mcordell

I personally would rather have a senior rigger add a BOC pouch than replace one. The idea of removing any stitching at all scares me a bit, so the concept of cutting stitching which binds together the container itself to replace a BOC pouch on my rig is out of the question. A few of you may remember, a while back there was a rig that came with padding on the inside of the harness to make it more comfortable and a number of people felt they were in the wrong place. To fix the issue, they removed the stitching from the padding, moved it up higher on the shoulders, and re-stitched it. Unfortunately, the stitching holding the padding on was also structural in regards to the reserve risers and I think there were at least three fatalities where people deployed their reserve and had the risers ripped clean off of the harness. I don't remember what container it was, but I'm sure I could come up with it if needed. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Since you seem to be the self appointed safety police, I'd like to see that video also. How could you say that Timmy? Clearly Chuck is concerned about protecting the tandem profession as a whole I guess to me it's not as clear as it is to you. There are a couple of items in the original video that Chuck dislikes and complains about but to me are not a problem. There are also the other things he complains about that I totally agree with. He just seems to be singling out this DZ. Just my opinion. Take it as such. I guess the issue though is that it doesn't really matter what is a problem to you and what is not. Nor does it really matter what is a problem for the OP. What matters is if the actions are a blatant violation of current regulations and if those actions being questioned go against the training and certifications of those involved. I think the OP was simply pointing out that several of the actions represented in the numerous videos are a direct violation of what is allowed and endangered the unsuspecting passengers involved. Just because they may have thought it was fun, or just because it made a cool video, doesn't excuse the instructors and videographers from unnecessarily endangering the tandem passengers. I believe, without going back and looking, that this was verified by a tandem instructor examiner at one point or another. I'm just not sure why you felt it necessary to question the OPs motives. He didn't make them do any of what they did. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

You should call L&B about this. I bought a Viso and had a problem with the case cracking. Mads Larsen told me they had a problem with the molding process and that they would replace it free of charge. They actually sent me the Viso II which is the new version with the ruggedized, rubberized housing. I don't see any way this one will crack. Perhaps they have made some improvement to the optima. I haven't had any problems with my optima cracking at all. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I originally bought the Viso a couple years ago. After reading the reviews here I can tell you it DOES come with the hand mount with the finger loop now. The supplied ties seem to be a source of contention for those who have done reviews, but I was able to attach mine with no problems and it has not come off or come loose. I suppose if you are able to tie your shoes you should be able to attach the viso the the hand mount with the tack cord included. I did have a problem with mine where a crack started to extend up from the plastic seam. It appeared to be a manufacturing issue with the molding process. I sent an e-mail off to L&B to ask if this would affect functionality and they told me to send it back for a free replacement! I sent it back and not only did they replace it, but they replaced it with the new Viso II. The new Viso II is waterproof (which I saw as a downside above), has several new features, and has a rubberized and ruggedized housing. Can't beat the Viso!

Did I click on bonfire? I have one....I love it as it helps with my back pain quite a bit. I can tell you though that the bed sets at a particular number, and if you increase the weight on that side, i.e. add another person it will release air to adjust, so when it is just you on that side again, you have to adjust back to where it was. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

You are all making this WAY more complicated than it has to be. Take your already built canopy, get a seam ripper, take it all apart, measure. figure in a little extra to be safe. Now you have your answer! www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I guess I don't see what the problem is with using a digital altimeter. I also don't see any advantage whatsoever in using an analogue. Anyone that starts jumping today grew up with digital watches and should be fully capable of reading numbers on a screen. If not, they shouldn't be jumping at all. I've never jumped an analogue and bought my viso before taking my first jump course. When my father first started sport jumping using old military surplus rounds, he didn't even have an altimeter. The students at his drop zone jumped without them and he managed to survive. I think often times people are just afraid of change. He tells me when squares first came out there was a requirement at his drop zone that you had to have a certain number of jumps before you could use one because they were dangerous. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

well it seems both tube stows and rubber bands can cause bag locks. I guess the real answer here is not to stow my lines at all.....I'll just accordion fold them into the container and hope for the best www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

yes, then immediately do a hop and pop and swoop the shit out of it....that's how you test one out, with a 960 degree front riser turn to a 60 mile an hour landing www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this, I doubt there's ever a point in skydiving where you "stop learning stuff" sure there is....right before you go in..... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I'm going to start swooping parafoils.....that'll get people talking www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

No, he meant if 611 jumpers made 200 jumps a year, one of them would die. That's not far fetched. Another way to look at it? About 30,000 USPA members. About 30 fatalities a year. About a 0.1% chance of dying each year, or 1% per decade. I hope to jump for at least 50 years overall. I figure I have a 19 in 20 chance of surviving it. Now that's leaving it to chance. You can do a lot of things to improve your odds. I try to avoid all the stupid stuff I see killing others, but fate is the hunter. Besides, I'm a sitting duck for any swooper looking to hit a lower canopy. Go out last, open at 6k, wear an extra chest mounted reserve and a tertiary if you can fit them both, and wear all the protective gear you can fit on the plane with. That should lower your chances Thanks for the reply, there are some on here who manage to contribute constructively with every post and as far as I have seen you are one of them. Blue skies www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

That's some funny shit right there..... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Awesome, I'm definitely going to do that. I keep wondering what people would think if they were looking up and saw me with a PC in tow, reserve PC tangle and delay the deployment, then it clears and I land under my reserve with one shoe on and one in the jumpsuit because I thought I was going in.... Perhaps they would ground me..... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

That does seem like a reasonable conclusion to come to. You are right, there is a great likelihood that the cutaways with no pull would have been saved by an RSL. I have an RSL on my rig and believe that in most situations with will increase the safety of my jump. I don't think I explained what I was trying to get across very well as I am an avid supporter of the RSL and think that everyone should have one, disconnecting it only when necessary for CRW or camera work. I guess what I was getting at was that in many cases where an RSL activates the reserve deployment upon cutaway, I don't know that every situation should be counted as a "save" because of the unknown factor of what would have happened without it. I DO however agree that the RSL has worked in most cases to do exactly what it was designed to do and could have saved far more people than we may ever know. Looking at the fatalities which would likely have been prevented by an RSL vs the number of fatalities where an RSL likely contributed is a great way of weighing the odds and making a decision. Thanks for the reply www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Eh, statistics are just numbers. I don't put much faith in them. I posted the numbers because you can make anything look any way you want with statistics. The fact of the matter is, what we do IS dangerous, but so are so many other things we do. I don't believe skydiving to be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, yet I do that. Looking at the number of jumpers in my area compared with the number of fatalities at my home DZ, (0 as far as I know), then looking at the number of bikes in the city and the number of fatalities on motorcycles since the DZ opened (for the sake of comparing the same time line) I think it would be apparent that riding the motorcycle is inherently more dangerous. The skydiving fatality statistic IS based on one jump a year because with the entire skydiving community taken into account, this is the approximate statistic PER JUMP, however as with any statistic, this doesn't take into account the higher risk population of skydivers. Because of that, the statistic you quoted is equally as wrong. If you don't agree, look at it this way; you stated that statistically, for every 611 jumps at your DZ there would be one fatality. I think if you look at the grand scheme of things, for a jumper who jumps a reasonably sized canopy, doesn't do big formations, jumps at a relatively small DZ (minimizing people in the air at one time), doesn't swoop, uses an RSL, AAD, helmet, audible, etc, the risk is relatively low. You can call it "inherently dangerous" all you want but MOST fatalities were absolutely avoidable. I have no interest in swooping, downsizing, freeflying, etc because I don't feel the increased risk associated with each activity is justified in my situation. I enjoy jumping without doing these things and don't need to increase the risk of a jump. I also don't think it would be fair to say it's irresponsible to jump without getting some enormous insurance policy first. If a jumper goes about jumping in a conservative manner, then there are many other activities that person will do in their daily life that are more dangerous. I'm not minimizing the risk, just stating the facts. You drive far more than you jump and there is a great risk of personal bodily harm associated with that based SOLELY on the frequency with which you do it. I just don't think it's fair to say someone is selfish or irresponsible for jumping because they didn't do the things YOU felt you needed to do in case you died. Just about everyone here engages in this sport while some others are contemplating it. If you don't want to scare people away and you want our sport to grow, then why don't you just tell them that yes, there are some risks associated with it as with any sport, but if you go about it safely and conservatively then you can do a lot to minimize that risk and enjoy the sport for a very long time. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I'm not nitpicking, nor am I attacking. I would agree that RSLs have worked as designed far more than they have failed to do so, resulting in a malfunction of the reserve system. I never said I didn't agree with that. I don't believe it is nitpicking to oppose a statement which is factually flawed and clarify it with one that carries an ENTIRELY different meaning. Not only that, but this is a DISCUSSION board which is put in place for the sake of carrying on discussion. That is exactly what I did. I come here with the intention of learning everything I can and hopefully contributing some as well. Learning will only take place if there are open discussions. If we simply posted our views without debating the validity of our points then it would be impossible for someone to discern the legitimately correct information from the flawed information. Thanks for your input. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

now THAT is likely the best advice yet! get the feeling of flight and see if it is appealing to you, albeit not the same. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Let me start by saying you have far more experience with skydiving than I do, however, I have to disagree with the accuracy of your comment. I don't believe it would be possible to determine that there have been more lives saved by an RSL than taken by one. Strictly from a statistical standpoint, it would be improper to credit each and every successful RSL activated reserve deployment as a save. There would be no real way of knowing if the person who cutaway their main and subsequently found a reserve overhead would have followed their proper emergency procedures. I do have an RSL and plan to continue having one on my main rig. I also believe that the RSL is LIKELY more good than bad and will definitely provide me with a functioning reserve faster than I could for myself in most situations, however, looking at the situation, again from a statistical standpoint, if you cannot absolutely credit each reserve activation caused by an RSL as a save, but you CAN credit a fatality to a premature reserve deployment followed by an entanglement to the RSL, then the RSL is statistically less safe than not having one. I don't want to turn this into an RSL thread as I know there are many of them, but this statement is used quite often and there really is no supporting evidence to PROVE that the RSL has saved more lives than it has taken. I would be interested to know if someone out there has information to the contrary. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

If you are going in, you shouldn't be cursing. You should be putting one of your shoes inside your jumpsuit so the EMTs will say, "how the hell did his shoe get in there" www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

2007 odds of dying in a skydiving accident, 1:122,222 Odds of dying in a car accident in the year 2000, 1:18,585 Odds of dying as a pedestrian in an accident, 1:46,901 Dying in an ATV accident, 1:17,416 Choking on an item OTHER THAN FOOD, 1:86,384 Drowning, 1:79,065 Building fire, 1:99,174 Intentional self harm, 1:9,380 Assault, 1:16,421 Legal execution, 1:3,441,325 Poisoning, 1:107,668 You can look at the numbers all you want. What it boils down to is, as previously stated, weighing the risk versus the benefit and making a decision for yourself. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I just found out something that I need to pass along! I discovered that Dihydrogen Monoxide kills more people every year than any other chemical compound on the earth. Everyone stay away from Dihydrogen Monoxide! (that's water by the way) www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Skydiving isn't what it used to be. The gear is safer than the jumper now. There are a lot of activities that are more dangerous than skydiving. Does everyone here who rides a motorcycle have a 95 million dollar policy to make sure their spouse or children can spend money like MC Hammer until they lose their mansion to back taxes? How about those of you who are rock climbers too? Yea jumping is dangerous but so is driving your car without a seat belt. Who here puts their own christmas lights up on their house? Lots of people die each year falling off their roof while hanging lights. Each year there are tragic fires due to dry christmas trees catching fire because of lights. A house on my street burned down because of a cooking accident. Perhaps I should move to a street which has a fast food restaurant on the same side of the road so I don't have to cross the street. Then I can safely walk somewhere to get food I don't have to cook. Then I could stop celebrating the birth of christ, never use candles, and only leave the house when absolutely necessary. Life is about weighing the risk versus benefit of everything you do and making a decision that makes you happy. Remember though, almost all skydiving fatalities occur within one mile of the drop zone, so always land off and walk back. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

that's why it's not getting washed. Its small enough already and was only going in a second rig. I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed the ride down, but it would have beat the alternative. I'm not willing to wash and retest it because as small as it would be for my weight, I don' t want to introduce any more variables that would increase porosity and decrease ass saving drag. It's either going to someone who has a use for it or it will become the "acid mesh tent". www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Oh, I think it was made in 81 or so. Unfortunately it passes the strength test but fails the acid mesh test so I can't use it. It is legal to pack if it passes the test. There is another legal option of washing it to neutralize the acid and then test it again in which case if it passes you can use it, but I'm not going to mess with it. It would make a great base water canopy though. The real down side is I need to find another reserve in the raven 1 size range now to put in this container. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging