davelepka

No, you're missing the point. The CX100 may do a fine job of taking video and stills at the same time, but a Digital Rebel, even with the kit lens, will do a better job. As long as there is a way to get better quality, skydivers won't go for it. They'll go for the better way. You would need a device that can produce the best available video and the best available stills at the same time. It's not a commentary on the device itself, it's a commentary on the users.

I was taught the following - Look - at the cutaway Grab - the cutaway with two hands Look - at the reserve, keep your eye on it Pull - the cutaway with both hands Pull - the reserve with both hands It seems like a good procedure. It uses the two handed pull for proper sequence, and has you looking at the reserve before you cutaway so you know where you're going. I suppose there are a dozen different ways to teach cutaways, and most of them would work just fine.

What does that mean? I'm not sure what 20 years and a Stiletto has to do with anything.

The basic idea is this, if you want something that shoots good video, get a video camera. If you want to shoot good stills, get a still camera. It will be a long, long time before one camera for video and stills becomes the standard in skydiving. Even if the technology gets close, close isn't good enough for skydivers. Let's think about it, how many guys out there are jumping $600 or $700 glass on their still cameras? The answer is 'lots'. Even though there are lens options for FAR less money that produce pics that are 95% the quality of the expensive glass, skydivers always want the best. What about flashes? Let's face it, most of the jumping we do is in bright sunshine. There's plenty of light for just about every shot, but the extra 'pop' you get out of a fill flash is enough to get guys to drop $100's on flashes and battery packs, and even worse, haul that extra shit around on their melon. What makes it even worse is that all the cash we drop goes into gear that we take into rough conditions, with the vey real possibility that it will all be dropped from 1/2 mile up in the air. Despite this, the money gets spent, and quality is strived for. The single camera option would have to come a LONG way to become a viable option. The camera would have to be workable on a helmet, have a remote shutter release, and produce video and stills 90% as good as the best individual cameras could provide.

Every FJC course I've ever seen teaches how to properly land a parachute. Then they use a radio to assist the jumper with the landing, again, the goal is a soft touchdown hopefully on their feet. Now let's talk about reality. I could say 'shit happens', but in this case it's probably better to say 'students happen'. You never know what they are or are not going to do. Every student is taught to flare, and if the radio is working, they are instructed to do so real time, but many of them still botch the flare, or just don't flare at all. Of course, the natural extention of this is, 'if they're taught to flare, and don't, why would they PLF as instructed?'. The answer is that maybe they will, maybe they won't, but you still have to get them the benefit of the training with the hopes that when they need it, maybe they'll remember. Even if it's not while they are a student, sooner or later you're going to hit the ground harder than you'd like, and on that day you'll be glad your FJC included a half hour of jumping off a picnic table.

You need to try it on after it's packed. Right now it's all soft and flexible, and it conforms to your body. Pack it up and the container turns in to a brick attached to a harness, and doesn't quite fit the same way it does when empty. From what you've described, it should fit fine once it's packed up.

What if I don't have that sitfly position? What if I need to use a different position for a certain dive or certain move? Will a Mirage not fit correctly then?

That's not your problem, that's your solution. If you're tipping forward when you reach for the pull it's because you have too much stuff sticking out on the lower half of your body, and not enough sticking out of the upper half. Moving your arm back takes away some of the drag from your upper half. You'll need to relax your legs a little to balance yourself out. You might not have to actually move your legs, just relax the pressure against the relative wind. The best advice is for you to practice falling the pull position. Not practice touches, but extended freefall in the pull position. Don't actually touch your hackey, or even get too close. Maybe just put your hand on the corner of your rig. Either way, get into the position, and see what happens. Intentionally add and remove pressure from your legs, and see what happens. Move your left arm around and see what that does. Once you're feeling stable, try some turns, and see how those go. The idea is to learn to fly in the pull position so you can control yourself during the pull sequence. This will help you greatly in both your confidence, and your ability to open from a stable position, which goes a long way toward getting a good opening.

I would agree with trying to 'scare' a stubborn jumper who doesn't want to listen to conventional wisdom, but only to the extent of the verbal explanation. There's a big gap between just telling somebody about how they could end up injured from an activity, and encouraging them to actually try the activity with the intention that they might scare themselves bad enough to get the point. The real downside of this, like I mentioned before, is that the jumper who you need to resort to 'scare' tactics to try and make them understand most likely will not listen to what you have to say anyway. There's so much good information and wisdom out there that a jumper who does not respond to the 'ususal suspects' has already made up their mind as to what they are ready for. It's a real catch-22 in skydiving. The type of people who will jump out of a plane, over and over again, week in and week out, are not always the type of people who are likely to 'toe the line' and follow conventional paths to anywhere.

Being in Florida, there are probably a bunch of people who can do it. Jumpsuit alterations and repair is a solid side business for a rigger. You might have to go down to Deland or something, but somewhere nearby is somebody that can help you. I'd say call around to a few DZs and see if they can give you a name. I would try to avoid a non-skydiver however. A regular tailor or seamstress may not realize the abuse your jumpsuit will endure, and not use the right spec materials or thread for the job.

I don't know, I re-read the thread, it appears as if the idea is to actually perform the downwinder (as the OP himself did). I was a little unsure as first, and held off on posting anything until the OP returned, and comfirmed my thinking. Either way, it's not a good idea, and here's why - the guy who openly admits, "No, a downwinder is too fast for me, I'm not ready for that", is not the guy who is trying to downsize too fast or too far. The guy who is pushing the limits and trying to rush a downsize would more likely reply, "No I haven't done a downwinder, but I see the swoopers throwing them all the time, I'll try it on the next load! Can I use my rear risers?". The point is this, the idea relies on the jumper responding to the logic of the concept that if a downwinder is too much for you, so is a downsize. If this jumper is already ignoring all of the other (more conventional) logic against a downsize, such as jump numbers, time in sport, proposed WL, or skill on their current canopy, then I cannot see how this will make the difference.

Is it just me, or does this sound stupid? I would reccomend that all canopy pilots do their best to avoid anything that might 'scare the bejesus out of them' anywhere near the ground. I can't think of a worse time to be dealing with crippling fear than on final, travelling much faster than you're used to. This method of 'testing' a jumper for downsizing may solve the issue by killing or injuring the jumper before they have a chance to jump anything else. Learning to land downwind is a slow and gradual process. It should start with a high degree of success in no-wind conditions. This should be followed by attempts downwind in very light winds, and higher wind speeds should not be attempted until reaching a high degree of success in lighter winds. You should never attempt a downwinder with winds anywhere more than a few knots more than you have already proven yourself capable. To do so would be needlessly reckless. A jumper who would ignore this risk, and do the downwinder anyway is the same type of jumper who would just downsize anyway, regardless of the results of the 'test'. I would venture to say that, in skydiving, any lesson that attemtps to physically scare the jumper with actual bodily harm is not a prudent lesson. The whole point of your suggestion was to prevent rapid downsizing and, I assume, the risks involved in doing so. But your lesson does so at the expense of adding risk elsewhere. It just doesn't add up.

My question is if this is a good impression to make on the local pilots regarding the safety and AC ops of a DZ? The planes that pilots like to stand on their nose were not designed with this type of manuver in mind. Yes, the argument can be made that if you perform it correctly you will add very little loading to the airframe, but that's only if you do it correctly. Maybe focus your discussion on the relevant areas, the first being flying in the airspace around an active DZ. This is one area where we need the local pilots to pay attention to their charts, and do their best to avoid flying within 2 miles of a DZ. We're asking them to this in the name of safety, and it doesn't seem like the best idea to present a picture some may see as unsafe while doing this. If you want to show them the world of a jump pilot, tell them all about the communication with ATC, configuring for jumprun, the dangers of premature deployments, the weight shifting (and weight loss) of jumpers moving around back there, and the issues of parachute traffic around the runway area after a drop. There's plenty to talk about without making the focus a borderline manuver in a large twin.

The Stiletto 150 is a bad choice for a jumper in your position. Being 135 lbs. puts you a few notches lower than the 'average' weight for a male jumper. Because of this, some of the 'rules' people use to select canopies don't apply to you. The problem is that as canopies get smaller, they speed up more than the increase in WL would suggest. A 190 loaded at 1.1 will respond to input much slower than a 150 aslo loaded at 1.1. For this reason, it's generally accepted that any canopy 150 or smaller is considered high performance. I'm sure you would agree that a high performance canopy would be a bad choice for a jumper with under 100 jumps. Additionally, the Stiletto is one of the fastest turning canopies ever made. The ability to turn fast, and respond to input quickly are what will get you into trouble flying a Stiletto. A very small mistake on your part will result in the canopy making some big changes to direction and speed. Not a good thing anywhere near the ground. Anyone who does not recognize that a 150, or a Stiletto are not good choices for a guy with under 100 jumps is not somebody you should be looking to for guidance or buying gear from. You would be well served with a 170 Sabre2, Pilot or Safire2. Those canopies were designed for jumpers at your experience level, and even with a lighter loading, the 170 will offer plenty of performance. Keep in mind that accidents under open canopies are the number one cause of death among skydivers. Canopy selection is not an area to take lightly. You will count on your canopy to save your life every time you jump, and having the correct tool for the job will better your chances at walking away from your landings every time.

I think the main thing to look at that the OP stated he was looking to begin freeflying, and that he was wondering if a freefly suit would work for an occasional RW jump. That was why I answered his question the way I did. If a jumper with different needs or goals had asked a question about their situation, I would have given a different answer.

Don't be sorry. I should have just said they help with drive, and fall rate. Technically, turning is just driving one side forward, and tracking is all forward dive, so maybe sayign forward drive wasn't all that wrong. But backing up? Come on, how does it help there? So your legs look cool planted on your ass while you back up? Overall, I understand the 'bootie' defense, but if a guy is looking for one suit to use in different areas, the non-bootie suit is the way to go. The non-bootie suit is more useful in more areas than the bottie suit. That's really what the OP was asking about anyway, right?

While to an extent this may be true, I think for a low time jumper looking to spend time both freeflying and on their belly, you can buy one suit that will meet their performance requirements. What are the odds that he will be on such a hot RW dive that he needs the booties to drive him around at top speed? That's what they're for, boosting your speed in turns and forward movement. We both know that in reality, it will be awhile before he needs to move fast enough that his leg alone won't do the trick. Let's remember that this is a 'bigger' guy who will be buying a suit with a baggy, bloused leg. This will provide extra drag on the legs, and give him a little extra 'response'. I think booties are more useful for lighter jumpers who otherwise would have a staight, or even narrow cut lower leg. In these cases, the jumper can expereince a lack of leg power, so the booties become more of a factor. By passing on the booties, this jumper could get by with one suit for all purposes. I can't see him needing booties for long time, and if there should come a time where his RW flying 'needs' booties, I would guess that some of his other needs for a jumpsuit would change as well, and it would be time to orde a dedicated suit, at which point he still has the first suit he ordered for freeflying.

If you're a bigger guy, you could get a jump suit that's baggy all over, and use it for both. You'll want to strap some grippers on there for RW, and they just flop around when you freefly. The downside is that you can't get booties if you want to use the suit for freeflying. In addition to providing extra forward drive, booties can help to slow you down on your belly. Depending on how bad your fall rate 'problem' is, you'll have to make the call if you can go without the booties (I don't like them at all). What sort of jumpsuit have been jumping so far? If it's not made from heavy weight fabric, with baggy arms and legs, then you can order a suit like that (no booties) and expect to slow down on your belly. If you already have a suit like that, and need to slow down further, you might want to look into a suit with a mini-wing under the arm, and yes, booties. You will not be able to freefly in that suit. I personally am a big fan of Flite Suit products, call and talk to them about your situation, and let them build you a suit.

There is a HUGE difference between taking a few still with a handheld camera under canopy, and having a camera attached to your body, and using while in freefall. For the record, going out last and pulling high are the things that made your jump 'acceptable'. Even what you were doing would provide significant distraction under canopy, and if you weren't alone in the sky, it would have been a VERY bad idea. Even so, you have to be aware of the spot, as you could easily drift too far away from the DZ to make it back. Now you are faced with an off-field landing for no good reason. Having a running video camera in freefall has proven on many occasions to be distraction enough to cause jumpers to go low, or caused freefall collisions due to camera fixation. It's a bad idea for newer jumpers, and to be honest, it's abad idea for a good number of experinced jumpers to get involved with cameras. Not everyone is cut out for the increased workload.

I'm not sure how I forgot this one (or how everyone else forgot it too), how about a TEST RIDE? Give her the opportunity to throw a leg over each bike she's considering, and take it for a spin. If she's light on street bike experience, and you don't want her riding a strange bike in a strange neighborhood, an empty mall or movie theater parking lot should provide plenty of open space for her to get a feel for the the bike. Have her do a handful of starts and stops, have her do some backing up to see how it feels to manuver it around, run through a few gears, and just overall see what's the most comfortable to her. Certain bikes just 'feel' right to different people. The seat, peg and bar position, the feel of the clutch and throttle, etc. And I cannot agree enough about proper riding gear. I know she likes cruisers, and you guys are looking at a Harley, but just understand the majority of Harley riders are sorely under-dressed. Just because the bike is called a 'cruiser' if a car takes you out at 45 mph, you go down just the same as a guy on a crotch rocket. Make sure the clothing is genuine bike gear, and not a discount store knock off, and make sure she is commited to wearing it EVERY time she rides, no matter how short the ride is, or how hot it is out side. It can literally make the difference between getting up and walking away from an accident, or months of skin grafts and permanent scars (it could be much, much worse, but a get-off at residential speeds is easily survivable, but without abbration resistant gear, you'll get chewed up pretty good).

I almost forgot, I have a mount similar to that one on top of my Mindwarp. I'm 99% sure that if you line up the front of that mount with the front edge of the helmet, you're going to be close to flat and level. You may need to slide the mount toward the back to get the up angle if you want it. It may go back so far that the rear of the mount may slide off the back of the helmet. You could try to bend it to wrap around the back, or just cut off the overhanging portion, and bolt it on right there. Are you using a chincup? It can go a long way toward getting a helmet to sit still on your head. If the helmet isn't custom fit, and doesn't have a ratchet strap to snug up, the chin cup may be the way to go. Bonehead makes a nice one that you can bolt to just about anything. I think you can get it with a cutaway system if you're in to that sort of thing.

An FTP is slanted 'uphill'. You need some 'uphill' so you can comfortably film on level, or from slightly below on your belly. When you are flat and stable on your belly, your head is not lined up on the vertical, it's canted forward. If you line up the camera to shoot straight ahead when your standing on the ground, it ends up pointing down when you're on your belly with your head in a comfortable position. By adding the 'uphill', it gets the camera pointing straight ahead while your head is canted forward. Some freefly helmets do have a 'flat and level' mounting surface, becasue when you're sitting, standing, or head down, your head is lined up on the vertical, and you want the camera to be shooting straight ahead. For strictly four way video, you can mount it flat (freefly style) becasue you'll be filming from above, and looking down on everything anyway. However, if you ever want to shoot on level, or from below, you're going to be working to keep your chin way up while doing so. I use an up-angle, becuause I shoot tandems and students, and like having the angle to work with. When I shoot from above, or freefly jumps, it's a snap to just cant my head forward an extra notch to make up for the angle. Much easier, in my opinion, to mounting it flat and have to look waaay up when you go for the low shots. As far as how much angle? I would say just try to copy the angle off an FTP. I'm sure if you put yourself in a room with a couple of camera flyers, your helmet, an FTP, a level and a sharpie you guys can work out the details.

No way. I'm sure the clutch pull isn't light, especially for a female (sorry ladies), and I can't see how a tourquey big twin is a good thing to learn on. I'd be looking for a light bike, like under 400 lbs, with a light clutch, and less tourque. It just seems like it would be easier to ride, and less for a newbie to think about. There are always a handful of used Honda Rebels around for $1500 or $2000. You can ride it for a few months, and sell it for the same thing you bought it for. Then buy a bike that vibrates like a paint shaker until parts start falling off.

The Sporty's a pig. It's too heavy, and has too much power for a first bike. Find something that is small and light, and not too powerful for a first bike. Ler her learn to work a bike, and deal with traffic before she has to worry about managing 500+ pounds that can outrun just about any car on the road.

It's odd that you seem to trust the way the DZ is run, but not the way they staff their packing room. One solution is to sit in the packing room for an hour, and watch the packers work. Figure out who you think does the best work, and make sure that he or she is the one who packs the rig your son will be jumping. If he's jumping a rig off the rack, have it unpacked and re-packed by your selected packer. If it's mid-day, and the rig is in service, when it comes in to be packed for your sons next jump, again, go find your guy and make sure he gets the pack job. Like you said, the packers are there for the money. Offer the guy an extra $3 per to take extra good care of your kid. Another thought is to pack the rig yourself. In a case where the rig is in service, when it comes in from the last jump, pack it yourself, and have your son drop it of to the packers unpacked when he is finished. It's extra money or extra work to not trust the packers.