davelepka

Old style Bonehead Mindwarp. You need the one with the string you pull to tighten the liner. It will hold still with a PC type video on the side, and a light still camera (Rebel) on top. You don't need a chin cup, and you really don't even need the chin strap (I'd still use it, but it doesn't have to be tight). You'll have to buy it used, or talk BH into making you one. Good luck with either one.

I'd much rather be the 'guy with the NSX', then the 'guy who butchered his NSX to make a replicar F50'. I don't have a pic of an F50 in front of me, but the finished product doesn't look like a clone, just sort of F50-ish.

The first time I jumped a step through rig (just off student status) I didn't get it. I proceeded to un-thread the leg straps, don the rig, and re-thread them. The S&TA pulled me aside and said "It's a step through rig, and leaving the staps threaded lessens the possibiblty that you'll thread it the wrong way". I tried stepping through several times, and fell over several times. The next day I was back to un-threading until a guy gave me some tips and showed me how to do it without falling down. 4000+ jumps later, I've stepped through every time, and only fallen over a couple times. I'm far from flexible, coordinated, or athletic, but if you know how to do it, it's not that hard.

This is still unsupervised in the sense that they are not filling the role of instructor. When you were a student, an instructor was there to ensure a good spot, and give the pull signal at a higher alt if you were too far off field. The people you are jumping with are not responsible for you in that way(nor should they be). I was 99% sure of this. The point is that you have the basic survival skills in freefall, but not under canopy, and yet your advaced training is in your freefall skills. See how this seems a little off? I also notice that your post includes the phrase "accuracy with stand ups". Standing up a landing means nothing. Don't equate that with a good landing. Your priority is to land with a soft impact, free of obstacles. If that includes a stand up, then fine, but that should be your last concern on any landing. Again, your situation is not your fault. This is how they teach skydivers, and most jumpers out there come away from student status with freefall skills as their top concern, giving little thought to improving thier canopy skills. I do appluad your recognition of your situation, and your plans to change it.

This is one of the problems with how people view this type of training. The idea of adding jumps and the best way to do it, is missing the point. This type of training needs to be included with the current ISP. What is it, like 20 supervised jumps to get a A license? We can't make a decent canopy pilot in 20 jumps, given that wwe have a clean slate to start with? By making every jump a canopy control exersice, you give the student a solid foundation to build from. Subsequent training and the related jumps would be easier, as you're starting with a better student, with a better foundation of knowledge and experience. As for someone standing in the landing area, my impression is that an instructor is supposed to land in the student area, and wait for the student to land. Extend this to the coaches, and now you have an experienced jumper on hand, to watch and critique the landing.

If you're plugged into a monitor, and the cam is on battery power, using the remote lets you close the screen and save some juice too.

Do you use a Cameye or other LANC based indicator? Do you have to remove it to remove your camera or tape? Ths could help to explain the failure. Also, if you jump a D box, where the camera just 'floats' in the box, with the Cameye plug protrudung from a hole in the box, this could introduce side loading on the Cameye/LANC and contribute to the failure. I've got a PC 1 with thousands of jumps on it. Everything worked fine unitl my firewire port gave up this year. Up to that point, I used it for three years with only moderate use of the port (I used the AV port to offload video). Then I started to use it almost everyday (the editing went to digital) and 2 1/2 years later, no more fire wire. I really think that the amount of plugging and unplugging we do it excessive in comparison to the average consumer. I seem to remember a camera guy who built RCA plugs into the side of his helmet. This way his Hi 8 was always plugged in, and the leads went down to the back of the helmet where he had a set of female plugs. He would use these for his daily work, and when they went out, he could just chnage the plug end. I think he was trying to avoid the problem I was talking about.

Yeah, I know. To answer your concern about traffic, wouldn't it make more sense to limit the speed at which newer pilots are flying around? When was the last time a tandem suddenly came from out of nowhere, and cut you off? It doesn't happen because they're too slow. Keep the newbies going slow, and they'll have time to learn where and when to go. As thier experience builds, so can their potential to go fast. If they learn the right way, they'll end up doing just the opposite. I creep around the pattern and fly my set up in deep brakes. It's just better that way, for all involved. Take a kid with 300 jumps, who hasn't figured that out yet, give him a fast canopy, and bingo, your worst nightmare. I'm telling you, this Wl chart thing is the way to go, for EVERYONE. Learnig to fly a canopy is an evolution of your skills and mindset. Advance the canopies along with the evolution (remember, evolution is a slow process) and things will work themselves out. When the jump #'s say a guy is ready, his skills and mindset will also be ready. Let him skip parts of the evolution, and he becomes a rare bird, who nobody will mate with, on his way to extinction.

It's a sweet 1998 Un-supported Opinion-o-Matic.

It's a military thing, that may have made it's way to some early sport rigs. I've only delt with them on pilot bailout rigs, and some T-10 rounds on a cloudy day. They may still be used on new pilot rigs, I'm not sure. That was sort of my point, that the poster is a little out of touch with the euqipment side of things, and that his opinion is effected as such.

Let me start by saying that your situation is through no fault of your own, but rather an indicator of how the system has short changed you in terms of your training. However, you continue to climb into the airplane unsupervised. You are just as likely to get a bad spot as any other jumper on the load, all the while knowing that your accuracy skills are lacking. Why do you think this is OK? My guess is that it has never been impressed upon you that your plans when you leave the aircraft have a large hole in them. Instructional programs do not stress the inportance of accuracy, and therefore students don't realize the importance. How did you graduate from AFF is you are unable to get stable and deploy your parachute at the correct altitude? If you can do those things, your basic freefall education is complete, however, you are choosing to persue greater levels of proficiency, while openly admitting that your accuracy skills are lacking. Center-point turns and the mantis position will not help you when you are off field, and looking at a 10 meter circle as your best landing option. Your survival depends on you being a proficient canopy pilot, capable of handling any situation you may find yourself in. While I appluad your intentions to take a canopy control course, those intentions will not help you while you continue to jump in the meantime. Additional canopy training is something that students need in concert with thier current training. Waiting until you get a B license will not help you in your early days of jumping. This is exactly why we need a program in place. Firstly, students do not realize the importance of canopy control. Second, the fact that they are protesting the requirements shows their lack of confidence in thier skills. Lets not dumb down the requirements so more people can pass, lets improve the training, so more people can pass, and be better pilots. We should take a lesson form the AFF cert course. It was hard, and people failed, and complained. So they dumbed it down, and now anyone can pass. Since this, I have seen a distinct drop in the level of performance from new AFFCC grads. It's a shame that a student has to have a JM who can't fly their slot, lets at least give them some canopy skills to make it up to them.

Thanks, I knew the info was out there somewhere, but I'm much better with a canopy than I am with a computer. An additional point is that I'm not looking to reduce only fatalities, but incidents in general. The fatalities are outrageous, but I'm sure there were far more non-fatal incidents that resulted in either permanant injuries or the jumper never jumping again. Any of the above, in my opinion, is unacceptable. Let's get to the point where the majority of incidents are unforseen freak occurences, which would have been impossible to prevent. Now that would be something.

Thats an interesting side track, and has been discussed at length elsewhere. I do not have the info in front of me, but I would guess that a good portion of the open canopy incidents were single jumper events. Of the ones that were related to canopy collision, you would have to investigate further to determine the exit order and the groups from which the involved jumpers came from. Does anyone have the fatality summary handy? How many open canopy incidents were single jumper, and how many involved collisions? Anyone? Anyone?

You may have a mis-understanding here. Leg straps without quick ejectors (or B-12's, there is a difference) are still adjustable. I would also question your frame of refrence in forming this opinion. What is your experience with gear manufactured in the last ten years? How many custom fitted rigs have you jumped in that time period?

But that line does end on a single spot. I think the point that Chris is trying to make is that one of many reasons to follow a slow and methodical canopy progression is that is increases your exposure to a wider variety of situations (weather, off-field, traffic, different DZ's) as you move through the progression. By the time you're jumping something small and fast, which may be difficult to set down in a small yard or clearing, you have a wide range of experiencees under your belt. In bypassing the progression, your students will find themselves ill prepared for basic, survival canopy piloting, which becomes increasingly more difficult as the canopy size goes down.

So what you're saying is that, back when these canopies were new, AND OPEN CANOPY INCIDENTS WERE INFREQUENT, the manufacturers had experience reccomendations in place, and people had some respect for them. Years later, WHEN OPEN CANOPY INCIDENTS ARE A HUGE PROBLEM, jumpers seem to disregard the manufacturers reccomendations. Do you see a connection?

Like I said, even if what you say is 100% factual, the phenomenon only helps to give the jumper more effective square footge on landing (if they should be on a x-brace). It's a win/win situation.

If he is using an adapter ring of any kind, that will move the W/A lens further from the camera, increasing the mag factor some. Also, if he is zooming in a touch to cut out the corners, there's another point or two of increased mag factor. The 24mm will be closer to what he has, as well as lighter than a zoom. Some zoom lenses don't hold up well to the stress of skydiving. I've only seen cheapie zooms used, so maybe a higher quality one would hold up better.

Oh but how great would it be to fly a 107 back from a long spot, and then swoop an 89. That would be something.

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by my canopy 'shrinks' when I swoop, but whatever it does, it works for me so I'll hang on to it. Your point about taking 'shrinkage', and how you assert that an X-Brace will shrink less than a conventional canopy is irrelevant to this discussion. Even if what you say is true, the chart ends at 1000 jumps, after which, you are free to do as you please. There are vey few instances where a pilot is ready for an x-brace canopy before 1000 jumps. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that while swooping, my 100 sq ft Stiletto, I'm only using 75 sq ft. If I had a 100 sq ft Velo, I'd be using 88 sq ft in a swoop. This is a problem how? If a pilot should start jumping an x-brace before he has 1000 jumps, the chart will give them more usable sq footage than a non braced canopy, as per your assertion. Again, whats the problem with that? You think a sub 1000 jump jumper doesn;t need every bit of help they can get when jumping an x-braced canopy? As far as your students go, their stories don't make me rethink my position, they make me think your instruction is lacking something, such as proper risk management. These guys knew they were pushing it (as did everyone around them). Why would you trust a guy who is knowingly taking these types of chances, to not take other chances while under canopy? He has proven his decision making doen not err on the side of caution, quite the opposite. This would seem all the more reason to watch him, and what he's jumping, more carefully. Take a Biff who jumps a conservative WL, and has taken a canopy control course, and has proven to make sound, cautions choices under his 170, which is at the high limit of the chart for his experience. Biff wants to buy a 150 when he has the jumps, and one is for sale at the DZ for a good price. The owner has a buyer out of state, but would rather deal with a local jumper, but wants to sell it right away. If Biff wanted to put a jump or two on the canopy, to see if he liked, and then he could buy it, and return to his 170 unitl his jump numbers came up, this is where you could make an exception. Provided it was only for a jump or two, and the weather was favorable, this would be a 'good' risk to take. Allowing a young hotshot who doesn't listen to anyone, and has proven this with his equipment choices, to jump canopies way too small and too aggressive for him is not a 'good' risk. It's stupid.

Tell me who they are before we (they) find out the hard way they're really not ready to fly smaller canopies, and I'll drop the whole thing.

Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted, doesn't mean you didn't get the correct response. I tell my six year old, 'Anytime you ask a question, you may get a 'yes' and you may get a 'no'. Don't ask if you're not ready to hear either one'. For an adult I would add an 'other' to the yes or no options, but hold fast on being ready to hear any of them.

Both jumpers only have 500 jumps in the end. If you factor in the concept of AFF, plus downsizing, your net experience on any one wing will be limited to maybe 200 or 300 jumps. You need to understand that this a drop in the bucket. As an example, I know a PST competitor who did 60 some hop n pops in a couple days prepping for a competition. This was in addition to the 20 some jumps he does every week at the DZ. He's planning on spending a month in Perris before the first meet this year, and plans on doing 250 or 300 training jumps in that time. This is a guy who can form his own opinions, contrary to popular beleif, and expect to be taken seriously (interestingly enough, his opinions are inline with the majority). I'm not discounting your enthusiasm or accomplishments thus far, but keep in mind the perspective that your limited experience and exposure gives you. You don't need to be as dedicated as the PST guy, but you need to realize that if you aren't you need to slow down, and cool your jets. I had 1500 jumps, and 3 or 4 years jumping before I could even form an opinion that made any sense. Another 3 or 4 years and 1500 jumps later, I saw that I was little off back then, and had alot to learn. Another couple years later, I've got a new perspective, different than the first two. What's interesting is that even though I have become a much better pilot, going faster and further, and at higher WL than ever, my views have become more and more conservative as time goes by. Why do you think that is?

Thats the DZ management being stupid. If you're qualified for the old D-license, which was the previous criteria for the landing area, you should have access to it now. The difficulty of landing in that area didn't change, the USPA did.

My six year old has an opinion about everything. Many of them are based on faulty logic, and have no merit of any kind. Edit- I had another, relevent, thought. Wouldn't the need for such a chart indicate a lack of knowledge? Wouldn't said knowledge be crucial for forming an opinion? Rhetorical questions, all of them....