davelepka

Yeah, i know. Like i said just some random guesses for what sounds like an odd situation.

Correction: YOU will notice it. Others may have no problem.

If you can think of it, you need to be good at it to film it. Remember, filming involes you being relative to whatever you are filming, plus being able to manuver yourself to get the best shots. Also, your cameras will be on your head for the entire jump (you hope). You should be skilled at tracking, and good with your canopy skills as well before adding a camera. Plan on three years of hard work, and plan on making about $100 (after you pay for your cameras and all of your practice jumps).

If you are switching deployment systems, you'll need to be trained, and most likey will have a JM jump with you. The JM will call the shots on that jump. If you are not switching deployment systems, you'll want to start with a solo, and include several practice touches to your dive. The canopy will represent the biggest factor here. How different is it then what you are used to? How much time do you want to play with the controls, and get a feel for the flare? Remember, if you are jumping at a lower WL, pulling at 6000 ft will give you a loooong canopy ride. Maybe too long if your new harness proves to be uncomfortable. Also, keep in mind the upper level winds, and the your spot with a longer canopy ride. Be sure to have an instructor give you the story on steering line length, and how to check it in-air. An improperly set up canopy will give you shitty performance at best.

There is the 1.6 conversion factor when dealing with Canon digital. The focal length of the lens will be increased by 1.6x due to the sensor being snaller then a 35mm frame. Maybe this is having an effect on the performance somehow? Aren't there some newer EOS lenses that will only work on the digital bodies? Is you lens to crappy for the digital to work properly? Just some guesses. Also, check the info on your oics to see what settings the camera is selecting. Oh yeah, what about the focusing? Are you on auto focus, and if so, does the camera have selectable focus zones, and what zone is it set for?

Hold it however you want. Just remember that it's important not to drop a toggle, and keep that in mind on every landing.

How much more is a PDR going to cost? $200? $300? Take that money from somewhere else in your rig budget. Maybe reduce your budget for your main, you'll be buying used and replacing it before too long anayway. You'll be able to hold in to the reserve for longer than a main, and when you sell, you'll get the money back (but you'll turn around and spend it on a smaller PD reserve).

I'm not sure 'real fast' is the best way to go. How about 'real safe', as in at a low enough altitude that you can accurately spot the lead, but enough altitude to allow your canopy to recover to stable flight before your flare. Dropping your lead on someone or something just so you don't have to land it is stupid. If you don't want to land your reserve with that lead on, don't jump with the lead.

Weeeeeel doggie. For starters, he was heavily scrutinized for actions, by the FAA, and he was deemed innocent of any wrong doing, and his ticket was re-instated. As for his 'actions', my understanding is that he was flying a standard pattern, and landing on an active runway. Where is the fault in that? I can understand if he was doing a fly-by, or similar 'stunt', but this was normal flight ops, by the books, there was nothing negligent about it. In looking at it from a realistic standpoint (as opposed to a legal standpoint), who was the one in the wrong place? Did Gus not know that the plane was going to land? Was he unaware of the winds, and in turn, the active runway for that day? Did he not know the timing between his descent and an Otters descent? The answer to all these questions is obvious. He was in a potential trouble spot, and he knew it. Gus was not a 'babe in the woods'. He was aware of his surroundings, and chose to put himself where he did. Don't get me wrong, this was a terrible tragedy, and Gus was a great guy. But to think that between two professional aviators, that the one who was where he was supposed to be should be held accounteble for the accident is retarded. Don't give me the 'right of way' bullshit. There's a reason I don't land on the runway, it's not my space. If technically, I have the 'right of way', it doesn't make it right for me, as a professional, to set down there and hide behind the 'right of way' argument.

This is a valid point for most cases. In this case, however, the FAA and NTSB have set a precedent, and deemed this an 'accident'. Both of those federal agencies are known for being stalllwarts for the regs., and for not cutting anyone any slack. In light of this, the cops need to acknowledge the expertise of the feds, and back off.

Wasn't he on final approach for landing? On an active runway, I'm guessing with radio contact? Unless he was operating outside of standard landing config. (airspeed, approach, flaps, etc), I don't see how you could classify his actions as reckless or careless. I can't believe that the Deland PD doesn;t have an FAA liason in on this. How do the cops know what normal flight ops. are? Addtionally, didn't the FAA just reinstate his ticket? When was the last time they did that without an investigation of the accident? The cops need to let this one go. I'm sure there's a half blind, senile senoir citizen making havoc on the roadways out there somewhere that needs attending to.

When I first started jumping, I made the mistake of brining my girlfriend to the DZ. She waited on the picnic table while I went up for a jump. Upon landing, I noticed a small crowd surrounding the picinc table. More or less every able-bodied male not on the last load was there, taking a shot. Even though this was at the same DZ you're talking about, it's really no different anywhere else. Skydiving is hard and dirty and expensive and scary, so you're not going to have a huge amount of women involved. On top of that you have a pack of type-A males, all hopped up on adreniline and testosterone, who spend too much time at the DZ to meet girls elsewhere. It's like throwing one steak into the loins den at the zoo.

Yeah, really, keep in mind that you'll most likey want to downsize from this canopy fairly soon. This is often why it's suggested that newbies NOT buy new gear, as they will be changing it up too soon for it to be worth it. Also, what if the Triathalon turns out not to be the canopy for you? Unitl you have a handful of jumps on various canopies, you'll never know what really floats your boat for the long haul. Even then, canopies don't last forever, and neither do the logos people put on them. One cutaway, and it could all be gone. It seems like a misguided investment, that would make ALOT more sense if it was saved for a future canopy. Anyway good luck with whatever you do, and post pics if you do get it (air to air of course because you can't see the topskin from the ground).

If you could point these people out to me BEFORE they start jumping, you just might have something. Again, unless you are a member of the psychic friends network, another persons confidence in you is of little bearing on reality.

Buy a 170 now. Fly that unitl you are good at it. Worry about the 150 then.

If you've recently been told "You're going to die flying your canopy that way", or "You're on the list", then do not downsize. If you're in control of the Tri 220, sell it ASAP, and jump the Sabre2. The extra two cells will be your new best friends.

Do you think that John is lying? Are you under the impression that he's really just trying to look 'cool', but is using his story as a cover up? For all who have chimed in a said "MY harness is comfy when tight", WTF is that about? Take the guys word, HIS situation is such that he does it his way, and this will not change regardless of your, or anyone else's situation. Great, everyone knows your harness fits right. Congrats for that. John has been jumping for 25 years which means he is old (sorry John), and his situation is different than yours. For the record, the guys who put their ass in your face are doing it on purpose. You can snug your legstraps sitting on any kind of bench, sitting on the floor, kneeling, or riding right seat. I haven't boarded an AC with tight legstraps in 4000 jumps, and have yet to give anyone a close up of my ass.

You absolutely should. Talk to your instructors, and I'm sure they will agree that Crosskeys is a great DZ. The issue here is with Skyride. Most DZ's are good places, with good people working there who will bend over backwards to make you happy. Even DZ's that work with Skyride, or were 'born' to serve Skyride will usually be fine, upstanding places to do business with directly. It's when you work through a 'middle man' you come into trouble.

I once filmed a guy who waited unitl pull-time to tighten his legstraps. He was an AFF-I, and one day, after the student had pulled (I'm on back filming the canopy opening) I look over to see him reach down, and grab a stap in each hand, cinch them donwn, then toss out his PC.

I don't know

In the case of 3 or 4 grommet bags, the locking stows are inline with each other (side to side). Due to this, the inner locking stows are required to have other stows and line passing right next to them. This opens the door for the stows to possibly loop around each other (like this incident). With a 2 grommet bag, none of the stows needs to have any other stows or line anywhere near it. If done properly, a 2 grommet bag, will have a clear and visible path the lines take as they are stowed along the top of the bag. To take that one step further, when I place my bag into the container, I grip it so that my fingers are holding the stows tight and in place as I place it into the pack tray. This keeps everything where I put it, as well as helps to prevent any entanglements with the excess line in the bottom of the container. Again, this has not proven to be a big problem for the most part, but it doesn't seem to be any harder to do it my way, so I do.

I think what people are missing is that you can enact changes in the examples that some have set forth. The problem that they are not seeing or recognizing is that these changes are both A) not sustainable and B) come along with opposite reaction once the change has run it's course.

Just get the kit alone. When it comes to lenses, longer zooms are very sensitve to price, as in a good, long lens will cost a fortune. Your friend might not need a lens as long as a 300, and could get get by with a 200, or maybe shorter. For the same money as an average 300, they could get an above average shorter lens.

I have wondered the same thing, and never come up with an answer. Before I knew any better, I bought a container with a two grommet bag, and it worked great. Then I started packing containers with three or four grommets, and realized how much more I liked the two grommets bags. In all fairness, there are a ton of three and four grommet bags out there, most likely more than two grommet bags, and they seem to work well. I just see them as an additional risk. However slight the risk may be, that would all be irrelevant to me looking up at a baglock (and the subsequent high-speed reserve deployment).

This is why the terms 'inner locking stow' and 'outer locking stow' shouldn't exist. A three or four grommet bag requires you to be very careful with the locking stows to keep them side-by-side. When the stack on top of each other, you run the risk of the problem you had. If you look at the design of the bag, the grommets all line up, and in turn, the locking stows will line up (which is not a good thing). This is the perfect case for the two grommet bag. Gotta love the two grommet bag.