davelepka

Becasue we're not idiots. It's no secret you're the outspoken jumper on a canopy well beyond your experience or skill (I've never seen you jump, there is no way you're qualified to jump what you're jumping and we all know it). It's no secret that you think everyone esle has it wrong, and that you have devised a world in which you are the exception to the rule. Then you create a poll where you put the 'issue' between you and many highly experienced jumpers on this site as the 'line in the sand' to see who's on what side. Somehow, you have the nerve to ask, 'Why is this suddenly about me?" Why did you put in poll form this time, this issue of yours? So you could collect anonymous 'numbers' in your favor, with no regard for the experience of those who side with you? You already know the possible answers to your quesiton, and you know that the jumpers who side with you will be of lesser experience, and those against you will be of greater experience. What you also know, but choose to ignore, is that out of those two groups, only the more experienced jumpers have been in both pairs of shoes. I have been a newbie, and remember having 50 jumps. I have also been an intermediate jumper, and remember having 500 jumps. I have been an advanced jumper, and remember having 1000 jumps. I am currently an expert jumper, and can easily recall my last jump. I can tell you without a doubt, that time in the sky is the number one metric for overall skill or ability. Does natural talent enhance those jump numbers? Yes. Does dedicated training and education enahnce those jump numbers? Yes. Do either of them replace pounding out the jumps? Nope. No way. Never. Your choices and reasoning are not correct. Among the things you may come to regret in the years to come, don't add spreading your message to other jumpers to the list.

Pointless to look at. Some might argue, but some countries have gone as far as establishing life limits for equipment regardless fo their condition. Much like cars, newer gear is designed with newer safety features not available or even thought of 20 years ago. Additionally, skydiving has changed in the last 20 years, and 20 year old gear is not compatible with some of the more modern activites popular in skydiving today. No. First off, a rig that is appropriate for you today, will still be appropriate for you in a year, or two, or three. The gear you select should be far beyond you in the level of performance it can support. The weak link in the chain will be you, and unless you have a trust fund and jump all day, every day, you'll never surpass the performance of your rig in a year or two. Beyond that, a new rig can run upwards of $9000 these days, so I wouldn't expect that number to be cut by 2/3 anytime soon. Skydiving isn't now, and never will be a mainstream sport, and even then I would hate to think that gear would go the way of mass production. Even beyond that, this isn't an investment club, it's a sport. If you want to participate, get out your checkbook. Forget about the rest of the world, and buy the gear that you need to jump safely and comfortably at the time of purcahse. I'll come back to my closing point from my above post, get a respected rigger to help you with your gear purchases, either new or used. You will need a rigger in your life once you own a rig, so ask around the DZ, and get a name. Offer to pay for inspections and their time helping you research, negotiate, and ship gear, and to bring your ongoing rigging needs to them once you have your rig. Your rigger will make sure that you gat a rig that is appropriate for you, at a fair price, and that the rig is properly assembled and legal to jump.

You're just not right about this one. For some reason I can't seem to say it in a way that makes sense to you. Maybe someone else out there has a better example, or can just do a better job than I did. In the end, put the RW groups out first, followed by the freeflyers. It's a proven method that gives everyone the best chance for maintaining good group seperation.

You're just missing the point left and right. After deployment, the drift becomes a wash as canopies will all drift the same, regardless of the type of freefall. Of course, there are different speed canopies, but they are all 'steerable' so the point is moot with regards to after opening. Provided that all jumpers break off at 4000ft and pull at 2500ft, you could almost call it an even race from break off on down. Ignoring the higher speed of freeflyers entering the break-off, you can expect similar amounts of drift for all jumpers from break off on down. The freefall portion, from exit to break off is where the differences are real, and they do occur. The freelfyers will spend less time going from exit to 4000ft, and as a function of that, will drift less than the RW jumper who spends more time in freefall between exit and 4000ft.

Are you aware that the vertical speed is only being considered on the basis that it makes for a shorter freefall? Nobody is saying that a person falling at a higher speed will also drift horizontally faster than a slow faller. If the freefall drift is 5 feet per second, that rate applies to both RW and freeliers. Rw jumpers will drift for 60 seconds, and freefliers will only drift for 45 seconds. The RW guys will drift 300ft, and the freefliers will only drift 225ft. In that example, if the RW guys get out first, the total seperation is the time betwween groups plus the 75ft extra that the RW guys will drift. If you put the freefliers out first, the total seperation is the time between groups minus the extra 75ft that RW guys will drift back down the jumprun. The numbers provided were for example only. In the real world the differences in drift can easily be enough to overcome the exit seperation and have two groups opening the same airspace.

I'm not sure how you figure that. In no winds, all jumpers will fall straight down (more or less). When you introduce wind, jumpers being to drift. The two factors effecting how far they will drift are the speed of the winds, and the time exposed to those winds. All jumpers will experience the same speed of the winds, but not all jumpers will have the same exposure to those winds, that depends on the length of freefall. This is where the slower speeds of RW equates to more drift as a result of longer exposure to those winds.

I can't help but ignore the irony of your knowledge of PDs definitions and reccomendations, while you are clearly and grossly operating outisde of those limits. Not related to the topic at hand, but like I said, I just pass it up.

Here's a secret that soem new jumpers miss - new gear sucks ass. This isn't golf or tennis or skiiing, new gear isn't the 'best' there is. New canopies are VERY hard to pack, and huge new canopies are even harder. On top of it all, new canopies are expensive, and if you only need a canopy for 100 or 200 jumps, you don't need a new canopy. A ZP canopy outside of the sandy southwest can go for an easy 1000 jumps. if you own it from jump 700 trough 900, the packing will be easy and you'll get most of your purchase price back on resale. If you buy a new canopy, and suffer through the first 200 pack jpbs on that canopy, all you get is a $300 hole in your wallet after you sell it. Let's move on to containers. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can visually tell the difference between two containers that are one size apart. Smaller containers are good for one thing, and one thing only, being hard to pack. Always, always, always, plan on buying a container that lists your canopy as on the smaller side of what will fit. When a mfgr says 'will hold up to a 170', they mean a beat down 170 on a humid day with a good packer. They don't mean a brand new 170 with a brand new packer. Having a rig set up properly can make the difference between packing being a chore, or a breeze. A 'well used' canopy in a generously sized container with a properly sized closing loop can literally be packed without breaking a sweat in a reasonable amount of time. A poorly configured rig, on the other hand, is what takes 45 min to complete a 'questionable' pack job.

That's a good plan, and the most cost effective way to get into skydiving. The $2000 price tag might be a little low, however. First off, you'll be looking at rigs without an AAD. In general, an AAD will add anywhere from $500 to $1200 to the cost of a rig depending on if you can find a used AAD or not. Used AADs are hard to come by because they tend to sell quick and easy. Most DZ have a handful of people looking to buy a cheap AAD at any time, so many of them never reach the 'open market'. One thing to remember about AADs is that they can follow you from rig to rig, so you could buy a new one, and have it for many, many, years. Since the used AAD market is so strong, you can also count on being able to sell it for full market value at anytime if you want to get out of the sport, so it's a failry sound 'investment'. In terms of rigs, $2000 is little shy. You can find complete rigs for that price, or less, but you get what you pay for. You may find an airworthy rig, but it might be older equipment that could limit your jumping options. With no AAD, figure closer to $2500 or $3000. At that price, you can find a 'modern' rig that should serve you well. Additionally, if you buy smart, you can find a rig that will allow you to switch out canopies once or twice, so when you need a smaller canopy, you can just sell the main canopy and put a smaller one in your existing rig. The reserve does not need to be changed at any time. Upkeep on a rig should be fairly minnimal, provided that you have your rig inspected by a rigger before you buy it. The most expensive item would be a reline for the canopy as the lines wear and strech/shrink with age. A reline can run you $250, but an inspection can give you an approx number fo jumps before a reline is needed, and you may be able to avoid the cost all together. Everything else is minor in terms of cost, provided you don't damage the rig. If you slide in a landing on concrete or pavement, you could do severl hundred dollars worth of damage to the harness or container. Back to AADs, if you are looking at a Cypres model AAD (which is what you should be looking at) they have required scheduled maintenance at 4 year intervals. In general, the pruchase price will reflect where a Cypres is in the maintenance schedule, but this is where a good rigger can help you out. Make sure you have a rigger asist you and approve of any gear before you purchase it. This will ensure you get a fair deal and avoid unwanted surprises.

So what you're suggesting is that we trade a crowded pattern entry for possible freefall/canopy collisions? It seems to me that jumpers have a far greater measure of control when all parties are under an open canopy as opposed to when one is in freefall and the other under canopy. This is where you're wrong, no wind shift is required. Among jumpers falling at the same speed, the wind does have a 'net zero' effect, as they are all effected the same. When you have jumpers falling at two different speeds, the increased time exposed to the winds is what makes the difference between RW and freeflyers. You are correct that in a no wind situation, the order becomes less important, but seeing as it is less important, we keep it the same for every day. This way the order is consistant, and nobody has to make the call as when the wind is strong enough to merit putting the RW groups out fisrt.

Ok genius, did you read the rest of the label? If you're going to follow it to the letter, let's follow the whole thing. The WL portion indicates the Velo is N/A for anyone but an 'Advanced' jumper. How many jumps do you think it takes to be considered 'Advanced'? Not a student, or novice, or intermediate, but 'Advanced'? It's got to be a couple hundred jumps, even by the most optimistic of jumpers. Let's move on. The biggest Velo they make is a 120, so a canopy 15% up is about a 135. If you can make 50 jumps ona 135, with 10 soft stand up landings in the target area, you're cleared to jump a Velo 120 at the 'Advanced' WL. On the 84 label Paul posted, the Advanced Wl is 1.3, so on the 120 you would have to be 156lbs max, fully geared up. So what PD is really saying is that if you're an 'Advacned' jumper, with 50 jumps on a canopy 15% bigger (with 10 stand ups on target), you're cleared to jump a Velo at a 1.3 WL, provided that you weight less than 130lbs (becasue the biggest Velo is a 120. Interestingly enough, the lebel posted for the 84 lists 109 as the max exit weight for an advanced jumper, which leaves you a body weight of about 90 lbs (without lead). If you need lead, like most 90lb people do, either the Velo is out, or you need to weigh more like 80 lbs. Who knows, maybe you're right. Midgets and hot chicks everywhere should protest PD for endangering their lives with a mis-worded label.

What's wrong with opening at the same time/altittude? Soemtimes I'm in the first group of freeflyers after the RW groups, and I open before the group before me (not by much, but before). Always with plenty of horizontal seperation, but sometimes before. Given the figures qupted above, 15 seconds would equal 1875 ft of seperation. Even if you figure that a jumper from each group could track 400ft up or down jumprun, they would still be openiing over 1000ft from each other. Higher airspeed, in this case, does not dictate who goes first. I've been freeflying since before we figured this out, and has my share of RW guys freefalling past my open canopy. It wasn't all that bad at my home DZ becasue the plane was small, and the groups took their time getting out. My worst expereince was at Perris Valley in the mid-90s when there was a close enough call that the two jumpers almost came to blows in the packing area. The longer time in freefall for RW groups exposes them to the upper winds for a longer period of time, resulting in increaed dift in freefall. Provided that the jumprun is flown into the wind, this drift pushes them back down jumprun. If the freeflyers exit first with a shorter freefall and less drift, followed by an RW group with greater drift, the freeflyers will be open first with an RW drifting right over the top of them. Don't try to re-invent the wheel. We all did the wrong way for several years, and then caught on to our mistake. Since reversing the order,there have been very few RW canopy / freeflyer freefall close calls, and every one (that I've seen) could be traced back to the freeflyers rushing the exit in the door (as comfirmed by footage from a tandem vidiot in the plane).

Why? If this is in relation to the incident in Aus, exit seperation is not neccessarily to blame for the collision. If you were to establish enough seperation that no jumpers from two different groups could ever converge under any circumstances, then you would have to make multiple passes on every load, or have a jumprun that is 3 miles long. The incident in question involved two jumpers trakcing in exactly the wrong direction, that being either up or down the jumprun. Proper exit seperation 'should' dictate that this 'should' never be a problem, but in certain circumstances overlap of the airspace can occur. If an RW jump should funnel towards the bottom end, or otherwise be comprimised, it wouldn't be unusual for a jumper to track off a little early. Even 500 ft above break off could make the difference. If a jumper is very light, and an excellent tracker, they would have the ability to cover more ground than the average jumper. Let's say this same jumper tracks up the jump run, gets further than most, and then has a hard opening. The end result is an open canopy that is higher, and further up jump run than anyone expected. If the group had stayed together until break-off, the jumper would not have been able to track as far up jump run. If the canopy had not opened instantly, it would have been open 500 or 600ft lower. Now if you turn and look at the following group, you can apply the same logic. If another light-weight, accomplished tracker happened to head down the jumprun after a high breakoff, and had a PC hesitaiton followed by a 1000ft snivel, you have the potential for a collision. If you remove any of the above factors from either jumper in either group, you have no collision. To attempt to account for all of these factors on every jump is impossible, and would require a great deal of exit seperation, more than is practical on a day-to-day basis. The real solution is to not track up or down the jumprun. This is easier said than done in some cases, but it does work itself out in some ways. For example, a lower time jumper who may not be able to recognize the direction of jumprun by break off probably isn't going to have the tracking skills to overcome the exit sepereaiton. As jumpers gain expereience, and become better trackers, they need to become more aware of their surroundings. In the case of bigger-ways, where they need the full 360 degress out from the center to get everyone clear, of course increased exit seperation is needed. Again, things work themselves out because if you have a 15-way leaving an Otter on a day with average winds, the remaining 5 or 7 people in the plane can give the big way a good 15 or 20 seconds before resuming exits. The plane should still be close enough to the DZ to allow normal exit seperation for the remaining jumpers while still making it back to the DZ. Moving back down to the 15 way on break off, if you figure they will have a higher break off altitude than normal, this will give them more time in their track. During this time, the jumpers can locate the DZ and establish the jumprun. If they find that they are heading up jumprun, they can veer off a few degrees in either direction. As the track progresses, the seperation between the jumpers increases, allowng more room for 'adjustment'. 9,999,999 times out of 10 million, the above works and there are no collisions. How it came to be on that day that two jumpers with a reported 20,000+ jumps betwen them both tracked the wrong direction for the wrong length of time is anyones guess. Even if the exit seperation for the day was correct, and the second group rushed the exit, the jumper in the second group would have known that, and should have been even more aware of not heading back down jumprun on break off.

To me, this is the same as the argument between a D-ring and a soft reserve handle. Much like the D-ring, the dive loop gives you something to 'hang' onto, as opposed to just your hand strength holding the block. If you got your hand stuck in a dive loop, it's because you're doing to wrong. It's two fingers in the loop, two fingers holding the toggle in your hand, and your thumb out of the way. The toggle goes over the palm portion of your hand, and the loop goes only over your two fingers so the two components stay seperate. If you're the sort to put on bulky gloves and shove your entire hand into a dive loop, then maybe a block is better for you, but only because you're mis-using the loops.

Blocks aren't right for the job and neither are 17" risers, even for a short guy. Being 6' 3", you're going to want longer risers anyway, most likely in the 25" to 26" range. This will allow you to strech out a little when you grab your dive loops, and give your canopy a little more dive. Any of the container manufacturers offer a padded dive loop that might be the 'springy out' variety you're thinking of. The padding in the loop prevents them from laying flat, and some also feature a length of plastic inside the loop to help make it 'springy'. You absolutely need a secure grip on whatever you use, and you actually do want only a couple fingers in the loop. The idea is to have a good grip, but not so good that your hand or toggle gets 'warpped' up in anything. I use my first two fingers in the loop, and my other two to hold the toggle in my hand. My thumbs are of little use while swooping. As mentioned previously, a block is not a good solution as your grip can slip more easily than if you have a loop to hook on to. Even if you feel like your grip is sufficient, if a long spot requires you to fly home in deep brakes, this can effect your overall level of strength, and make the block a bad idea. if you should lose your grip at the wrong time, you end up pointing in an odd direction, close to the ground, with no plan of any kind. No matter what type of loop you use, you'll end up with 'crushed' fingers. Your total time in the loops is going to be less than 5 seconds, so suck it up cupcake, and just deal with it. Crushed fingers are actaully better than the damage a block can do if it gets ripped out of your hands anyway.

Make sure your wife actually drives on first. They are a far cry from what most people expect in a 'modern' car. Noisy, drafty, bouncy, not exceptionally 'stable', etc. It's not a convertible SUV like some people think. That said, they are robust and well built. The inline 6 is a 4.0 litre and gets terrible gas milage, and the 4 cyl is (i think) a 2.5 and is 'almost' under-powered for the vehicle. On stock tires it will do alright, but bigger tires with the 4 cyl are a no-no. Even stock it will do well off road. Nothing hard core, but it is a Jeep. Everything that makes it a shitty road car is what makes it good off road.

I believed you the first time you said it. I continued on under the impression you were just trying to understand the reasoning behind the limitation. The important thing to remember about that situation is that you can apply the idea to just about any facet of skydiving. Whatever you're thinking about doing, the idea is to hold off until you (and others around you 'in the know') think that you're more than ready for whatever it is. When you rush into something you might 'just barely' be ready for, you open yourself up to all kinds of trouble. If that happens to be the jump or activity where you find that you are not cut out for that situation, you find yourself unpreparred and in over your head. By holding off until you are 'more than ready', if you find that something is 'beyond you', at least you have the experience and preparredness to fall back on, and hopefully save your ass. It a good method to keep in mind when looking to advance in skydiving. It really only applies though about 1000 jumps or so, as by that point you're either ready for anything, or have seen/done enough to know what is, or is not, for you. Up to that point, just err on the side of caution, and take everything slow and easy.

Can you get blocks small enough to get your slider grommets over them? Would blocks that size even be of use? What your reasoning be for not using loops like every other swooper I know or have ever heard of?

Nobody knows. Nobody knows who is ready for anything until it's over, and that's the problem with skydiving and advancement in skydiving. Think you're ready for a smaller canopy? You might be, you might look like you are, but you can't say for sure until you jump a smaller canopy and land without incident. See how it works? For this reason, we have to look at the 'odds' and try to guide newer jumpers into situations where they most likely will be OK, and be able to land without incident. As an example, look at the lengths we go to in the case of a first jump. A tandem is the sledgehammer of situational control, where instead of giving a student a rig, we give them an experienced jumper with a rig. That aside, look at AFF. An all day class, specialized rig and canopy, lower wind limitations, higher pull altitudes, and two rated instructors who physically hold onto you before you even get near the door. Nobody knows how one person or another will react to freefall, so everyone gets the full court press, and goes out with every precaution listed above in place and ready to protect them from themselves if need be. If the dive goes great, and it turns out that the student could have done a solo from 14k with a smaller rig for their first jump, good for them, but the precautions were still in place, and did no harm. Bring this back to camera flying, and the best we can figure is that 200 jumps is the prudent number to go by in terms of when a jumper is ready. Are some people ready before then? Yes, in fact most people are probably ready at some point before that. Are some people not ready at that point? Of course, some people will never be ready. The idea is that jumpers with 200 jumps or more have a better than average chance at safely jumping a camera. Those that might not, or never, be ready have an above average chance of being beyond the 100-jump wonder status, and being able to make an objective choice about when (if ever) to start camera flying. 200 jumps is a conservative number. It needs to be to ensure that the majority of jumpers will be ready to look into camera flying at that point. It is just a number, and to ask abotu 190 jumps, or 175 jumps is just being silly. the number has to be set somewhere, and 200 is where it is. Might you be ready at 175? I hope so, but in the end, knock out the 25 jumps, and get to 200 before getting started. It's just like driving at 16, drinking at 21, or pulling by 2000 ft. Sometimes those numbers are high, and sometimes those bumbers are low, but in the end, those are the numbers. People who know came up with them, and you have to play the game and go by the numbers.

You're not trying to learn. You already know some of the things that can go wrong when strapping on a camera too soon. Here are your own words from an earlier post - It's like I said, you see clearly what the problems are, you just refuse to accept them as problems, or that they might happen to you. Try looking at it from this perspective - the powers that be in the US, and the majority of other countries have all established a min. jump number for camera flying. Highly experienced jumpers from all over the world have taken their time to post that they think it's a bad idea, even when talking to a jumper on the other side of the world who's actions would have no effect on them personally. The moderator of the Video and Photo forum on this website has taken the time to permanently post a listing of actual incidents that occured when jumpers started jumping cameras too early. Now ask yourself why would all of those people take the time to comment on the situaiton, and direct new jumpers away from cameras unless it was a valid problem? Just the level of attention it gets from jumpers who are 1000's of jumps beyond the magic 200 number should be a big indicator of the scope and seriousness of problem.

How about you back that up with some facts and figures? If you had just said, 'Not my cup of tea', I would chalk it up to personal opinion. The 'crappiest rig ever' and 'avoid at all costs' really need some supporting argument.

This is the reason that you are not ready to jump a camera. Your failure to recognize the dangers will lead to your failure to account for the dangers. I find it interesting how new jumpers have no problem learning literally everything they know from experienced, rated instructors, but once they have a handful of jumps, they are unwilling to accept the continued guidance of experienced, rated instructors. You have been advised of the pitfalls of adding a camera to your skydives at this early stage. You don't have a failure to see the problems, you just have a failure to accept that these problems do indeed exist, and that you might be subject to suffering from them. I'll echo something Wendy said, and add to it as well. Once you reach 300 jumps, you'll look back to this time, and even your 200th jump, and be surprised at how much more there was to know compared to what you thought you knew. I personally find that after every season I come out the other end a much, much better skydiver than when the season began. I'm talking about the learning and development between jumps 4800 and 5100. I am consistantly impressed with how much I can learn over the course of 6% of my total expereince. Try to extrapolate that out to what you might discover as you triple your jump numbers from 70 to 200. In addition to tripling your jumps, you're also still on the early, steep part of the learning curve. The reason that you can't seem to grasp the idea of 200 jumps for jumping a camera is the reason that the idea of 200 jumps for jumping a camera exists. You don't know what you don't know, and much like the trust you put in your instructors as a student learning to make a basic parachute descent, you need to trust us that this is the best way when you are contemplating making something far more than just a basic parachute descent.

You've managed to miss the point entirely. I never suggested that your actions of 30 or 40 years ago were incorrect, just that your actions of a week ago were. What you did and how you conducted your jumps was obviously correct for you, with the proof being your continued existence. However, last week you suggested that your path was preferable over the established path that we have today, and by the way you worded it, you were well aware that your way would not be the safer of the two paths. Do I question your expereince with wingsuits in 1965? Not in the least, you didn't have the wisdom and experience of tens of thousands of wingsuit jumps made by experienced, factory approved instructors. You did what you had to. For you to suggest that a new jumper follow that same program, here and now, with the benefit of all we have learned in the last decade of wingsuiting, and with the existance of very good fisrt wingsuit jump courses, is just plain irresponsible. I wish you the best with your health problems, but that doesn't excuse the mental lapse you had endorsing a new jumper to scoff at the rules designed to keep him safe, and out of harms way. There is a system in place to bring new jumpers into the wingsuit fold, and I for one will not sit quietly by while you ignore it, and try to apply your 1965 thinking to my 2010 skydiving.

I call bullshit. This is the guy who admitted to lying about his jump numbers at an alternate DZ when his home DZ turned him down for wingsuit jumps when he had under 100 jumps. I doubt he has any BASE jumps at all, or if he does he has taken shortcuts in the training and/or perperation for those as well. Avoid this guy like the plauge. He lied about the wingsuits, refuses to identify himself, and is probably lying about the BASE jumps.

I'm not sure of any hockey stop videos. It's generally an emegency manuver, and there's not always video on those. In terms of shutting down a swoop, first off where are you swooping that you need to do this on a regular basis? You should never swoop toward any object that's not 100's of feet beyond your best swoop. If you're regularly swooping into a 'dead end', the best advice is to find someplace esle to swoop. A botched set-up, or reduction in wind (or increase if doing a downwinder) can change your needs for run off space to a high degree. If there is a wall at the end of your swoop, sooner or later you'll be in it. If you do need to shut it down, learn the hockey stop, or use the technique aggiedave mentioned. Just sit down, and rear riser stall the canopy, Sitting down will eat gobs of energy with the friction of the ground, and the rear riser stall is the quickest way to get the canopy behind you and working as a 'drag chute'.