davelepka

With 2 years in the sport and 22 jumps, you've put far more time and effort into earning your degree than you have skydiving. Maybe give that some consideration before you deciede. 'Careers' in skydiving are usually not made in a day. Most every person working in the industry started off as a weekend fun jumper, and found their way into some part of the industry that fit them. Even full time packers (at busy year round DZs) didn't show up and just get a spot on the mat. You have to work your way up, and prove that you're reliable and good at what you do before you can get a good slot. Even then, you're packing for a living, which (sorry packers) sucks. A packer might be able to make $40 or $50 an hour if they work hard, but an AFF instructor can make than by doing 1.5 jumps an hour. They're not working as hard, and they're actually jumping. If you're an AFFI at a busy DZ, you can make two jumps an hour, which adds up to $60 to $70. This brings us right back to the beginning, where you need to get a foothold in the sport to make any of this happen. For the AFFI job, first you need the rating, then you need some experience, then you need to relocate to busy year round DZ, and wait for a slot to open up. Get a job making 30k a year. Take it easy on the high roller stuff like big screen TVs and luxury cars, and spend time at the DZ. Look into helping out on the packing mat. Don't try to get an all day slot, becasue then you can't jump, just see if you can pack when you feel like it. If you pack two rigs inbetween every jump, that pays for half of the jump. 30K a year isn't so bad if jumps are half price, right? Give it a year or two, and rack up a couple hundred jumps, then see what you think. Also, there are industry jobs working for manufacturers you can keep an eye out for. With a college degree and some skydiving experience, maybe you could score a desk job at PD, or Aerodyne. It's not jumping, but it's close, and close to a DZ, and you can get killer deals on gear.

Yes, you could. The problem with higher wl is that the stall speed increases as the wl goes up. Once the stall speed is above running speed, you have a problem. If you watch Luigi on the 37, you'll notice he does quite a bit of 'flintstone' braking, where he slides his feet along as he surfs. What's he's doing is transfering his weight from the canopy to his feet. As he applies more weight to his feet, the wl on the canopy goes down and in turn the stall speed goes down, and the canopy keeps flying (and supporting the rest of his weight) a little longer. Even then, you'll notice that toward the end of the swoop, the canopy will buffet and stall as he begins to take his first (very large) steps. So yes, if you could run (or roll) fast enough, you could jump at higher wl. How high is another story. At some point, the stall speed will be so high that the canopy won't be able to maintain level flight for very long. As soon as you pitch the nose up to level off, you immediately being to lose airpspeed. If the stall speed is just slightly under full flight, your 'window' for planing out and getting your 'wheels' on the ground is very slim. Let's also remember that most airplanes have flaps, which alter the goemetry of the wings to allow them to fly slower (both the top speed and stall speed are reduced) and these flaps are usually used on landing. Smaller planes liek jump planes and other prop aircraft can be landed without flaps, but most of the time some degree of flaps are used to slow down the touchdown speed. Airplanes with higher wl, like jets, will sometimes have flaps that extend back from the trailing edge and slats that extend forward from the leading edge to really slow the wing down. These types of planes rely heavily on the flaps to control the landing speeds, and almost never land without them. So even though planes do land at higher wl, even then there are special considerations made.

If you are currently shopping for a rig that will hold a 150 main, then this will probably not be your last container. If you're buying a 150 main with under 200 jumps, you're either very light or into jumping canopies at higher wingloadings. If you're light, you'll end up on a small canopy just to get a 'sporty' wingloading out of it, the type you might want after 4 or 5 years of jumping. At this point, guess what? New container. If you like higher wingloadings, you'll end up jumping a much smaller canopy, so you can swoop like the cool kids. Guess what? New container. What to do about it now? Buy a size bigger than the 310 (311? That's a band. 312 maybe?) and have a rig that's easy for you to pack, and will hold a one size up reserve. Here's the deal on container sizes - unless you have one of the three smallest rigs on the DZ, nobody, and I mean NOBODY will notice what size rig you have. You can't even see your rig when you're wearing it, and nobody else is really checking you out so hard that they spot a V308 over a V310. The only people who might notice are the really experienced jumpers or the riggers. Both groups will also notice an over-stuffed rig, and a guy who's trying to hard to look 'cool'. You're still a few steps away from your smallest container, so just purchase something that's practical, and makes sense. Get a container that you (or your packer) can easily pack 10 times a day in the summer heat. Enjoy it while you can, and trade it in for a fancy new one with all the latest features a rig has to offer 4 or 5 years from now. You'll be happier now and happier when you trade up. And really, look for a used rig. The size container you need is pretty average, and there should be a great selection of newer, low milage rigs to choose from. You can literally save $1000 or $1200 over the price of a new rig, and that would be MUCH better spent on jumps (or a Cypres if you don't already have one).

All of his helmets were custom fit and hand made. You could not just order one from a dealer or website, you would have to go see him and he would wrap your head in plaster to make a mold of your head. The liners were a single layer of neoprene, because that's all you could fit between your head and the shell itself. He made each one by hand, and had years of experience with the process, and produced a helmet with a very high level of fit and finish. Literally the best helmet money could buy.

See my reply to popsjumper for more info on this. What you may want 'for your files', and what might be a good idea on a given jump are two different things. If you have a need for a specific shot, then you need to plan a skydive around that shot. Even if it's just a track away shot, make it a part of the skydive in that it is accomplished before the actual break off. If your normal break off alititude is 4k, that means that at 4k everyone needs to leave and find a safe place to open a parachute, you included. What you would need to do is arrange for the tracker to leave the formation at 5k, so you can get your shot, and still complete the real break off at 4k. The skydive is job #1, the video is much further down the list. Never let the camera get in the way of making a safe skydive. The best way to do this is to plan your jump, then picture yourself doing it without the camera. If it still makes sense, and appears safe, then you can proceed. In this example, if you were not wearing a camera, your plan at break off would have never been to 'just sit there and wait for pull altitude'. If it doesn't make sense without a camera, it makes even less with the camera.

I have not done video of others tracking when it wasn't appropriate, such as this jump. Sitting in the middle and filming another tracking is not a good idea when you're on a jump such as this one with others of low experience. By taking the middle, and not pulling at break off, you're crowding the airspace down at pull altitude. You actually end up cutting the seperation in half by opening in the middle. If two guys track away from each other, they have the combined distance of their two tracks as seperation. If you sit in the middle and dump, now they only have the distance of their own track from the closest canopy, that being you in the middle. This is of course just a possibilty, but the other real danger (as illustraded here) is that a group jump with lower time jumpers is no place to not be 'paying attention' on the bottom end. Fliming tracks or deployments, or any other video work that extends beyond the break off should be approached with extreme caution. The potential for things to go wrong tends to go up during and after break off. There's alot going on, and on top of it the nature of what could go wrong also shifts because people are opening parachutes. Freefall to freefall collisions are one thing, freefall to canopy is another. I have to figure that the low man on this formation was not very experienced, as illustraded by the fact that he went low, stayed low, and dumped under the formation. These are not the hallmarks of a sharp, experienced jumper. With this in mind, and the experience level of the other jumpers on the dive, the first mistake was on the part of the camera flyer for making the plan that he did. You can say 'plan the dive, and the dive the plan', but if the plan itself is shit, the point is moot. My take on this is that the presence of the camera created the situation. The camera flyer lost respect for the bottom end because he wanted to 'get the shot', and pre-planned or not, that's a mistake. Yes, the low man is also in need of some additional training, but the rule is (and always has been) that the low man has the right of way. While I can't ignore the actions of the low man, I have to say that the camera flyer played a bigger role in this incident than the other guy.

This has nothing to do with the canopy reacting to the speed of the wind. It may have something to do with the instability of the wind, as on a day with 40 mph winds, it's a fair bet that the air is a bit 'unstable'. Without a doubt, unstable air will effect the flight of a canopy, but the spped is not a factor. As another example, the handling of planes doesn't become odd and unpredictable at higher speeds. The control inputs become more effective, but that's it. One thing to think about is to just eliminate the ground from your mind while picturing these things. If you have ever opened above a solid cloud deck, you would see the error of your ways. You can't make sense of upwind, downwind, or crosswind because the clouds are moving in the airmass right along with you. I'll support you that you might have notices handling differences with your canopy on days with higher winds, but it's not for the reasons you stated.

The Parachute Center in Lodi, Ca. The DZO will put you to work somewhere cleaning something, or emptying something, or filling something. If you work hard, you'll get your jumps in, and once you have a license that DZ has the cheapest jumps anywhere in the country.

This is the worst way to choose skydiving equipment. Just because you know of one for sale that you can afford does not make it the right suit for you. Let's face it, it could have been any high performance suit for sale in your size/budget, and you could have found a list of things you like about it. It's not easy to do, but put aside issues of budget and your ego, and determine what suit is really right for your next suit. Figure out what is the smart and safe next step, and then figure out a way to get your hands on one. You have the distinct advanatge of already owning a good suit that you can fly with your local wingsuiters, so there's no need for you rush into anything. Be patient and save your pennies. Sooner or later you'll find a suit that fits you and you'll have enough pennies to afford it.

I forgot to mention, in the thread where the guy fell through a canopy, the posters profile indicated he had 450 jumps. I'm not sure how accurate that is, or how many jumps he had at the time of the incident, but it stands to reason that it was more than 200, possibly even twice that number.

Have a look at what just popped up in another thread - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3780770;#3780770 This is a perfect example of a camera distracting the skydiver. The jumper never made an attempt to look for the jumper missing from their group, and then allowed himself to go into the bottom end of the skydive 'blind' in that he never took his eyes off of his buddy tracking away. This jumper wasn't intending to act as a camera flyer, he was just intending to record his view of the skydive. He did float the exit, and then fly no-contact shooting the jump, he was a member of the skydive who was just wearing a camera. But in this case, one member of the skydive went low, the 'camera guy' never took his gaze off of the other jumpers, even after the break off, and of all the dumb luck the low man didn't track. It's a far fetched situation, but there it is on Youtube for all to see. The camera can be a sneaky and devious distraction, and it will suck you in 100 different ways on every jump.

This is where you have the responsibility as a camera flyer to recognize that there is as jumper missing, and to locate that jumper before you continue to shoot a video. If you're a good camera flyer, you can do this while continuing to film the others. If you're not as good, you have to look away from the other and locate the missing jumper. You may claim that you were not acting as a camera flyer on that jump, but when you filmed the other jumper tracking away, and never took him out of frame, that makes you a camera flyer. If you were not wearing a camera, you wouldn't have just stared at the guy tracking, you would have been involved with your own situation. Once you make filming another jumper your own situaiton, you take on the roll of camera flyer, as well as the responsibility (see above). Then you should have pulled. As it was, you clearly just sat there, falling as others tracked away. Once the others in your group have departed and are tracking away from you, this is the time to clear the air above you and pull. If you pull while the others are still tracking, you will be open higher then them and will have no risk of a canopy collision (canopy to canopy). Additionally, the other jumpers, who will be opening 500ft (or more) below you, will have a reduced risk of a canopy collision because you will not be opening your canopy down at their level. It's a win/win. You have to dump as soon as you are clear. This incident is a prime example of a camera creating a distraction. You may or may not think so, but you never would have followed that same course of action without a camera on your head. You would have never just sat there in freefall staring at another jumper tracking away, only to look where you are going at the last second. That jumper was under you in freefall, waving off, and deploying long before you saw him. If you had been paying attention to your surroudings, you would have had ample time to spot him much earlier in the skydive.

No sir, I had it right the first time. You were politely refered to the sticky at the top of this forum, yet you continued to post your, "I know they say this, BUT, I think it would be good for this, that, and the other thing". Only then was the error of your ways directly pointed out. What's really interesting, is in one of your posts, you list the reasons a pair of video goggles would be good for you, and then go on to explain that the DZ you jump at strictly adheres to the USPA 200 jump minimum for video jumps. Wouldn't you guess that whatever flimsy notions you have about the usefulness of a video camera are far outweighed by the negatives of introducing a camera if the DZ forbids it? They seem to know enough to teach you how to skydive, but you continue to insist that a camera would have usefulness to you even though the DZ management figures otherwise. No, they haven't, and it's a piss poor excuse for trying to minimize the risk of a camera. Getting 'lost' in your altimeter is something that is trained out of you in AFF. You will never pass all of your levels if you 'lock on' to your altimeter, and never look up. Many better and more expereinced jumpers than you have gotten into trouble by NOT looking at their altimeters, and 99 times out of 100, it's due to the distraction of an outside factor JUST LIKE A CAMERA. Don't limit your opinions based on your lack of experience, try to formulate your opinions based on the experience of others. In terms of this topic, and other fairly universal bits of skydiving 'common knowledge', stick with what the majority are doing. 200 jumps for a camera, 200 jumps for a wingsuit with an instructor (500 without), 500 jumps to video a tandem; these are all 'norms' that have been established through the experiences of jumpers that came before, both good and bad. These aren't the areas to be asserting your indiviuality, these are areas in which to assert your intelligence and have some respect for the 'standards'. If Jimbo the load organizers prefers full face helmets, and Timbo the AFF instructor prefers open face helmets, talk to the both of them, and then go ahead and jump both types and see what work best for you. This is an area to assert your individuality and personal preferences.

I'm interested in any pics/info on fabric roll-up doors as used on the rear cargo doors of the 206. These are the doors that have some sort of solid cross beams that are wider than the door opening, and then roll up vertically like a sleeping bag for exits. Any info or pics regarding their construction, attachment to the aircraft, or use would be a big help. You can reply to the thread or PM me. Thanks to anyone who can help.

That's a pretty vague question. If you consult some of the literature already mentioned, you might read for hours and not even come up with the answers you want. How about you narrow down your question a little, and maybe we can help you out. Are you asking about sport parachuting equipment, the stuff we jump for fun? Or the stuff the military uses? If so, static line military or freefall military? Are you asking about solo skydiving gear, or tandem skydiving gear? Maybe there's a specific component you need info on - main parachute, reserve parachute or harness/container? Anything else you can add to your question to make it more specific will help you get your answers. There is a 100% chance that somebody here has the info you're after.

Contact the previous rigger. Nobody has enough experience packing and deploying Skyhooks to make the unilateral decision that the thread is not needed. I'm not sure how to express this, but I almost feel like 100% compliance with the manual is somehow more important on a tandem than a sport rig. Maybe I should say that sport rigs should be 100% and tandems should be 110% (even though that's not physically possible). You're talking about the most complicated rig in the DZ, a rig that stands a good chance of the main being packed 'under pressure' and will ultimately be carrying a paying customer. I guess I just have a little more tolerance for cutting corners (not major corners) on a sport rig vs. a tandem rig.

How so? It's a fact that the speed range of RW is MUCH narrower than that of freeflying. As such, being able to fall in the middle of the RW speed range in a neutral body postion is essential for being an effective RW flyer. As such, the suit has to fit the bill perfectly in terms of cut and material selection. Looking at freeflying, the speed range is vast. You can sitfly in a short, very open position, and be falling at 140. You could also sit in a more upright, longer position, and be doing 150. You could stand up, and do 160 (all speeds are for example only). As such, if your suit has a little more drag than you might need, stand up and go faster. If your suit has a tighter cut, sit down and spread out. It's all still freeflying, and even with the different suits, you'll be able to stay with the skydive. Also, let's be fair, when learning to freefly, the level pf percision required is generally very low. It's quite a ways into the freefly progression before a jumper is expected to fly in a slot and pick up grips. Conversely, an RW student is expected to fly in their slot and pick up grips on every jump. The greater level of percision required dictates the need for a greater level of percision with your jumpsuit. Let's get a few things out of the way here. First off, average sized people will understand this issue less than the lightweights or the big boys. The importance of the right suit becomes readily apparent when you're struggling to stay up with a floaty formation, or tyring to bend in half and pick up a grip because you're 125lbs soaking wet. Can you de-arch and get up there? Maybe. Can you tough it out and strain you lower back to keep up the fall rate? Maybe. Does either one of those body positions promote learning, or even just having fun? No way, no how, not ever. Just like the suit can make or break the dive for those who don't fit the 'average' body size or type, even those right down the middle of the range will benefit from the right suit. As fast you can turn points in suit that's a size to big, if you could relax that arch and fly mroe neutral, you would be that much fatser if the suit was the right size. This thread isn't about what you could do, it's about what you should do. There is no replacement for using the right tool for the right job. If there's one thing I learned from all of my camera jumps (and most of my jumps involve a camera) it;s to dress for success. In any given day, I might film a 225lb. guy doing a tandem, a 110lb. girl doing an AFF jump, a four way team, a group of freeflyers and a tracking dive. There is no camera, no lens, no fancy helmet that will produce good footage if you're not in your slot. Being there is everything, and the only way to be there is to wear the right suit. If the OP wants to do RW, he should buy an RW suit. When he wants to freefly, he should worry about that when (or if) that time actually comes.

This whole issue couldn't be more a carbon copy of the RW suit progression back in the day. Now the VRW has sped up the fallrates and started to get seriuous, the suits have become tighter. If you notice, however, all of the VRW guy in the tight suits are young, fit jumpers. You don't see an overweight guy up there in a tight suit trying to stay up with the team. The issue of bagginess of a freefly suit should only be related to your body/size type, and the speeds you want to fly. If you are a big guy, and want to jump with your skinny girlfriend, you're going to need a bigger suit. As for the guy you replied to, it sounds liek he was just looking for a way to be contrary. Sure in VRW, the grips used are not associated with grippers, but other docks in freeflying do use the grips, and that's what they're designed for. Why else would a manufacturer put grippers on a jumpsuit? They're there for gripping. By this point, I'm sure the OP has a handle on the situation, and some ideas for when he asks his instructors what they think.

If you have any problems with flexibility, the type of aircraft you jump from could be a consideration. A Cessna 182 or 206 would be a tight fit. If you find a DZ to jump at that operates either of those, have a look at the plane, and maybe put on a rig and have one of the instructors walk you through the aircraft proceudres before you start your training. After a full day of training is a crappy time to find out you don't fit, or have to struggle to fit into the plane. Remeber if you are doing AFF, there will be at least two instructors in there with you and a coreographed routine you will have to follow in order to properly exit the aircraft. Jumping at a DZ with an aircraft such as a Cessna Caravan, Twin Otter, or King Air would make this a non-issue. None of those planes are short on room to manuver inside the aircraft. It might represent a big improvment to the quality of your experience if you are comfortable in and around the aircraft. It might be worthwhile to lose the weight needed so you can jump at any of the DZs listed up-thread. It looks like you only need to drop 10 or 15 lbs. to be under the limit for any of those places. It will also help in making the harness more comfortable (most student harnesses are designed for a more average sized guy) and you won't miss the pounds when it comes time to land.

We had a fire in a trailer that was housing at least a dozen rigs. Some of them were damaged beyond repair , and some that were on the other end of the building from the fire were not. Of those, three of them have been in service for about 12 months to the tune of 200-ish jumps on each of them. All of them were disassembled the day of the fire, and immediately washed several times. The rigs all came clean with no damage found. All of the canopies were inspected, and we found no damage to any of them. Have a rigger disassemble, wash and inspect. My guess would be that nobody is going to sign off on a fire rig unless they are 110% sure it's OK. All three rigs that survived the fire happened to be Infinities. I'm not suggesting that Infinities can survive a fire, at least two or three were lost in the fire as well. Good luck

You're right, it doesn't make sense, but that's the reality of what would happen in that case. I'm sure you saw the last line of my post, but in case you didn't, here it is - Let's face it, the fact that Strong was involved in the suit at all doesn't make any sense. They built a harness, which was used for many years and 100's of jumps without incident. In fact, they have built 1000's of these harnesses which have been in service for years with hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million jumps on them without incident. However, when an incident occurs with one, 1000's of miles from the Strong factory or any Strong employee, Strong is some how implicated in the lawsuit. Like I said before, this lawsuit is not about justice, it's about money. Strong's name is on the label, and his bank account is large enough to make him a target. Just like his presence in the lawsuit doesn't make sense, neither might the actions of the defendants. Nobody, Strong included, had the liquid assests to settle the lawsuit. Strong might have had the net worth to liquidate assets and settle the case, but nobody would ever expect him to shut his doors, and sell off his assests to do so. So the lawsuit is on, and everyone did what they had to do in their defense. To the best of my knowledge, none of the defendants threw the other under the bus in any regard, and they wokred together to the best of their abilities to defend against the suit. In the end, everyone involved suffered significant financial losses in defending themselves, and the TI in question probably suffered the greatest loss in terms of a percentage of his net worth. Every aspect of this case, from the incident itself through to the lawsuit is a shitty situation. All involved did what they thought was the best course of action at the time. I feel bad that Ted Strong became involved in the suit, but you would be naive to think that Ted didn't realize that he was opening himself up to lawsuits being the skydiving equipment manufacturing business. If you think he didn't, consider that Bill Booth adding 'The Uninsured' to the 'Relative Workshop' company name would have been a clue that legal action was a possibility. None of this makes it right, but demonizing the other defendants in the lawsuit is not appropriate. The TI has clearly suffered the most of the bunch. His life has been impacted dearly, in both psycological and financial terms, which will take years to recover from. Tim and Sherry Butcher have also suffered a severe financial loss, as well as the loss of their dropzone, which, for all of the finger pointing, was a well run and safety based operation. As for Ted, I do not know him personally, but I would imagine that this has not been a picnic for him, but I would be VERY surpirsed to hear that he had anything bad to say about the conduct of the TI or Tim and Sherry in the aftermath of this incident. I'm sure all invoved regret that it happened, but once it did, my belief is that everyone involved acted in an above board manner.

What is your assertion here? Do you believe that if the TI had stood up and decalred, "This was my fault, I used the harness improperly", that Strong would not have been named in the lawsuit? Just to be clear, the lawsuit in quesiton is not a matter of justice, it's a matter of money. Strong is clearly the deepest pockets of anyone remotely related to the incident, and nothing was going to keep them off of the lawsuit. Even if the TI accepted responsibility, the lawyers would have claimed that Strong was liable for builing a harness that could be used improperly. The better move for all involved was to fight the lawsuit, and hope that the whole thing would be thrown out of court. A fact that you may not be aware of is that the TI was the last man standing in this lawsuit. Once Strong filed for Chapter 11 to stop the financial bleeding, the suit was dropped because the TI's pcokets are not deep enough to keep the lawyers interest, but at the time it was dropped the TIs name was the only one left on the papers. There's been a real misunderstadning in this thread between taking responsibility for one's actions, and managing your position in the face of a lawsuit. It's one thing to stand up in a room full of your peers, and accept responsibility for your actions. Defending yourself against a lawsuit, and employing sound legal strategy with the defendants working together to minimize the damage for all involved is another. Everyone is well aware of what happened. How it plays out in the nooks and crannies of the US legal system often times has little relation to reality.

Nope. That's why he was Wes, and he had a production helmet named after him, and we're still talking about him after he's gone. RIP

Both of those rigs are fine pieces of equipment. I'm not sure why you believe that the number of jumps you have has any relation to what type of container you jump, because it does not. Either of those containers would be fine for a jumper with 10 jumps or 10,000. Your experience will factor in when you choose the size of your canopies, and this will dictate the size of the container, but both the Jav and Infinty are made in a wide range of sizes to fit any canopy you might select. I would expect either of those rigs to last for literally thousands of jumps from new. The length of time you will be able to jump one is only related to (again) your canopy choices. If you were to buy a new container sized for 190 main and reserve, and you were happy jumping a 190 main and reserve for the next 2000 jumps, than the container would work fine for you for the entire time. That's not very realistic, as most people will eventually downsize their canopies to some extent. A rig built for a 190 may be able to hold a 170, but if you start thinking about jumping a 150, you might need to buy a smaller container. So the lenght of time a rig would work for you is only limtied by your other equipment choices. I jump an Infinty, and vote for that over the Jav. I've got my reasons, most of them personal preference, but I put my money on the Infinty.

Freefly pants are stupid, and I'm going to tell you why. Only having drag on your lower body is dumb. Unless you plan to only fly on your head, you need some drag on your upper body for flying upright. So if you really are going to fly only on your head, and you're a big guy who needs the drag of freefly pants, than you could also use the drag the top half of a suit would provide. If you're a smaller guy, with tight freefly pants and no drag up top, just put on a $30 pair of jeans. The only upside to freefly pants I can see is that if you have a baggy shirt up top and freefly pants on the bottom, you can pull the baggy shirt off to stay cool on the ground. I do the same with my suit by just taking off the top and tying the arms around my waist, but that's just me. You could make the argument that on a hot day you can wear a T-shirt and freefly pants, but then you're back to drag on the bottom, and none on top. Again, if that's you scene, put on some jeans, and spend the other $170 a nice bag of weed.