davelepka

I did some bandit rappeling in college with some buddies and some drugs. I got my shirt stuck in the figure 8 about six stories up, and a buddy got his thrash metal long hair stuck in it about 10 inches from the ground. I ripped my shirt to clear the rope. The other guy cried like a baby while someone went for some scissors. Either way, naked is not an option when rappeling.

It seems the FAA thinks that the AC ended up on it's back in a field, and has listed the damage as substantial. Maybe you or the DZO should call them and make sure they have their facts straight (or check your own facts, or whatever).

Performance Designs in Deland, Fla.

Let me ask one more time - What's wrong with spreading your risers and kicking? This is a proven method used by first jump students everywhere with no ill effects.

Do you think that intentionally twisting up your riser, toggles, and excess brake line (possibly some slider) is a good idea? Do you ever wear gloves? What if one of those gets stuck in there, or something gets stuck on the glove (which you might not feel) and you pull it out when you remove your hands from the risers. Maybe stick with spread the risers and kick. I can't see any reason not to stick with the way you were taught. I've used that technique while spinning rapidly under my Velo, and it worked like a charm. I can't think of any line twist scenario where it wouldn't work, nor any drawback to doing it that way.

That was just some line twists, and if you hang there like a rag doll and watch it spin, you have to chop. If you recall your FJC, spread the risers and kick out of the twists, you get to swoop your Velo. Also, as far as the OP of this thread goes, I just looked at the new Parachutist (and judging by the cover, they have a chick doing the graphic design now, and it looks great). Anyway, I thought it was relevant that the two fatalities, and one non-fatal incident were all guys on canopies loaded at 1.5 or less. I'm not sure if any of them wree trying to swoop, or simply made errors in trying to land but it clearly shows that a mistake on the jumpers part can kill you with even a moderately loaded, non high-performance canopy.

Maybe so, but how much of what they started with was a Cresco? What changes did they make to the airframe or systems of a Cresco to come up with the PAC?

Pretty much what he said. Just because the PAC comes with a roll up door and some handles doesn't mean it was 'designed' for skydiving. If a plane was designed for skydiving, you'd see a higher tail, more head room, and a CG that's a few feet further back than most (to help prevent aft CG stalls on jumprun).

Name a plane that was designed to be a jumpship, and you might have a point there.

How many people would raise that much, and only take one jump? If you can come up with $2000, why not make four jumps, or take three friends with you when you jump? Like I sadi, unless you disclose that a protion of the proceeds will go to pay for your skydive, you're not being truthful with the people making the donations. Again, the whole thing is just a way to make money off of skydiving by being less than 100% truthful with people.

I tried to read all the posts, but gave up fairply quickly. I apoligize if this point has already been made. If I understand correctly, a person will raise $500, and in exchange for that $500, will get a tandem jump. The cost of the tandem, and the 'finders fee' ceom out of the $500, and the remainder goes to charity. If this is the case, shouldn't it be called, "Pay for your skydive with the money you raised for charity, subract $45 from the remainder and then give the rest to charity"? In reality, you're looking at about 50% of the $500 being eaten up by 'overhead' using $200 as a price for a tandem plus the $45 finders fee. So the people who make the actual donations are only having half of what they intended for charity making it to an actual charity. Unless the fund raiser discloses this, then that person is essentially pulling a fast one on everyone they hit up for a donation. In the Skyride model, it's the actual jumper who is done a dis-service. In this model, the jumper may be getting a fair deal, as in an actual jump at an actual nearby DZ, but the contributors are now getting the shaft. It just moves the fuck-over one step away fromthe DZ, so it seems nicer on the surface, but in the end, someone does get fucked-over. I don't see how this is any different than going door to door soliciting money for a charity, and then pocketing half of the take at the end of the day. If I'm not mistaken, that practice is a crime on several states. Maybe they call it fraud, or whatever. If you want to broker jumps, thats fine. Work out a deal with a DZ for 10% or 15% off their going rate for bringing them a volume of business. Charge the customer the going price for the jump, and keep the difference after you subtract your discount. That's fair and honest business. You get paid for getting the booking, whatever advertising you do, and the admin. side of things. The cust. gets the product at the going market rate, and the DZO takes the hit for the agreed upon % of discount. All this other shit all too scamy for me.

Don't film your openings. Keeep your cameras pointed at the horizon until your canopy is out of the bag, and the slider has caught some air and started working. When you look up, and get slammed, your camera helmet is behind your center of gravity, and will pull your neck backwards, which is never good. By keeping your eyes on the horizon, your helmet stays centered over your body, and will push straight down on your neck (still not great, but better than wrenching it forwards or back). The real lesson is, don't use packers. Today it was just a hard opening, tomorrow is could be a mal, and with a full video and stills set up, that could be the end of you. Pack your stuff. Nobody will be as careful as you will.

My understanding of the steering line lenght, at least on a Velo is that the distance is fixed so as to hold the tail in a certain position at full flight. The lines will have a bow, but create enough drag to hold the tail straight, and prevent it from bouncing up and down at higher speeds. If you move the goinde ring up, you allow the tail to move up as well, and then it 'pops'. I'm surprised you don't see more movement of the tail further up in the dive as well. A simple alternative to this is to have risers long enough so you grab the rears just above the standard guide ring position (less than the length of a toggle, so you're not pulling any line through the ring). Really though, how far up the rears you can reach shouldn't be that important. They have a limited stoke (huh-huh he-he) before the stall, and the pressure is never enough that I need any extra leverage to pull them down. It sounds like poeple have taken the desirable aspects of a front riser set-up (long stroke, and good leverage) and applied them to the rear risers as well, somewhat incorrectly (maybe).

Some things are expensive. Airplanes are one of them, and we need airplanes to skydive. Running a business that depends on the weather is also expensive. You have to plan ahead, and have enough cash in reserve to survive when you get rained out three weekends in a row. Multiply that factor by two if the DZ isn't a year-round operation (most of them). There are other things to do with your time that cost less than skydiving. They all suck, but they are cheaper. It's been said before, but if you want to jump and are broke, learn to pack. Every DZ needs packers, and I'm sure you could pay for your training with about six months of packing on the weekends. Six more months of packing will buy your first rig. Then it's simple, pack four rigs, and go make a jump. Repeat. It pays for itself.

It's the only way. I use it all over the place. It's holding my 18-55 securley at 18 as we speak. It the perfect solution. Rubber bands will eventually break, and I never zoom it in anyway. Thats one area many new camera flyers get sucked into a bad spot. They let things get too complicated as far as the equipment goes. Very basic cameras and helmets, if properly set and assembled will do 90% of the job of the expensive stuff in the skydiving enviornment. Of far greater importance is the person flying those cameras. If guys would focus more attention (and money) on making jumps, debriefing their footage, and re-jumping, the quality of their work would skyrocket. Then spend the bucks on big shiny glass, and get that cover shot. Later, you realize that the cover shot is just one picture, from one day, that happened to catch an editors attention, and fit the layout of that months cover. I'd rather shoot with my discount lens, and give a friend a shot that I like, and then get to see that 8 x10 on the wall of his living room, next to pics of his kids and family every time I stop over.

When I ordered mine, it was called the 'swoop mod'. I'm not sure what they call it now, but it's just a padded dive loop so it's all cushy to grab, and it sticks out all the time. I don't think it's folded over the top of the riser (it might be), but I jump 24" risers, so even if it's 1/2 down from the top of the riser, it's still plenty far up. I keep my rig at the DZ, so no pics. Sorry.

Sunpath started doing the same thing at least three years ago and they called it the 'swoop mod'. I've been jumping 'swoop mod' risers for three years and they're great.

What kind of hardware are you using to mount that thing? Plastic or nylon bolts are the only choice. In the case of a line snag, they will break, and free the line. Metal hardware will not break, and then you'll go in with your canopy attached to your head. Better yet, loose that whole thing, get a Sharpie marker and draw a box on your goggles. Cheap, safe, and effective.

I used to shoot video out of a Twin Bonanza, which for the purposes of this discussion, is about the same as a KA. We did have a few fun jumpers dink the flap, but they were 2nd or 3rd floater up the wing. I never had a problem with it, and I always exit into head down with tandems, so it would have been my cameras that took the shot. It like any exit, you just have to do it right. Make sure to project out and up, this will keep you out away from the tandem, up and level with them and clear of the wing. Edit - Look at it this way - some planes have a low tail on them. I know the Beech 18 is one, and I've heard the PAC 750 might be close as well. You wouldn't rear float those planes, and on exit project yourself upwards, right? You would be smart, and slide down the side of the plane. Same with the KA. You could hit the wing, but if you're standing on the wing, why would you leave in such a way that you could hit the wing? Lets face it, you're the only guy out there, and in full control of your actions. Fly the slot properly, it's that simple. To be fair, not everyone has the experience to be 'on the ball' enough to do this. It takes awhile to have the presence of mind to add an additional detail to the exit, but if you've got it, leave from where ever you like. Front float, rear float, right in the door, from the top of an Otter..........

Front float. You can front float anything as long as you get off at the right time, and open up the space for the tandem. If you push out toward the wing tip, you can be right across from the tandem as they come out of the door. The problem with this is that if you're late, you run into the tandem. Also, if you're right on time, it's really hard to get the exit, and then fly down under the tandem to get a few shots with the plane behind them.

Traction control is available with the manual trans as well.

I got 8 years out of a PC-1 side mounted with no D-box or jacket. My best guess puts that at about 2000 jumps, give or take a few hundred.

Here's the idea - if you're spinning at high speed and cut away, you're going to go sideways for bit as you bleed off the force of the spin. During this time, belly to earth, is not the same as belly to the relative wind. It's like trying to go belly to earth right out the door. It doesn't work because the wind isn't coming from that direction. When you dump out the door, you do it from a mostly vertical orientation, as that puts the relative wind to your belly. After cutting away from a spin, it will take longer to get belly to earth, than it might to get belly to the wind. Time you may or may not have. Of course if you add in the panic factor, and that you are pulling a chest mounted ripcord with your left hand, getting stable in any way is a pretty good trick. All reasons to have a spring loaded PC, and a freebag. They help to offset some of the problems I listed above. The real solution is to move your pull altitude on up if your jumping a fast canopy. Move your decision alt up as well. If you have 2500 or 3000ft under you after you cutaway, this discussion becomes moot. Cutaway, relax, get stable, and dump the old fashioned canopy thats still in your rig. Keep in mind that the USPA guidelines for pull and decision altititudes were not made with todays HP canopies, or WL much over 1.5 in mind. This is a new game, sometimes you have to make your own set of (more conservative) rules to play.

Close. Canopies are desinged to be opened with your belly to the relative wind. Right after a cutaway from a high-speed spinning mal, the wind is not always coming from the earth.

I've made my point three different ways, and I'm content to let the people read what's been presented and make their own conclusions as to which one of us needs to make a few more trips to the information store, with a stop at the reality drive through on the way home. I'm done here, and like I've said before, I might be wrong, but I'm not.