UDSkyJunkie

Funny you should ask... A few years ago I was fucking around at an outdoor tunnel in new zeland. They gave us really baggy suits and I weighed all of 125 lbs, so I had to punch it pretty hard to stay near the grate. I decided I was hot shit, sunk all the way down to the grate, and then de-arched as hard as I could to slow down. BAD IDEA!!! Before I could even react, I was 30 feet up in the air, off the air column (which had dissipated at that height anyway), and fell 30 feet strait down into the mat. I was smart/lucky enough to curl up in a ball before impact, and land kind of on my shoulders and back instead of my head. I'm thinking deploying a canopy would be the same thing on a larger scale, and would likley result in a grizzly death. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I've been trying to find an answer to this, but so far I've only got info on the strong. The strong was first jumped as a system in 1983, a waiver was obtained from the FAA allowing it's use in 1984, and the patent issued 1987. All I've been able to find on RWS is that they obtained their FAA waiver in 1984 also, and there is a headline from skydiving magazine in 1985 saying that RWS developed a new tandem canopy. So it looks like they really were developed simultaneously, and they probably each hit the market within a year or so of each other... I'll take my hits for not double-checking that one first. However, I can add the throw-out pilot chute and the first truly freefly-friendly rig to the list. Oh, and a whole list of small developments that went into the sigma tandem. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Clearly your buddy had a bad experience with the Relative Workshop, and we are all entitled to take our buisiness where we choose, however... It's your first year in the sport, and you have a whopping 50ish jumps, so I'll forgive a little lack of perspective. Perhaps you should research the history of the Relative Workshop a little before making such accusations. They are arguably responsible for more life-saving innovations in skydiving than any other manufacturer EVER, and they continue to innovate to this day. A short list of huge accomplishments include the 3-ring release, the first production tandem rig, and the skyhook. There are many, many smaller items that I could list. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I agree on both points, although I would note that the original post was asking if it made more sense to start with a canopy model that inherently has a longer recovery arc (say, Sabre2) vs. a canopy with a short recovery arc (say, Sabre1). It did not propose downsizing in order to achieve a longer arc. I learned the basics of swooping on an old-school Sabre 135 (W/L 1.25ish), and it worked great. After about 500 jumps on it I moved to a Sabre2 120, which has served me very well also. Looking back, more experienced and wiser (note I said "wiser", not "wise"), I think I would rather have started on a Sabre2 135 or similar instead... basically something with a longer recovery arc but the same size. Why? Because looking back, I DEFINATELY had less time to react on that canopy than I do on my current one. It's easier to abort mid-swoop, easier to make fine adjustments to compensate for slight mis-judgement of the turn, ect. My point is, just because you swich canopies doesn't mean you have to downsize. Obviously, downsizing will NEVER result in additional saftey. Choosing a more appropriate canopy for your discipline (and experience of course), is likley a good idea. Yes, many, many people 10 years ago learned under Sabre's, Stiletto's, Monarch's, Splatwings, ect... Did you "have it all wrong"? No... as you say, it was the best available at the time. Today however, they are NOT the best available. There are other choices that are just as "safe" in the correct size, and fly more similarly to the canopies a swooper will want to transition to in the future. NOTE: I actually agree with most of the statements made about the advantages of learning on a shorter recovery arc... there are pro's and con's to either choice. I am mearly offering some points on the other side of the argument. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I don't recognize your name, but I wouldn't be surprised either. His name is Mike Ashley, and he does have a username on DZ.com, Skydance, I think. He started jumping in Ontario, mostly at Arthur, which has been shut down for several years now. But you could have run into him at Z-hills in the 70's, Alberta or Lost Prairie in the 80's, or Skydive Greene County from '93 on. Plus several nationals since he's a camera guy. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

This is an incredibly true argument, and I have thought of this myself, though I've never expressed it to anyone or until now heard anyone use it. I chose not to use this simply becuase as he said, it's not very statistical. I've been around skydiving literally since I was in diapers. I'm only 25 and I've already lost count of how many people I've known who have gone in, but I would estimate around 15. My father has been jumping since 1974, and of course his list is much longer. As for auto accidents, I've known a few people who were killed in them, but the number can be counted on one hand. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I think this should read "it's not the jumps you're already done that get you, it's the ones you intend to do that could" It's true that if you've done 10,000 jumps successfully, your 10,001st is no more or less dangerous than the 1,000th. But what is also true is that if you only ever intend to do 1 more jump in your life, you're exposed to a small amount of risk, whereas if you intend to do another 10,000 you're exposed to a whole lot more. I'm in this for the long haul, so I won't fall for the argument that on each jump it's say 1 in 100,000, so I'll probably be fine. I've seen enough people die already using that theory. I look at it and say, "I want to do everything in my power to better my odds because I'm going to do another 10,000 jumps in my life." And let me tell you how much I don't like 10% as my odds! "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

There are many posts of this variety, and each of them tells a different story... yeah, you can measure risk "per mile" "per minute" "per event" "per person" "per enjoyment" whatever.... my method was what made sense to me. In a given year, given the amount driving I do, and given the amount of skydiving I do, how does it stack up? saying 40,000 people died in car accidents and 40 people in skydiving accidents last year has no more meaning than saying that in 1 hour of driving you're a whole hell of a lot safer than 1 hour of freefall. Saying that on average you've exposed yourself to a greater amount of potential risk over the course of a year, while not perfect, is at least reasonable. If you don't accept that logic, fine, it don't bother my ass. If you think you have a better comparison, by all means say so. So far I haven't seen one. To all those who commented about the assumption of a normal distribution of data, yeah you're right... that's probably not correct... maybe poisson, or einstein, or rush limbaugh came up with a more accurate distribution for skydiving, who knows. A degree in mechanical engineering taught me enough to know a normal distribution almost certainly does not apply, but not enough to know what most of those other ones mean, or if they are likley to apply. But you're really missing the point. The point is that the stats show a hypothetical "average" skydivers amount of risk. It's a good place to start, and if you analyze yourself and those around you (honestly, of course), you ought to be able to place yourself on one side of the average or the other... perhaps WAY on one side or the other. If you don't like those odds, you can change them. If you're happy with them, rock on(I am, or I wouldn't be doing what I do). "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

You're right, it's not. The numbers I used were averages because those are the only reliable numbers available. Your points about wearing the correct gear, riding within your and the bike's ability, ect, will make your odds much better than the stated "average" 38 per 100 million miles. Every good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). The sportbike stunt guys, the drunks, the crazy swoopers, ect... they're going to fall on the bad side of the curve, and the guys who do what you described are going to fall on the good side. All this shows is: overall, skydiving presents a greater level of risk than driving, assuming you are roughly equally skilled, current, sober, take a similar approach to risk, and keep your equipment in a similar state of repair. If you switch from driving a car to a motorcycle, and keep everything else the same, your odds are perhaps roughly equal to skydiving. The other point of this post was to see that number for a year of jumping. 1 fatality per 100,000 jumps doesn't seem like too bad of odds, but 1 in 495 in a year is a whole different skillet of shit. When I originally ran the math in my head (many years ago, before I even started jumping), it was a reality check. I'm hoping seeing a number like that will encourage a few people to work on putting themselves on the good side of the bell curve. If that isn't enough, consider: take 10 years at 200 jumps per year, and suddenly it's 1 in 50. P.S., I've always wanted a motorcycle, and if I ever get one will follow the ATGATT policy, drive sober, stay out of rush hour traffic, ect... I cannot tell you the number of people who have said I'm a pussy for saying that. Oddly, the same people often tell me that only an idiot would jump out of a perfectly good airplane. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

A lot of people throw driving your car around as being as dangerous or more dangerous than skydiving, without ever having done the math. So for those who want to know, here's some real numbers. In 2005, and estimated 1.47 deaths resulted from each 100 million vehicle miles travelled. Source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ A commonly used and reasonably accurate number for skydiving is that 1 jump in 100,000 results in a fatality. So, to use myself as an example, in the last 12 months I have driven approximately 35,000 miles and done 202 skydives. If you go by statistics only, my driving has exposed me to a 1 in 1943, or about 0.05% chance of being killed in the past year, while my jumping has exposed me to a 1 in 495, or about 0.2% chance. I think this shows that clearly driving has exposed me to less risk, although it's worth noting that they two are on the same order of magnitude. Some other things to consider: - approximately 40% of driving fatalities involved alcohol levels of 0.08 BAL or more. I think it's fair to say that a higher percentage of drivers are drunk than skydivers, giving driving an even greater edge over skydiving, assuming you're sober. - Everything changes if you're riding a motorcycle. At a fatality rate of 38 per 100 million miles travelled, it would only take me 5,000 miles on a motorcycle in a year to reach the risk level of my 202 jumps. Based on this, it seems that skydiving and motorcycle riding carry similar amounts of risk. And of course there are a million side-issues that could be investigated too... canopy choice, general decision making, inherent skill level, currency, coaching, they all make a difference. Then again, similar arguments could be made for driving. Plus, the numbers presented above apply to my own habits... if you make 15 jumps and are a taxi driver who did 100,000 miles this year, than driving may well expose you to greater risk. If you drive after "a couple beers" most weekends, the same may be true. If you race your motorcycle without a helmet after half a bottle of Jack, then it's definately more dangerous than skydiving. But... going by the averages, it takes about 680 miles on the road to expose you to the same amount of risk as 1 jump. VERY few "active" jumpers drive that much or jump that little. And the commonly used claim that "you're more likley to be killed driving to the DZ" is clearly not correct. Unless you're driving from LA to NYC to do a tandem. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

It might seem like a lot of time/distance, but you'd be surprised. Phree, I don't know if you were even jumping yet at the time, but we had a near-incident with my dad flying video and James Nazar as a TM. James had a reeeallly long snivel (read: 2000+ feet), and passed the video guy after he had opened, resulting in a near-collision. Since it was a snivel and not a streamer, James held it for longer than normal, but the point here is that you never know what could happen, so it's better to put yourself in a location where the odds are better. And yes, a wacky tandem spinner and/or the camera guy opening and heading back at the tandem could negate the benefit of the track, but the odds are much reduced. Basically, instead of having one thing go wrong (tandem has malfunction), you have to have at least two go wrong (tandem has malfunction AND cameraman has a 180 opening, or tandem has spinner AND happens to spin in just the wrong direction). Plus, any competent cameraman ought to be aware of his heading during deployment and will know if his opening rotated him back into the tandem, and can in most cases get the canopy turned back around. 100+ ways with multiple camera guys and multiple layers of breakoff are a special case... what's best practice on those dives is not necessarily applicable to anything else. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

The "blame", if there is to be any, would have to be distributed evenly between all parties involved. Basically, we didn't start with the best plan, and it (nearly) went wrong in the worst way possible. Yes, it is the higher man's responsibility to make sure his airspace is clear, but when you're using an unfamiliar scheme, that doesn't always work. Plus, I was obviously WELL behind him when he dumped. So even if he was looking back, I might not have been obviously visible. The lesson is to have a good plan, and to understand the risks involved in your plan. Videos like this one, by the way, are why I no longer do tracking dives... double that speed and imagine the disaster. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

That's quite correct... you really don't have time to look for someone above you at breakoff, and even if you find them you can't keep track (pun intended) of them. Also, not everyone tracks the same... I track very flat, so even though he started above me, I passed him on-level. So if your lurker is a great tracker, breaking early can work, otherwise it's probably a good idea to have verticle separation also. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

No the tracker (that would be me) did not see him. It doesn't look like it in the video, but I was far enough below scott that he was out of my field of vision. When I dumped I glanced over my shoulder at my bag leaving the container and saw his canopy above me and thought "OH, SHIT!" The plan was that he would break at 5, and we would not break until 4-4.5, so in theory he would be well away. In practice, although he did break higher, I tracked farther, and the result is what you see here. The plan on the 2nd jump, with scott opening high, worked much better. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

We had a guy at our DZ who, upon landing, put his hands at his hips and his back strait... you know, the "Buzz Lightyear" position... Anyway, when the cameraguy asked what he thought of the dive, he said (I swear to god) "Nothin'. I wasn't scared at all. Kinda boring, really. Just... nothin'." The best part of this is that the reaction is on video, as well as the absolutely terrified look on his face as he left the door. Even his whuffo friends knew he was full of it, and they were relentless when they saw the video. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I think it's like everything else in skydiving... if the tool is too heavily relied on, it's dangerous. On the other hand, if you don't have it, that's dangerous too. I started out just using my eyes, and over the course of a season got my old-school Sabre 135 dialed in beautifully. Downsized to a Sabre2 120, and found that it was much harder to get the turn initiated at the right altitude... probably because the turn is twice as high. After a year of jumping it, I was getting it pretty well, but not every time. Then it finally happened that I started a 270 WAAAY too low. I hauled down on the brakes and did a perfect tippy-toe landing, but I pulled it from strait up my ass and I knew it. That evening someone walked up to me and said "Neptune. That's all I'm going to say." I thought about it for awhile and bought an Optima the next weekend. It's beautiful! It is a saftey improvement not only because I am less likley to mis-judge my altitude, but it's also vastly improved my visual perception... my eyes know much better when I'm approaching the right altitude, and I've been able to anticipate the beep with remarkable accuracy. I think as long as you remember that computers malfunction sometimes, and always trust your eyes over the audible, it's the only way to go. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I jump a 120 at 1.5/1ish loading... don't know specific distances, but for awhile my DZ had gates set 100 feet apart and I was regularly getting 200+ in no or slight wind. That was just doing 270's and not using rear risers. I've probably hit close to 250 with rears. I am FAR from being an expert swooper, so I'm sure 300+ is doable with the right pilot. Sabre2 is a vastly underrated swooping machine for those who aren't yet ready for the X-braces. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

If you really want to be on a team, it's NEVER too early. Your current flying ability means nothing, because you'll learn 10 times faster on a team anyway. I wanted to be on one almost from day one, and did my first competition when I had about 150 jumps. We scored a 6 average in rookie class, and that was back when the rookies got 50 seconds working time. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take long for you to achieve that level of "ability". The only real way to gain the skills you need to be on a team is to get on one, and to do as many team jumps as your bank account can handle. If you work hard you'll improve quickly, people will notice, and you'll move up the ladder the next year. It's tough to stick through those first couple teams, though... it seems like you get humbled on every jump. But it's all worth it when you get that dive that goes so well you're screaming into your helmet on breakoff :-) "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

***Why... She wants to film tandems. She can keep up with 136 mph(with 11lbs) at moment but needs to get closer and sometimes they will fall faster when passengers are bigger. Why not wear more weight....*** I was trying to figure out the reason too... I would say she should not (for now) do video for really large passengers. At the same time, she can help out some of the more normal-sized camera flyiers by taking on the 100 lb student who somehow gets paired with the 150 lb, 6'4" tandemmaster. Then, she should take her time learning to sitfly with enough proficiency that if the passenger is huge, she can go into a sit to stay down. Weights are great, but as you say there are limits both in terms of room and saftey, and you can never predict amounts. The only thing to do is figure out how much weight you need to be comfortable in an average range of speeds, and wear that amount 99% of the time. The only time you would change weight is if you know the group is going to fall really slow... adding much past 15-20 lbs total starts to become a saftey issue "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

A few years back, a series of suggestions were made officially to overhaul formation skydiving. I don't remember all the suggestions, but one of them was to start the clock at the break of the 1st point (essentially eliminating the exit), and the other was to shorten working time to 15 seconds... I think the dive sequency length may have changed also. In a rare display of wisdom, the IPC (or whatever official agency did this) took a national poll of competitors over the suggestions. It was rejected by a ratio of like 97%. Obviously the shorter working time is an awful idea... 35 Seconds is short enough, but most 4-way competitors really like the exit and "the hill" and all that comes with it. Makes the discipline more interesting and more challenging. So, while the suggestion of starting time after exit is valid, I think the competitors have spoken. At the same time, including the exit means each aircraft is unique, and that's difficult for up-and-coming teams. Being on one of those teams, and having only a Casa availible to my home DZ until July this year, I can attest to that. That's part of why we left this meet... our team really needs every otter exit we can get to prepare for nationals, and we've already lost half the season to the Casa. Incidentally, I'd like to point out that at the international level RW jumpers ARE expected to jump out of whatever's availible, though they are informed well ahead of time what it will be. In just the last few years, that has included Otters, tailgate helicopters, and Porters (which have a side-door, but on the opposite side, changing the entire continuity plan). It's not so much that we're all snobs as we want the maximum number of exits possible out of the aircraft that will be used at the competition. If nationals were out of a cessna 182, I would want lots of cessna jumps (that would sure simplify things, too... I wouldn't ever have to worry about spotting for the rest of the load, waiting on others to fly the plane, or having trouble finding a DZ with the right plane). "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Dave, do I know you? Because according to your post you know me. As a professional packer of 10 years, I would hardly kick someone's half-packed rig out the way because I needed my space. The person (at least on my team) making the decision to "wait 15 seconds after the green light and a good spot" is an experienced jumper of 30+ years and 4900+ jumps... we are not trying to screw the load or get a perfect spot. I have landed off on several team jumps, just like everybody else. People, like green lights, are fallible. Don't know about bitching out newbies... you'd have to give a more specific example. Generally my team doesn't talk much in the plane... we're focused on the dive, and unnecessary discussion (especially heated, emotional yelling at newbies) is a distraction that takes away from our performance. Are you an experienced 4-way competitor? If you claim to be please give details... I'm sure several people here would be interested. If not, I suggest you try discussing this with an expert who can explain to you that a Beech 99 is not an appropriate aircraft for competition 4-way for a multitude of reasons already stated by others. I won't claim to be that expert; you can do your own research. Being an all-round skydiver is a good thing, and I won't hold it against anybody, but that doesn't mean everyone has to go that route. Your claim that we should all be all-round skydivers just because it's better is as absurd as if I were to say that everyone should be a hard-core 4-way competitor. Do we have a "right" to a specific aircraft? In the nationals, yes... it's in the rulebook. The rest of the time, no. But what we DO have is the right to choose what DZ we go to, for any reason whatsoever, including the jumplane. This is America, remember? It's called capitalism. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries in the middle east and africa that would love to have you. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

As said before, Icarus offers that, and apparently so does precision. But really, the standard sizes are only about 10% apart in terms of area... I've never really seen a reason to get a custom size, with the exception of someone who bought like a 280 Icarus Safire. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Not being a judge, I could easily be wrong, but I vote it's legal, as long as you drive the peices forward on the opposite side that you end up picking up grips. 1) The compeition handbook says only that it has to be "relative" rotation. This meets the requirement, as any good engineer would tell you. 2) At great risk, I call BS on the centerpoint violation. Let's say for the 8 you track the cat and flip the peices... THAT's a centerpoint violation because they centerpoints cross. But, if you sideslide the cat, move it forward, sideslide the other way, move it back, and sideslide back into the slot, where exactly do the centerpoints cross? Any judges out there who can weigh in on this? In the end it doesn't matter, since it's obviously inefficient anyway. Oh, one other thing... I was once on a (pretty "rookie") team who couldn't turn a 3-way donut backwards to save their souls. As the solo flier in block 2, I literally flew around the entire formation by myself while they attempted and failed to turn backwards... in the end, the peice moved not at all. They awarded points for both times that happened on that block on that dive. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I am on a team that wants to do 3-4 hours of tunnel time the weekend of june 17-18 or july 15-16. If you have another team (or just a couple of people) who would like to split some time, let me know. Preference to Orlando, but Eloy works if we can get morning/evening time, when it's not 120 deg. Best if you e-mail me direct at: ashley25746@hotmail.com or call me at (937) 205-8995. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

If it was simply fingertrapped and nothing else, those are good questions, however... I am a rigger, and last year I attached my father's toggles per the instructions for spectra lines in the Racer canopy owner's manual (looping the fingertrap "through" itself). A few dozen jumps later, he was mid-flare on his Stiletto 150, when out of nowhere one of the lines left the toggle. Fortunately, 30+ years and 4500+ jumps was enough to give him the ability to pull that landing out of his ass with just a couple of bruises. Point is, this was done by the book, and still came out. Needless to say, I do not use that method of attaching brakes anymore, and will ALWAYS have a knot. Oh, and blindfolded packing? Been there, done that. Had a very nice opening, actually. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."