Skwrl

I've had 5 cutaways in a little over 500 jumps (spinning line twists) and about a dozen spinning line twists that didn't reach the point where they needed to be cutaway (that's not an exaggeration - a few of you saw my compendium of spinning skwrl videos). All of them happened while wearing a Tonysuit Mach 1 with the safety sleeve. In all of them, I was able to reach my risers or the lines above them (if I hadn't been able to, the cutaway ratio would have been a lot higher). My personal take on it is that the safety sleeve works. If it doesn't work for an individual jumper because it doesn't fit right, then he or she ought to let Tonysuits know, and get it fixed. But it's not the case that the design is somehow inherently flawed as Jarno implies. It's dirt stupid simple to test it. (Can you reach your arm out without unzipping? If so, yay. If not, get arm widened. Lather, rinse, repeat.) (And as for my malfunction ratio, I had really crappy body position on deployment. My tail wing was habitually open. I got good coaching from some great instructors, and have since solved the problem. On the other hand, I'm almost off AFF on my reserve!) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

This may be individual suit-specific issue - I have the old (non-Bird) wing and I have no problems reaching the floater bar or the camera grip. (Sometimes my feet slip off the camera step resulting in a skwrl in tow, but that's another story.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Jim Crouch was kind enough to provide me a .doc file with the content from the .pdf to comment on, which I've attached. A few suggestions/comments: First, do not edit the formatting or auto-numbering - that will be re-created at a later point, so your efforts will be wasted. Second, although Jim didn't specify this, if you plan on using this document to provide edits, I'd suggest that you provide an explanation for your edits (unless it's blindingly obvious, like a spelling error or something like that). For example, if you think stuff in one section is redundant and you want to delete it, in addition to deleting it, you should indicate why you're deleting it (in this example, pointing out the other parts of the document that make the deleted text redundant). That's going to allow the Safety Committee to review your comments in a more intelligent fashion, rather than trying to guess the reasons for your changes. I suspect a bunch of people are going to make edits in this fashion, so they are going to have to wade through them and make everything conform... I plan on making edits to this document this weekend (assuming I get another side project done on time). If anyone wants to team up and provide comments as a group, I'm happy to work with you. Just to be clear - as I have said on a bunch of occasions, I'm not a wingsuit instructor nor do I play one on TV. As a result, my edits will be primarily focused on making this document more readable, user-friendly and internally consistent (like, for example, getting rid of the requirements and making them recommendations, getting rid of redundancies, fixing screwed up grammar, etc.). -JD Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Mark, Good point, although I'm not sure these exist for all manufacturers, at least not in written form... There probably should be something that says, "Follow the manufacturer's guidelines unless there aren't any or they are unavailable, in which case, to the extent applicable, do the following..." I think everyone agrees on the AAD and audible "requirements" that should be "recommendations" (as I mentioned before, the USPA intended that the entire document be "recommendations", so anything other than that is a holdover from when the document was being used for a different purpose). Without taking a position on this either way, based on third hand knowledge my understanding is that the USPA isn't entertaining changing that at this time. Thus the current recommendations will remain the recommendations. Personally, I think it's a different issue than the First Flight Manual though - certainly one worthy of discussion, regarless whether you are for or against that change. (Although it's not like it hasn't been discussed a lot already in this forum and elsewhere...) It was brought up because the majority of the wingsuit instructors involved in the drafting project recommend having a mudflap or chest mount altimeter. Remember that this document is effectively a survey of what a statistical sampling of instructors currently do. Is it possible that the sampling wasn't representative and, in reality, most wingsuit instructors don't recommend a mudflap or chest mount? Sure. I'd be curious to hear input from Instructors on this... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

So you're willing to send in edits, right? I'm in the process of tracking down a MS Word version of that file so that everyone can provide edits more easily - if anyone wants a copy, let me know. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of this forum, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the dream of human flight. I have a dream that one day this community will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all wingsuits are more or less equal and we're just here to have fun." I have a dream that one day on the forums of dropzone.com, the fans of Robert and the fans of Tony will be able to fly down together in the formation of brotherhood. I have a dream that my child will one day learn to wingsuit in a community where she will not be judged by the make of her suit but by the quality of her flight skills. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, even in this forum, with its vicious partisans; one day right here in this forum, men and women flying Tonysuits will be able to take docks with men and women flying PheonixFlys as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the dropzone with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our community into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to learn together, to flock together, to drink together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. With sincere apologies to MLK's ghost. Sorry if it's obscure to folks from outside the US... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Brian, Simple - it's not correct. You flagged one of a few issues that I have with it as well. A little background might help. I know that you read the proposal that the working group made a while back relating to the wingsuit rating. In connection with that proposal, a wingsuit first flight manual was created and included in the materials that were presented to USPA (and to the wingsuiting community in that .pdf that was posted a while back). The first flight manual was intended to be a "best practices" document (i.e., it would describe what people currently think is the best practice in the art of wingsuit instruction). The FFC manual iteself was the product of a series of interviews with instructors and observations of first flight courses. It describes how a representative sampling of instructors teach today. Now, keep in mind, the purpose of that document originally was to be part of the WSI rating system, which set forth requirements. As you know, that rating proposal was not adopted, but the first flight manual was seen by some to be a useful educational by-product of the WSI rating project. (After all, it's "education not regulation" that we want, right?) As a result, it was proposed that the first flight manual be included in SIM 6-9 (and not replace SIM 6-9 as the e-mail states). Everything in it would be a recommendation and not a Basic Safety Requirement. So, in short, that should read that AADs are recommended, since nothing in the FFC manual as now contemplated by the USPA is a requirement. It must have been missed when that document was transferred over to USPA's hands. -JD Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

In fairness to Dan (the wingsuit pilot in the picture), that picture was taken moments after exit, when Dan was the second to last out of the plane (not including me - I was on camera step). It was a loooooooooong separation, since people weren't exactly too fast getting out the door. I think it was about 18 seconds from first floater off to Dan; I could check the video to confirm (but I won't because I'm lazy and really don't care). For what it's worth, Dan caught up with that formation very, very fast. Now, with that background, you whiny bitches can snipe back and forth as to whether that's because of the suit, or that Dan is a kick ass pilot, or some combo plate. But you can't really assume anything about the suit's performance just from that one photo... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Two observations. First, whoever took that picture must be an awesome guy, and no doubt great in the sack. (But not so good with the whole ISO setting thing - grainy picture is grainy.) Second and less importantly, my recommendation to you would be to try as many demos from as many manufacturers as you can. There are a lot of great products out there these days, but the best suit you're going to find is the suit that's perfect for you and what you want to do with it. Otherwise, it's like saying, "I want to buy a car - which Honda should I get?" You'll likely be amazed at how many improvements some of the manufacturers have come up with since you were last flying wingsuits regularly. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Forget jump numbers - do you weigh more or less than a duck? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Remainder of the pics are now up. Thanks to all. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I've just posted a bunch of pics to Smugmug . So there's no confusion, these do not in include the record jumps (I was serving as load dis-organizer for the other wingsuiters during those), but they do include the practice jumps. More to come, likely tomorrow. To everyone who attended: thanks for making it a fantastic event. It was great to get to see a lot of you again, and to meet the rest of you. -JD Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Here, I'll add one. 1. Purple Mike 2. Michal M 3. Obama 4. J-Sho 5. Andreea 6. Dan M -- no handlebars 7. Stu 8. Scott Gray 9. Chris Gray 10. MonkeyBoy 11. Taya 12. "One Ball" Rick 13. "responsible" Phil Peggs 14. Mark K. 15. "irresponsible" one and a half ball "Stoney" 16. Lurch "Most stylish debris cloud in history" 17-20. The CPI Regulars (Mark K apparently doesn't count) 21. Teh Skwrl. 22. Tony Uragallo 23. Simon 24. Steve H. 25. Kyle O 26. Soby Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Sure. Lots of people feel this way. But don't confuse that with "fair use", which has a very specific, convoluted, messy meaning. What you're talking about is what one of my old law professors called an "Otta' be". In other words, you're saying it otta' be the case that you can copy a song that you bought, or use it in a video, etc. But that's not the world we live in at the moment. I could imagine a huge variety of amendments to the Copyright Act that would make it closer to what you want. But that's more of an SC topic. As for "how often they come after you", like I said before in my speeding example, that's a different issue. I have no idea, personally. Spot? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

In short, yeah. A copyright gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to, among other things: (i) reproduce the work (in this case, a song), (ii) prepare derivative works based on the work (in this case, adding video to the music), (iii) publicly distribute the work, and (iv) publicly perform the work. (There are some other rights - and limitations to those rights - here, but aren't really important to this discussion.) If I commit copyright infringement, one possible defense is "fair use". But fair use is very limited. Practical example: playing on my iPod at the moment is the song "Panic Switch" by the Silversun Pickups. I paid for it. Let's say I think to myself, "gee, I like that song", and I film a tandem student and decide to use a substantial part of the song in a video I make. I have just made a derivative work of the song (I have added video to the song.) Absent a defense to infringement, I have committed copyright infringement. Is my use fair use? I paid for it. I am not making much extra money, or charging people extra for it. Maybe I'm not making any money at all! Unfortunately, that's not what fair use is about. I would lose the argument. From a good article on the subject found here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html (Note: my use in the quote above an example of fair use - ironic, eh?) So, I have made a derivative work of the song. The way the courts look at it (I know this isn't realistic), but my copy on the video is as good as a copy on an iPod. Therefore, if I give someone the video, I've diminished the market for the song (one more person has it that didn't pay the copyright holder). Almost certainly not fair use. Like I said - I don't think it's good policy. And I wish it was different. But that's the lay of the land right now. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

This is one of those situations in which wishing something were true - even having a good reason why it should be true - does not make it so. Using a significant portion of a copyrighted song in a tandem video is highly unlikely to constitute "fair use". People have a lot of misperceptions about what fair use is in the United States, unfortunately. For those interested in learning about what "fair use" really is, you may want to check out this article: http://www.publaw.com/work.html. If you take a look at how fair use has been interepreted, you'll see that it's a little squishy at the edges, but tandem videos are nowhere near the edge... Is it likely that the RIAA or any other person who has an interest in the copyright would sue a DZ or video guy over that sort of infringement? No, probably not. But whackier things have happened. If a DZ did get sued, fair use would likely get blown out of the water. (Add to that a complication that the DZ's lawyer would have to face: the burden of proving fair use is on the defendant. That means that the copyright holder doesn't has to prove that your use isn't fair use; you would have to prove that it is fair use. That sounds like a minor distinction, but it can have a huge practical impact.) Here's a rough analogy: Imagine a speed limit is posted as 55 mph. You're driving 80 mph on that road. Now, you may say, "well, Hell, I'm not going to get caught." That's a risk assessment that you can make if you want. But you shouldn't kid yourself by saying, "well, the speed limit is 80 mph...", because it's pretty clearly not. (I'm not saying this is a good and wise result or that I'm happy about this or anything like that - I'm simply saying what the actual state of the law is. People often confuse what the law is with what they feel the law should be.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I did that with all of my new gear until that incident with the hook knife... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

My first still shot that I actually like... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

For what it's worth, I'm happy to help any skydiving photog in the US* who goes through a similar issue as Matt is going through, free of charge. In the next few weeks (after I complete a few other projects I have going), I'm going to generate a DIY demand letter that people can use as a reference and a few additional suggestions for folks to consider. (For example, serious photogs may want to register their copyrights with the Library of Congress. It's relatively cheap, easy to do, and if someone violates your copyright, you can sue for statutory damages - in other words, you don't have to prove your losses - and you can also recover your attorneys' fees.) * The fine print - two items: First, since I'm not admitted in any jurisdiction other than Massachusetts, I can't represent anyone outside of Mass., but I'm happy to point you to useful references, and if litigation does become necessary, can probably help you find someone. Second, I won't help you if you're trying to be a jerk. Examples of jerkdom include threatening to sue someone for putting an unedited picture on Facebook, without having asked nicely that he or she takes the picture down first. Yes, you're within your legal right to do so. But unless you have a compelling reason to do so, it's sort of silly. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

"It's like, how much more black could it be? And the answer is none. None more black..." Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Having been on that crashtastic jump, my observation is that the editing didn't do it justice. For example, the narrator says: "... the most dangerous formation of all - the stack!" But that's not really accurate at all, is it? He should have said: "the most dangerous formation of all - the stack with Zach on top and distracted by something shiney..." (Just kidding, Zach, you know I

1. Purple Mike 2. Michal M 3. Obama 4. J-Sho 5. Andreea 6. Dan M -- no handlebars 7. Stu 8. Scott Gray 9. Chris Gray 10. MonkeyBoy 11. Taya 12. "One Ball" Rick 13. "responsible" Phil Peggs 14. Mark K. 15. "irresponsible" one and a half ball "Stoney" 16. Lurch "Most stylish debris cloud in history" 17-20. The CPI Regulars (Mark K apparently doesn't count) 21. Teh Skwrl. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I LOL'ed, literally. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

But is it a pre-defined lattice with a pre-defined deviation in lengths between each lattice point? If so, then the "square grid" that Taya proposed is just one possible manifestation of that, right? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

This sums up my thoughts on that post... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork