danielcroft

You're welcome.

Call Sonic at The Ranch Pro Shop and talk to them about it. My understanding of the suits isn't that the 618 is more advanced than the 619. My understanding it that the Tonfly suits are generally a more advanced type of suit and the difference between the 618 and 619 has more to do with the body type of the user. http://ranchproshop.com/ 845-255-2252

I dig the storm too, lots of fun to fly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxjEKpn6Tos

I haven't flown a Sonic suit but I own two Tonfly suits and an Ouragan suit. I have a shortie TF suit and a 618 with TI arms. Compared to my Ouragan (which is the "old" style of suit with drag through adding material rather than through different materials), the tonfly suits are a lot more work to fly. I weigh about 155 lbs / 50 kg and am 177 cm / 5'9" tall, with the Ouragan, I didn't need to do anything to get lift but, as was mentioned speeding up could be a problem, it was great for the tunnel though as I didn't have to work as hard for lift. The 618 was really weird to transition to but once I got it, I much prefer it, plus I have better range. The shortie tonfly is even harder to fly but it's more balanced for me. I mean that the 618 has a lot of cordura on the lower legs and I find transitions where my legs come in to play to be more difficult than with the shortie. HTH

https://www.facebook.com/groups/sofpidarf/ and it's spelt "breaux", breaux. I've put a couple of hundred jumps on a Odyssey 115 loaded at 1.6. Really nice canopy and sits about in the middle between the XF2 (I'm currently flying a XF2 109 @ ~1.7) and the KA. I also demoed a KA120 for about 20/30 jumps and an XF2 119 for about the same. I like to explain the Odyssey as how PD would build a crossfire competitor, it feels more PDish in the way it flies but isn't as serious as a KA. The XF2 is great but you have to fly it through the recovery arc (in my pretty limited experience) and it also recovers quicker than the KA & OD. The OD is a very nice canopy but the openings can be a little odd, nothing too dramatic but you probably need to be a bit more on your game. The XF2 openings are ridiculously nice, like getting a cuddle... um yeah... I won't go as far as to offer you advice on your progression, there are much more experienced people here who can do a better job than I would. Unfortunately, if you can't demo (I was lucky enough to be able to demo all three of the canopies I've mentioned before buying) then you're just going to have to go on what people say. So, that means business as usual for skydivers.

I have these with the foam plugs: http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/er6i.aspx They're as quiet as the ear plugs the tunnel gives out.

What he said.

Good work on your cutaway, I had one on #12 where I miraculously saved my cables too. As for your canopy choices, I think the issue that you face as a newer jumper is that you need a lot longer on your first canopies to learn how they fly than someone with more jumps. I really depends on whether you're flying your own canopy or just flaring by memory on how you were taught. That's an important distinction that I think alludes people even with several times the number jumps that you have. There's not a lot anyone on the internet can tell you that will be genuinely applicable to your question that your local instructors couldn't tell you with a lot more accuracy. There's a lot of information that we're not privy to about you, your attitudes toward jumping and specifically flying your canopy that is critical to giving you appropriate advice. As a general rule, you want to be proficient on your canopy before you start thinking about downsizing. You want to confirm with your instructors that they think it's appropriate and really take your canopy seriously, it's not just a ride to the ground. I'll refer you to billvon's awesome downsizing checklist, I come back to that pretty regularly as these are survival skills: http://www.dropzone.com/safety/Canopy_Control/Downsizing_Checklist_47.html Other than that, I'd agree with Yoink for the most part.

Glad you came to the conclusion you did, it's amazing how much difference it makes to have someone organizing at a DZ in terms of development of jumpers and having the kind of skill you're looking for. I know at the Ranch we used to have some seriously good belly organizing which meant we had a pretty good skill level all around for doing belly ways, once that stopped, the general skill level dropped off. The same happened with FF, we had (and still have) organizing going on and some friendly competitions which brought the general level up to the point where you could actually get some fun and productive skydives in. The energy comes from people on the DZ investing in other skydivers and (usually) requires some support from the DZO/DZM. I know for me, being a relatively experienced skydiver, I'm always looking at the people who are better than me (there are a lot of them ;-) ) and forget that I can be helpful to others. With the tunnel just opening in Austin, I can't imagine that you'll be short of skilled FF people for long.

The issue was that the FAI requires that records have slot specific and very detailed plans. That means that when a stinger docks with their left hand as opposed to their right, it's considered to not be meeting the jump plan. As far as I was told (only at Summerfest, nowhere near good enough to actually be on the jumps) by friends who were on the record was that the organizers didn't tell the stingers which dock to take so they took whatever they could get which meant that some went right hand and some went left and hence the rejection of that jump by the FAI. State and Guinness records don't require that level of detail, I think it's just slot specific rather than down to which dock was taken but I haven't verified. All that aside, bloody amazing job to everyone involved. It was really awesome to watch the hard work that went into these records over the whole 3 days. It was hot, humid and you guys worked your asses off, great work! Personally, I consider the 142 to be more impressive than the FAI 138, not sure why people keep talking the 138 up and not the 142. Either way it was incredible, just ever so slightly more incredible with those extra 4 people.

There are quite a few people at my dz who have shoulder issues, most of them wear braces to help their shoulder stay in place. This might give you some confidence too. Make sure you talk to your instructors about that too as you don't want to end up with the wrong brace that might limit your movement in unexpected ways. I was really scared of jumping for my first 100 jumps, it slowly got more manageable after that but I'm still scared of jumping, but now I've know how to manage the fear and how to separate the irrational from rational fear. I had two pilot chute hesitations (close together, had an experienced friend jump my rig who had the same issues, had the PC replaced before the next jump), I was literally crying when I got to the ground and for some time after. Smart people are afraid of dangerous things. Don't beat yourself up for being scared.

Thanks for posting, we're all hurting up here at the Ranch. Alex was a great guy with a heart to match, he is missed. BSBD

Good stuff. : )

Great stuff Bill, I hope your last is your best.

You're on an all HU skydive and you're diving after the formation. You want to exit the plane HU rather than backfly the exit, what's the best way to do this?

And that is exactly what tunnel time is, you take away the most dangerous factors (on the road, that's traffic and unexpected obstacles) in skydiving that's canopy deployment and traffic and that pesky dying thing and you can train in a more focussed environment. If you think track or closed course riding is as dangerous as street riding then I'm not sure what I can say to you. I know you ride too so I guess it's just a difference of opinion. That only 360 jumps are required to get the 6 hours of freefall is fucking ridiculous. For some reason I've always had it in my head that you needed 500 jumps. Fuck that, I've changed my opinion, there's no way in hell that someone with 300 jumps should be AFF at all or 360 for that matter. Our licenses are pathetic. sigh

You guys all have a lot more experience than me so I'll defer to you. Ron - the motorcycle analogy refers to riding in traffic and on roads where you don't know what's around the next corner, not to mention people coming into your lane from the other direction... it is not false. I can very easily learn techniques on a closed course and then apply that knowledge to riding on the road. As for allowing a rock climber who learnt in a gym how to belay, absolutely I'd be fine with them belaying me I'd also be fine with them teaching to belay, I wouldn't be fine with them setting anchors or leading route though because they didn't learn that. Any time they did have out on real rock could then be spent focussing on the things they don't know. PC - I like the Canadian system way better than ours. Doesn't seem like the USPA's style though does it? VB - clearly not. Your example misses the point but I get that you're saying what everyone else is. Many professional racers use simulators (I hear the air force is into them too) to learn a track before they go racing there. Does that mean it's the same? Of course not but it clearly helps. You've probably never raced a car around those circuits so you're not going to have any point of reference or even the tools to transpose that virtual experience to the real world when you get there. I guess my point boils down to this: Do you guys really believe that someone who's goofed off for 400 jumps with just enough belly to pass the AFF/I course is going to be markedly better than someone who's goofed off for 500 jumps? Many of the experienced instructors complain that the AFF/I rating course is a joke so what exactly are you guys trying to save here? Personally I think that some people are cut out to hold that kind of responsibility and will make great AFF/Is, others won't. There's very little in my nearly 700 jumps (I know, not a lot) that has made me feel that I'm ready to hold a student's life in my hands *AND* be ready to pull at 2k. Ultimately what our instructors are being trained to do is give our students the best chance they can to learn safely in the air. If that means spin stops, roll overs or chasing them across the sky, then that's what it is but there are still no friends below 2k and AFAIC, that's the real mental challenge of being an AFF/I, at least from an outsider's perspective. I always seem to end up playing devil's advocate. What I really think needs to happen is that all the license and rating jump requirements should be at least doubled and we should add time in sport.

Thanks Simon. I was chatting with Rob from 'Crow and he mentioned that idea, not sure who exactly said that to him. What's your feeling on a 360 HU and then regular HU break off (back track away)? We've been working on 4 and 5 way HU exits, man they're hard to do! Great work on the record guys, didn't mean to sound like I was down on it at all, just trying to get my head around some of the safety aspects.

Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows. One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along. I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course. Those things are very helpful to the learning process but absolutely can't replace the actual activity (depending on what your intended activity is of course). To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met, actually doesn't make becoming an AFF/I easier at all, it means that you need to have demonstrated advanced flying skills in an easily observable and verifiable environment in addition to doing the same rating test that happens now. You guys say that the lack of air time will mean worse instructors in terms of the mental game and sure I can see that but I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would prepare me mentally to bail on a student @ 2k. I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would have prepared me to be kicked in the head and do spin stops at the same time. Yeah, I've had a cut away and a couple of pilot chute hesitations that really freaked me out. I got my pro rating right after my D, blah, blah. What part of all that makes me ready to hold someone's life in my hands and what part of that makes me ready to do the serious job of actually flying with a student who's all over the sky? Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

I admit to being an turbine baby so I do actually forget about IAD and static line, yes, I'm ashamed. Having said that, I'm really not sure how some people responding to this thread can claim that the AFF training program is so fatally flawed and almost in the same breath say that specific, monitored training in a tunnel (which, we should remember, has proven to be a VERY affective training tool) would make it easier? I get that the mental aspect cannot be taught in a tunnel, I get that chasing someone across the sky can't be taught in a tunnel. What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that tunnel time with very specific and rigorous requirements wouldn't add value to an AFF/I. Personally I'd say that all the ratings and licenses need to go up now that people can get as many jumps as they do in a year (should we consider time in sport in this argument as well) but I'm no AFF/I. I take the points of people about smaller DZs retaining staff, I was just wondering about reasoning behind this idea other than a crap load of tunnel instructors looking to get a job as an AFF/I which seems improbable to me but I don't really know.

Nice. I heard they launched a 6 way base and had ninjas?

Nice job that I'm not allowed to see that content on facebook? I was told that the final decision for the head up breakoff was a front flip to out facing HD and then standard HD track off? I don't get that (if it's true) why do we want to speed up the skydive on breakoff? Why did we dismiss a 360 in place to a standard sitfly breakoff? As you can see from my profile, I'm not the most experienced skydiver in the world these questions aren't meant to be rhetorical. Seems like we'd be limiting who could be on these jumps to those who can fly HD as well? I did one of these on the weekend in a group of 6 or 7 IIRC. Seems like a lot of movement when what you really want is a simple, stable and controlled exit.

Here's my comment: I voted for one hour with specific coaching with the comment above but I was definitely conflicted over that. My initial reaction was outright no but what happens to smaller DZs that just don't have AFF/Is? Do they just stop making students? Send people elsewhere? It'd be good to see the reasoning behind this (I mean directly from the USPA).

Oh, sorry, I thought the OP said he was using the hybrid which is the same as regular but with CF baubles I thought.