Skwrl

Steve Harrington died presumably being fully open out of a Twin Otter, in a suit smaller and less pressurized than a couple of the suits seen in these pix. Are you suggesting that an Otter is exempt from tailstrikes unless it's faster than usual? Look... I'm one of the biggest fans of conservative, safe wingsuiting... But... There are lots and lots of reasons to support a wingsuit rating. You could decide that we don't have enough uniformity in the way we teach, or that there's enough variation amongst the guys who teach that we ought to settle on a standard (and that standard could come from the USPA). But here's what isn't a good argument: Tail strikes like Steve Harrington and "people up-sizing suits too fast" are gonna kill us all and ZOMG all the dropzones are gonna ban us. Steve Harrington was a friend of mine. Steve Harrington knew that tail strikes would kill. He was the first - and thankfully so far only - wingsuiter who has died as a result of a tail strike. But he knew all about tail strikes and what they would do. How do I know that? Because he bitched, in person and loudly, at me for opening my wings too fast out the plane. Also, because a couple of people (Lurch, Shorb, and there were no doubt others...) told him to stop popping out the door so fast - that he'd hit the tail. He knew the risks. He disregarded them (consciously or unconsciously, I don't know). He paid the price as a result. Steve taught (to my memory) dozens of first flight courses, including part of mine. Would he have not died if only he'd completed a USPA-mandated first flight course? I find that argument specious. Similar is the "fear of a big suit planet". Big suits are going to kill if we aren't careful; I have been saying that forever. Someone is, sooner or later, going to overestimate their "mad skills" and fuck up at pull time, or go into a terminal flat spin, or hit a tandem, or something equally horrible. It's a matter of time. But again, "big suit creep" isn't something a first flight course is going to fix, any more than "small canopy downsizing" is something AFF fixed. We can warn all we want to in one jump (or ten) not to upsize suits too fast. But that's going to happen - the people who reach for those tools will reach for them, good advice be damned... Ask any new skydiver - they've all heard that downsizing (canopies) is risky. Some run to it anyway because they think they got the chops. Some realize it's full of risks and choose to play it safe. I don't think there's really any ignorance of risk, but a willingness to assume the risk anyway, because of self-perceived "mad skillz" or whatever... Thankfully, concerned, smart skydivers are willing to say to those who want to push the edge, "Hey, don't be retarded, don't fly that Velo at 62 jumps..." and they aren't - at least not as many as a few years ago... That's at least what's needed in wingsuiting. I supported the originally proposed USPA wingsuit rating. In fact, if you want to read my work product and thoughts on the matter, flip through SIM 6-9: I wrote the first draft of that, but others made it much smarter and better. To be clear, that work stood upon the shoulders of - or at least tried to formalize the work of - giants like Scott Campos and Chuck Blue. I personally added nothing. It was further refined, modified, and improved by the folks in the working group - but that working group consisted of some of the best, most experienced, qualified wingsuit instructors at the time. (Well, and me; every working group needs a scribe.) It was a pretty good project. The USPA tabled it, but for good reason: the wingsuiting community didn't back it. As I look back on it, good on USPA for not leaping to solutions. But life isn't static. Others - like DSE - have expanded and improved upon those original concepts to an amazing degree; I've reviewed Spot's improvements and they're pretty damn good, if not "best in industry". And I'm sure others have their own teaching skills and approaches which could improve upon the "standard approach" set forth in the SIM greatly. But if we're going to change rules, let's do it for the right reason. It shouldn't be driven by FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) about what DZOs will do it we don't get our act in gear - that's something that is addressed with better educating DZOs that we can safely wingsuit out of any aircraft, in any traffic pattern. Popping out the door kills? So do low turns. We can teach to solve that problem, at least for the most part. Big suits kill? So does poor canopy control; we can teach to solve that, too. I've observed some very good "un-rated" wingsuit instruction. I've also observed lackluster instruction provided by guys who have a "brand name" instructor ticket. Would it be amazing if we could get uniformity amongst wingsuit instruction? Absolutely. I'm not sure how we get there, though, without going to a "mandatory" instructor/coach arrangement that a lot of people think is overkill. It's a damn tricky situation. But whatever we decide to do, let's drive it off of the long term growth of the sport we love, with an eye toward the safety of the folks who start wingsuiting after us... That's all I got to say on the subject. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

My reason was exactly what I said it was - I wanted to answer the question "how many people flying a wingsuit have died in the last five years in the US?". The reason I asked is because I know my memory is faulty and I'm not 100% perfect. (I know, you guys are all shocked.) I remembered the identity and circumstances of two (Steve Harrington and Dan Kulpa) off the top of my head. A third (Race Price), I couldn't remember his name or exactly what had happened, but I remembered it had happened "out west" with a relatively inexperienced guy. I was on the jump with - and filmed - Pete Luter at F&D 7.0 (so I was embarrassed not to remember it, since Simon was on the same jump). I knew Kerry Lou Kirch from that same Flock & Dock, so it was particularly sad in light of what happened... -Jeff Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Yes, apologies, I was looking for US only. While obviously those fatalities are all hugely regrettable - they were all our friends and their mailing addresses and the passports they carried don't matter a damn bit to any of us. But the question that was put to me was "from the US" only. And I share the sentiment about the thread being horribly depressing. I wanted my answer to be as correct and complete as it could be, though. Thanks to all for your replies. Stay safe and have fun. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Ah, yes, of course, Pete - good point. I'm embarrassed to have forgot that one. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

There was a fatality in Moab in around 2007. A guy with around 120 jumps flew his wingsuit into the ground with no obvious pull. I don't think he had an AAD. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2965379;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Edited to add link. Thanks, Simon - that was the guy I was thinking of whose name I couldn't remember. Is anyone aware of anybody else? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Can you guys help me answer a question that was put to me: How many people have died while wingsuit skydiving in the US in the past five years? I'm aware of Dan Kulpa and Steve Harrington (both in 2009). I'm fairly certain that there was at least one other, but I don't recall that guy's name or any details. Who was he? Are there others? For this purpose, I'm not counting wingsuit BASE or people from more than five years ago. Thanks. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

You could ask Mr. Etch-a Sketch Mitt Romney. His Romneycare is almost indistinguishable from ACA. That lie got blown out of the water upthread - should rightly be called "Patrickcare". Ummm, wut? First, I couldn't find the reference "upthread". But regardless, the Massachusetts health care insurance reform law passed the Mass. General Court (what we call our legislature) in 2006 and was signed by then-Governor Romney on April 12, 2006. Governor Patrick didn't even get the nomination to run as the candidate for the Democrats until September of 2006; he was elected Governor of the Commonwealth in November 2006. While I think Sal DiMasi (then the Speaker of the House) did a lot more to push it through the General Court, it's completely disingenuous (that's a polite way of saying bullshit) to give credit and/or blame to Gov. Patrick considering he wasn't in office until well after that.

That makes no sense. Are you sure you understood what they were reporting? Can you provide a link? It was a recap through huluplus on my DSL TV link. The panel was discussing the lack of legal employment because law firms and corporations were uncertain about their future medical insurance costs. Now they know. My take is that lawsuits regarding ACA will flock like seagulls to tourists on the beach with bags of popcorn. As a lawyer at a pharma and as a law professor who teaches law students about life sciences law (many of which are looking for gigs), this is the goofiest thing I've heard in the last 24 hours, and I've heard a metric ton of goofy things in the last 24 hours. Congratulations. This wins the prize. The PPHCA is way more complicated than just the mandate (that opponents talk about) and the five or six insurance regulatory changes (that proponents talk about). (Curious about what they are? Here's a simple summary: http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm.) There's going to be a decent amount of regulatory work for highly specialized insurance regulatory lawyers. But I'd strongly question the credentials of anyone who claims that this is going to create a boon for plaintiff's lawyers - or lots of employment opportunities for new lawyers - as you imply. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I have a Sony CX550v that has pretty good night vision on it. I don't have any video uploaded, but I'm sure you can find some. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

This is the rationale (very, very simplified): Congress has the power to impose a tax. Congress also has the power to give you a credit against that tax if you do something (like buy health care). So you can purchase health care or pay the tax. Your choice. The fact that it wasn't worded as a tax doesn't make it not a tax. (Actually, it does for the purpose of the Injunction Act because of the wording of that Act, but it doesn't when you ask the question "does Congress have the power to do this?"). I recall Doc Kallend making the point a few months back that it was effectively a tax. The Supremes agreed with him. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

From the press release: "Sony’s hallmark SteadyShot® image stabilization technology..." Do they mean the BOSS technology found in the CX-760 or the current stabilization tech? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I've not jumped a V4 enough to give a meaningful comparison - I can only really compare it to the suits I've jumped regularly (S, X, P2/3, the smaller Tony suits - like the I, T, and R - and some very out of date suits). I'm sure someone else can compare it with a V4. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I have an X-bird, an S-bird and an archaic Mach 1. I have access to a P2/3 (not really sure where the suit falls the Phantom development spectrum) that I've been using a lot for back flying lately. Of the four suits, but S-bird is the one that gets the most air time. It's great for camera flying with a flock (I can fly with it, around it, etc.) with a huge amount of range. I've used it to chase rodeos (fast fall rate, slower forward speed), used it to move all around large vertical stacks (need to be able to decrease fall rate fast to do that), and used it to regularly chase tight flocks of the biggest suits. Range and power when you need it. If I was stuck on a desert island and could only bring one wingsuit with me, the S-bird would be the one. Killing that metaphor: if the bigger suits are Ginger, the S-bird is Mary Ann. Sure, Ginger is sexier, but you're going to get tired of her crap fast, and just want versatile and fun. Flown really well (i.e., not by me) it can and has kept up with the big suits, but will no doubt fall in the "max performance" rankings as time progresses and suits get increasingly absurdly large. It's not a beginner suit, as others have pointed out. As others pointed out, it is more challenging to backfly in. The bigger tail and wingroot have a tendency to push you head low when backflying. This can be mastered, of course, but it's more challenging. My background: I have about 1100 skydives, of which about 875 are wingsuit jumps. I'm not sponsored by anyone, but PF supplied the suits to the school I'm a member of (Northeast Bird School). I've never been compensated by any suit manufacturer for anything. I like Tony when I can understand what he's saying. I am not a wingsuit instructor, coach, or anything like that. I take pictures. I'm also a Leo who likes long walks on the beach. As I've said before, don't buy any suit you haven't tried. See if you like it, if it fits your flight style, or it it makes you look fat. I've never had a problem closing my S-birds wings with the airlocks closed. It's far easier than, for example, an X-bird in that respect. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

An older shot, but I dig it. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Wait, I know you're trying to be funny, but I'm kind of confused by that. Are you bitching I didn't post the video? Cause if that's the case, I'll do that when I get back to the US in a little over a week. If not, then I don't get it. And, for the record, my video is from last week. I haven't jumped since then, so whatever data he's posting - his most recent ones - wasn't with me. [Edited to add...] Ah, I get it now. Top Gun. Never actually saw the film; didn't get the reference. Apologies about my initial over-reaction (since edited away). Wil post the video if anyone wants to see it, but all it would prove is that he flew scrunched up next to me on a few jumps last weekend, it wouldn't show my flight position, so no doubt somebody would question that. Maybe we'll have to both simultaneously film a jump and side-by-side the video. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Since I'm the "video guy" that Lurch mentioned, I figured I'd throw in my observations. I watched Lurch's Altitrack in "live playback" mode. I can confirm it registered -20 on the third jump, and you could see the fall rate increase, then decrease, then go negative in the way Lurch described. I know he had a FlySight on him, so I suspect he'll be able to export/upload the FlySight data. I assume they will match. Regardless of that mathsturbation, It made my Xbird look like a joke. On all three jumps, we agreed to fly together for about one minute, then he'd switch to "full flight" and we'd go our separate ways. Before the first jump, I was convinced that Lurch would get a performance improvement with the suit, but it wouldn't be massive. (I didn't doubt he would get performance increases that would dwarf my Xbird's over time, but I figured that since he was jumping a suit he didn't know - and I know my suit pretty well - it wouldn't completely out perform my Xbird on Day 1.) I was wrong. Lurch is lighter than me (I'm 170 lbs without gear; he's about 135, I think); we're about the same height (about 5'10 / 5'11"); and he's got more wingsuiting experience (I've got about 900 wingsuit jumps at this point), but it was still a major surprise to watch him scrunched up, bent knees, arms back, etc., while flying next to me - I was in flat out max flight. Back at Flock & Dock 8.0, I watched Scotty Burns fly an XRW [note - I'm not sure what the difference is between the XRW and the Rebel - I thought they were the same suit], and the video I captured (and video I collected from others) show him blasting through the sky. There's no question the suit has potential to be stupid fast. Vicente Cajiga also jumped one at that event. Perhaps either of those guys can chime in on this thread with their opinions. One thing Lurch left out of his review - his deployments were sketchy. Not "dangerous" sketchy (from what he told me), but sort of "shit I really, really, really need a 12 foot bridle" sketchy. Lurch, give some details on this part... A couple more thoughts - this suit is definitely not for inexperienced (or even some "advanced") wingsuiters. Particularly given the modifications that Lurch had to make on it before jumping it (to allow direct access to handles, since the factory designed zippered access ports didn't match the locations of the handles on Lurch's rig), I wouldn't suggest it to anyone with less than 500 wingsuit jumps (and there are many folks with 500 wingsuit jumps that I wouldn't recommend use it). Flocking with this suit is going to be very, very challenging - it's really a suit for folks who want to fly a lot of solos and/or have no friends. It should NOT be purchased by anyone who is simply thinking "well, it's hard for me to stay with a flock, so I should get a bigger suit..." Personally, I'm not a fan of big suits. I like my XBird a lot, but I use my SBird for most of my day to day flocking and fun - it's plenty versatile and gives lots of great performance. I think people rush to up-size to bigger suits way too fast. And personally, I think that it's more fun to fly with friends than try to fly a giant sail alone. But having said that, if your goal is max performance, as far as I can tell this is the best tool for the job. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

The AAD is a "reserve activation device". It "pulls the reserve if I can't". The word "cutting" is likely to remind our friends in the TSA of box cutters used in 9-11. Say "cut" too loud around the wrong dopey inspector, and you're gonna have a bad time. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I think this is the only correct response to this whole thing. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Can any of you guys in the US get any of these streams to load? I have had no luck with any of them so far (most are "UK and Ireland only", others crash without explanation). Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Hmmmm. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3649416;search_string=tax%20credit;#3649416 Yep. That would have worked much better from a Con Law perspective, but I assume they would have had issues selling it politically (even though it's the same damn result). Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no? Close, but different as it's conditional. If one does not want to be subjected to a wheat restriction, they can chose to not grow wheat. If one does not want health insurance, they have no way of avoiding it without fines as the condition is life itself. Not even taxes have that power, one can simply not make nor spend money and they will pay no tax. That is a distinction between the two, but the question (from a constitutional standpoint) is whether that distinction between the two makes any difference as to whether it is interstate commerce, as the health insurance market is defined as the population of people in the US (so, if you're living, you're part of "the pool"). I'll admit that it's invasive, but up until Lopez a lot of Constitutional scholars would have bet that it was within the Commerce Clause power to do so. Now? Who knows. We'll see, I guess. For the folks who back the ACA, their biggest mistake (in my analysis) was that they should have structured it as a tax. You could easily say "we're going to raise taxes by $x, but you get a credit equal to $x if you buy health insurance". That would have clearly been Constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. They didn't for political reasons; it will be interesting to see how whether that bites them in the ass. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights... Regulate, yes. Mandate, no. The issue of too much government interference and corruption is not limited to the federal level., they're just the worst offenders. Wait, wait... States can and do regulate insurance; it's a power they have retained because they haven't been pre-empted by Federal law. You were saying "federal law ought to set the standard for insurance", which means that states effectively don't. If you want to have federal sales of insurance, you need either (a) an interstate harmonization of insurance laws - a major undertaking with 50 states' insurance commissioners all vying for their position to be heard - it was tried and failed spectacularly, or (b) federal law pre-empting state law (so, limited state's rights there). The folks who usually complain about the ACA (I'm agnostic but it's an interesting Constitutional argument) claim that the ACA is unconstitutional because the constitutional authorization that underlies it is the Commerce Clause, and they claim that despite 60 years of jurisprudence that expanded the Commerce Clause, there are limits to it and you can't create a mandate on an individual as he or she might not interact in interstate commerce. There's nothing in the Commerce Clause that limits the power of a STATE to do that. That's why the Massachusetts act is constitutional (both under the Massachusetts constitution AND the Commonwealth's Constitution). Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights... This maybe should apply here I'm missing your point there. Are you saying that you think it's within the federal power to regulate or is it limited to the states? As a body of law, the Commerce Clause has evolved considerably, since 1903. For example, any analysis that skips over the huge body of Supreme Court cases since the New Deal is pretty darn misleading. For starters, check out United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., which states: "The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. * * * [No] form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power." Granted there have been cases that have popped up after (in 1995, Lopez) that that have placed limits on the ability to regulate true INTRA-state activities, and that's why the ACA case is interesting from a Constitutional standpoint. But that really wasn't what I was getting at. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork