a pro would be doing the work. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Just throwin' out ideas for conversation purposes. It's been done before. I packed an emergency rig years ago that was set up that way. It wouldn't be possible on reserves, of course, because the risers are part of the harness. But on a main canopy, with the risers already detachable, why not eliminate a link (sorry!) in the chain that at least theoretically doesn't have to be there? That would also allow the canopy manufactures to control a very important element in how their product performs (or fails, for that matter) And since the 3-ring release is standard and eveyrone is pretty much using the same basic riser/toggle configuration, the application would be somewhat easier when but into practice in the field. As far as line repairs, you have to do some sewing somewhere as it is. That part of it would just be different rigging work. The canopy manufacturers would have to deal with the increased manufacturing costs associated with such a plan. But I'm sure they would just build it into the cost anyway. And 'in my opinion' I believe that is one of the reasons soft links are gaining popularity. It's cheaper to make a set of soft links than it is to purchase and stock Rapide links. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"