davelepka

Indeed. I'm sure you recall 'take 1' of the full-face contour mount, which was also on the side but poorly executed. Nobody ever told him not to put it on the side, just to get a box or similar 'correct' mount if he was going to do it. A top mount that can freely swing through a good range of motion, and effect the eyesight of the jumper and create a significant snag-hazzard in the process is just not a good idea. If it was, Bonehead would have put the camera up top, and sold 1000 of them by now. I seem to recall several months back, Chris from Bonehead posted here asking for ideas for a GoPro mount for a full face helmet. After months of consideration, with better than a decade in business, and I assume several prototypes/test jumps, he went with a side mount. This guy likes to go top-side, but he's never been one to follow the crowd.

You were wearing glasses, which offered some eye protection. Were you also doing RW, which would have the relative wind traveling paralell to your face (as you look across to your other RW pals)? Take away the glasses, add in freeflying, add in a collision or snag, add in possibly loking face first into the realtive wind, and you can encoutner problems with tearing that can effect your vision. This is not always solved by simply closing the visor, the effects on your vision can last well beyond the canopy ride. Add in that if the visor is stuck open, the camera and mount are pointed right back in the 'deployment zone', over your back where your rig does it's business. If the mount can move, it will. If you are not comfortable jumping with the mount in any position it could assume, then you should not jump the mount.

You don't want anything that will inhibit your visor from going up or down. You need to be able to change that at will at anytime either in or out of the plane. There are any number of reasons why a visor that is stuck up or down could be a bad thing. You also don't want anything that can influence the position of the visor against your will. If you create a high-profile 'handle' for your visor, the chances that it will be used can arise. If you snag your camera or mount on something in the middle of a jump, that's bad. If that snag leads to the additional problem that your visor gets popped open in the process, that's even worse. If your visor get's stuck open or ripped off, even worse yet. I'm not trying to discourage you, or anyone, from coming up with 'new' ideas, but if you notice the huge number of full face helmets at the DZ, and the huge number of GoPros/Contours at the DZ, and the fact that the two never really mix, there's a reason for that. Between Bonehead, Cookie, and everyone else making helmets, camera helmets and camera mounts, someone would have put the two together if there was a sensible way to do it. In fact, there was a full face, full visor camera helmet out there for awhile, I think it was called the Headhunter, but the trick was that the visor was fixed in place becasue the cameras were up in the area where it would swing if it was mobile.

No, that's not it. The man is shopping for a significant other. When you meet a woman you like, you show it by treating them like a significant other, and yes, part of that includes spending money on them, more money than you spend on 'just a friend'. It's not that you're trying to buy their love or sex, it's that you're looking for a person who you like more than any other, and you will treat that person differently than 'just a friend'. You would also spend more time with them, share more personal details with them, and try to be more helpful to them than you would to 'just a friend'. It's what seperates a significant other from 'just a friend', it's what makes them your #1 priority, with everyone esle in 2nd place or below. Now when you start to treat someone in this way, you're hoping that it will be reciprocated. One way you know the feelings are mutual is that the person tells you so. Of course, some people don't like to talk about their feelings like that right away, so another way you might know is by their actions. If they appear to hold you above all others, that's a good sign, but another good sign is physical intimacy. The question here isn't suggesting the sex is the only goal, and the money isn't the only perameter, just that sex is one goal and money is one perameter. Just like every woman here has dated a man that clearly was only interested in sex, and was willing to do or say anything it took to make that happen, there are men who have dated women who were clearly not interested in sex, and willing to do or say anything to make sure that it didn't happen while continuing to date the man. So if you take a woman out, and show them a good time with a nice meal, some drinks, and maybe a show, and even though they don't want to become a 'signifcant other' to you, they continue to date you because you show them a good time, where do you draw the line? At some point you need to stop treating them like a significant other because it's clear that they are not interested in becoming your significant other. If you didn't 'cut the cord' at some point, you would still be treating every woman you ever dated like a significant other, and that's just not possible. When you treat everyone (or even just more than one) that way, it ceases to be significant, and becomes the 'norm'.

After giving it some additional thought, if your current rigger is not willing work with you as far as sitting in on another V3 packjob, look for another rigger. Ask around the DZ for some reccomendations, and then call one and explain that you are interested in learning about how your rig/reserve system works, but were unable to be present for the original pack job. See if they would welcome you to 'sit in' on a pack job and show you the inner workings. If they do, and that meeting goes well, I say you just met your new rigger. Give your current girl a chance to keep your buisness, but if she's not interested in helping you out, you shouldn't be interested in bringing her your business.

I can help - don't buy a PD210. That's an F111 brid, and in it's best day was good for about a 1 to 1 WL. So if your exit weight is 210, and the canopy is brand new, you'll be right on the money. If your exit weight is more than that, or the canopy has been 'used', you'll want to look elsewhere. If you had been looking at 210 sized zero porosity canopies, you'll want a 230 sized F111 to get the same performance. Also, if the F111 210 won't fit into the irg, you'll never be able to switch over to a z-po 210, or possibly even a 190 z-po in that rig.

I don't see how you can limit this to those two options. Look at it this way, if you have a significant other, you're going to spend a certain amount of money on them. Not to buy their love or affection, but in the course of the relationship and wanting to do things for them. You'll take them out to eat, movies, concerts, etc, and buy various gifts for them, with the actual dollar amount varying depending on your income and personality. Now that we have that established, let's rewind to the beginning of the relationship. You meet a woman you like, and so you start to treat her like a significant other. This includes things like calling frequently, showing concern for her feelings and well-being, and yes, speding the money you would typically spend on your significant other. In the beginning, all of these actions are done on the hope that the feelings are mutual, and that it will develop into a 'realtionship'. So you put yourself out there, and the question is, at what point do you pull back and realize that the feelings are not mutual, and it's not going to develop into what you want. Like it or not, sex is a pretty big indicator that the feelings are, or are not, mutual. Drunken one-night stands aside, if you go on a few dates with a woman that are clearly dates, to include romatic settings, one-on-one conversation, and various signs of affection, and then you have sex, that's a pretty good sign that you both are interested in a close, intimate relationship. So if you are trying for that type of relationship, and it's not materializing, at some point or another you need to cut your loses (emotional and yes, financial) and move on.

We have a winner!!!! If you're after a BFF (best friend forever!) or someone to stroke your ego, don't look to the majority of skydivers. If you're looking for information about skydiving, then skydivers are your best resource. I do give all jumpers a minimum level of respect sight-unseen just based on them being a jumper. What that respect gives them is that I will speak to them regarding and answer questions about skydiving. I gave up on talking to whuffos about jumping a long time ago but I'm polite in declining to answer their questions, and if you're a reporter trying to talk to me about jumping, you can forget about the polite part. But if you're a jumper with a legitimate question about jumping, I'll give you my honest opinion on the subject. Can that minimum level of respect go away? Sure, prove yourself to be an asshole jumper, and there are plenty of them, and I'm not your guy when you have questions. If you're about to hurt yourself or someone else I'll speak up, but that aside, don't ask. Can that level of respect go up? Sure, when someone earns it. Show yourself to be dedicated, and that you think about things before you do them, heed to advice of others who know what they're talking about, and offer respect to others where respect is due, and you'll get more out of me than the minimum. The truth of the matter is that anyone who deserves my respect isn't going to bitch about the messenger, they're going to focus on the message. If you ask me about skydiving, I'm going to tell you about skydiving based on the information that I've spent my entire adult life compiling. If you can't recognize the value of that, and want to bitch about the delivery, then I'm going to immediately regret sharing anything with you, and do everything I can to avoid further contact with you. If you can see the forest from the trees, take the info for what it's worth without sweating the delivery, it's way more likely that I'll help out in the future, or even offer up assistance without being asked.

If you read my reply to your post, it said - The operative word being 'arrange', as-in plan ahead with your rigger for you to be present during the repack. From what you said, it sounds like your rigger either works out of her house, or some other multi-use space becasue she referenced other people were trying to use the space at that same time. A rigging 'lesson' invovles a non-stop dialouge between the two you going over each step in the process, and answering any questions you may have. It would be a dis-service to both you and the others using the room to try and conduct a lesson and have the other folks doing whatever they are doing. On top of that, it will alomost double the amount of time the rigger needs to get the job done. Does that mean she should tell you to beat it? Probably not. Rigging is a relationship, and if she wants your ongoing business, taking some extra time to walk you through the assembly and packing of your first rig is her investment in building that long-term relationship. Some factors to consider would be if you need the rig for an upcoming trip. If it wasn't possible to reschedule the repack, then in that case you probably did need to clear out and let her work. Also, if you traveled a long distacne, and rescheduling was not possible due to that, again, you needed to leave and the repack needed to get done. Overall, even though you needed to plan ahead, and you also need to put a limiter on your mouth if you talk as much as you type, it was probably poor form on her part not to work with you in some way. If the rig is already assembled, how about you send a friendly e-mail explaining that you didn't understand that you needed to plan ahead for a rigging lesson, and that you are still interested in learning. Maybe see if she can arrange for you to sit in on an upcoming repack of another V3, becasue they're pretty much all the same inside anyway.

OK, great, we get that. You have been pushing this agenda long enough that you should have something to show for it. How about a skydiving license, so you can learn to safely operate a parachute, and eventaully jump a wingsuit, do you have one of those? Maybe I'm mistaken, and you have started jumping. How far off are you from jumping a wingsuit? Do have plans to take a first flight course? Are you in touch with any instructors, and if so, who? I guess you might surprise us all, and have been jumping a wingsuit for months now. That said, what sort of work have you done in persuit of your goal? Nobody expects you to suit up and soar with your first prototype, but how about a 'proof of concept' model, that can improve the performance of wingsuit by 5% or 10%, just a drop in the bucket comapred to the quantum leap you propose will materialize in the next ten years? See the point? You have done nothing but argue with some people over the internet. Nothing. The people you're arguing with are the ones who are creating and advancing the modern wingsuit by 'gasp' ACTUALLY JUMPING THEM! Oh the horror of actaully doing someting in real life! THE HORROR! So far you have no jumps, no wingsuit, no prototype, and you claim to be a 23 year old fashion model/biologist/aeronautical engineer/airplane builder/paraglider pilot/whatever you else you wish you were. So far the only thing I feel is genuine is that you're the classic internet 'expert' on anything and everything under the sun, I think the technical term is 'mall ninja', look it up and reference the mirror for pics.

How is that different that your attitude, jackass? Just because you only seem to direct your smart ass remarks towards more experienced jumpers, or jumpers you feel are 'not being nice', doesn't change the fact that you're just as much of an 'internet tough guy' as anyone esle. Except for the fact that most of those other guys are tough enough to at least identify themselves in their profiles. You spout off with all your shithead opinions, but then hide behind the anonymity or your incomplete profile. People don't deserve repsect, people earn respect. Case in point - you, me, and this subject. You're a hypocrite, and you hide behind your computer while doing so. As such, I'll extend you no respect becasue you 've done nothing to earn it. You haven't made any real contributions, just bitch and complain, and aren't even man enough to indentify yourself, so there you have it, no respect for you. Anyone else who comes across the same way will get the same. If you want to act like a shithead, you'll be treated like a shithead, it's not that hard to understand.

I'll echo what others have said about buying seperate components. Between brands, sizes of main containers, sizes of reserve containers, sizes of harnesses, and assorted options, a complete rig is a combination of at least 10 different variables, and as such, your odds of finding one that meets all of your requirements (to include price) is a tough order. Canopies are the easy part. Every Sabre2 210 is the same except for colors, and every PD218R is the same (and most of those are the same color). So once you know what model and size canopy you want, just watch for a good deal. The rig is the hard part, but what you should focus on is the container size because that is what it is, and cannot be changed. The harness, on the other hand, can be resized to fit you. So if you see a rig that will hold the canopies you want, but the harness is not right, it still might be a good option for you. A harness resize can cost anywhere from $200 to $500. What you do is get the serial number from the rig, and have yourself measured as per the manufacturers instructions liek you were ordering a new rig. Conact the manufacturer with the serial number and your measurements, and ask for an estimate for the resize. The container might be a good enough deal that even with the cost of the resize it's still worth the asking price. If the resize makes the container too expensive, see if the seller will meet you halfway. Produce the estimate from the manufacturer, and if it's $350, see if they will meet you halfway and knock $175 off the asking price of the container. Keep in mind that the resize does add value (more so to you). Generally it involves replacing all or part of the harness, which is value added to the container. Personally, it means that your rig is essentailly 'custom built' for you, and that has to be worth something.

For my money it's in the neighborhood of 80 to 90 knots. Faster than that is getting up over 100mph at touchdown, and getting away from something you would want to put into a grass strip or a short field (for the most part). So if something is fast enough that you want a 'real' runway to land on, than to me that's a 'fast' airplane. Of course, anything under that would be in the 'slow' catagory.

Yeah, some bush planes do take a beating in the line of duty. Maybe I should have included flight school 150/152s on that list. They live a rough life at the hands of low time student pilots, but that's a different type of abuse. Bush planes are flown by skilled pilots who do everything thay can to save the plane from the world around them, while school planes are flown by student pilots, who are only allowed to fly in a controlled environment to help save the planes from themselves.

Good example. The swing-wing allows for increased performance both on the top end and bottom end of the airspeed indicator. Of course, in the grand scheme of airplanes, the F-14 is still a 'fast' airplane with a stall speed better than 100 knots, even with the wings full forward.

Here's a thought to consider - by the time you have this rig inspected, pay for any needed updates and a repack (or two, if you jump it for a year), you'll have spent close to $200 to jump a rig that's worth about $300. So you could buy it for $300, plus the $200 you'll spend on the rig, you're out $500. You may or may not be able to sell the rig in a couple years, and if you can't, you'll eat the full $500 you spend on it. yes, you will get to jump the rig for two years, but you'll have nothing to show for it in the end. Along those lines, if you're going to 'throw money away' on a rig, you might as well throw it away renting a rig from the DZ. It would be a more modern, better performing, AAD equipped rig, and if you rented it for $500 worth of jumps, you would be in the same place (financially) as if you bought the rig in question. If you are on a budget, and looking for a better rig, look into buying it in pieces. Be on the lookout for a cheap (but more modern) main, reserve or container, and buy them individually as they become available. if you're not hung up on cool colors or fancy options, there are probably a good selection of 'odd' rigs out there. Ask around the DZ if anyone has anything in the back of a closet, or post a 'wanted' ad on DZ.com. If you can find something locally, you might even be able to make payments to the owner. I'm not talking about a prime, $3000 rig, but even just for an old main canopy. You could find an old Sabre 1 with 1000 jumps on it that would work just fine for you, and would be worth $200 or $300. If a guy had one sitting in the closet doing nothing, you might be able to talk him into taking $100/month for 2 or 3 months.

The idea is that you can build an airplane to go fast or slow, but not really both. An airplane designed to go fast will have a thin airfoil and a short chord, which both lead to low drag and allow for high cruise speeds. The trade off for this is a higher stall speed, which equates to a higher speed at touchdown. If you need to maintain 90 or 100 knots on final, you need more runway to slow down once you get the wheels on the ground. If you build a plane that can fly slow, with a low stall speed, you'll need a thicker airfoil and deeper chord. both of which will add drag and limit cruise speeds. The advantage is the low stall speed, and lower speed at touchdown, allowing you to use a shorter runway. Of course, that knife cuts both ways, and the take off distances will be comparable to the landing distances. Longer for faster aircraft, shorter for slower aircraft. Which aircaft to use for which mission is dependant on the range of the mission, the payload, and the runway length at the destination airport. For example, the Cleveland Clinic is about 3 miles from Burke Lakefront Airport, which has a 6000ft runway. Becasue of this, they frequesntly use a Beechjet 400 as an air ambulence because they have the runway to support it, and it gets people/organs where they need to be in a hurry. Beyond that, the Otter and Pac are not 'mainstream' airplanes. You can find a King Air or Caravan pilot or parts within 200 miles of anywhere in the country. The thing to remember about skydiving airplanes is that they are a unique, mission specific mix of qualities. being cheap is one of them, being tough and able to take 15/20 take offs/landings from grass strips per day is another. Being able to fly slow for jumprun, and get to get in and out of short fields is another. The only other area of aviation that even comes close is crop dusting, but the load carrying capabilty is used for pesticide instead of jumpers. Even bush flying or cargo planes have an easier life with fewer take offs/landings, and much less climbing.

One person might be able to run the 'department' but that person would have be an educated, qualified individual. If the state is currently employing such a person in a part-time capacity, who can then be bumped up to full time, that would be one thing. I highly doubt that is the case, so this will require a new-hire, and again, of a qualified, college educated person. Add in the time and costs for travel, the related office expenses to be incurred, and even if you could get one person to do this on a part time basis, it could easily cost $60,000/year, which translates into $10,000 per-year per-DZ. Now let's keep in mind that nothing the govt. does is know for being cost-effective, and I would guess that they will require a budget in excess of $100k/year in the best case scenario. Does anyone know if this guy has a reason to try to run skydiving out of Indiana? A $10k+ yearly 'certification fee' would surely be a deal breaker for some of the smaller DZs. Also, did I miss the rash of fatalities or injuries in Indiana that required govt intervention? If you take aircraft related injuries/fatalities out of the equation (that's FAA business) I can't even recall much of anything bad happening in Indiana for the last few years (I'm not even sure about aircraft related incidents, just that they are already overseen by the FAA).

No, it's not. This is exactly what I'm talking about. When you use an amateur crew to rescue you from a tree, you take your chances that thngs will be done correctly and safely. For example, a whuffo with experience in paragloding may look at a static line jump as 'no big deal'. You just rig a rope to the plane and your pin and jump out. The truth is that he's 90% right, and 90% of the time that would probably work out just fine. However, the other 10% of the time is where the expertise of being a trained, rated instructor comes into play. Much the same way that the paraglider pilot sees it as 'no big deal', because he is ignorant to the finer points of dispathing static line students, so is the skydiver who feels it is 'no big deal' to conduct a tree rescue. You don't know what you don't know about tree climbing and rope rescue, and that's what get's people injured or killed after an otherwise uneventful tree landing. There is specialized training for rope rescue because it's complicated, full of pitfalls, and important that it be done crrectly. Likewise, talk to any tree trimming company, and they'll tell you that climbing trees for a living is a skill that you develop over time, and not something you just 'know' how to do. Keep both of those things in mind when attempting, or allowing an untrianed jumper to attempt to rescue you from a tree. Not every city is going to bill you for rescue services, and not every bill that is presented without prior notification of the possibility of billing, will be upheld in a court of law. Forget about the financial aspects, and make your decision based solely on the safety of the situation, and your feeling about the chances of a successful outcome.

The cheese stands alone

You proved nothing. I was being sarcastic when I said a swooper would be looking for a way to dive their canopy at the end of a distance run. Fore/aft weight shift is not a factor in canopy contol. Your weight, in relation to the canopy, will always hang centered under the single point of attachment. It's callled gravity, and unless you have a second point of attachement to lever against, you're going nowhere. Maybe I should be more specific, and call it a single plane of attachment, with respect to fore/aft movement. Of course there are two points attaching you to the harness, but they pivot about the same plane, so they act as a single point. Let's literally turn this argument sideways to prove my point. Lateral weight shift does have an effect on the canopy, and that's because the two attachment points (the risers) are being moved about two different, parallel planes. Because you can isolate one of them, and move the other, you can effect real change to the canopy. This cannot be said of fore/aft movement. Maybe you're missing the point, here at DZ.com, the point that being a knowledgable contributor to this board is not a 'thing' of in itself. It's a by-product of being an experienced and knowledgable skydiver, and having the ability to put your ideas into words in a clear, consice, and correct manner. You seem to want to skip the part about becoming a knowledgable and experienced skydiver, and go right to being a knowledgeble and respected contributor to the board, and that's just not possible. Even if it was, who the hell would aspire to be a 'big shot' on DZ.com? This is something that I, and I would guess the majority of other jumpers, do in between actually jumping. I would much rather be jumping, but it's dark and 12 degress outside, so instead I can talk about jumping, learn about jumping, and teach about jumping. The thing is, your station on DZ.com is the same as your station in real life skydiving. You can certainly have a high station in skydiving without any on DZ.com, but it does not work the other way. You cannot speak with knowledge and authority, without first gaining knowledge and authority, and none of that happens on DZ.com, or anywhere besides a DZ or wind tunnel. What you have done is bypassed reality, and gone straight to drawing your ideas from DZ.com, and then utilizing them right back on DZ.com, and it doesn't work that way becasue the internet is a terrible place to learn about skydiving. Your information is limited by the author of what you read, there ability to convey the message to you, and your ability to understand what was presented, all of which (even in the best case scenario) are a pale comparison to the stark reality of the physical truths to be found while ACTUALLY JUMPING. Again, read more. Ask questions. Develop theories and present them as theories. Participate in non-jumping discussions to your heart's content. But for the love of god, shut your mouth when it comes to offering difinitive answers to anything related to skydiving. You simply do not have the time in sport, number of jumps, or depth of knowledge to be able to do that accurately, and it's a real pain the ass to correct your mistakes, over and over again.

Do you even give one second of thought to the shit you post? I'm surprised you can even get through typing it before you realize how stupid it is. Why do swoopers lean forward? Ask yourself this, poindexter, when exactly do swoopers lean far forward? The answer is when competing for distance, toward the end of their swoop. So by your genius reasoning, what every swooper is looking for at the end of distance run is a nice dive out of their canopy. You wouldn't want to find a way to make the canopy go up, or even just fly level for a little longer, no, you're going to follow P Jones's expert advice, and do something to make your canopy dive. The most realistic answer for why a swooper would lean so far forward in the harness is drag. If you can orient your body lengthiwse to the relative wind, you'll induce less drag and fly further. Of course, that answer, being from the realm of reality, would elude you.

I have thought it about. Far more than you have, and most likely far more than you ever will. Ever try to push a rope? I'll bet you can tell me how that one works as well.

Stop it. Just stop sitting there and guessing what the right answers are, and posting them as if they were facts. It doesn't make you appear smart, experienced, or even helpful, it's just annoying. You're attached to your canopy via a single point of attachment, that being the three ring (were talking strictly about the pitch axis, the roll axis is not relevant). Whatever you try to do with your weight, or where ever you move the attachment point, your weight will center itself under that single point of attachment. There is no fore/aft weight shift possible with a single point of attachment. A childs swing is an ideal example. Sit on a swing, and without holding the chains attempt to get a swing going. You could kick you legs back and forth to a degree, but you will enact very little change on the swing. You are attached to the swing via a single point, that being your ass. Now reach up and grasp the chains about shoulder height, and leverge your weight forward against a rearward pull on the chains. Suddenly you swing forward. Reverse the action at the peak of the forwar swing, and you'll swing an equal or greater distance to the rear. What you have done by grabbing the chains is created the second point of attachment needed to make a weight shift meaningful. the very second point of attachment that a parachute lacks. Look at hang gliders, which are more technically know at 'weight shift' aircraft. They operate on the principal of shifting your weight to effect change on the wing, and as such provide TWO points of attachment to the wing, one being the point the pilot hangs from, and the other being the control bar that sits in front of the pilot. How long are going to persist in posting inaccurate information, and then getting bitch slapped becasue of it?

I get that. Some people don't have any DZ within hours of them, and they have to travel to jump at all. I would guess that probably 25 to 30% of the days I jumped last year were not full days at the DZ. I was able to do 1/2 day or work or family stuff, then 1/2 day at the DZ and get in 4 or 5 jumps. If the DZ was more than 30 min from my house, none of those days would have been possible. In my younger days, I drove from Ohio to Florida several times each winter to get in those winter jumps. Now it's easier to make the money to buy a plane ticket than it is to make the time to drive 24 hours. I can leave my house and be on the DZ in Z-hills in 6 hours, saving 18 hours (each way) for jumping. If you know a guy who can carve 24 hours out of his week for drive time to the DZ, plus the time at the DZ, more power to him. Each person has their own set of circumstances to deal with, and sometimes the closest DZ is the only option (short of quitting jumping).