davelepka

So let's see, northen Cali, DZ sensitive about CRW, DZO threw you off the DZ....I'm getting a mental picture of the DZ..... Either way, you got jacked. If you do have 500+ jumps, and a few months of experience as a coach at the DZ under your belt, then there should not have been a problem. What you did sounds completely reasonable. The plan of the dive itself was sound, and it reality, bumping end cells isn't really CRW. The key difference is that to form a stack or a plane, you have to fly your canopy literally in the way of the other canopy and let them hit you (more or less). Bumping end cells doesn't involve you crossing into the path of the other canopy. You both reatin your own clean air to fly in. Furhtermore, I am not aware of any regulation regarding when a jumper is qualified to do CRW, even if you wanted to call bumping end cells CRW (which it's not). If the DZO and S&TA agreed to the two of you getting out long and pulling high, and another instructor had no problem with you bumping end cells, and (here's the kicker) you had no reason to believe that the DZo would have a problem with bumping end cells, then I call bullshit on the DZO. I don't think you should take this crap either, If you got the boot for this, you have nothing to lose by going back and standing up for yourself. Call the DZO out on the this bullshit, even if you want to mention that you respect his authority, for sure explain that you had no reason to believe that there would be a problem, and that you don't agree.

Isn't it just easier to shoot the whole thing on each jump? Aside from Mullins KA, there's plenty of time on each load to shoot the actual events for the customers. Stock footage has it's place, in case there's a technical problem in the plane, or another issue that's more important than you getting your shots, but on the average day on the average load, just record the event as it transpires. That's what you're paid to do anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with a template system, you have to cut your footage into the correct pieces and install them into the template, right? I can't see how this would be faster than just having the complete video ready to roll right out of the camera. Add a fade in/out from your leader or whatever, and move on, no? (I'm just guessing, as I said before, I'd rather just pay the editor and go make another jump)

Sorry man, when I switched over from talking about stock footage to talking about using zoom, I wasn't speaking directly to you anymore. I was addressing another topic in the thread. Truthfully, I think a good percentage of what I say isn't really directed at one person, but more of general statements for anyone reading. There's no doubt you're the pro here. I may have an edge in terms of flying techniques, but when it comes to anything else, you're the forum mod for a reason.

Even if the stock footage is the best stuff you have, different lighting conditions on different days will show through in the end. An altimeter shot taken on a bright sunny day will look different than a shot of the student sitting in the plane late in the day with an overcast. I prefer to shoot the entire video each time for a couple of reasons. First, it allows me to get away from the framework of the stock footage if the situation presents itself. Sometimes life drops a new or unusual set-up right in your lap, and if I'm personally shooting every shot, I can weave whatever presents itself in to what I already have in the can. Second, and this is subject to having an editor, when I drop my tape off after the jump, I know it's good to go, with no edits needed. I shot it in such a way that the editor is really just making a dub. This comes from years of editing my own stuff off of Hi-8. where you had to shoot it right the first time, or the editing would take forever. In terms of not using the zoom, that's just silly. You're just limiting yourself as to what you can do. I use the zoom and auto focus for everything except freefall, and never have any problems. Before I don my helmet I make a mental note of the last shot I made in the plane (also handy for planning your next shot) and make sure that I remember myself setting the manual focus and the zoom correctly. It's only two items, and if you take care of them after your last handheld shot in the plane, it doesn't take any additional time. Along those same lines, I flip on my still just to double check the settings as well (I have a top mounted still so I can see the back of the camera). In truth, my camera procedures are the simplest part of my gear checks, and if you have your head in the game, it's not hard to get them done. If you sit there and cock around with your buddies, and wait until the door is coming up to don your helmet, you're going to miss stuff. (A good reason to get your lid on early is to keep it off the floor when the fun jumpers start getting up and moving around). If you act like a professional, and make doing your job your first priority, it's easy to get stuff right.

How about just saying 'no'? If everything else about the rig is a good fit for the buyer, the lack of a Cypres should be the last thing to kill the deal. Both the Cypres and the reserve are the easiest pieces to locate used as there are very few options. Rerserves just need to be sized correctly, and there is generally only one model of Cypres to fit a certain rig. Main canopies bring up the issue of size and color (it matters to some people) and the harness/container has the most options, and as such is the hardest to locate a suitable used one. Additionally, if a buyer is forced to buy any part of a rig new due to time or market constraints, the Cypres is least expensive component in a rig. Discount the price of the rig to match the value of the Cypres according to the price calculator on the SSK website, and call it a day.

She makes more than every doctor and lawyer I know combined. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1586201/20080424/cyrus__miley.jhtml I'll bet that her Facebook page becomes the vehicle for pushing her cutting edge anti-Twitter lifestyle.

First of all, I never said that Spaceland was involved with Skyride, but I think I made a fair comaprison. What we're talking about here is a small group of 'business people', DZOs on the one hand, and competitors at Nationals on the other. These business people are trying to attract a fairly limited commodity, tandem students for the DZOs, and sponsorship money for the competitors. Skyride, as we know, simply intercepts customers looking for a DZ, and inserts themselves into the transaction. The DZO end up with less revenue from the same number of available tandem students in their area. Spaceland has cornered a good chunk of the available sponsorship dollars, and limited the value of the remaining sponsorship dollars. The competitors end up with fewer sponsorship opportunities. In both cases, if Skyride and Spaceland did not engage in this activity, the 'business people' would have additional opportunities for seeking their desired commodity. In the case of Skyride, it's just business, and as dirty as it may be they hold no responsibility for the success or failure of DZ across the counrty. However, in the case of Spaceland, I believe they do hold a degree of responsibility for the effected parties in their situation (the competitors). All of their dealings with regards to Nationals should be on the basis of, 'First, do no harm', and in this sense I believe they have failed. Just because you don't agree does not mean it's silly. The comaprison is fair, and applicable.

Believe it or not, I have another point to make. Earlier in the thread, the name Skyride came up, and I'm not sure how or why, but it was quickly dismissed, and everyone seemed to agree that it didn't belong. I don't know where your DZ sits in the Skyride issue, but after reading your post, I do see a connection. One of my main problems with the Skyride deal us that they are not bringing any new business into skydiving. All they offer are websites with high rankings on search engines, so a customer is already looking for information on skydiving when they come across Skyride. What they are doing is placing themselves inbetween an area DZ, and the people in that area who are already thiking about jumping. They're taking what would have been a full value customer for the DZ, and creating a partial value just for managing to step into the middle of the deal. In your situation, you are doing the same thing in that these are skydiving companies you have partnered with, so you're not bringing any new sponsorship to the industry, you've just stepped inbetween the jumpers and the companies that would have sponsored them for the benefit of your DZ. Let's be honest, Spaceland stands to gain in many ways by hosting Nationals. Locally, I'm sure the news affilitates will cover the event, and drive some new busines your way. The competitors, of course, between competition and training will be purchasing thousands of slots in your aircraft (literally more slots than some smaller DZ will sell in a year). Those same competitiors, if you host a nice meet, will come to regard Spaceland as a top notch world-class DZ, and be more likely to return for fun or other events you will host. That same ida extends to the publicity in the non-competing skydiving population, who are all going to be well aware of Spaceland, and it's facilities. So what you have done is only furthered Spacelands advantage ot hosting this event by increasing the value of the event sponsorship, but you've done it by cornering some of the skydiving-related sponsorship dollars that otherwise might have gone to competitors. What if Aerodyne had spent their money sponsoring ten teams? Discounts on Icons and Pilots, Aerodyne logos on the Pilots for the open calss teams, T-shirts for everyone, and sent a marketing team to run an Aerodyne tent with info and goodies for everyone else? And if Skysystens had done the same? Who couldn't use a Vigil? How many teams could they offered 1/2 price AADs to for Vigil logos on their rigs and jumpsuits, and wearing Vigil shirts during the competition? You see, in essence all you have done, much like Skyride, is taken the existing sponsorship dollars in the indusrty, and taken those opportunities away from the competitors, the same people who the entire meet is about, the same people ready to buy a years worth of slots in two weeks. These are the people you have put yourself ahead of in line for sponsorship dollars. Nice. For the record, I recall being a Nationals 10 or 12 years ago at Perris, when during the practice week they flew over 100 loads in one day for the first time in their history. That's 2000+ slots on one day, during the practice week. (It was a skyvan load, I was on it, and Perris paid for everyones slot) I'm sure you need every penny of that partner money.

Why? We're talking about the top end of your turn, so what difference does it make what you do to your wing up there, as long as it's cleaned up, going fast, and it puts you where you want to be? Your airfoil, and it's shape is only important when you're trying to produce lift. During your turn, especially the top part, you're trying to do the opposite, and make the thing dive. Think back ten years, when eliptical canopies were the cat's ass. They opened great (at least my Stilettos did) had incredible glide, fast turns, could carve like a mother, all of which were the goal in that day. They did have a short recovery arc, but that wasn't important, and it was due to the higher aspect ratio (which allowed the canopy to do that other stuff). Then x-bracing came along, and made canopies stiffer, and able to support more weight. The next thing you know, canopies are back to being shaped like a barn door, and they fall out of the sky the same way. The point is that speed is speed, however you get there. The real goal is finish your turn at the right height, and for you to be hanging under your canopy in the correct location. What you did 800ft. up, 5 or 8 seconds ago is not relevant. This is not to say that every technique is acceptable, or even a good idea. I'm just saying that if you have a technique that delivers the goods at the bottom end, what you did to make it happen must be right.

Thanks for speaking up from your side of the fence. I still have a few points of contention, even after reading you explanation. 1. Seeing as ALL of the 'partners' are skydiving related businesses, I'm not sure how this plan is helping skydiving to grow. If you were bringing some new, out-of-industry sponsorship to the table, the kind that mght generate some sort of national coverage, then I could see your point of view, but you're not. You have to remember that this event is for the benefit of the competitors who are attending this years event. They have trained and traveled to compete at this one event, and all efforts should be for the benefit of those competitors at this event. If you have to reduce their sponsorship opportuities to advance those of the DZ, or even those of future competitions, then you have given this years dues-paying, registration-paying competitors the short end of the stick. That sucks. 2. You continue to reference airshows as a comparison, but those are paid performers. Every single one of them. Are you paying this years competitors? Every single one of them such that all of their travel, and time are paid for, and they will turn a profit? I can guarantee you that Sean Tucker doesn't leave his house unless he's being paid enough to cover the expenses to bring him, his team, and his plane to the event, and leave a nice chunk in his pocket when it's all said and done. If you want to act like an airshow promoter, then pay the talent like an airshow promoter. Even if you were to offer prize money, that would only apply to the top finishers in each class, but you're not even doing that. Look man, we both know this deal is jacked. The DZ has increased the value of the event sponsorship, while decreasing the value of the competitors ability to sponsor themselves. You were right when you said that sponsorship is going in the wrong direction in this industry, and this is the first step. Let's revisit this issue in 10 months, and see if your 'plan' survives into Nationals 2010. I'll go out on a limb and say 'no'.

I have no doubt they created it, but even if they didn't I'm sure they're (the 'partners') are happy about it. But let's remember that in NASCAR every team has one (or more) giant trucks, tents, chalets, golf carts, motorhomes, and ten other things I'm not thinkig of that are plastered with their sponsors logos. I agree (gasp!) that the teams are not allowed to hang banners up on the grandstands, or along the track wall, that's the business of the track. Likewise, I'm not suggesting that the teams at Nationals be allowed to decorate the hanger, or any other piece of DZ property. I do feel, however, that they should be allowed to adorn their packing tents, or team areas in any way they see fit. Part of hosting Nationals is hosting the teams. If those teams include tents or windblades, and they can be erected (I said 'erected') in a non-intrusive way, than the DZ and it's bottom line should not stand in their way.

...and now it gets worse for you. Your example does not apply. In your example, Sapceland would be the track the event is held at, let's say Daytona, and the USPA would be the sanctioning body, let's say NASCAR. Let's keep in mind that just like the Army sponsors the race team, this entire discussion is about companies sponsoring competition teams. So if you want to apply this situation directly to NASCAR, this is essentially what's going on - "The management at Daytona Motor Speedway has now partnered with serveral corporate sponsors, and as such the race teams will now be limited to how and where they can display their sponsors logos. NASCAR is aware of this, and to date has not issued a statement with regards to this issue. The Daytona Motor Speedway will have officials in place to ensure that the teams do not wrongfully display their logos." How do you think would go over with the race teams? Did you not realize that this discussion was about the venue making rules and putting their sponsorship needs above those of the competitors? It's clear from your posts that you are a pro-ARMY guy, and nobody is saying anything bad about the ARMY or the Knights. Everyone loves those guys. However, this is a competition meet, and in that sense they are the same as any other team. They are obliged to follow all of the same competition rules as all of the other teams, they have to register by the deadline like all of the other teams, pay their registration fees like all the other teams, and so on. This should extend into following the 'Partner Protection' policy, just like all the other teams have to. To go back to your NASCAR comparison, the ARMY most certainly pays big money to sponsor that car. They do not recieve a free pass. If the new rules at Nationals is that non-event sponsors have to take a back seat to the paying event sponsors, then let the ARMY buck-up and sponsor the meet, or take the same back seat that PD, UPT, Sunpath, Tony Suits and Cypres have to take (all of who I am sure are sponsoring more than one team this year).

I jump with one guy who has a prosthetic arm, and one guy who only has one arm. The guy with the prosthetic was jumping before he lost the arm, but the one arm guy started jumping with only one arm. I'm pretty sure he did AFF. FYI - you may have to travel to find a DZ that can accomadate you. Even then you may have additional costs in either buying your own rig and having it built to suit your needs, or having one the DZ's student rig modified to suit your needs. Once the training is out of the way, you should have no problem getting a license, and then you are free to jump at any DZ in the country. I'm not sure if they're still around, but there was a group called 'Pieces of Eight' that used to jump at Elsinore, and it was comprised entirely of amputee jumpers.

If the jumprun is flying into the sun, then you can front float the exit to get the lighting right. It's not always needed, but there are certain times of day where the sun is directly in your face if you fly a standard exit off the step. Edit to add - I should have mentioned that front floating the exit requires you to backfly it. If you are not well versed in backflying, front floating stands a good chance of dropping you right in front of the tandem, directly upwind on the relative wind. It's bad if you have a premie, but even without that you are probably stealing the tandems air, not good for the TI who is subterminal with no drouge out just yet. When you're on the camera step, and the tandem is in the door, the rig itself is generally still in the plane. You should be clear of the step by the time the rig leaves the plane due to your exiting a few feet before the tandem. If you miss the count, do not simply exit ASAP right next to the tandem. In that case you would be direcltly downwind of the tandem, and the soon to be deployed drouge. Mentally, it's a tough thing to do, but once you miss your window you have to erase that sense of urgency from your mind and let the tandem exit, then roll off and dive down the hill after them. There will always be some risk of premature deployments and entanglements any time you climb outside of the plane with other jumpers around. These risks are reduced because you check your gear before you exit, you are careful not to rub/drag your rig across anything on the plane, and the jumprun speed is about 60% of freefall speed. If your gear cannot hold together at 80 on the camera step, what would you expect it to do at 120 in freefall?

Hey man, read the title of the thread - "Winter Bike Project...." He never said which winter.

How much fun I may or may not be does not change that fact that you blew it big time, then posted a pic for all to see thinking it was cool. It's clear you have a lot to learn, start acting like it.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. Either way, it wasn't your first day on a DZ. Even the most remedial training for a tandem video person makes it clear to never be above or below the tandem at any time. The worst times are before the drouge toss, and close to deployment because then when things are most likey to be chaning in a big way. No images to share here. I leave all my stuff at the DZ, including memory cards. I don't do anythying with my cameras away from the DZ, so taking them away from there is just setting myself up to forget them on my next trip to the DZ. I used to be more interested in my footage beyond the jump itself. I did some editing for awhile, and used to enjoy developing a roll of stills to see what was what. Since then I started to work at a DZ that provides an editor, and shooting digital stills. I'll review my stills in-camera after each jump, and I watch over the editors shoulder to make sure the video looked good. Otherwise, I'm only interested in cameras if they're on my helmet, and I'm in the jump plane.

That shot is bullshit, and so is your excuse. It's quite clear that the tandem is on the bottom of the hill, and that the drouge is going to have a horizontal component to it's throw. Regardless of that, you are in the relative wind and can clearly feel what direction it's coming from. If the tandem pair is in that direction, and the drouge is not out, you are in the worst possible place. All it would have taken was a mis-rigged drouge release to turn that drouge into a pilot chute, and you would have been inside a deploying tandem canopy. Even if you cannot see their back, TIs have been know to throw the drouge from an unstable body position. Upwind on the relative wind, in any way shape or form is very bad news, and sloppy flying on your part. Just to add a little more info, for those who didn't notice- the photographers fingertips are present in quite a few of the freefall photos, leading my to believe that he's jumping a 15mm lens or shorter. If you look at how close the drouge is in the photo in question, and you factor in that it was shot with a very short lens, you realize how close he really was. Getting hit with a drouge can cause an entaglement with the drouge or damage to the drouge itself, both of which are serious saftey issues for the tandem pair. Don't be impressed with this photo, or the photographers assertion that 'accidents' produce the best shots. Practice, training, and skill produce the best shots. Accidents produce dead skydivers.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. When talking about a non-powered aircraft that requires an increase in the angle of attack to produce thrust, and talking about that aircraft in the last 30 vertical feet of it's flight where increasing the angle of attack is not possible, I prefer to reference the lack of thrust side of the thrust/drag equation.

That's exactly what I was saying. We're on the exact same page, I was just more accurately describing the 'surge' you were talking about. The idea is to transfer from diving to level flight losing the least amount of energy. When you 'milk' the rears, you're introducing less drag per second over a longer period of time. During that time the natural drag of the jumper/canopy is slowly chipping away at your speed. The longer you milk them, the more eneergy you lose due to the natural drag of the system. When you snap the rears, you're introducing a large amount of drag all at once. For one or two seconds the amount of drag is considerable, but when you snap the rears like that, you accelerate your swing forward under the canopy. Once you swing forward far enough, line tension pitches the nose up enough that you can release (or simply maintain) the pressure on the rears and still maintain level flight. After the one or two second spike in drag, you reduce it to very little for the remainder of the swoop. There is a point where you add too much drag, like digging out of the corner. It robs your speed as you have to give too much input for too long. Likewise, there is a point where your roll out is too gradual, like when you swoop a little too high. As you make that long gradual roll out, you lose all your speed. In your case it turns out that your 'milking' technique was too far on the 'slow and easy' side of the equation, and you were sacrificing speed. When you switched to the 'snapping' technique, you simply got closer to the ideal ratio of lift to drag over time, and went further.

There is no such thing as 'surging forward' without added thrust. It's just impossible. If you're using a sharp input on your rears, what you're feeling is your accelerated forward swing under the canopy. This is happening because you're introducing drag to your wing, and slowing it relative to your speed as a jumper. The wing moves back, the jumper moves forward. There is a 'sweet spot' where you balance the amount of drag you introduce in accelerating this process vs. letting it happen slower while introducing less drag to the wing. At first it would seem that the process introducng less drag would be preferable, however that process will take more time to complete, and during that time you will be losing speed due to the natural drag of the canopy/jumper and the lack of thrust.

I also know Paul, and he's a pretty straight shooter. He sells quite a bit of used gear, I'm 100% sure that none of it ever included a warranty. If your inspection had revealed some sort of problem, or the harness didn't fit, or you just didn't like the color, I have no doubt that Paul would have refunded your money provided you had not jumped the rig. Once you jump the rig, all bets are off and you have accepted any and all risk involved, to yourself or the equipment. For this reason, having the rig inspected is a smart idea. and according to you, an inspection was completed. If anyone, you should take this up the rigger who did the inspection. One of two things happened - 1. The rigger did a 100% complete inspection, including all of the seams and line attachment points on the canopy, and found no problems. 2. The rigger did an incomplete inspection on the main, and just looked at the condition of the fabric. In either case, the seller is not to blame. In case #1, the canopy was indeed as advertised, and delivered with no problems. If case #2 is what happened, than you should be asking the rigger why he advised you to purchase and jump a faulty canopy. It should have been clear from every single post in this thread that the seller was not to blame. I'm sure you're upset by the situation, but to read every post indicating the seller is not responsible and then to continue on to post his name is in very bad form. It's a shame your e-mails and calls have not been returned, but I would ask how much time had elapsed between unreturned communications, and suggest that a return call/e-mail may be in the works. I would also suggest that if your correspondence lacks the basic logic and common sense as your posts regarding this issue, I would not be expecting to hear back from him.

An older F-111 canopy like a PD190 is not going to perform very well. It will land like shit, but on the plus side it wil be easy to pack. Here's my thoughts - you can spend $1200 in one day on a rig, but it will take a lot longer to spend that on jumps. If you do buya rig for $1200m you still need jump money, so maybe try looking for some slightly better gear, but buy it in pieces, and keep renting/jumping as you go. Start by looking for a container and reserve. If you can get that part taken care of, you might be able to find a main you can borrow or rent from another jumper. The larger type of main you would need is exactly what many jumpers have sitting in their closets. Buying a rig is a big expense, but only the first time. Once you have that first rig, you can sell what you have to pay for upgrades. If you get a nice first rig together, you'll be able to sell it and finance most of your next rig, so you only have to come up with the big lump sum the first time. If you go with a rig like the one you linked to, that might be the end of line for that rig. In another couple of years and 100 jumps, that rig may be unsellable, so your $850 is gone. If you put together a nicer, more modern rig for $2000, you can probably sell it for $1800 when you're done with it (maybe even $2000). Keep in mind I'm not talking about new and pretty with stainless harware, but just better than what you showed. You should be able to get a freefly friendly container and a newer reserve for $1200 or $1500. Figure another $500 or so for a main, and you'll have a solid rig that's not just 'getting you by'.

Hmmmm. Let's see, you got an A license and I bet you had to include your address so they knew where to mail it to, sooooo, I guess if you make a list of all the places you sent your address who knew you had an A license, that might be a good start. How you narrow down the list is another story, and I'm not sure what to tell you about that. Good luck. Hint - See if you also sent anyone on that list $55 recently for any reason.

If you're teaching the FJC, you're on a DZ. and there's two things on every DZ - skydivers and cameras. Have an experienced jumper suit up in a student jumpsuit and helmet, and do a hop n pop with a student rig. Have a predetermined landing spot, and set the camera up there. Tell the jumper to assume the landigng position high on final, and take as many pics as you want. Tell them to flare to their crotch, and have them do it a few feet high. You should be able to get a least 4 or 5 shots before touchdown. I reccomend fitting the entire canopy and jumper in the pics. Also, make sure you do this at a time of day where the direction of langing will have the sun at the camera persons back. Now you have exactly what you want, featuring the equipment the students will actually be using.