davelepka

These are the type of questions you should be asking yourself before every jump. When you can't come up with an answer to them, don't jump. This is your physical well-being and possibly your life that is at risk. Don't take it lightly. Have enough confidence in yourself to stand by your choices.

Yeah, maybe. How do you know if you're one of those people? What if you're wrong, what happens then? There's no way for you to win this argument. If you are gods gift to skydiving, then you'll burn through another 100 jumps in no time, not to mention that you'll be jumping for the next 30 or 40 years, and you'll have plenty of time to get into video. If you're not gods gift to skydiving, then you need to slow down and ease into things in a more traditonal manner. Either way, there's no reason to rush into things, and for the record, you're not gods gift to skydiving. You're a regular guy just like me, Norm Kent, and the guy who got his main canopy tangled up in his camera helmet.

I'm not sure where you got that impression from. What I was saying was exactly what I wrote.

Maybe because he's smart? There's a real misconception going around DZ.com that you have to be and stay current to be safe. Some have even suggested that quitting skydiving is a better idea than jumping infrequently. What bullshit. What is important is realizing your level of currency, and making your choices accordingly. Doing a solo, or choosing to jump with a coach or instructor are prudent choices for an uncurrent jumper. Wanting to get on a big way, or try a smaller canopy would not be prudent choices. Lets face it, we see the most uncurrent jumpers of all at the DZ every day, we call them AFF level 1 students. With sufficient preparation, and two instructors, most of them manage to go up and make a safe skydive. If a jumper is willing to realize the limitations of being uncurrent, and isn't afraid to ask for a refresher, or simply do a solo, then by all means show up five or six times a season and get your knees in the breeze.

I happen to know of a previous regional director who despite being busy with HER own DZ, where she is an integral memeber of the instructional staff, made time to visit a much smaller boogie at a competing DZ in her own backyard. Not only did she go and talk to the people, she jumped and participated in a swoop competition. At some point you have to draw the line between business obligations, and USPA obligations. If you are unable of unwilling to do that, then membership on the BOD is not for you.

Expect more of the same in the future. It seems to be an SOP over there.

If you can't get back from a spot with canopy at 1 to 1, open at 3500 ft, your DZ needs to shorten up the spot. I also jump at an Otter DZ, and I routinely make it back from 3500' after being out last with the tandems, and I'm loading my canopy at over 2 to 1. Just to be clear, you're open at 3500ft, not reaching for your PC at 3500 ft., right? With a Sabre 2, throwing your PC at 3500ft would put you in the saddle closer to 3000ft, maybe even a touch under.

Open higher

Anyone who doesn't do this, along with check their pin, pilot chute, and their chest/legstraps and friction adapters, is a retard. It's a short list, and you've got time. I go through the whole thing at least four times, if you want to talk nuerotic. I can literally only think of one time that I found something out of place, but I still check and re-check. If you really want weird, my buddy counts the clicks on each side as he snugs up his Bonehead chincup. I think he goes five clicks on each side, and if he loses track, or goes a click or two over, he starts the whole process over again.

This is correct, however I want to make it clear that your descent rate in partial brakes will be higher than it would be at the end of a normal flare. If you were to fly in half brakes straight into the ground, the impact would require a PLF. Additionally, your descent rate at the end of a flare that started in half brakes will also be higher than if you had flared from full flight. Ideally though, the rest of the post is correct, and you should have your canopy flying straight and at full flight well before begining your flare.

Sinking a canopy in is an old, old term that came about when most canopies were seven cells, and accuracy was the 'in' thing to do. Many large seven cells have very low forward speed. What this means is that when you have a headwind that equals the forward speed of your canopy, your ground speed is zero, and you are sinking your canopy straight down. This related to accuracy because the technique in competition accuracy is to come in high, and once over dead center, sink down on top of it. The reason being that you can come in 100 ft high, and sink straight down onto the target, but if you come in even 5 ft low, you'll never make the target. Another factor at work here is the size of the cells, and how far the topskin overhangs the bottm skin at the nose. Some of those old canopies had so much overhang that even in still air they could almost fly backwards. The overhang of the topskin could catch enough air to maintain some inflation with no forward speed at all. All of the above explains why accuracy competitors still jump canopies desinged 25 years ago. All of the improvements to canopies would not help them with the techniques they use. This is also a good time to point out that accuracy competitions use a giant pad, called a tuffet, to land on. While sinking the canopies in, even a 240 sq ft canopy will drop you pretty hard with this technique, and it is not the way to get the softest landing. On to the present day, you will never sink a modern canopy in anywhere in an emergency. The reason being is that the high stall speed of a modern canopy means that you would need a strong steady wind to be able maintain a clean sink. When jumping in these kinds of winds, the last place you want to be is landing in an area where you cannot simply let the canopy fly, and use a normal approach. Heres the important part - whatever is causing your chosen landing area to be so tight that you want to sink it in, is also working with that strong steady wind to cause object turbelence, and when your canopy hits this turbulence, bad things will happen. The problem is compounded by the fact that you're in a braked configuration which puts your canopy closer to the stall point. When jumping in higher winds, landing in a area free of upwind obstructions is key. Additionally, with all that wind the accuracy of the spotting becomes less and less important. If you can get open within a mile upwind of the DZ, your modern canopy, though bad for sinking, is great at floating you back home, so you can land at the DZ. You can fly a braked approach with your canopy if need be, which will get you into an LZ with less forward speed, but you'll trade off that speed for less lift during the flare, and you'll come down harder than ususal. Most modern canopies can be landed in a very small area from a full flight approach. Many people use a two step flare, in which the first step levels out the canopy and gives them a little surf, and the second step will slow it down before they put their feet down. This is fun, but it takes up 20 or 30 feet of real estate. You can use a single step flare, in which you flare a touch higher, and touch slower, which will kill a bunch of your forward speed, but still offer you reasonable arrest of your descent for a soft landing. I think the overriding concept here is that old canopies could sink right into a tight area surrounded by trees. They also couldn't glide very far, and it was common to open them at or below 2000ft. Take advantage of your newer canopy, with it's excellent glide capabilities, be smart and have it open by 3000ft, and you'll have the luxury to usually just land on the DZ. When you can't, your canopy can fly you to such a large range of options for places to land, that you can select one that will allow you to fly a standard, full flight approach.

That's a valid point, however, I think the whole premis of this thread is flawed. Yes, many bikes do use V-Twins, and due to the power to weight ratio of a motorcycle, the bikes are fast. However, even in the motorcycle world, bikes with more cylinders typically make more power for a given displacement. Look at the big inch aftermarket V-Twin motors. They're up around 1600cc or 1700cc, and peak power is around 130 or 140. Compare this to a big four cylinder like the Kaw ZX-14 which displaces 1400cc, and puts out something like 165hp or 170hp. That sort of invalidates the premise of the thread. Even in bikes, big power comes from the higher cylinder counts. As far as the idea that a four cylinder bike seems to put out so much power in a bike as compared to a car, thats a simple matter of engine design. Layout, material specs, and manufacturing tolerences are all manipulated by engine designers to meet goals in the areas of performance, reliability and cost. Honda could easily build an engine for a Civic with the same output per cc as the GSXR-1000 (1000cc with about 160ish HP) however the price of the car would skyrocket, and that legendary Honda reliability would take a dive. A motorcycle with 60,000 or 70,000 miles, even over the course of five or six years is considered high-milage, and it's resale value will suffer greatly becasue of it. A five year old Honda Civic with 70,000 miles is considered a low milage cream-puff, and will bring a premium price on the used market, possibly in excess of blue book value.

Or maybe not. When doing outside video, the idea is to stay outside, and look in. You can't let anyone get behind you, or this sort of thing can happen. Is there a jumper out of the formation? Back up, and keep everyone in frame. If a jumper goes out my sliding past you, move to the other side, and keep them in frame. The idea is to keep an eye on everyone, at all times. Want to film the base pulling? Stay outside until you see everyone tracking away, then move to the middle, and film the base. Anytime you let someone get outside of your field of view, you're just a sitting duck. Watch your back out there, because nobody will do it for you.

That is a skydiving mistake, not a camera-flying mistake. Make sure you are a solid skydiver before attempting to become a camera flyer. If the cameras are getting in the way of safe skydiving, then video work may not be for you.

It all depends on which way the props rotate. There is a critical engine, where if you lose it below a certain airspeed, the rudder doesn't have enough authority to overcome the torque reaction of the prop (which is making take-off power at the time). There is a 'blue line' speed (and an actual blue line on the airspeed indicator) which is the speed at which the plane can lift off, but will most likely roll over if the critical engine fails. If you're on a short field, sometimes you have to lift off at these speeds and build your airspeed in the air. It's usually a very short time until you're past the blue line, maybe just a a few seconds, but if an engine kicks during that time, ouch.

Yeah, me too. However, keep in mind that the OP's avatar appears to be him jumping a Para-Commander, so his 'swoop judgement' may be a little off.

You need to be well past using an altimeter for a straight in landing in order to deal with what a demo can throw at you. For starters, the LZ field elevation most likely is going to be different than the field you take off from. At times you can make adjustments for this, but often times not. Most demos are hop n pops anyway, so the alti is not needed. Also, the idea is to get away from your ususal LZ. You'd be surprised how much you use the surrounding area to help you set up your landing. The tree line, or the edge of an adjacent field, or whatever is around end up playing a big role in how you set up your landing. As an example, I've done my last 1500-ish jumps at one DZ. I went to jump at another DZ, one where I made my first 3000-ish jumps, and could tell that needed a few jumps before I felt as good during my swoop set-up as I did at my current home DZ.

Protecting my life is #1 on my to-do list at all times. Fuck the shot, and yes, fuck all you other jumpers out there. Step 1 - survive Step 2 - doesn't matter as long as you did step one

Forget about flags, smoke, or any other demo tricks for now. Work on your accuracy. Try this, go to a DZ you've never been to before, and shoot acuraccy there. You'd better be dead center on the first jump, or you're not ready. Can't get to another DZ? Choose a new spot at your current DZ to land, like in the middle of the parking lot. Make sure you have a 'ground crew' to halt traffic for you. (Here's a hint - if the DZO isn't behind this idea, then you're not ready) Another home DZ idea - use a frisbee to act as your target. Get a brightly colored one, and give it to a buddy, who will place it AFTER the plane takes off. Again, dead center on the first try... Here's another one, look around for a nearby open-ish field, and 'land off' there on your next jump. Toss your frisbee there before the jump, and see how you do. Actually, how did you do when you had to land off for real? That's another good indicator if you're ready for demos. A new landing zone, the ability to make good choices under pressure, all that good stuff that comes with demos. Also, start with some easy demos. Good weather, easy open landign areas, small crowds, no flags or smoke, etc. Once you have those under control, add one level of diffuculty at a time. Master that, and repeat until you're ready to take on a full stadium with a flag. At night. Half drunk.

Maybe we should worry less about the dollar values of the cameras, and more about the effect of several pounds bolted to your head will have on your neck it you take a tumble on landing. I seem to remember a broken neck on a jumper who took a bad tumble with a camera helmet on.

What? Say it isn't so!!!!! You mean to tell me that you can't buy dinner with good times, special new friends, and a feeling of acomplishment? Maybe you're eating in the wrong restaurant.

What other marker would you suggest? You're a pilot, right? How many hours do you have? Or shouldn't I ask that? Why does the insurance company ask me how many hours I have when looking into aircraft insurance? They ask total time, time in type, any ratings I have, and where apllicable how much twin or turbine time I have. Maybe you should write them and assure them you what you're doing, and that they should provide coverage regardless of your experience.

Yes. For fun? I sold my last Stiletto to a guy with over 600 jumps, and he double femured himself within 3 months, and 100-some jumps on the canopy. Sound like fun to you? I hope you don't really believe this.

Yeah, that all sounds about right. Anyone who does not have that mindset needs to start wokring on developing it ASAP. It's not easy, and if it ever gets easy, you're not trying hard enough.

How about we expand that to include any canopy, and obstacles on the ground as well. Give your canopy clear air to fly in. It's the least you could do for the thing, it's saving your life.