davelepka

You can never have too much altitude on your side, and you can never have too much seperation from other jumpers. Your way is giving up either one of those things because you're spending time (which is altitude) after break off doing something besides tracking or pulling. By building your checks into your track, you 'mutil-task' and get more seperation and a higher pull altitude without sacrifcing anything. It also gives you time to take a look. It's not what you can catch in a quick roll, you can take a couple seconds have a good look, all the while still tracking. If you really think about it, what would you do if you saw someone there? You're already stopped tracking, and whistling through pull altitude. Now you either have to start up your track again, or suck it down until the airspace is clear. If you take a look while you are tracking, you have time to deal with a jumper 'up there' and still get open when you planned. You are already moving with a good deal of momentum, and all it takes is an adjustment to your heading to scoot out from under the guy up there. The last thing you want to do is wait until you're just about ready to pull to take a look. Plan ahead. Know where you're going and what it looks like before you get there, it's the literal definition of staying 'ahead of the curve'.

I've got 3000 jumps on a Stiletto 107 (actually two of them) with no malfunctions. ZP and eliptical. Really though, that was the result of good maintenence and good packing. In general, F-111 seven cell (like a reserve) would be the most reliable. In ZP terms, a conservative 7 cell like a Spectre, but even then the packing and maintenence are key. Least reliable? The Pintail, hands down.

Wouldn't this actually be easier to track on a small DZ then a large one? Fewer jumpers overall, and fewer jumpers on each load? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see how this would be more trouble for small DZ.

You could not be more incorrect sir. First off, the suggestoin here is to barrel roll during the track. It is a manuver that some talented trackers can perform and maintain both heading and track angle, but not many. Furthermore, your suggestion of completing your track, and then doing a barrel roll is absurd. You have a VERY limited time to track, and you need to use 100% of it to achieve seperation from your group. When you stop with enough time to barrel roll, then get stable and pull, you have squandered a good deal of time you could have spent tracking. None of this is mentioning the fact that in the midst of a barell roll, your ability to accurately scan your overhead area is very low. The mnauver happens quite quickly, and any attempt you make to slow it down will only further comprimise your safety. You are either sacrificing additional tracking time, or pulling lower, both very bad ideas in every sense of the word. I'll repeat - break off, establish your heading and ensure the area in front of and below is clear. Maintain your track and glance over one shoulder. Return to checking ahead and below, then check over the other shoulder. Complete your track and return your focus to the area in front and below, flare out of the track, wave off and pull. Don't make shit up in your own mind, and then force others to live with your 'ideas' by implementing them on group jumps. Your plan and logic for justifying it are both severly flawed. Track as long and as hard as humanly possible while maintaining your pull altitude. Every time, every jump.

An actual barrel role will just give you a glimpse of what's above you. The speed at which you rotate, and need to 'lead' the roll with your head really cuts into your 'useful' time scanning your overhead airspace. A full-stop transition to back tracking, with a pause to check your airspace, follwed by a transition back to belly tracking would be far more 'useful' in terms of scannig your airspace. Either of those two manuvers require you to have 100% accuracy with maintaining your heading and the angle of your track. If you sacrifice either one, you're solving one problem, and making bigger ones. Not to mention the fact that you cannot see where you are going (like into an open canopy) while you are engaged in such manuvers. A far simpler, and more reliable method would be to begin your track on your belly looking where you are going. Take a few seconds to scan the area in front of and below you. Once that is clear, look over one shoulder, and take a few seconds to check that area. Return to looking out and down, clear that zone one more time, and then check over the other shoulder. By this time you should be at the end of your track, where you can flare out and wave off, all while making the final check in front of you. It provides you three scans of the area in front and below, two scans overhead, and an easy and reliable plan to maintain both the heading and angle of your track. Or just be a rockstar and barrel roll.

You have to narrow it down a little if you want any useful information. So far you've asked a question along the lines of, "Which would be a good car to buy? They all seem to be the same sort of thing, what do you guys think?" Let's start with what you're currently jumping now, what you do with it, and what you think about it. Does your current selection seem to be 'lacking' in any areas? What are you considering as a replacement, and what do you plan to do with it? It's not hard to reccomend a canopy is you know the jumpers qualifications and intentions with the new wing.

God help the DZ you shopw up on. Between your posts about recurrency jumps, new gear, and helmets, it appears that you have made your mind up about how everything works at the DZ these days, and don't need any sort of new fangled training or adivce about anything. I tried to be on your side, but you sound like an asshole. Remember the as campaign, "This isn't your fathers Oldsmobile"? Well, this isn't 1990 skydiving anymore, and if you expect to fit in, succeed, and survive, you are need a serious attitude adjustment.

I never said the guy should expect to sit through the entire FJC. My exact quote is here - "Part" of the FJC. If the guy shows up for recurrency training, and they are conducting a FJC, there's no reason he could not sit in on the malfunction part of the training, as opposed to occupying another instructor who might be needed elsewhere.

I'd steer clear of buying gear until you're current, and have had a chance to jump some of the newer canopies. If you really haven't jumped since 1990, there have been some HUGE changes in canopies, and attempting to select one for purcahse with no jumps on anything newer than circa 1990 is a mistake. If you have a rough size in mind, you could purchase a used container and reserve. Once you're current and have made a few on the DZ gear, starting with too much canopy and getting down towards just right, you can demo different canopies to see what you like. Some gear stores and manufacturers offer demo programs where you get a canopy for two weekends or so for about the cost of shipping both ways. You can also borrow another jumpers canopy for an afternoon if they have the model and size you have in mind. Try it before you buy it.

That's where you're wrong. Well, to can interpret the BSRs all you want, in the end the only opinion that counts is the DZOs. It's his sandbox, and if he tells you it's ten recurrency jumps or the high road, then it's ten recurrency jumps or the high road. What you think of it all, or what you want to do is of little importance, it's what the DZO wants you to do that gets you up in the air, or back in your car. If you walk in with a good attitude, and don't try to tell the DZ staff how to do their job, you can expect them to work with you as best they can. I would fully expect to sit through some refresher training, be it as part of a FJC or just a one-on-one session with an instructor. There's a fair chance they'll want you to take the FJC written test, so they see if they (or you) missed anything. Once that's out of the way, you're probably looking at a first jump back with one instructor and it will include some practice touches with your new PC location, and most likely some turns and docks. Provided that goes well, you should be cut loose as a current D license holder. What you do with that is up to you, but you seem to get the idea that you'll need a little 'air time' to get back on top of your game. Keep mind there's a fair chance you be dealing with instructors, DZOs, and S&TAs who started jumping after you quit 20 years ago. To them, you're an old timer who hasn't jumped since the olden days. You won't get very far telling them how to do their jobs in the present day, where they're in charge, and you're some random old guy asking about frap hats (nothing wong with frap hats). Just realize that skydiving has gone through some changes in the training, procedures and the equipment. There's a lot you need to be updated on, and these are the people that are going to help you get up to speed.

Read over the first part of this article, it outlines his flight training, qualifications, and experience to date. The article is at least a year old, so the reported 800 hours in the Premiere is probably in the range of 1000 to 1200 hours as of the time of the crash. http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/jets/its-all-about-speed I fully understand the 'more money than brains' concept, but this guy is accomplished enough (aviation wise) and has enough solo PIC jet time, that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not assume that he just blew it. It terms of mechanical failure, there are a lot more systems than just the engines that can fail, but modern jets have so many redundant systems (like the second engine), it is hard to imagine a failure leading to what happened. Like I said, between Roush, and the 10,000 pilots who saw this go down (not everyone at Oshkosh was looking in the right direction), they have to be able to piece this one together pretty accurately.

Maybe, but at the same time controllers aren't going to ask a jet to fly the same pattern as a Cub. They would have allowed him the room to fly a standard pattern it whatever his normal approach speed would be. On top of that, the guy has 3500 hours PIC in a Citation, and 800-some hours in the Premiere (not to mention all the time in smaller planes and his P-51). Hopefully when he's feeling better, he'll give us the full story. If not, between interviews with the pilot and the 10,000 pilot-spectators, plus the info from his GPS and the wreckage, I have a pretty good feelnig the NTSB will figure this one with a high degree of certainty. It might take a year, but they'll get it done. Speaking of which, did they post a preliminary report yet?

Care to share your findings? Even the short version? I saw a screen grab from a video of him on very short final extremely nose high, as-in higher than it would have been climbing out after take-off. I also saw a pic from further down the runway where the nose was pointed at least 45 degrees off runway heading, and the right wing was low and about to hit the ground. Fill in the blanks?

Hard helmets, mostly the full face ones, did come out the increase in speed in competition RW. If you haven't seen it yet, go check out Arizona Airspeed on Youtube, and you'll see the speed and proximity that requires full face protection. As for the rest of the helmets, I think the real change was in helemt design and technology. The old Bell helmets were not made for skydiving and a little on the bulky side. This new generation of helmets are made by skydiving companies for skydiving, and are very light and low profile. As far as protection goes, they offer good protection from a variety of minor impacts. When i say minor, I mean minor as comapred to going in, no helmet will protect you from that. But for general bumps and scrapes, the new generation of helmets will go a good job of keeping you happy. They most likely will not offer significant protection in the event of an impact capable of causing serious injury, and they were never designed to. Bouncing your head off a door frame, a low level impact in freefall or even just a tubmle in the wonrg spot on landing can leave you with a knot or cut/abbrasion on your melon. Not the worst thing in the world, but it might ruin your jump day. One of the these helmets will help you in those cases. Be preparred to wear a hard-shell helmet on your re-currency jump. The DZ will have them available, and your instructor will want to see one on your head, along with a much bigger canopy than you were used to jumping on your back.

I actually made my first five jumps static line out of a 185 wherer the pilot was flying, dispatching jumpers, and shooting video at the same time. I went on to watch this guy put out 1000's of students this way without incident. In all he did this for about 20 years, and untold numbers of students, all without incident (at least with reference to flying and jump-mastering at the same time). For awhile it was OK with the USPA, and then it wasn't so he dropped out of the group member program. Later on, the USPA didn't seem to care anymore, and he rejoined as a group member DZ. While it may have worked out OK in that case, I would suggest that's the exception, not the rule. This guy was raised on his dad's DZ, which was in his backyard, and later became his DZ. By the time he was pilot and JM at the same time he had been doing the two jobs individually for many years. He went on to become a TI and AFF I with great success in both areas. It was just the right guy in just the right situation, and I doubt we'll see that happen too many more times.

That is not an option. The military gear holds a 360 sq ft canopy, which is too small for your weight. Furthermore, unless you're the military, good luck getting a military product custom made for you. The rigs are built to a mil-spec standard, and have limitations on their use, and nobody but the military is going to change that. You're not seeming to understand. This isn't snowmobiling or mountain biking. This is a federally regulated sport under the authority of Federal Aviation Administration. They are kind enough to stay out of our way for the most part, but one area they are not flexible about is the certification and design limitations of the gear. Jumping an illegally assembled or packed rig is grounds for the pilot who flew you to lose his license, not a chance any pilot I know is going to take. This does not require an incident to occur for this to happen. An uneventful jump on an illegal rig can cost the pilot the same fate. You may be in great shape. You may really want to jump, but 420lbs of body mass is way too far outside the scope of sport skydiving, there is no way around it. Even if you were slim and trim standing 9 feet tall, 420 lbs is too heavy for what we do, that is a non-negotiable fact.

The problem with your thinking is that you're not taking into account 'the rules' If you follow 'the rules' you won't need a Skyhook or an RSL. The rules are that you break off from a freefall skydive with enough time to get to clear airspace, deploy your main and indentify either a good canopy or a malfunction before your hard deck, and initiate and complete your EPs immediately in the case of a malfunction. Not doing this, and any incident that results is not a failure or shortcoming of the gear, it's a shortcoming of the jumper. You cannot look at a Skyhook and think about the 300ft cutaway 'stunt' they did to promote the thing. Cutting away at anything below your hard deck is not an option, and as soon as you begin to entertain it as an option due to the presence of a Skyhook in your rig, you go from using one of Bill Booths inventions, to acting out another one of his inventions. One of Booth's laws states that for every step you take in making skydiving safer, jumpers will take an equal step in the opposite direction and take additional risks, offsetting any improvement in safety. The way you prevent yourself from fullfilling Booth's law is to stick to your procedures regardless of the gear you are jumping. Act as if the Skyhook is not present, and when it activates, enjoy the extra time and altitude under your reserve. Keeping this in mind, you can see how the trivial difference in extraction time between a Skyhook an an RSL is moot. You're under your reserve at 1400 ft with one, and 1300ft with the other. As soon as you start to split hairs on the level of 100 or 150 ft difference in deployment time, you have already begun down the slippery slope to Booth's law. The presence of a Skyhook, RSL, or AAD should hold no basis on the way you conducdt yourself in the sky. Plan as if they are not there, and try your hardest not to use them. Many suggest a mandatory grounding for a period of time after an AAD fire. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that, but I understand the sentiment. It's an error of significant proportions to fire an AAD, but it can happen and people do get sucked down low from time to time. Things happen fast in freefall. However, if a jumper were to cutaway at such an altitude than an RSL would not save them, but their Skyhook does, I would reccomend that jumper hang up their gear for good. For starters, the amount of luck required for that to occur is staggering. At that point, you are literally 100 ft away from death and still alive by the grace of god. Additionally, for a jumper to make the error of riding a canopy, good or bad, down to below 300 or 400ft, and then to perform a cutaway (what would be required for a Skyhook 'save') is inexcusable, and that person has no business in the sport of skydiving. If you want to be that guy, get the Skyhook and think about how much quicker it is than an RSL. One day that though might jump out at you at the worst possible time, and it could cost you your life.

Look man, I'm a naysayer, but you have to understand that this isn't American Idol. What you want to do, or what you believe you can do is not the decieding factor here. There are some physical limitations to what we do, and all of the gear and aircraft we jump are designed around those limitations. You will never find an manufacturer willing to take on the liability of building a rig to fit you, or converting an existing rig to fit you. The reason is that every canopy currently made is certifed to a weight and speed that are below your weight, and the speed you will be going at deployment time. Beyond that, you will never find a DZ willing to take on the liability of training you, or having you jump there. It just won't happen. I'm not down on the idea of you learning to jump, just the idea of you doing it at your current weight. Many good people have pointed out practical reasons why it's not possible, and not a good idea in general. Here are the websites for the two companies who currently manufacture tandem equipment in the US - http://unitedparachutetechnologies.com/ http://www.strongparachutes.com/ - you will need a parachute to jump, so start there. E-mail them with a request to convert a tandem rig to a solo jumper configuration, and include your height and weight. If you get anything besides an outright refusal, post the positive reply in this thread, and I for one, will get on your side and help you find a DZ to train at. No parachute no jump, so take care of step one.

Yes, you are. Your reserve is a different type of canopy than a main. Even a 'moderate' performance main like a Sabre2 or Pilot is a MUCH higher performance canopy than an F-111, 7-cell fully square reserve. Add in a conservative loading, and you're dealing with a much different circumstance than you see on Youtube. Many, many reseve deployments result in a line twist or two, and none that I have ever heard of have resulted in a spin into the ground. Even a barber pole on a stable canopy is just a matter of kicking out of them. Try hunting for videos of BASE jumping line twists. This is what they will look like on a rererve as BASE canopies are very similar to reserves, as they are built with many of the same characteristics in mind. You're thiking about a problem that doesn't really exist. Nothing can prevent line twists from happening to any canopy, but proper canopy selection can make them a non-issue. Did you have line twists on any of your jumps thus far? Did they result in a death spiral that you needed to cutaway from?

Good catch. I did not mean what you think I meant, but I can see how you got the impression that you did, and I'm glad you pointed it out so I can correct it. I was comparing the functionality of an RSL to that of a Skyhook, and one of the main features is that it gets the reserve out sooner than an RSL. The statement I made about cutting away to 300 or 400ft was meant to illustrate that the difference was moot unless you were in such a rediculous position as needing to cutaway at 300 or 400 ft. I did follow up that statement with this one- - which was intened to convey that the differnce was indeed moot, and that you should always intiate your EPs by your hard deck, which should not be anywhere near 300 or 400 ft. The point of what I was saying was to show the OP that the advatage of a Skyhook is slight when compared to the much less expensive, and much more commonly found RSL. There is an aditional advantage to the Skyhook, that being the speed of the extraction is such that the jumper does not have a chance to spin or rotate before the reserve hit line strech. An RSL can sometimes allow spining or rotating before the reserve leaves the bag, resulting in line twists. That said, I cannot think of an incident involving a malfucntioned reserve reuslting from such spinning or rotating, just line twists, which is trivial at best. To summarize - the main difference between a Skyhook and RSl is the extraction speed, but an RSl is fast enough that if you initiate your EPs above your hard the deck, the 100 or 200 ft the Skyhook would save is insignificant. If you should find yourself in a situation where the Skyhook will make the difference, you have made many mistakes leading up to that point, and need to re-examine your approach to skydiving. The Skyhook is a 'better mousetrap', but not that much better. If you are buying a new rig, or a used rig with a Skyhook, good for you, but aside from that, an RSl will provide the same service at a lower cost with greater availablity. For the record, I do not jump with a Skyhook nor an RSL. As a camera flyer, and high performance canopy pilot, it is a rare jump that I am throwing out my PC any lower 3500ft. As such the fucntionality of an RSl or Skyhook does not outweigh the risks of a reserve going around my camera helemt in an unstable deployment. I have adjusted my hard deck accordingly, and generally am under my main by 4000ft. You were 100% right to point out the impression that I might have given in my post. It was not my intent, and I'm gald I got the chance to clear it up.

Indeed, but an RSL is a close second to a Skyhook, where an AAD is an 'all or nothing' proposition. Like I mentioned above, the Skyhook is king under 300 or 400 ft. Above that, the RSL would do the trick just as well (in terms of having an inflated reserve before impact). In the end, AADs, Skyhooks, and RSLs, all good ideas.

You should expect to have to sit through the FJC course, and then make a jump with two instructors just to see 'where you are'. Your performance on that jump will dictate how they want to proceed, but you can almost count on at least one more jump with an instructor. Five years is a long time for someone under 20 jumps. Don't be discouraged if the DZ wants to set you back further in your training than you hope. As far as they're concerned, you're just another student, and they're going to place you in the progression where you need to be based on your performance on that first jump back. Make an effort to push through to the A license ASAP. Once you have it you always will, and it makes it far easier to come and go from skydiving if you have that notch on your belt. Even with an A, you still need refresher training and a recurrency jump after a lay-off, but it's just simpler and easier if you're licensed.

One line can be replaced. Make sure that the rigger takes into account how far out of trim the other lines are. They may be in trim relative to each other (for the most part) but that doesn't mean that they match the factory numbers for line lenght. Generally, if you match it to the opposite line on the other side of the canopy, that's a good guess.

It's very complicated and highly technical. Terribly flawed, but complicated and highly technical never the less. I'll amend my numbers to closer to 50lbs. for the rig. You lose the drouge assembly, and the lowers, but it would have to be stuffed with the largest canopies anyone could find (besides that monster cargo canopy that was north of a few 1000 sq ft.). Still, you're looking at 475lb out the door.

Your wing suit weights ten pounds? Holy crap. Even then, you're still 100+lbs lighter out the door then the OP. I was being conservative when I said 150 or 160mph, but I think you're right about the speeds. I've been on a 150mph tandem before, and that was about 450 lbs. with a drouge. I know it sounds weird, but I guess the message to the OP is drop 100 or 120 lbs, and it can be done.