davelepka

How about PA removed by slotperfect, and not tell other people how to think?

Just because the legality of it all is still to be determined, it is not an ethical way to conduct business. The people on the short end of the stick are the DZOs, who work hard, and invest a lot of money to own and run a DZ. Everyone here appriciates the efforts of their local DZO, and some here are even personal friends with their DZO, and you repeating your 'it's not against the law' mantra over and over again will not change that. You'll have to look elsewhere if what you're after is support.

You left you the part about giving a portion of your profits to an out-of-state company that pretty much held your customers hostage until you gave in to their demands. What's your deal anyway? How about you man up and fill in your profiel so we know who you are and where your coming from? Are you now, or have you ever been in business for yourself? Have you ever run a DZ?

It simple really, they use stolen images and web content to create websites for DZ that don't exist and then proceed to sell skydives to people in one geographic area for a DZ in another geographic area. DZs are left to accept one of two things; either a portion of their customer base will take their money elsewhere, or they have to accept the Skyride certificates. Which would you do? The Skyride guys are taking advantage of the internet to strong-arm their way into the revenue stream from tandem jumps. It's a shitty thing to do.

Hey SKYRIDE, How about cutting the rest of skydiving some slack by conducting business in an ethical manner? Hey Skypapa, See how silly it looks when you put an absurd question in writing?

Nice work. Clicky, and compact as well.

The easy way to do this is to build a harness with an attachment point, and a cutaway handle. You wear this harness under your rig, and do a direct bag deployment. You can cutaway the first canopy whenever you're done with it, then it's just a regular jump. We did this when we wanted to hook a canopy up backwards and fly it around that way. For those jumps we used my old Stiletto 107, which had at least 2000 jumps on it and a lineset that was waaaay overdue for replacement, so if it got lost after being cutaway, it was no big loss.

I came across this while browsing e-bay for a new toy, and thought this guy's sales angle was too good not to share. Feel free to 'clicky' this if you know how http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ruin-your-life-get-a-helicopter-ride-and-free-headgear_W0QQitemZ150180536751QQihZ005QQcategoryZ147903QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The PD reserve is worth $750-$800 ish. The main will be a tough sell. It is the last generation Sabre, and it's a smaller size, so you'll be selling to an experienced jumper. Most current experienced jumpers will be wanting a newer design. Maybe shoot for about the same as the reserve, you might find a die-hard Sarbre fan who needs a fresh canopy. The Jav will need the grommet SB, but that's an easy job, that shouldn't cost too much, less than $50. The soft housings will probably need to be replaced with hard housings. I don't think it's mandatory, but it's a really good idea. I think that runs about $150 between parts and labor. The pull out might be an issue. Most folks are jumping throw outs, and you may have an eaiser time selling the rig if it was a throw out, or at least discounted to cover the cost to switch it over to a throw out. Figure on $40 for a BOC pouch, and $100-ish for a new PC. So the bad news is that right off the top, the Jav needs $300-$350 put into it. So maybe if you try to get $700 for it, someone can get a mint Jav for $1000 total. See what other have to say for sure. Be sure to put the harness size in the ad if you post the Jav for sale (it's on the rig somewhere, it's a letter and a number like C-16 or C-17). I would suggest not trying to sell the rig complete. You'll have better luck finding one guy who needs the PDR and another who needs the Jav, then thrying to find one guy who need exactly what you have.

So you want to buy a $2000 high performance canopy, and then cut it away on every jump. This is what you're saying. Just buy the thing, and then set it free around 3000 ft on every jump. How about you survive jumping with a two canopy rig for awhile, then revisit this idea.

You could take another one apart, more carefully, and note what goes where. You should be able to re-assemble them both. I think.

Dude, you need to re-figure your math. If you usually get an 800 ft snivel, and plan on pulling at 3k, that means you were OK with being open by 2200ft, but 400 ft lower is no good for you. If it was that cold, what if you couldn't feel your hackey? Either your hand were too cold, or your gloves made it hard to feel. An extra 3 seconds in freefall would eat up that 400 'cushion' you wanted. To top it all off, you planned to cut it that close with regards to making it back to the DZ. Do you think that 400ft would have gotten you back to the DZ? Do you think it's a good idea to cut it that close in any respect? You need to take a hard look at your approach to skydiving. You need to leave yourself more 'wiggle room' in your plans.

I'm also a big fan of 'never touch my rig'. However, if the door is open, or about to be opened, that rule goes right out the window (no pun intended). The jumper in your example lost his right to enforce the 'don't touch my rig' rule by not being able to manage his gear himself either with the door open, or about to be opened. If time permits, always ask before touching a rig. If time does not permit, do what you need to ensure your safety, and the safety of the other jumpers and AC first, explain your reasons later.

If there was a pond nearby, I'd call the double femur, right on the bank. So close, but so far away.

The price is too low. Shipping 2nd day air from Italy for a complete rig is well over $100, mayeb closer to $200. I can't see a legitimate seller willing to accept $1600 or $1700 for that rig. Besides, if he has 20 'clients' for the rig, why would he be willing to accept a 50% down payment. If not one out of those 20 people are willing to send the money, that should be a clue. On top of it all, you don't want a Stiletto when you only have 47 jumps.

No, YOU are reading things the way you want. If you want to be told something by a gear manufacturer, trying called them on the phone. Ask them if they would reccomend a 105 at 1.3 for a guy with 130 jumps. Just for fun leave out the fact that it's eplitical. See what they say. As for your new direction, I call bullshit. None of what you said previous backed up the idea that maybe you thought you were in over your head. At this stage, it looks liek your tyring to find a back door out of this because you appear to be backed into a corner. Do something smart and prove me wrong. Actually stop jumping the canopy. Today. Upsize and jump something you have more control over.

If you whack yourself in one day, you're going to look like a douche. When somebody remembers this thread, and bumps back up to the top, you'll look like a bigger douche. I guess it's your call, but one level of douchie-ness is all I would want if I was facing some 'down time'. Others have already mentioned what wasn't good about them. You had a 'reason', more of what I call an 'excuse', for everything they had to say. Am I to believe that this time will be different. Maybe my words will get through where others have failed? I have as much faith in that as I do that you'll be 'fine' and that you are a 'good pilot'. (Note that my lack of actaully trying to debrief your videos is an indicator that I have very little faith that you will actually listen)

Those videos in the other thread did not look good. Your unwillingness to answer the questions about your jump numbers does not look good. Your thinking that 'some people' are just better at this than 'others' is not good. None of this is good, and you're the one who's going to take to the hit when things go wrong. I'm surprised you would pulbicly get involved in this line of conversation. I know you've seen the revival of a thread where a guy said the same crap you're saying, then broke or killed himself under canopy. I mean it's one thing to take a calculated risk, it's another to stand up and shout, "Hey look at me! I'm taking a chance you all think I shouldn't! My reasons are no different then those who came before me!"

John, Thanks for writing in with these details. I feel for you and your family with regards to your son, and the hardships you encountered. I understand that Kip acted as a friend to you and your family. Between the two of you, the decicion was made to go forward with the jump. On the surface, it seems perfectly reasonable. The trouble is that once he is elected to a public office, Kip no longer is able to make decisions based only how it will effect him. He accepted a responsibility to be a leader and representative of the sport, and the Mideast region. Any actions he takes while in office will reflect upon both, good or bad. While he may have made the right choice based on being a TM, friend, and DZ manager, as a USPA BOD memeber, he certainly did not. This act alone opened the USPA up to untold liability and bad press in the event the jump did not go as planned. Now he has a 90 suspension on his record while he was an active board memeber. In the event of a future infraction or incident, how wil this play out for the USPA when it's discovered that one of our elected officials had a history of poor judgement, but remained in a position of leadership. How does this reflect on the USPA? How does this reflect upon our ability as a sport to govern ourselves? How will this look in the eye of public opinion? Again, I don't disagree with his choice if he were not an active BOD member. I might even disagree with a ratings suspension given the situation. But in the wake of it, his standing with the BOD cannot remain intact. It's simply too much of a liability. By knowingly keeping him in a position of leadership, we as a sport are guilty of negligence, and illustrating a lack of ability to govern ourselves.

I tend to go along with this as well, but generally for things that are '6 of 1 and a 1/2 of the other'. Items where one way or the other is an acceptable means to the same end. I guess when it involves a safety issue, I tens to lean heavily toward the safer of the two options. I agree that anything attached to a helmet is a snag hazzard, cameras included. In truth, helmets themselves are snag hazzards, as more than one line, RSL, or riser has been snagged under the edge of ProTec. My thinking would be to reduce the number of snag points to the least number possible, and in that equation, the ring sight has to go. I think another issue is that general aiming of the cameras is rarely the biggest issue between a camera flyer and the footage they seek. Any properly set up camera helmet with a wide angle lens should pick up about what the jumper is looking at, provided they have a rough idea of how to look at the subject. What really prevents them from bringing home the good stuff is both their own lack of knowledge, forethought, and general flying ability. To be good at this stuff, you have to know what the 'ideal' circumstances would be. If this were a more static enviornment, where would you put the light, your subject, yourself, etc. This would be where the knowledge would come into play (this is where your ground-based experience puts you way ahead of the curve). The next hurdle is the reality that this is not a static enviornment, and that try as you may, things will not always be where you want them. While an infinite number of things could happen, there are a smaller number of scenarios that are more likely to play out once in freefall. Having a plan in place for each of these more likely scenarios, making the best out of the comprimises that each scenario offers is where forethought comes into play. Lastly it having the fliying skill to get where you need to be, before you need to be there. All of the above factors come into play here because your ideal situation you hoped for may or may not be presenting itself, and one or a combination of your alternate scenarios may be playing out, and you need to make the call as to which way to play your hand, and any limitation you have due ot lack of flying skill will kill your chances to land with footage that will amaze your friends. I guess my real problem here is that camera flying has become very 'gear focused'. If you have the right helmet, with the right bells and whistles, you're a camera flyer, and probably a good one due to the swank factor on your cool lid. What seems to escape these folks are the basics I outlined above. I could go back to my first generation Hanson Helmet and Hi-8 camera, and still bring home the bacon on every jump (yeah it's grainy washed-out bacon, but the work would be right). The only thing I've ever done in skydiving is fly camera. Many years, and many 1000's of jumps, all camera jumps, all approached with the same goal of shoting the perfect video from exit to opening. To this day I still review every freefall before I turn my tape into the editor. Even when I'm busy as hell, I take the 60 secinds to run it back, and review the actual footage against what I saw in my mind during the jump. The best thing for me about switching to digital stills is that I get to see every pic I take. There must be 30,000 pictures out there I shot on film, where I handed the roll to the customer, and never got to see frame one. Ever since going to digital, I was able to review each jump, and have since cleaned up my stills to the same sharp point as my video. I'm not sure if my real beef is the safety issue, or the "I need all the stuff" issue with ring sights. as much as I hate the "I need all the stuff" attitude, I think the real idea is to keep everything as simple as possible, for as long as possible. Add the fewest number of things you need to get the job done. If time proves that you need another gadget to progress, by all means, add it in. Until such time, keep it simple, and safe, and focus on things that will get you results. Or, just do it whatever way you want. I do really mean that in the nicest way possible. We all know the risks involved, and how much risk we are each willing to take on.

From a technical standpoint, you are right about what you say. As it applies to the dynamic situation of freefall camera flying, the detail you refer to is too fine to apply. The jumper knowing his lenses and proximity are far more reliable than attempting to use a ring sight for accurate framing of a moving subject, while you yourself are also moving. In these instnaces, it isn't worth the safety risk of a ring sight for the small benefit it may have. There are situations, mostly more advanced forms of camera flying where these things may be more applicable, but these are for the more advanced camera flyer. Until a camera flyer reaches such a point in their skill level that the lack of a ring sight is what's holding them back, using one is a risk that's not worth taking, and shouldn' t be suggested to new or upcoming jumpers.

The problem is that when things get bad enough to warrant this, the external organization is likely to take a knee-jerk, more-is-always better approach. In the early days of being under the watchful eye of the FAA, we can be assured that they will enforce the most conservative measures they can imagine for any given situation. It will become the burden of time and experiece to show that less-restrictive measures would be suitable. Once that has been proven, we will be able to begin the process of getting the FAA to change the rules. We all know what a pleasure it is to get the FAA the change anything. ...and here lies the rub. What to do when it's the RD himself who is guilty of the infraction, and he also happens to be the manager of the DZ where it occured? Now that's what I call a sticky situation.

I am using a sight, it's a box drawn on my goggles. A sight is simply a reference point, be it on your goggles or hanging on a stick in front of your face. Neither will tell you what is or isn't in frame. It will tell you the center of the frame, and beyond that, it's up to the jumper to know the boundries of his lenses. Yes, I am talking about wide angle lenses, but thats what 99% of the people are jumping anyway. Jumping with long lenses has already been covered in this thread.

Not really. Yeah for five minutes, but not really. Anyway you want to slice it, taking an udnerage tandem, and then backdating the paperwork is a little much for me in terms of an elected official. He took it upon himself to open skydiving up to worlds more scrutiny than it needs. Regular jumpers trying to follow the rules cause enough bad press on their own. Do we really need an elected official adding to that burden? Couldn't this jump have waited a week, or a few days to get the paperwork put through? That's the decision a good leader would make. We cannot legally do this today, but lets fast track the paperwork, and get this done three days from now. Read my posts carefully, I mentioned that he may be a fine skydiver, instructor, DZ manager, whatever, but this isn't the guy we need to appoint as our local representative. Pesonally, I'm not sure he has the judgement to be a course director, but that's none of my business. As far as not wanting to be on the BOD, I'm as guilty as 99.99% of the membership who doesn't have the time to dedicate to that postition. This in no way invalidates my opinion about an official elected to represent my region in an organization to which I am a paying member.

I actually draw a box on my goggles, so I can look through the box. As far as what's in or out of frame, that's a function of what length your lens is, and what distance you are from the subject. No ring sight will tell what is in or out of frame. Again, I have years of shooting video covering 1000's of jumps with a box drawn on my goggles. I have no problem with framing.