davelepka

Even just unstowing the brakes, or doing a turn will inflate them. You don't even need them to land. All they do is slow you down anyway, fuck those end cells.

Both of these statements seem to support the idea of better education. This leads me to believe that your beef is with the intended content of the proposed education, not the education itself. This is where some information about your experience and background would add some substance to your point. If Scott Miller tells me, "We just don't know enough to teach it, we need more info", I'll take that as a fact, becasue that guy knows more than most about canopy piloting and teaching it. When an unknown tells me the same thing, I have trouble believing it. Not just as a rule, but in this case, becasue I personally happen to know alot about this subject.

OK, now you're in charge. How do we capture the data?

How pronounced is the fish eye effect on that lens. I'm in need of a 15mm lens, but don't want too much distortion. They have a 15-30 that they claim was designed to reduce distortion for the small CCD cameras, but I'd prefer a fixed lens if I could help it.

The issue you're missing (repeatedly) is that the problem does not lie with the canopies, it's with the pilots. Any time a canopy has presented an issue (Nova, Crossfire1) the manufacturer or the community has stepped up and either recalled them or just stopped jumping them. Any of the canopies involved in open canopy incidents can be flown safely be the right pilot. I'm not sure what sort of information you're after, but I cannot imagine any sort of data that will define what pilot is ready for what WL on what model canopy. This is the real issue here, pilot readyness. I've said it before, if you could see into the futture, anf tell me that Joe Jumper with 100 jumps is capable of flying a Velo 90, and will not be injured in doing so, I'd be all for Joe getting down with the Velo. The problem is that you cannot tell me that. You can guess, but if you're wrong Joe faces some serious consequenses for your mistake. Which is why the best we can do is look at the general trends. What WL seems to work well for upcoming jumpers? Which models seem to be too responsive for learning purposes? What common mistakes to people seem to make (which leads to what information should be taught)? The answer to these questions lie in the more experienced jumpers who have th eknowledge to know what they're looking for, and the desire to see, define, and fix it. How can you quantify things like jumpers who have a poor flare technique? You can't, but many jumpers do, and would benefit from some additional training in that area. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's no surprise that the majority of detractors were those who stood to fall under the new rules -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- or contrariwise, it's no surprise that the majority of supporters were people unaffected by the proposal--either not included or intended to pursue canopy coaching regardless. *** You're missing a couple of huge points here. Firstly, the fact that supprters of canopy regulation and testing are the more experienced of the group only further supprts their stance. Their longer time in the sport, and greater depth of experience makes them more qualified to speak on the issue of canoy control. The second point is that the more experienced jumper has nothing to gain by implementing these regulations, aside from the safety of the newer jumpers. My life won't change any, I won't make any more money, or win any awards. The only thing I get is too see fewer jumpers being hurt of killed under perfectly good parachutes.

Can you read? Do you read? He asked if one had not functioned properly when called upon to do so. An 'OFF" Cypres will never fire. An improperly calibrated Cypres will fire, provided it reaches the firing perameters. That said, I dont't know the real answer, but I would be surprised if Airtec ever came right out and said (after a fatality), "It just didn't fire. It should have, but it didn't". The other side of the coin is the jumper who pull low, and snivel into Cypres territory. If the Cypres doesn;t fire, the jumper assume they opened in time. They would never know if it had failed, becasue nobody would ever check.

OK, get off the idea that BASE jumping will save you money. Between gear and travel, the per jump cost will be far greater than driving to a local DZ and making a skydive. Here's the low down: Start skydiving, and plan on making about 200 jumps before learing to BASE jump. The skydive training, gear and jumps will run you about $10,000. Then take a BASE course, and begin BASE jumping. The cost of BASE gear (it's different than skydiving gear) and training will run you about $3000 to $4000 depending on how far you have to travel for the BASE training. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure the UK is light on jumpable cliffs. I think there are alot of towers, but they are most likely 500ft or lower and ususally illegal to jump. Make sure to figure in travel costs to get to the good objects for BASE. Don't forget that gear wears out, and that newer, better gear is always hitting the market. Plan on about two to three years to go from first skydive to first BASE jump. You can do it faster, but the price will go up. All of this jumping stuff is fun, but be sure you have alot of time, and a good deal of money. You have to pay if you want to play. EDIT- I almost forgot, generally 200 skydives is the min before you can get into a Bridman suit. Figure a good suit will run you between $700 and $1000. Plan on doing AT LEAST 150 Bridman skydives before taking it into BASE. Even then, you will need to travel to get an object tall enough for Bridman BASE. Figure four or five years and $30,000 or $40,000 before you take a Bridman suit off a 3000ft cliff, and pull 1 min 15 sec of freefall. It's probably worth every penny.

QuoteI am relatively new here, but has there ever been a motion to have a skills test for allowed canopy size/style? We test out our skills for license's, but not for canopies. Maybe we should? *** Great idea. It's been discussed many times, and it had it's share of suporters and detractors. It's no surprise that the majority of detractors were those who stood to fall under the new rules, and those who supported were generally experienced enough to bypass the new rules. Don't hold your breath.

The whole opening process is a balance between forces. Airspeed trying to inflate the canopy also helps to keep it shut by holding the slider up, which constricts the canopy. It a big circular thing, where one pressure will increase slightly and offset another, which will then build and offset the first pressure, and so on. The basic idea is that when the slider hangs up it's beacuse of line friction, and becasue the canopy isn't trying that hard to spread out anymore. The end result is closed end cells. There's no way to tell when it will happen or not happen. A canopy with line trim problems MAY do it every time. Either way, it's usually following a soft opening, which is a good thing, and it's simple to fix. If closed end cells are the worst of your troubles, you're in good shape.

You can also clear that by working the rear risers. Give them a few tugs, and see whta happens. Leaving your brakes stowed is over-rated anyway. If you end up with a stuck toggle, you're just delaying your cutaway. Do a full control check upon opening. Don't sweat the end cell thing either. It means your canopy is opening slow, which is good.

Skydiving helmets are desgined to protection from minor impacts, to hold audibles, and to keep your head warm (I guess they help hold your goggles on too). They are not intended to offer the protection of a rated helmet. As such, they are much lower profile, and will not catch wind on the edges, or impede your vision (much). Some of them do look cool.

Because then the base price would be $75 more, and your rig wouldn't be special. The special factor has got to be worth something. I had two pages of special instructions when I ordered my Infinity. I'm not sure if it cost me any extra, but if it did, it was money well spent. Now shut your pie hole and jump. You'll quickly forget about the $75.

What were you expecting? It's a foam backpad. How deluxe can you make it? Extra cheese? Green peppers and onions? Ok, seriously, is it neatly stiched into the rig? Thats something, right? In the big picture, you paid two grand for a fancy backpack. Maybe don't sweat the small stuff.

If you do try to put a small canopy into a bigger conatiner, watch the flaps. If you tighten the closing loop enough to put adequate tension on the pin, often times you'll have loose flaps that bulge up in the middle, and allow air in, and maybe other stuff out. You can use a smaller d-bag if you pad the conatiner to make up the space. It tricky though. You need to have a rigger do the work, and you need to ensure that the padding will not interfere with the bag, and that it will position the bag properly in the pack try for clean deployments. It's a bitch. How about this: Buy a used container that fits your canopies, and that you can afford. When you have the cash for a new container, stach the used one in the closet as a back up, or stuff it ful of other canopies, and enjoy two rigs.

After reading another thread on this topic, I'm seeing some different definitions of canopy coaching, and it's intended uses/benefits. One of the reasons for this is that canopy piloting encompasses a wide range of knowledge and skills. Many folks seem hung up on the concept of 'high performance' coaching, and wondering how it would be beneficial for those not interested in swooping. I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that canopy coaching takes on many different forms. For example, during AFF training, how much detail is tought regardng weather? How about the aerodynamics and bacis principals of canopy flight? How much time is dedicated to understanding the cross and downwind landing? The off field landing? Tha answer to all is not much. In itself, this isn;t so bad, as the training is adequate for an AFF student. The equipment they will be jumping, the conditions they will be jumping in, and the superivsion they will have all add up to allow the student to focus on other facotrs (such as freefall, pulling, and EP's) which are pretty consuming from an attention-span viewpoint. What happens beyond AFF however? Once the supervision is gone? This is where the student is need of some more detailed information, and this is where canopy coaching comes into play. Fast forward 100 or 200 jumps. The same jumper has been through some basic canopy coaching, and doen well up to this point, and is ready to downsize. What experiecne does the student have to prepare themsleves for the increased capabilities of the new canopy (combined with the reduction in worked time from a faster canopy)? Does the jumper know about using brakes to position themselves in the pattern? How about having a thought process that will keep thier minds one step ahead of their canopy? Here again, the jumper is due for some coaching. They are still on the steep part if the learning curve (which for canopies stays pretty steep up to and beyond 1000 jumps) and are making a change to their situation (new canopy) and need to make a similar change to their knowledge base. Indeed they MAY HAVE picked up a few things the last 100 or 200 jumps, but thats a maybe, and they definatley have a new canopy. Pure luck (or lack of it) may have had them only jumping on great weather days, with great spots, and the demands of canopy flight never went much beyond their student days. You can keep fast forwarding, and for every milestone you can reach with a canopy, there is an hour of classroom time of things you really should know, and just hoping that you pick them up along the way seems like a shitty way to go. The scope of canopies and their performce today was a pipe dream 10 years ago. With the top end of canopy performance going ever higher, a side effect is that jumpers are progressing ever faster, still married to the old concept that 500 or 700 jumps should have ready to jump anything on the market. Along with the increase in performance is an increase in information and skills. The sheer volume of information makes it impossible to teach all at once, and even if you could, it would prove counter-productive. A 100 jump wonder doesn't need to cloud his head with harness turns when he should be concentrating on the basics. This is why canopy coaching is for everyone. This is also why canopy coaching is different for everyeone.

Thats the difference. If your RSL does anything, it's becasue you pulled the cutaway handle. You did something. The AAD fires when you do nothing. You may cutaway and then have an AAD fire, but in that case, you didn't equip your rig with an RSL, and then you didn't pull the reserve ripcord after your cutaway. For the record, any reserve opening under 700ft is a big mistake. AAD, RSL or by hand, anyway you slice it, you fucked up.

Fuck that. An RSL is designed to work at the time of the cutaway. If you respond correctly to a mal, with an RSL, the RSL will come into play. It is impossible for you to 'beat' the RSL. The time between your risers releasing, and the pin being pulled is VERY short. Again, thats if you respond correctly. Your AAD will not fire unitl you have made either one very large mistake, or a series of smaller errors. Skydiving is not the place for large mistakes, or a series of smaller ones. If you do have an AAD fire, nobody will stop you from jumping. But if you do let things get that far out of hand, you've shown that you have the capacity (or lack of) to allow that to happen. It may happen again, it may not. Take your chances accordingly. "Oh, there's always a chance that blah, blah. Sometimes things you can't control, blah, blah. What if, blah blah." Anyway you want to cut it, an AAD fire is about the biggest mistake you can make without going to the hospital.

It might. It might not. Sucks either way. Check out the "Breakaway' video if you get a chance. It's got the best footage of all the major mals. They were all intentionally rigged, and ridden for awhile, and the video is from multiple cameras, and awesome. Seeing it all happen in real time will answer alot of questions and 'what if's'. I think it also has a section on two-outs, again with great video of intentional two-out scenarios.

So is your main, reserve and harness. But yeah, don't wait for an AAD to fire. If you do fire an AAD, think golf.....

Not this guy. He's getting new stuff. It's a win/win.

Thats pretty fucked up. What happened to all the time between pulling and 2200ft? Nap time? Did he get an important phone call? This was with a pull out? Was it a lazy pull? That will put a pull out PC on your back. Going head low will clear it, but dropping a shoulder will too, and is a better plan.

You can pont yourlesf in any direction you please, your PC's will always follow the relative wind. However, lets remember you're about to have a terminal reserve deployment. Do you really want to be head low at this point? I woudln't. To cap it all off, this is a high speed malfunction. I'mnot sure how many times you've rehearsed your reserve pull procedure at terminal, but I have a feeling that when the time comes, and you're faced with a left hand ripcord pull, minor adjusments to your body position will be the last thing on your mind. Good luck.

Post deleted due to personal attacks. Your one warning.

A nine cell provides a better flare. More stopping power. Better glide. The Spectre would be a better choice, if you want a 7 cell. The Tri is an older design, and there are better choices. CRW and BASE are the only areas where that applies. Traditional accuracy is also one, but that requires a traditional accuarcy canopy. The right cell is great for camera and birdman, and every canopy is good for accuracy, they all go where they are told.

Thats pretty high, and you might get a little extra dive, but it still sounds like too much for that size and loading. Maybe you were in a vortex of time and space.