davelepka

The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'. A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops. So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared.

True, but not going to help. Up until this point, tail strikes were 'one' problem in wingsuiting, but not viewed as a pivotal issue. People going in with wingsuits was much more of a concern, of course based on the loss of life. Not all tailstrikes end in a fatality (most don't), but every time someone goes in, they're dead. Anyway, with that in mind, waaaay more people die under open canopies than wingsuits and tailstrikes combined, and to that end, many, many other countries have limitations to wing loading and canopy type, as well as required canopy control courses as jumpers progress, and these programs have been in place for years. Despite that, the USPA continues to take little to no action in terms of canopy control training or selection. Even though the programs have been proven in other countries, they don't seem to catch on over on this side of the pond. So while you're on the right track with your info, I don't see it doing much good. It should, but I don't think it will.

FYI, employment opportunities will be limited once you get though that school. Most of them are in NZ, and even then I'm not sure what your citizenship (US?) will have to do with your ability to work there. If you brought that 'diploma' to the US, it wouldn't do you much good. What you need to do is start jumping, get gear, get a license, and get some experience together. The majority of working skydivers get their start at a 'home' DZ. Once you been there for a year or two as a fun jumper, you can see about getting on the staff as a part-timer. You can get a coach rating or start shooting video, or if you have enough jumps, you could look into a tandem rating. In any case, it will be the management at your 'home' DZ, where they know you, that will give you your first shot at making money in the air. Put in a season or two there, and now you have 'work experience' and a much better chance of finding work elsewhere. Despite what the school in NZ would have you believe it takes time and jumps to be ready to work in this sport. Look at it this way, if this was something you could learn in a couple months at a 'shcool', wouldn't there be at least one in the US? Or at least one other school anywhere else in the world? Spend your money on getting a license, gear, and then jumps. Spend time in the sport, and the opportunites will come your way.

This is my point exactly. All the arguments against more formalized training, or getting the USPA involved have become moot. The only obejective now is the preservation of the insurance policies without a 'no wingsuit' provision. However, one thing to consider is that without a USPA program in place we ended up where we are now, with a tail-strike every 29 days. So all the talk about why a more formalized program isn't needed, why we can just count on the 'good old boys' to teach the new guys what they need to do has come to an abrupt end. One benefit to a USPA program with an instructional rating to go along with it, is that it puts the DZOs in the position of having to do things that way. It would no longer be acceptable for 'some guy' to teach wingsuiting however they feel is correct, it would make sure that all training is up to speed, so to speak. The other side of the coin is that the more correct information there is out there, the more properly trained wingsuiters there, and once you introduce a group of instructors who have a rating to protect, the whole community gets a bump up in the area of awareness and proactive safety practices.

Another interesting point about the crowd who are against a wingsuit instructor rating, or some sort of standardized course is that every one of them learned without a course and went on to continue wingsuiting with some degree of success. While this might seem to support the anti-instructor argument, it does not. Those folks have proven over time that they are 'cut out' for wingsuiting. They began, learned, and found they they 'fit' with that activity, and thus stuck with it. Now if everyone had the neccesary physical/mental traits to succeed as such, then maybe formal, established instructors and training courses are not needed. Of course, we know that not everyone fits that mold. This doesn't mean that those people don't jump, or want to try wingsuiting, and this is the reason that we need a formal training system in place at every DZ. Not some DZs, not just the ones where a couple of good WSs happen to jump, but a standardized training program that is either 'that way or the highway', meaning if a DZ cannot support the program (like with a rated instructor), then no first flight course will take place at that DZ. Compare it to primary training. We all know there are some 'naturals' who could have been released on their first AFF jump, and probably didn't need instructors in the first place. I know a guy who I am sure you could toss out of a plane with about 30 min of ground school and he would do fine. However, we still have a structured training program with rated instructors in place because most people don't fit that mold. Most people do need the assistance of the instructors, and the formal classroom training. So it comes to pass that the real risk here is not from the wingsuit jumps, but from what botched exits will do to the insurance policies. News flash, aircraft owners will not pay one extra cent to keep wingsuiters on the plane, and the insurance companies will not tolerate any further tail strikes, regardless of the cause, circumstance or jumper. All of the arguing back and forth about training, techniques, and what 'should' work is now over. The insurance company has put their foot down, and short of the FAA, that's the biggest foot around. Everyone knows the number one cost of a DZ is the plane, and if the insurance company says 'jump' (no pun intended), the DZO will jump, and wingsuiters will not.

Still no.

Here's a good comparison - let's say you're shiopping for a used car. You need one that gets good milage and is reliable to get you to work and your kids to school. You come across a guy who has a really nice, low milage 1977 Ford Pinto. The paint is nice, and the price is low. Do you buy the Pinto, or 2002 Honda for twice the price with twice the milage? You buy the Honda because the Pinto, low miles and all, is not going to fullfill your needs. It's going to be slow, scary on the highway at 70mph+, might not be reliable, and you might have trouble finding someone to work on it. It does look like a very nice rig for what it is. Skydivign equipment, however, does not age very well past 8 or 10 years. The equipment itself is fine, but the industry moves forward and new designs/materials become available and drive the value of the old stuff down. One you get to 15/20 years, you're really getting out of date, and some countries even have rules mandating that containers/reserves be grounded at 20 years old, regardless of conditions. Just stick with newer stuff, less than 8 ot 10 years old. Even if you piece together a bottom dollar starter rig, you should be able to sell it for most of what you pay after you jump it for a year. During that time, save your pennies and then combine your savings with what you get selling your first rig, and you can step up to something newer/nicer. Even a bottom dollar 8 year od rig will out perform the Vector/Swift/Pursuit in this thread. It's just not worth it at any price (including free).

There's a lot of that in this thread. The insurance company only sees one thing, and that's the growing list of claims for airframe damage due to wingsuits. They don't care who did the damage, how many jumps they have, what suit they jump, or how they were trained. All they know is that their insured aircraft was damaged, and they had to pay the claim. The insurance company also doesn't care how this problem is solved, just that there is an immediate and complete end to this type of claim. The wingsuit community has backed itself into a corner by allowing this string of tightly grouped incidents to take place. It's not one or two, or even five, it's better than one per month and it used up all of our 'get out of jail free' cards. In my mind, the insurance company is right up there with the FAA. They hold the 'keys to the kingdom' and could easily shut wingsuiting down in the US. You might be able to find an uninsured 182, or one covered by another carrier, but one thing is for sure, there won't be any more disputes about who is, or is not, inside the grid.

I don't think it's stolen. It's old enough and out-dated enough that it's not hard to imagine it ending up in the hands of a whuffo. It could have been left in an apartment/house when a renter moved out, bought at a garage sale or flea market, or bought out of an abandoned storage container auction. It has very little value at this point, and nobody (in their right mind) is going to spend $250 on that rig.

Provided the plane is flying into wind, higher wind speed equals lower ground speed. It takes longer for the plane to fly 1000ft across the ground from one exit point to the next, so you need more time between groups. Vice versa for lower winds, the plane will get from exit point to exit point faster, so less time between groups. Freefall drift ends up being a wash because all groups are effected the same. There are differences based on freefly vs RW, but that's why RW groups exit first. They drift further based on the additional freefall time allowed by their slower (than freefly) fall rates. Aside from exit order, freefall drift is not a factor in exit separation.

Looking down at the ground from 10k to 14k AGL while sticking your head out of a moving aricraft is not going to produce reliable results from different jumpers. Clouds, haze, and jumper perception will all conspire to produce different results for each jumper. Also, that's a 'reactive' plan, in that you have to be in the plane on jumprun (with your head out of the door) to make the determination. Using the uopper winds and aircraft speed is a 'proactive' plan in that you can gather that info before you board the plane, and thus have a plan in place before take off. In this case, sticking your head out of the door and making a SWAG might have been OK, being that he was the sole jumper left in the plane. In most other cases, there are more people/groups involved, so having the plan in place before baording becomes more important to overall safety. Again, when math and science are available, that's te preferred choice to 'common sense', which have seen by example has proven to not be so 'common'. For example, who would believe that a jumper would argue the break-off protocols of a bigger-way skydive, only to later reveal that it was all moot to them because they only do hop n pops anyway? That's uncommon for sure.

You are wrong. It was Chris Martin, who worked for the manufacturer. The crazy part about the incident is that it was the opening that killed him (more or less). It opened in a spin, and it was so fast that he was unable to react to the mal before he passed out from the G-load. Yes, it was the eventual impact with the ground that killed him, but it was the mal the rendered him unable to cutaway or help himself in any way. For the record, nobody landed the 21. A couple people jumped it, but they all cut it away somewhere north of 2k and opened a much bigger canopy (at least 3 times the size) for landing.

There's only one way to find out, open the main and see what happens. If you know your two-out procedures, all you can do is open the main and see how it goes.

In terms of jump numbers and overall WL, it doesn't sound like you would be 'pushing' anything to try a 170, HOWWEVER, the more important part of the euqation is the jumper. You seem confident in your performance with the 190, but what do others have to say? How about the instructors at your DZ, how would they classify your canopy piloting abilities? If you don't know the answer, ask one of them if they could watch your landings for a day. If they'll be on the ground when you land, remind them before the load takes off, and see what they have to say about your skills. That will be the real determining factor. This is common with some female jumpers. One 'trick' you can use is to keep the toggles close to and in front of your body as you flare. Pull them straight down in front of your nipple-area, and then as you get down toward your belly button, you can rotate your hands down and your elbows up, and now you're able to push straight down on the toggles to finish the flare.

I would venture to say that it would depend on the pilot, and even then, the vast majority of planes will have some sort of GPS available. A basic GPS can be had for very little money, and while they might not help you fly an approach in actual IFR, they certainly can give you distance to a point, direction of flight, and ground speed. I'm pretty sure there are jumpers currently equipped with similar (or better) technology for the purposes of tracking wingsuit flights. I'll stand by my method of teaching the guy to fish.

Ask the pilot. Ditto for how fast the plane will be flying. The truth is that these are just 'reference' numbers. If the uppers are anything from 10 to 20 knots, you can use a shorter time between groups. 20 to 30 knots, you need to start adding time, even more so for 30 to 40, and so on. The speed of the aircraft can also be approximated, with a 182 doing 'about 70 or 75 knots', and a Caravan or Otter doing 'about 85 or 90 knots'. None of these calculations have to be that exact, as the task doesn't require that type of precision. The idea is to get him to understand the concept, and then apply it to the current situation. Using 'half a runway length' only applies to a DZ with a runway twice as long as your desired seperation, and if the winds are blowing at all that day, you might be a mile + away from your 'reference point' (the runway). Again, it's just simple math and science, with basic estimates being good enough. Since there is a way to 'calulate' the exit seperation, and it applies to every load he'll ever be on, we might as well tell him the right way to proceed. It's the old, 'Teach a man to fish....' routine.

No, what you should do is inform yourself of the upper level winds and the speed of the aircraft on jumprun. Provided the plane is flying into the wind on jumprun, subtract the wind speed of the uppers from the airspeed of the aircraft, and you'll end up with the ground speed of the plane. Use this number to determine the exit seperation between groups. If you're planning on a dive where you anticipate sliding around the sky, factor that into your determination of exit timing. There's no guesswork invovled, just math and science.

The lesson here is one that's really hard to teach to the new guys because they never want to believe that it's true. The lesson is that just because you get away with something once, or in this case for 5 months, doesn't mean that you made the right choice in the first place. In too many cases, guys will look at one or two successful (non-injury) jumps, and call that 'proof' that they made a good choice, and that's just not true. All that shows is that you 'got away with it' for those few jumps, not that it was indeed a good choice. So back in April this guy had 280 jumps and wasn't ready for a Velo, and now, when had another 5 months worth of jumps (which equals what in KS, 150 at most?) he still wasn't ready with 450 jumps. Even if his first jump on a Velo was when he had 450 jumps, that's just too much canopy for that number of jumps, and there are many, many better choices for jumpers with that level of experience.

Shop around for the parts seperately. Finding a rig that has all of the things you need/want in one package is a long shot. Keep in mind that a rig is made up of 3 or 4 components that are bought seperately in the first place, the container, main, reserve and AAD. Factor in some choices involved in picking each one of those, and can see the odds of a complete used rig having everything you want/need is slim. The container is usually the hard part, and as mentioned you can get a re-size on the harness for anywhere from $300 to $500. If you find one that will fit the canopies you want, and has the options you want, but with the wrong size harness, get the serial number from the seller and call the manufacturer for a quote on a re-size. You'll also need to be measured per that manufactuers order form, and have those measurements handy at the time of the call. If you can find a good deal on a container with an odd sized harness, you might be able to buy it and have it resized, and still pay a reasonable price in the end. You might also see if the seller will knock off $100 or $200 to offset some of the price of re-size. Canopies are all the same, a 210 Spectre is a 210 Spectre and the price is simply a matter of the age/condition of the canopy and lines. Ditto for the reserve, and a couple jumps is not a big deal. AADs are likewise, just find a used (or new) one, and make sure your rigger says it's a good price before buying.

They can't be far from Spaceland if they're going to Galveston. Send them to Spaceland, it's a good place to jump.

Look pal, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Nobody here is a federal judge who can order the return of the parts you claim ownership to, so you need to take all of your evidence elsewhere. So what if you have proof of purchase? All that shows is that you owned the parts at one time. The current owner may also be able to provide proof of ownership, and a chain of custody through other legitimate owners since your ownership. Unless the current owner is willing to do that, all we get is one side of the story, and that doesn't do anyone any good. You made your point, and made your allegations. Tim responded with his position, and now we know what both sides claim. If jumpers believe you, they'll not jump from Tims planes or fly in his tunnel. If they believe him, they will jump from his planes and fly in his tunnel, but that's as far as is it's going to go in this forum. You claimed to have involved the proper authorities, so just leave it at that, any further posting in this thread is a waste of time until you can attach a judicial order to your next post with the results of the criminal or civil trial.

Seriously? You never heard of youtube or google?

Check the classifieds for similar items. Pick a price that's close to what you find, and that you would be happy with. If the AAD is a Cypres, go to the Airtec website and they have a value calculator that will tell you what it's currently worth. It would have really helped if you included some info about what type of rig it is, the DOM for all components, # of jumps on all components, and some pics.

You're shitting me, right? Two fucking GoPros on a low time jumper doing a solo, and then you post it in youtube with an N number and DZ location in the title. Fuck your plam position, you have the wrong idea in general. Slow your roll, or it won't last very long.

That's a negative ghostrider. Try to avoid messing with the 'chain of command', that being the anything from the risers on up. Also, your light stands a good chance of being ejected on opening anyway. The forces and speeds that a risers travels during opening are quite high, and engineering a mount that will withstand those forces would be tough. Best case scenario, the light falls harmlessly away. Worst case scenarios - the light comes off and hits you in the face, or it tangles with your toggle/brake line while in the riser trough and gives you a mal. A small flashlight will only cast a small beam of light. If you really want to check the whole canopy, you would need to pan the light from side to side and front to back, much easier to do if it's taped to your arm. In the end, as others have mentioned, you can just look up and see your canopy. I have manu night jumps and none with a flashlight. In terms of visibility to other jumpers, the strobe/glowsticks are enough.