davelepka

How about a few hundred dollars less for advetising their product? Nobody will be able to mistake your canopy for another model with that thingy on the bottom.

***Give me a call if you want to get stupid. ------------------------------------------------ You got that right. Edit: I just figured out you were talking to Homer. When it comes to stupid, you could learn alot from him.

***For a working suit I can't recomend anything better than Flite Suit ================================= Yep. 800 jumps one 1500 on another 250 on the newest one No problems with materials or construction, all three are still going strong, and I'll be ordering another one this year. They just work.

I agree that photos for Parachutist and Skydiving can't be for real money. Parachutist in particualr because we pay the operating costs anyway, so it's silly to take the money from them. Gear advertisers are another story. They should be paying a reasonable rate for photos (even trade for equipment is acceptable). The trouble is simple economics. The price for any product or service is whatever the market will bear. This market won't bear a fair price because too many jumpers will give pics for ads for little or nothing. This sets the standard that the rest of us have to live with. It's too easy for an average jumper to strap on a camera, shoot 10 rolls of film over the course of a weekend (on jumps they would have made anyway) and get lucky with one or two good shots they want to see in print. An experienced professional may be able to get that shot on one jump, and it may look 10% better than the 'lucky shot', but if one was free, and the other required compensation, the manufacturer will go with the free one. I think there is room for the experienced professional camera guys to make some cash. The manufacturers could afford to pay a fair price for quality work. The trick is going to be getting the weekend warrior to hold their photos for thier own personal use. It's funny though how the same jumpers will spoil the market for expereinced, full time guys, and the next minute be in the video room asking for advice, and to use the edit suite, and for some gaffers tape, and for film reccomendations, and what filter to use, and how to fly this slot, and how to get that exit. You get the idea.

***I don't think images from a botched hook turn will deter very many people. They think it won't happen to them. ================================= Sadly, I have to agree with you on this one. A better plan might be to stress the time, training and technique needed to perform a good swoop. People see and want to emulate the good swoops, so I think the idea is make to 'cool' to seek proper training and instruction. Jumpers in general need to start building more importance into canopy training in general. Too many see it as not important, and they'll just 'figure it out' with time. This may have been adequate ten years ago, with ten year old equipment, but things have changed. While it may not represent an immediate fix, a shift in the 'culture' of skydiving today, will lay the ground work for a safer tomorrow. Experienced jumpers and swoopers need to start stressing the absolute need for additonal canopy training for all new jumpers. Furthermore, pass on the information needed to make sound choices in canopy selection (every DZ has one guy who jumps at a reasonable W/L and gets great swoops from his canopy, reference that guy when newbies are saying 'smaller, smaller, smaller'). Take a newbie under your swooping wing. Keep him in check with the promise of great swooping when he is ready, stressing the basics untill that time. Report uncooperative jumpers to the S&TA. This season has shown they are a great danger to others, as well as themselves. Skydivers are a product of thier environment. If there was a DZ on the island of Strato-land, where the only canopies were big 7-cells, they're canopy control problems would be different that the rest of the world and probably less bloody. While not everyone can live on Strato-land (thank god) by instilling the right ideas into new jumpers today, they in turn will pass those values on to the next generation, and so on.

***It's currently selling dirt-cheap in Europe ================================== Anything 'dirt cheap' is that way for a reason.

***However, I am trying to promote the concept of advanced canopy training. I would suggest that introducing training in this area will ultimately reduce injuries rather than increase them. ==================================== I agree with what you are saying, but think there is an important addition that needs to be made. All canopy trainng needs to be promoted, not just for the swoopers. Current A license training involves very little in the way of canopy information/training. Without fundamental knowledge, from day one (or at least jump number 10) how can we expect jumpers to understand the finer points of canopy flight? As previously stated in this thread, many open canopy incidents invlove low time jumpers not attempting an HP landing, simply making simple and basic errors in thier canopy flight. Additionally the culture of skydiving needs to embrace the imporatnce of EVERY jumper seeking further canopy training early on thier jumping carreer. The current emphasis on freefall skills (Skydive U, tunnel time, coaching jumps, etc.) does nothing to reinfoce the skills needed to survive the most dangerous portion of the skydive, yet the focus of most newer jumpers is on these freefall skills. The experienced jumpers, mentors and instructors need to make canopy courses "cool' and desirable to these jumpers. This attitude will then follow these jumpers through their jumping, making safer pilots later on, and, again, paving the way for future newbies to aspire to be expert canopy pilots (which is not limited to swooping, as an expert is anyone who can put it down anywhere, anytime, in any conditions). A simple and immedtiate solution would be to build this training into the licensing system. You want a 'B' license? Complete an in depth canopy control course. Simple as that. Don't want to do the training? Fine, keep your 'A' and the limitations that go aloing with it. The USPA has a reluctance to do this, stating that it makes it too difficult get the license, (I know, I've asked). My opinion is that it's the USPA's license to give out, they can make all the rules they want. The fact is that canopies and the skills needed to safely fly them have changed drastically in the last ten years. Open canpoy injuries and fatality numbers support this, yet very little action has been taken to correct this. Thats fucked up.

Blah, blah, lift. Blah, blah, angle of this or that. What makes you such an expert? You act like you design parachutes or own a parachute company or something. Ok, just kidding, I did like the term "retreat' for describing the canopies relationship to the jumper with brake application.

Even compared to a high quality lens, the footage shot without a lens always looks better. I think it;s just a a matter of biting the bullet, and taking your lens off, and starting over from scratch. If you could learn how to fly with a lens, you can learn how to fly without one (it just sucks to go back almost to sqaure one after making so much progress). Big props to Greg for going the exrta mile for video quality. I myself seem to get lazier and lazier, looking for a wider and wider lens every year.......

Have you thought about the fact that you're going to strap something to yourself and jump out oif a plane? I can think of about 300 things that could go wrong, and with 47 jumps it might be a good idea to hold off on banner towing. If a flag would do the trick, a handheld flag would be somewhat safer, but a funneled exit will still have you in freefall wrapped up in fabric. OK, maybe thats not a good idea either. Maybe you could get a much more experienced jumper to dress up like you, and make sure the camera flyer is just far enough away that you can't really see who's face it is.

Amen, my brother.

"Braking" could be better stated as 're-trimming' when applied to swooping. You seem to have a good grasp of physics, and an understanding for how a canopy works. I personally don't understand what information you are looking for. While you may be able to apply it to the situation, how a canopy swoops is not rocket science. ***If speed equals lift, then braking the canopy should make it sink, not swoop, when you pull the toggles. ================================== The canopy does sink (eventually) when you pull the toggles. This is why you need to keep pulling them, and eventually put your feet down so you don't sink your ass into the dirt.

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be because I don't use a ring sight) but the commercially available swivel clamps are mounted with nylon bolts so in the event of a snag, they will shear off, and clear the problem. This might be something to consider with your design.

The diameter of the lens shouldn't be relevant in this situation. Take a wide-angle lens and look through it. Now move it away from your eye, and watch tht field of view get smaller. The only possibility I can come up with may be that if when the lens is mounted with just a single ring, the camera lens is not wide enough to 'see' from inside edge to inside edge, and moving the lens out lets you see the full width of the inside of the wide angle lens. The caveat to this is that once you can see the full inside of the lens (vignetting) you'll zoom the camera lens forward to cut out the corners from your image, thus nullifying (or greatly reducing) any advantage gained by the additional ring. If this is the case, it's important that people understand that the effect if the result of poor matching of components, and that it is contrary to the pricipals of optical physics as it relates to focal length. Furthermore, the increased exposure of your lens to risers and lines (as a result of sticking further out) and the increased leverage your lens will have when it tries to rip the front of your camera off, would probably make this a bad idea. If you want to see more, fly yourself 10 inches further away from your subject. If your flying isn't that finely tuned, the 'parlor trick' with the lens won't mean anything anyway, I think...

I need some more technical info before I'll buy. Using a ring will move the wide angle further from the camera lens, elongating the focal length. There's a reason that a 300mm zoom lens is huge, the lens elements are 300mm apart. By contrast, when you move the elements closer together, such as my 24mm, the feild opens up significantly. The 'step-up ring makes it wider' concept just doesn't seem right. There may be some other factors I'm not considering, but if you move lens elemnts apart, the field of view will be reduced, not increased.

How does increasing the focal length widen the field of view? That seems contradictory to the whole premis of focal length. Just wondering..

What a tangled web we weave.... I read the original post, and some of the responses, gave up due to the lenght, so if I'm repeating anything, sorry... First off, anyone who has survived even 100 tandems deserves your respect and the time it takes to listen to them. I've done 6 tandems, all with expereinced jumpers, and it sucks. I've filmed thousands, and have seen what passengers will do. You don't know what those guys are up against, and trust me, you don't want to. There's two ways to be a skygod. One is to spout off with info to everyone about everything (sort of like what you are complaining about). The other is the guy who won't listen to advice. Maybe it's because they think they know it all, or the giver of the advice doesn't know enough, but anyway you slice it, you have put yourself into that catagory. Wise up and understand that you will never know it all. It doesn't matter where advice is coming from, listen to it, consider it carefully, and act accordingly. By the time Olav showed up, there were jumpers with thousands of jumps, and decades in the sport, but the fact is that the newbie had some good ideas (which you have based all your jumps on thusfar). Furthermore, by the time a TM has 3000 jumps, he's not concerned with impressing anyone with his knowledge. If he takes the time to say something, it's because he has something to contribute, and you need to listen to that. Drop the attitude, open up your mind, and see what happens. If a TM has something to say, worst case scenario is that you spend two minutes to listen to the guy, and maybe you make a friend. If it's a newbie with an idea, you may learn something, or you may discover an incorrect line of thought that could lead to an incident, which you could correct. Either way, shut your mouth, open your ears, learn more than the next guy, and be a better person because of it.

Just do whatever you feel like doing. Make sure you are realistic about your abilities though. If you feel like RW, find a group and size that fits your skills. You may have 200 FF jumps, and be shit hot, but for RW you'll need to do some 2-ways or drill dives at first. Unless you have a goal ie., ratings, competition, coaching, or whatever, skydiving should just be whatever suits your mood. It's fun. Thats why we do it. I've got 3000 some jumps with 10 or 15 CRW jumps. In FF or RW I'll go on any jump of any size and feel confident. If I'm doing CRW, it's a 2 or 3 way; 4 way if the others are more experienced. If you recognize your limitations, whatever you feel like doing is the right thing.

***Ciao Jumpalot -------------------------------------------- I guessing that your screen name and actual skydiving experience are two different things.

Look at it this way; if your stall point is down by your nuts, the distance from your toggles to the canopy is, say, 10 feet. If you move the canopy 2 inches further away from your nuts (which longer risers will do) your stall point will now be 2 inches above your nuts. If your arms are long enough to reach your nuts (and I feel sorry for the guy who's arms aren't), you will be able to easily reach, and pass your stall point when shutting the canpoy down. To avoid this, you let the steering lines out an equal distance to the increase in riser length. Edit to add: Some of the pro swoopers are using 23 and 24 inch risers. I'm not sure how long you can go before reaching the point of diminished returns, but if you can still reach your slider, for now it seems longer is better (I've heard that somewhere before...Women's forum maybe?)

Your longer risers put you further away from your canopy, and increase the amount of time it takes for your body to swing through the arc under your canopy. This translates into the canopy spending more time out in front of you (increased time in the dive). This change will NOT give you additional lift or a longer control range as another poster had stated. Your control range is what it is. If you move the canopy further away from you, you will need to lenghten your steering lines by an equal amount. Not adjusting your steering lines will move your stall point up, and increase the likelyhood of a stall while you try to shut the canopy down. (This last paragraph was directed at the other poster, not ccowden). Long risers are cool.

Just to clarify, the demos I was referring to were based out of the DZ in Parkman (where I used to work). I'm not clear on the demo policies for Aerohio as they have an organized demo team which I am not a member of. Truthfully, things may have changed at Parkman as well, as I haven't done a demo out of there for a few years.

What makes you think your rig has any resemblence to an explosive device? People carry all sorts of things onto airplanes, and anything resembling an explosive device, or weapon of any kind will be inspected further. There is little difference between carrying on your rig or checking it as baggage. In fact you can be more sure that you carry-on is checked as it occurs in a public location with people watching it happen. Who knows what the baggage checker behind the scenes is doing? If my rig is allowed on the plane, I'll keep it under my control, and comply with any TSA requests for for further inspection while I am present and assisting in order to protect my property. If you are implying that rigs should not be permitted on airliners at all, and that they should be shipped to your destination as cargo, remember that airlines will sell unused payload space to cargo carriers all day long in order to maximize revenue from each flight.

In all fairness, i didn't read the spreadsheet, but in light of the previous discussion in which cancelling all the insurance discussed, every bit of cost cutting is helpful. In reality it's always helpful to any business to cut costs, but that another story. The demos I was referring to were done by staff members who all had 1000's of jumps, and were doing 20 to 30 jumps per week at the time. Currency and ability were never a question. When you offer to jump into the baseball field of a local elementary school on the last day of school, the school board loves the idea untill you bring up legal releases and such, at which point the kids lose out on a cool event. While the rating may not be a requirement, a group member DZ would be hard pressed to allow a jumper without a rating to do any demo at all, which is why a several hundred dollar rating fee would really affect the small 'backyard demos'. I really don't have an answer either. Keep up the good work and things will work themselves out. We can count on the USPA to make a sound and prudent desicion, right?

It's great to see some progress in this area, but raising the rating fees to those levels will put many PRO rated jumpers 'out of business'. Of all the demo jumps I have done, I was only paid for one of them. Before the PRO rating was implemented, we used to do all sorts of fun, charity style demos at locations all around our DZ. Schools, church picnics, and other gatherings were all on the list of yearly demos we would drop in on just for fun. This built great repor with the community, and since they were all close by the DZ, we could drop the jumpers on the way to altitude with a load of jumpers, so the cost was very low (and 100% absorbed by the DZ and jumpers). When the PRO rating came along, there were enough jumpers who anted up and got the rating to continue the jumps, but for several hundred dollars, those ratings will lapse, and those demos will no longer exist. One area the USPA needs to look at is that stupid magazine they put out. Why do did they send two copies to my house for all those years? My wife and I could have shared one copy, and if fact, she never read hers anyway, and now that we are divorced, I'd bet she still doesn't read her copy, and wouldn't care or notice if it didn't show up. Or how about the DZO at the DZ I work at? He gets one, so does his wife, and then they get extra copies because they buy advertising, and because they are group members. How many copies do they need? Why is the USPA not putting it online? Why not offer a discount for people who don't want the paper copy? If the dicsount is less than the cost of the magazine, the USPA would generate revenue for each memeber who takes that option. I know of several households with mulitple members who would exersice that option for at least one membership. What about those concerned with the environment, and wasting paper? They would surely read the internet copy to save the trees. It would be a simple manner of posting the magazine on a monthly basis (I'm sure it's already in digital form before it goes to the printer anyway). How hard would that be to implement? Take less money from the jumper, and remove them from the mailing list. I'd be broke and starving if I ran my business like the USPA is running theirs.