davelepka

I didn't say anything was impossible. I did say I found something hard to believe, and my dis-belief is with reagrds to jumpers being happy to jump an AAD for 20 years with no check-up of any kind. I clearly gave examples of modern electronics being robust and reliable, thus acknowledging their existance and use. I went on to state that even with such electronics, when used in a critical capacity such as an ADD, should be inspected/tested on a regular basis if such testing is possible. A deep space satellite is not available for such testing, but I can guarantee you that if it was possible, every engineer in NASA would support it. The real goal is 100% functionality of the component when in service, not to prove longevity. Same thing with an AAD.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I cannot accept the 'possibilities' available with modern electronics. Considering the we can launch space shuttles and safely conduct 1000's of airline passanger flights per day, it's quite clear that electronics can be relied upon in various aerospace applications where lives are at risk. What I also know is that there is not one system on the shuttle that is not inspected, tested, and possibly rebuilt in between every flight. When they get that thing back on the ground, and begin prepping for the next mission, nothing falls under the, 'Just leave it, I'm sure it's fine' catagory. Furthermore, after years of existance and my own personal involvement in the process, I can tell you that sending an AAD in every four years for a check-up is not that big of an inconvienience. Rigs need to be opened every six months anyway, and with half of the country only jumping seasonally, and the other half having the entire year to jump, everyone can find a few weeks to work it in every four years. I believe SSK will even provide you with a loaner if you really need one during your check-up. I'll briefly repeat my earlier point - how long would you let your reseve go between I&Rs if given the choice? Surely the modern synthetic materials used in todays gear, provided the rig was well cared for, could go for years between repacks with no ill effects. Would be confortable going for years without a qualified individual inspecting your gear? How about 20 years?

Neither are all rigs, canopies, jumpsuits, helmets, or altimeters. If jumpers would learn how to properly use their equipment (to include aricraft), we wouldn't have these types of problems, or at least we would be able to more accurately identify aircraft that are truely not safe for jumping.

Indeed. The only comparison that couln't be disqualified would be between other AADs, as there are differences between AADs and all other electronic devices. As an aside, none of my failed cameras ever suffered a mechanical failure of the tape drive or ejection system, they were all electronic. The real point was to illustrate that this is an electronic device that is not sitting on the nightstand for 20 years like a clock radio. It's subject to vast swings in temp, and shock loads from openings, hard landings, and people tossing their rigs around. For anyone to be satisfied with the idea that such a component could be subject to 20 years of that treatment without a check or re-certification of any kind is hard for me to believe. If you think of the number of times that a reserve deployment could lead to severe injury or death for the user, other jumpers, and possibly downing an aircraft, to feel comfortable moving forward without such checks is nothing short of sticking your head in the sand. To feel comfortable moving forward for 20 years in the same manner is insanity. To jumpers in general (not just Brett), let's think for a moment if the FAA chose to lift the requirement for a reserve repack or inspection. How long would you be comfortable jumping your rig before taking to your rigger for an I&R? Once a season for northern jumpers? Once a year for the year-round types? Anyone like 18 months? Now consider that everything that cannot be inspected externally, inside the reserve container, short of a deployment does nothing between repacks. It just sits there and waits. Outside of dirt or other contaminents getting in there, exactly what the last rigger put in there is exactly what's going to come out at the time of an inspection. Again, barring an 'incident' ask a local rigger the last time they repacked one of their own pack jobs and found something other than what they had packed. When was the last time they pulled out an unused reserve and found broken lines or damaged fabric? If you happen to find a rigger with such a story, you are in the smallest minority. So once you know you how you feel about your textile gear being serviced, ask yourself the same question about your critical electronic gear. The kind of gear that can cut your reserve closing loop at any time. This is the same equipment that is in constant use on every jump you make, not simply along for the ride like an unused reserve. An unused AAD is still sensing and monitoring during every jump. Unlike your reserve which is not subject to damage via shock or vibration, the AAD is, and suffers through it on every jump. Again, how often would you like your reserve I&R? The idea that an AAD should never be checked is just wrong. Yes there are AADs out there that have no check required, but they are new players to the game, and haven't had a product in the market long enough to prove that it has the reliability and longevity to negate the checks. How long did it take Vigil to stop production of the Vigil and start on the Vigil 2? Five years? Maybe six? Even a jumper making 80 jumps/year is only looking at $2 a jump to own a Cypres. Everyone north of that will spend less, but they all get a PROVEN piece of equipment that is rigorously checked every four years, and life limited for the sake of reliability.

Facts and figures? In that case maybe you want to take back this statement from earlier in the thread- Seeing as the Vigil2 is only 3 years old, maybe hold off on the cost of ownership until one of them gets anywhere near '20' years. You're making the assumption that the device will both make it to 20 years, and do so with zero additional costs. The advanatge, at this point, still sides with the Cypres, as we have seen a significant number of units make it through the entire life cycle with no additional costs, so if anything, at least you can count on the economics of Cypres ownership. Back to reality, 20 years? There's lots of talk about old gear, and some countries even have life limits on older gear regardless of use, and those are just fabric, webbing and thread. Maybe the 12 year like-limit of the Cyrpes has colored my thoughts on this, but the last thng I want wrapped around my reserve closing loop is a 20 year old AAD. Have you looked around your hosue for any other 20 year old electronics? How about ten year old electronics? Now add in the stress of potentially 1000's of deployments, and think about what you end up with. My uncle has an 8mm Sony camcorder that is at least 20 years old that works great, but that's with zero jumps on it. I, on the other hand, have gone through 4 or 5 Sony cameras in the last 15 years, all of them used exclusively for jumping. The abuse of jumping on electronics is tangible, and you think that jumping an AAD for 20 years with no factory testing or certification is a good idea? Wow.

I can see that you're new to jumping, so let this be your 'lesson' that the two statements above should never be used together again. Circumstances beyond your control such as other jumpers, aircraft, or weather (all can be classified as your 'environment') and your own personal performance are all suspect to conspire againt you and kill you. Your rig, on the other hand is the one area you do have complete control over. It's a simple matter of not jumping gear that is not 100% airworthy and assembled to the manufacturers specifications. This sport is all about risk management, and while you cannot guarantee that the rig will work, having it properly assembled and rigged will give you the best odds that the rig will perform as needed. The slack in the reserve cable is there to allow for some 'wiggle room' in the case of extrreme loads on the harness or the ripcord housing. What this means is that the slack only does it's job when out-of-the-ordinary circumsatnces come up, and this is the last time you want an accidental reserve deployment. Contact the rigger immediately. Have him locate your correct handle or order you a new one, and then have him make it his #1 priority to return your rig to it's original state.

Is the first time you posted this question? I could swear that the same question, almost verbatim, was asked in another post earlier this year or maybe last year. If I was more motivated, I'd search it out, but it's almost word-for-word the same post. Weird.

You already know that it's your jump, and you can spend your time any way you please. The problem with the majority of 'solo' activites is that they are advanced activities. Anything that easy to do in a group, most skydivers will do in a group. Wingsuiting or swooping are not easy to do ina group, so they're considered 'solo' activities for most. With enough experience to start either of those, and then enough experience within those, they too become group activities. As far as camera flying goes, it's not a solo gig. Every camera jump for hire has a list of goals that the person paying the tab axpects you to achieve. Even beyond that, you are working as a team with the people you're filming and everyone needs to work together to ensure success and safety. Here's a couple of thoughts about the here and now - Go to the DZ and do whatever makes you happy. You can switch back and forth between solos, freefly, RW, high pulls, whatever. The key thing to keep in mind is your level in each area, and respect that. You may start to see some success in freefly, but make sure that if you try RW again, you approach it keeping in mind that success in freefly doesn't translate to RW. You might only be qualified for the most basic of RW jumps. Another thing to keep in mind it that 'being told what to do' is also the same as being taught new skills. If you get involved with an organized RW jump, you're going to have the experience of the load organizer guiding your skydive. They'll put you in an exit slot that will challenge you skills, and likewise in freefall, your slot should be one you have to work at to fly correctly. This is how you learn and advance. You can look at it as being told what to do, or you can look at it as being taught the skills you need to do whatever you want. Any of the advanced disciplines will take 200 jumps to even get started. The idea is that those 200 jumps are where you build a foundation of skills to take with you into the new discipline. Want to fly a wingsuit? Knowing how to fly every slot on a 4-way exit will make you sharp in the door and on the hill. Both things you need to be able to exit stable with wings collapsed and transition to wings out on the hill. Want to shoot camera? You need to be better than whoever you're filming at whatever you're filming. A novice freeflier would be hard pressed to get good video of the top VRW team. RW is a little different becuase the camera suits are used to 'cheat' and make it so the camera guy cam move faster than anyone else, but you have to know the moves before you can use the suit to amplify them. Use your time how you see fit, but think about the future at the same time. You can do 100 fun solos, flipping, back tracking, pulling high, etc, but then you're the guy with 100 jumps that can't dock on a formation. Whatever you do, remember that it's your jump numbers and what you did with those jumps that dictates your skill. There are a ton of stories about the guy with 1000 freefly jumps and 50 RW jumps who gets invited on a 'big' way, or a special jump, and is the only guy who doesn't make it into the formation. He may have more jumps that most of the other jumpers, but not the RW expereince. As a side note, the tunnel is also somewhat of a 'dead end street'. It's fun, and can build certain skills, but it is not a replacement for jumps and actual skydiving experience. It will not teach you exits, being in freefall with a group of jumpers, or tracking away from those jumpers in a safe manner. Again, it's your time, just make sure you don't try to equate skills in the tunnel with skills in the sky, they are not the same thing. As a nod to your situation, there is a jumper at my DZ who shows up about once a month to make a jump or two. I have never ever seen this guy do anything but get out dead last and pull at 10K. He jumps old gear with a big F-111 canopy, he flies around for 10 or 15 minutes and lands long after we forgot he was up there. He's a great guy, and loves every second of it. To each his own.

Maybe the one you tried was easy, or it just went well, or you just got lucky. Either way, after seeing the responses from some of the higher time guys here, and in consideration for the two other people at risk (one of whom wasn't even aware of, or able to consent to, that additional risk) do you still feel like it was a good choice to make given your level of 'expertise'? Do you plan to do any more before you make a significant increase in your experience?

Not sure. I would guess that each manufacturer would have their total production numbers, and probably a good record of mis-fires (and fires). Getting them to share those figures would be the trick though. Aside from exact numbers, Cypres hit the market (I think) in '92 or '93 (anyone have an exact year on that?), so conservatively you could say 16 years. I can't give you a hard number on how long the Vigil has been out, but 5 years sounds about right. Ditto for the others (Astra, Aargus, etc) but those might be less than 5 years. Either way, Cypres was really the only choice for at least 10 years. In the US (where a good bit of jumping takes place) every student and tandem rig requires an AAD. I don' think there was another choice for tandem rigs, so all of those were Cypres equipped. Student rigs could still rock an FXC, but those would have been in a declining minority during those years. So you figure a decade of all Cypres tandem rigs, mostly Cypres student rigs, and mostly Cypres sport rigs (of those who chose to jump an AAD). The scope of that coverage alone dictates a massive number of jumps on Cypres AADs, and even if only half of the mis-fires were publicized, it still pales in comparison to the overall number of jumps. If you just look at the Vigil, which to me seems like the #2 player in the market, 5 or 6 years in the field, and every one of those years competing with Cypres (and others) for market share. There's no way it could even come close to the overall Cypres numbers, and in recent years I have heard more frequent problems with those than Cypres. One thrid of the time in the market, with zero years as a sole player in the market vs. Cypres with 3x time in the market, with 2/3 of that as the sole player. I don't think I'm going out on a limb suggesting that Cypres has a better track record than the other players. Tp be fair, Cypres has more time, experience, and data to support their performacnce (it has to help that they see every unit every four years). In that sense, it might not be a 100% fair comparison, but in the end, fair is not my concern. If today, here and now, they have a better record and presumably a better product, then that is the product I would reccomend.

I'm a Cypres fan, so I'll vote for them. People will be quick to point out that every ADD out there has had mis-fires, or other odd problems, but if you consider the number of Cypres units in the field and how long they've been around, and then compare that to the number of mis-fires, it's a very low percentage. Comapre that to the newer AADs, and their overall numbers in the field, and you can see that in comparison to the Cypres, that percentage is much higher. If you consider the cost of purchase and the two visits for maintenence/batts, a Cypres2 will run you about $175 a year. Not an unreasonable cost, and a moderately active jumper with a 7 month jumping season will be paying about a buck a jump. If you jump year round, the per-jump cost goes down. In terms of that maintenence, keep in mind that it's standard practice to have 'critical' aviation related electronics and pressure sensing devices checked on a regualr basis. Airplanes equiped with instruments that allow them to fly in clouds (zero visibility, aka IFR), require that all the instrumentation used in IFR flight needs to be checked and certified every two years to ensure proper operation and calibration. If the check is not performed, or a component doesn't pass, the entire aircraft loses it's IFR certification, and a pilot can lose his ticket for taking that aircraft into IFR conditions. Keep in mind that these are instruments produced by large, long standing avionics companies, and they cost thousands of dollars each. Comapre that to the Cypres, the one and only product produced by Airtec, a company that did not exist before the Cypres was born, and you can see how a four-year check is both reasonable, and probably a good idea.

How about when it's a skydiver investing their time and money into making a product they might be able to sell 500 or 1000 copies of at best? This isn't a big Hollywood production that 100's of people made a livable salary to produce, and select people and a studio made considerable profits on. This isn't a CD that a band released, where additional circulation creates a larger fan base who will buy future CDs and attend live shows. Where do I draw the line? There's a big fat one between skydivers and the rest of the world. There's not that many people on my side of that line, and it's not tough to treat them the right way.

I can't even see how this could make it to trial. The woman had sifficient skydiving experience to understand the risks, and the mechanics of making a skydive, which include opening a parachute. The hard truth is that she went in with both of her handles in place. He death was not the result of any action on the part of the Cypres, it was due to inaction on her part. Again, I would hope that anyone close to the family of the victim would counsel them that this lawsuit is based on a false premise, and not to proceed unless the attorney is willing to work pro-bono. Any other circumstance is only inviting the attorney to make a pile of money while persuing this case. In the end the family will be without their daughter and out a significant sum of money.

You might have a wee bit too much fabric on the arm of your jumpsuit if it covers your alti. You can take the easy fix, which is to pull a hunk of your jumpsuit under the strap of your alti and pin it down so it can't cover the alti. This can backfire if it slips out. You can take the more permanent route, and get a rigger to modify your sleeve. They can ususally fold over some of the bag and run a stich line to pin down the fold. If they do it right, it will restrict just enough 'arm fat' to prevent it from covering the alti without changing the 'feel' of the suit.

Your rigger is correct. Some bigger wings are not compatible for sitting because they billow up too much, or the 'hole' where the wing goes over the lateral is too big. Just don't sitfly in that suit. Belly fly the dive, and then sit way up on the wings and look straight up to film the deployments. I have two Flite Suits I use for video. One is a freefly suit with a generous cut under the arms and a set of swoop cords. I use this for every tandem from 130lbs up to however brave the TI is. I'll freefly with the big guys, and belly fly with the lighter ones. The other suit is a proper camera suit with a big wing that attaches to the leg with a clip/velcro sandwhich. This suit is only used for the lightest of students, and I just accept that freeflying is not the way to go on those jumps. I did freefly with the suit when I first got it with no problems, but it was a lot of wing to manage, and just thought better of it as time went on. It's all about the right tool for the right job.

Demo rigs. Sunshine factory. Got it? Not only can you jump, you can jump different rigs and canopies, and see what's what in the world of gear besides your own. It's a win/win.

That assumption right there is the end of the lawsuit. Their suit is based on the false premise that the cutting the loop is 'all' that's required to deploy the reserve. We are all quite aware that the PC, freebag, and reserve itself must all operate properly to effect a 'reserve deployment'. Even if the Cypres itself did malfunction, and not fire until 200ft, the Cypres manual and every FJC course reminds us that the AAD is a back-up device, and not to be relied upon. If the victim bought her Cypres new, and recieved the related paperwork, she would have been aware of this. If not, they could certainly consult her logbook, and locate the DZ where she made her fisrt (non-tandem) jump. The FJC sylabus will surely contain the information that the AAD and RSL are not to be counted on, and proper execution of EPs at the proper altitude is essential for survival. The real kicker is the 'assumption of risk'. You would not purchase, install, and maintain an AAD if did not realize that being in freefall below 750ft was a possibility in your future. For example, my mom does not own an AAD, because there is no chance she'll ever be in freefall. My buddy Ryan, on the other hand, does own an AAD, becasue he is a jumper and realizes the possibility. He knows there is a risk, he knows that's a dangerous place to be and with that in mind he bought an AAD. She celarly knew the risk, or she would not have purchased an AAD. She also knew the AAD was a back-up device, and not to be counted on. This lawsuit is nothing more than a money making ploy by the plantiffs attorney. If any close friends of the victim are in contact with her family, I urge them to make sure the family understands the 'real' facts of AAD use and ownership, and not to proceed unless the attorney is acting 100% pro-bono. If that is not the case, they can expect the attorney to beat this dead horse as long as the client's savings can hold out, and the family risks losing their savings as well as their daughter.

Everything has a range, and if you include new and used gear, this might be close - Skydiving Rigs - with an AAD, figure on $2500 on up to $9000. Without an ADD, maybe could get down to $1200 up to $7500. Base Rigs, from $500 to $3500. Jumpsuits, anywhere from $50 to $450. Helmets - $30 to $300.

That's true, but are you telling me the kid never rides his mountain bike without you and the wife watching over him? He could pedal off into the woods after shcool, or on a weekend, just for kicks, right? A 13 year old road racer doesn't get on the bike unless his folks load up the bikes, tools, spares, etc in the trailer and hual him to the track. I'm not suggesting that mountain biking, BMX, skateboarding or snowboarding should be kept from kids, just that road racing a bike isn't that different, and in some cases offer more oversight than other activites kids are involved in. I've seen the vids of your kid on his bike, and he's a real ripper. I'd be in the hospital if I even thought about half the shit he does.

Indeed it is. You do realize that none of those kids woke up one day and decalred they wanted to take up motorcycle roadracing, right? All of those kids have been riding since they were quite young, starting off playing around in a field with their friends. Pee wee motorcross is generally the next step, with 50cc bikes, and so much safety gear it's surprising the kids can move at all. From there it's up to the kids to perform, and advance to higher classes, where the bikes are bigger and the speeds are higher. Even when they switch over to roadracing, the majority of them begin on go-kart tracks with small bikes and low top speeds. It's like any sport that kids get into, with the possible exception that the parents are right there watching every step of the way. Take BMX, mountain biking,stakeboarding, skiiing, or snowboarding, how often are parents overseeing those activites? I've never seen a parent follow a skater kid around on a board, and on the snow most kids are free to roam the mountain without their parents in tow. What could go wrong there? Ask Sonny Bono... This is a sad event, but it's a far cry from some kid off the street 'trying' motorcycle road racing.

How about getting some royalty-free music, or just respecting the copyright laws and not putting music you don't own DVDs you are selling for a profit? Let's face it, every new computer on sale today has a DVD drive and a video editing program of some kind. If a customer wants music, let them put it on themselves. They can pick their favorite song, and use it for their own enjoyment without busitng any copyright laws. Now that you are a paid professional, how would you feel if your footage or pictures was being used by someone else, without your permission, for the pupose of mkaing that person money?

You have several safe ways to mount the GoPro available, and you accurately descirbe them here - I vote you include a note with every non-camera helmet stating that you reccomend against mounting cameras to non-camera specific helmets. Let's face it, jumpers don't listen to anyone anyway, so toss the note in the box and forget about it. Not to mention, the GoPro is just today's 'new toy', and as soon as a better, newer toy comes out, everyone will be ditching the GoPros and lining up to buy that one. Don't waste your time trying to figure out how to mount the latest 'fad'. It's just like jumping any other camera, if you want to jump it, first you have to figure out how to mount it. Of course, 'you' means each jumper, not you, the Bonehead guy.

I'd be real careful that it doesn't effect your arm movement in any way, to include pulling, cutting away, pulling the reserve, unzipping or un hooking anything. If it's not secured in there, where can it go, and what harm can it do there? Overall it seems like a bad idea. Unless you need the performance to over fly a ledge on a BASE jump, how about just work on your performance, and not the suit.

Have you considered your exit? Seeing as the tunnel offers you no practice for that, What happens if that goes to shit? Have you considered the mental aspect of jumping from an actual airplane, and the effect that may have on your performance? You really want one guy, not currently employed at a DZ, to be your only friend at that point? Can you see the value in a pair of currently employed instructors, who have done 50 or 100 live AFF jumps in the last month? In terms of skipping levels, how does that help you learn exits, or canopy control? How does that help you learn aircraft procedures or just the mental aspect of making an actual jump? Look at it this way, you're going to trust the DZ to choose aircraft, pilots, and student gear, so why not extend that to choosing instructors and the pace of the AFF program? There's no free lunch in skydiving. Just like shooting video or flying a wingsuit, learning to skydive just takes jumps. You can't get around the need to just do the work and make the jumps, and if you're not willing to accept that reality, forget skydiving and stay in the tunnel.

Stock bike? No way. A 650 twin built for tourque, not top end, won't even get to 144. Was it modified? What were you running?