Canuck
-
Content
708 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Canuck
-
I believe in the BASE community it is accepted that smaller canopies open faster than larger ones... Canuck
-
Sling shot effect, myth or reality?
Canuck replied to jdfreefly's topic in Swooping and Canopy Control
I hope not, otherwise we can expect a whole bunch more injuries/fatalities I liked it a lot better over the last couple years when the conventional wisdom was that the most efficient swoop was the one where NO digging was involved and came under bigger, more moderately loaded canopies. Canuck -
Here's one for ya - how do you think Jay Moledski scored 50 feet in round 2???? Canuck
-
Fo shizzle... Just throwing it out there as another factor. Canuck
-
The other thing to remember is that if you set up too far back, you waste all the distance until you actually hit the gates. Canuck
-
Huh...so I guess TJ is no longer on Team Xaos? And Curtis now is? Tagle looks unstopable. Canuck
-
Same point - that being the justifaction of action based on what "everybody else" is doing. As to the SIMs - check the profile dude. Canada. We don't have SIMs, we have PIMs, and the last I checked, the recommendation in them for camera is 500 jumps. Funny how you think I'm being arrogant by saying very few people with less than 500 jumps should being jumping camera. I see it as you being arrogant for thinking with your 200 and some jumps that you are up to the task. And quit throwing around this ten year thing. Despite what you might have heard Colon Berry say in Millenium 2 - we have not turned into birds or evolved. Other than smaller cameras, not a thing has changed (except, as I said earlier, we now often fly faster and in more orientations, which actually makes camera flying WAY more difficult and dangerous). Done. Canuck
-
It is somewhat of an arbitrary number, but so are the ones for all the various instructor, PRO, etc. ratings out there, and I really like the idea of a camera rating. We're making the same point. Canuck
-
You're missing the point, and I'm losing interest. Why are you talking about camera mounts? It doesn't matter whether you have a bullet camera surgically mounted into your skull, or an IMAX camera with a boat anchor attached to it on your head. I'm talking about flying, awareness, and judgment skills that come only with experience. And the other part of your argument, that goes along the lines of "everybody else is doing it" is about the dumbest one you can make. Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't make it right. Need I turn your attention to all the people pounding into the ground under canopies too small for their experience... Canuck
-
Good tip Now without taking your eyes off your monitor (you can even pretend to be looking through a ring site if it makes you feel better) tell me what's on the ceiling above you, the floor underneath you, and the wall behind you... Canuck
-
Yup, there sure are. One who for some reason decided to post two videos of himself in near collision situations, both which would have been avoided simply by not wearing a camera. 10 years ago? What's changed in 10 years? Yeah, the equipment has gotten smaller, but all that has done is make the people wearing it more complacent. Oh yeah, now we also fly faster too. Get your ego in check. You're probably not as good as you think you are, and if you are, then I guess you're one of the very very few that I said are ready before 500 jumps. Canuck
-
Anybody have news/results from the PST meet that's been running for the past week in Perris? Canuck
-
Go read the recent posts and watch the videos in this forum from Superkat. Two perfect examples of how it's not as simple as just ignoring that you're even wearing a camera... There are very very few people with less than 500 jumps than have any business having a camera strapped to their heads. Canuck
-
The Conquest is known for its ill-behaviour when given front riser input. Canuck
-
Hate to say it dude, but here is another example of how you focusing on video could have gotten you hurt. Think about it, had you not been wearing a camera and fixated on keeping the guy accross from you framed, you would have been scanning for the other guy and able to see him coming. That is now two examples in as many days. Perfect for the next person who asks, "What could possibly be more dangerous about just wearing a camera to video my friends?" Canuck
-
I agree, but I guarantee I can backslide as fast as the other guy in the video is tracking... On a side note to the original poster, I appreciate how you have accepted partial responsibility for this near incident rather than getting all defensive. If more people had that attitude, there would be way less injuries and fatalities in this sport. Canuck
-
The video shows no evidence that you stayed in place. The body position you would have had to be in though to continue videoing the guy as he got higher above you is one that often results in backsliding - chest high, knees low. It's the classic tandem video position, and I can tell you from doing a few hundred tandem videos, that without really driving with your legs while in that position, you haul ass backwards. Without a fixed point of reference (i.e. a sitting tandem pair) you wouldn't likely even realize it though. You would be suprized how many people think that they're right down the tube... Canuck
-
My guess is that as you were focusing on videoing the lamest track I have ever seen someone not wearing a helmet do, you were backsliding and keeping up with the other guys (obviously also lame)track. This isn't intended as a flame, but here is perfect example of how adding a video camera can seriously add complexity and danger to a jump for a relatively inexperienced skydiver. This could have been a double fatality... As for the other guy not thinking you were that close, when you can have a conversation before your toggles are unstowed, you're too fucking close! Canuck
-
Of course the impact is ugly. As was posted above, we've all seen first jump students injured from no flare landings under Mantas. The point I'm making is that if you take all the possible scenarios for an AAD fire, even with a small reserve, in almost all the cases you will either walk or limp away. If someone doesn't want an AAD, that's fine. But come up with a better reason than saying they have no purpose with small reserves. Canuck
-
With such a small change in wing load, I think you will actually feel like the VX is doggin it a little. Highly loaded Crossfire 2s are twitchy little buggers and snappy turners. CB flight is something totally different - It feels tight and rigid, but kinda slow. Until you learn how to harness the power.... Have fun. Canuck
-
The quote from your very experienced skydiver friend seems to completely negate the fact that AADs have saved way more lives jeopordized by loss of altitude awareness than by some type of debilitation (i.e. being out cold). Like probably about 100 to one. To me, that's about the lamest excuse for not having an AAD I've ever heard. So, I have an AAD and a highly loaded reserve. Yes I believe I would survive any of your landing scenarios if I were consious. As for unconcious, well, lets just say I watched a friend "land" his Velocity 96 with no flare and suffered a broken pelvis. I think my PD 113 with the breaks still set would put me down a little softer than that... Canuck
-
All the little things about cameraflying...
Canuck replied to lewmonst's topic in Photography and Video
I've been shooting tandems for a few years now, not sure how many exactly, but a few hundred anyway, and this weekend I had my first botch-up. Tongue switch malfunctioned and I didn't get a single picture. Felt like shit having to tell the customer - it seriously bummed me out for the rest of the day. And to add to the list, don't forget the tandem passengers who absolutely refuse to look at the camera, even if you fly in and tweak their damn noses! Canuck -
I like the Diamond .3 too, but Clint was specifically asking for a lens that costs less than 100 bucks. And there is deffinately some distortion in the .3. Again, check out the comparison on Quades website futurecam.com and look at the pictures of the hangar. Canuck
-
Can't really tell from your post if you're impressed with your lens, or your competition accomplishments Anywho... The Titanium .45 that I've seen had brutal vignetting and barrel distortion, which would have been more acceptable if the lens was really wide, but it's actually less wide than a Sony .6. It was on an older TRV model camera, so maybe that was the difference. Pretty bulky too. Canuck
-
Never seen one before, but it looks a lot like the Titanium .45, and that lens sucks. The Sony .6 is much wider than the numbers would indicate, and there is zero vignetting and basically zero discernable distortion. Check out Quades website futurecam and look at his wide angle lens comparison. Canuck