davelepka

Did you ask for a serial number? For starters, you could have checked it against the various stolen gear databases. Also, I'm pretty sure that all PD reserves will have an "R' in the serial number. A 193R would have a serial number like "193R1234". Even if I'm wrong about that, you could call PD with that serial number to confirm the model and DOM.

I remember when the 07 numbers came out, and the USPA latched right on to that and took credit for the record low, claiming that they had made such strides in safety that they had dropped by almost 50%. I also remember thinking that was total bullshit. The fatalities themselves don't know one calendar year fom the next. 2008 was bound to be either average or above average, and if you include the incidents just after the first of the year, 08 was a monster. It's the law of averages, or the bell curve, or one of those statistical mathmatical things I don't fully understand. With all other things being equal, we can expect the fatality numbers to remain about the same. Up some years, down in others, about the same when you run the averages. This is the way it will remain until there are some major changes in peoples attitudes about what is and is not accaptable behavior at the DZ. This is of course is a challenge because you're dealing with the type of people who jump out of airplanes for fun. A good number of them are the 'type A', live life to the fullest, push the limit kind of people, and convincing these people to take things slowly, and be conservative in their choices is a huge mountain to climb.

Did you read the book? Click, blinka, blinka.. usually means there's a problem with the electronic eyes that stop the door if something gets in the way. Usually there will be lights on each of the eyes, and they should be lit up if there is a good singal. They might be mis-alaigned, or the wiring could be a problem. The other adjustment is the end-point. If it's too far down, the door will close, but the opener wants to push it further down. When it feels the resistance of the door hitting the ground, it thinks there is something under the door, and will open itself back up. Backing off on the end point will fix this. Back it way off until the door stops before it touches the ground, then go a little bit at a time unitl it touches the ground and the weatherstripping seals the door. If you live in a snowy climate, try to leave the end point as high as possible in case any snow gets packed under the door. If the end point is too snug to the ground, the opener will kick the door back open when it hits the snow pack. Edit to add - checked your profile, saw you live in Cali, maybe don't worry about the snow issue.

No offense to Kelly, but you couldn't be more of a fag.

If the guys you work with aren't like this, then you need to speak up. Maybe debrief the video with the video guy at the end of the day. If you throw three 'legs out' to the student with no response, show the video guy this, and suggest catching an angle that will show the legs being up. If the student is geeking the camera, and you have to singal the student to do a COA, or worse, a pull signal, show this to the video guy and talk to him about the dive flow, and making sure the student's focus is where it needs to be. There's a time to be shooting front and center, and a time to get the hell out of the way. Speaking of that, a good video guy will lurk off to the side, and catch a face shot or two as the student turns to look at the instructor for a COA. This way if there is no 'free time' for the face shots, all is not lost. Look at it this way, a good AFF I will be keeping control over the student, doing a body scan, putting up hand signals, watching the altitude, remembering the hand signals and key altitudes, and the really good ones will also turn the students toward the light and read and remember the hand signals the other AFF I is presenting. How do they do it? They work at it, think about different situations beforehand, debrief themselves and their own performance after a dive, and just plain try hard. If a camera man was to approach his job with the same attitude, you'd get the same level of performance and reliability you get from a good AFF I.

I agree with this 100%. If a camera flyer takes the time to learn about the editing process, and the editor, they will find all sorts of opportunities for being different/creative within the confines of the 'standardized' format. It also encourages more technically precise camera work. When you have a structure to follow, all you can do to make your videos better is make each shot as perfect as possible. That guy shouldn't be on the team, or that guy shouldn't be allowed to use his 'mad skillz' while on a paid jump. Camera flying is kind of like swooping. I would love for every swoop to be a killer 450, with a 300 ft surf where I bank it over and brush the grass with the end cell, but if doing that will in anyway interfere with my making a safe landing, then I don't do that. As disco and fancy as a guy wants his video to be, if it gets in the way of your basic framing and proximity, you don't do that.

Mike, where is your wife??? She promised the cops she would keep you out of your neighbors garage. You know that if they catch you in there one more time, they're going to press charges. I know the last time was when you were on darvocet for your other 'operation' cough(liposuction)cough, and this time it's the percs, but they're not going to be as understanding if they find you in there again. We're you at least wearing pants this time?

I think you answered your own question in your post. Standards are for more than just in-air safety, they have to be applied to a persons skill as a camera man both in and out of freefall. Let's face it, each video will present different opportunities for the camera flyer. Type of, and location in the plane, time of day, instructor, sky conditions, etc, will all play factors in what the final product will look like. As long as the camera guy is attentive to composition and framing, lighting, and continuity of shots (taking the end of the previous shot and the begining of the next shot into account while planning the current shot), then the video will be of good quality. Even the same camera guy will not produce the EXACT same video two jumps in a row. Factors outside of his control will prevent this, and customers need to understand that this is an 'artistic' product, and it's a record of a dynamic event. As long as you adhere to the basics of good camera technique, the customer will have no basis to complain. They may do it anyway, but at least you can defend your work.

Listen up folks, this guy is wacked out on Percoset from his vasectomy. I've been in his garage, and it's a Schwinn, a Huffy, and Wal Mart bike. The 'electric Razor' is actually a one of those vibrating Mach 3 jobs his wife bought him for Christmas three years ago. Go back to sleep Mike, it will be better in the morning.....

You didn't do a gear check after you picked your rig up from your new packer?

Figuring out who is safe to work and figuring out which of those guys gets what work are two different things. In terms of safety, take the most experienced guy you have, and put him in charge of doing check-out dives. The potential video guy will do a two way with the senoir camera guy, shooting video and stills of him. Have the check out guy incorporate fall rate and heading changes, and generally slide around the sky. Include shots of the deployments as well. If a guy can produce quality footage, and the check-out guy feels like it was a safe skydive, you can clear the guy to work at the DZ. As far as splitting up the work, that's another story. This thread is full of good thoughts, but I think the easiest way to do is for the DZO to sit down and do one of two things - 1. Come up with a system he thinks is fair, put it in writing, and make sure that everyone reads and understands the system - or - 2. Pick a camera flyer, and put him in charge of the video department. This person will then sit down and come up with a system he thinks is fair, put it in writing, and make sure that everyone reads and understands the system. The bottom line is just that - as long as there is a system in place, it's in writing, and everyone reads and understands it before they start working for the DZ, nobody will have grounds to come back and complain after the fact.

I pack my own stuff, main and reserve. Minor repairs I give to my local rigger, and I inspect all work before I jump it. Major work goes to the manufacturer, and I inspect all work before I jump it.

Look bub, you're involved in a sport where newbies and first timers are told they are 'required' to provide a case of beer for every milestone they reach, and riggers are rewarded with a bottle of liquor packing a reserve that works. You're surprised that some jumpers don't know where to draw the line when it comes to drinking? The sort of person who jumps out of airplanes for fun has trouble drawing the line? This is what surprises you? Really?

In that case, you're working with the wrong camera guys. Yet another reason that not just anyone should be doing video work. Any good camera flyer should be in tune with what is happening in the skydive. Not drawing the attention of the student at key moments of the jump is hugely important to shooting AFF video. You may not get a chance to park yourself front and center due to the flow of the dive. Furthermore, while staying clear of the students field of view, a good camera flyer will be framing things so as to illustrate the important parts of the dive. Making sure to film the handle during practice touches and the actual pull can be a big help during a debreif. If you can get the hand signals in there, or catch an angle that highlights a bad body postition, the video becomes that much more valuable. All you have to do is the above, plus fly the light so the picture isn't washed out, plus stay clear of the action, and you're gold. As far as the OP goes, do whatever you want, you're the instructor, and you're in charge.

So clearly you have a previous relationship with one of the parties, do you think this helps or hinders your position as an impartial observer in this matter? I don't think anyone is trying to put 100% of the blame on the dealer, just trying to establish the degree of responsibility he should take for his actions. Let's keep in mind that we know for sure that your solution makes the OP a victim to the tune of $4100. Seeing as errors were made on both sides, do you really think that is the fair solution? Thats why my suggestion is to calculate the actual loss on the part of the dealer, and take into account the $4100 the OP has spent, and come to a comprimise. All of your talk about the 'good old days' when skydivers were 'stand up' guys seems to be disparaging the OP. What about the fact that he did stand up, in the most public forum the skydiving community has, and laid the whole situation out for all to see? Your opinion on this has really taken a shot in the credibility department with the news that the dealer gave you a huge leg up when you were starting out. I applaud the guy for helping you out, but you have to admit that you might not be as impartial some because of this. For the record, I do not know the OP, and have never done business, good or bad, with the dealer.

In that case, I'd be willing to bet that anyone who expressed surprise about your story would be willing to retract their comments. I think they were all based on the idea you were dealing with 'likestojump'. That said, your guy sounds like a dirtbag, and that does suck.

Just to be clear, was this deal with 'likestojump'? The post your replying to is about 'likestojump', but your reply is a little vauge as to if it's about 'likestojump' or just a guy from the classifieds. If it is 'likestojump' in your story, provided that your account is accurate and complete, would be surprising given the multiple endorsements 'likestojump' has recieved in this thread. If you're talking about some other guy from the classifieds, I'm not surprised at all. After all this whole thread is about the ups and downs of private party to private party transactions via the mail.

What gets me about this is that if the dealer had acted properly with regards to the original transaction, he would have had some recourse in the matter, and recieved some sort of compensation. If he did indeed use the proper procedures with regards to his merchant account, the credit card company would have absorbed the loss, and not reversed the charge. If he had shipped the package signature required to an approved address, then UPS would be to blame for not delivering the package to an individual in the actual apartment. Handing the box to a guy standing outside the building, signature or no signature is a failure on their part, and not an action they could defend in court. If he had adequate business insurance to cover his inventory, he would have had a clear case to file a claim, and be compensated for his loss (minus a deductible). Any one of the above would have allowed the dealer to recover his loss, and I would fully expect that he would have without delay. That would leave his claim to the equipment today at zero. If the dealer had none of those avenues available to him, it's the result of poor business practices, and I cannot see how he should not be expected to bear at least half of the loss in this case. I hope the OP is reading this thread, and if he is I urge him to take a stand on these issues, and demand a full disclosure of every detail of the matter before making any decision. Investigate the dealers actions with regards to the original transaction, who was at fault to allow the fraud to take place, and any follow up actions the dealer took with regards to insurance or tax advantages. Use this information, along with the depreciation of the equipment you do have, minus the published value of the Cypres, and use that as the basis for any discussion of the current value of the equipment, who will end up with ownership of the equipment, and any financial transactions that take place with regards to the equipment. In short, the answer to the question of 'What to do" - do your homework, find out the facts of the matter, and take a hard line stance on protecting your interests. Some may say you failed to this in the first place by not making a thourough check of the stolen gear databases. Heed their advice, and protect the hell out of your interests this time around. And then be sure to tell us all about it.

You have got to be kidding me. And to think I was going to invite you and Logan out for sledding and hot chocolate tomorrow....but you're too busy making sure that you and that wife of yours can just hump from state to state across the country footloose and fancy free. I'll leave you to explain that to Logan you selfish prick.

Just to add to the comment about the reserves, they do use that type of line stow, only with velcro to hold the flap shut instead of magnets. Additionally, there are main d-bags being used today with the same system only with tuck tubs to hold the flaps shut. BASE canopies have a tail pocket that stow the lines the same way as well, generally closed with velcro.

Try calling one of the well known gear dealers, or a loft at one of the bigger DZ. Tell them your situation, and that you want them to inspect a used rig for you. it will cost you a few bucks, but it will protect you during the purchase, and ensure you get airworthy stuff. The seller ships the rig to the loft, if it passes the inspection, you send the money to the seller and upon reciept, the seller will have the loft ship the rig to you. The other thing to keep in mind is that a seller who is unwilling to work with you in coming up with a plan that has a degree of protection for all involved may be hiding something, or just a pain in the ass. Either way, it's not the worst thing in the wolrd to pass on dealing with that sort of person. Maybe talk to your local rigger or DZO and see if they have any input. They may know a rigger or DZO the seller knows, and everyone can vouch for everyone else through the grapevine, and make things a whole lot easier for all involved.

It might sound like a corporate gig, but that's because it is. The whole thing is a job interview, and they're hiring a face to represent their company to their customers. Bitch all you want, but at least they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. Private DZ, dedicated Otter, a pile of food, you have to hand it to PD for doing it right. And really, if you don't like it, don't go. Oh wait, you weren't invited. Problem solved. If you really don't like it, don't jump PD canopies. If you think the problem is all of skydiving, not just PD, don't jump at all.

The gear leg itself, yes. How about the attachment hardware, or the attachment point itself? That is not designed to flex in any direction, and certainly not designed to carry a downward load. When was this STC approved? How many years ago? There was a time when jumpers exited one at a time, and didn't think it was possible to touch each other in freefall, let alone do it so well that they all needed to stand on the step at the same time. Even that aside, the issue of the aging of the fleet itself could be a factor as well. Did they really expect that these steps would be supporting jumpers 20 or 30 years later?

So in this case is appears that the Op did indeed perform his due diligence. Does this change your tune any in regards to his position? Are you still under the impression that he should be the sole party to incurr a loss? What is your opinion on the issue that the dealer is only entitled to the recovery of the wholesale amount of the gear, minus the current value of the returned Cypres, minus the depreciation of the use before the OP came into possesion, minus any insurance monies collected by the dealer on this equipment, minus any tax advantage or write-off the dealer excerised as a result of the debt? What dollar figure would that be? How much would it cost to allow the OP to keep the remainder of the gear (as the Cypres has been returned)? You have expressed no shortage of 'ethical' outrage over the fact that this gear has not been boxed up and shipped right back. You do realize that this would result in a $4100 loss for the OP, and depending on the above factors, and whatever the dealer can sell the now used equipment for, a substantially smaller loss for the dealer. Does that sit right with you? Isn't the OP, also a skydiver, just as much your 'brother' as the dealer in this case? Why should one suffer more of a loss than another? In reality, the dealer, an established businessman with a credit card merchant account, made an error in his processing of the charge. The procedures and checks put in place by the credit card companies are there to limit this sort of thing. If the dealer had followed the proper procedures, the credit card company would have not have reversed the charge. Conversely, the OP, who did check the incomplete USPA stolen gear list and found nothing, did not check with SSK. Doing so would revealed the stolen Cypres, and cast a negative shadow over the rest of the rig, and the deal itself. The end result is errors on both ends. I, for one, would be more forgiving of errors in a deal with one private citizen making a purchase from another private citizen, as opposed to an established businessman conducting a transaction via a credit card merchnat account, but that's just me. Either way, I ask you to justify the OP taking all, or anymore than half, of the actual loss in this case (which is what would happen if he simply returned all the equipment)?

So let me get this straight - you're upset that she's not covering a full 50% of the bills, and now she wants to shopping with a little extra cash she's got? This is the woman you're going to marry, right? What are you going to do when she wants you to buy her a house? Sooner or later she will, and yes, you are buying her a house. The only way it becomes your house is if you stay married, and out live her. You get a divorce - it's her house. You die first - it's her house. See the big picutre? Maybe the new clothes aren't that big of a deal.