davelepka

Ok, I'll give you that one, but at the same time crashing properly, as per the student training, should be just as high of a priority. In the case of the OP, gloves may have prevented the abbrasions he experienced on his landings, but gloves will not prevent a broken hand, wrist or fingers that can result from trying to 'catch' yourself on a bad landing.

You don't need gloves, you need to follow your training. No part of the PLF involves your hands hitting the ground, quite the opposite, it's designed to protect your hands/arms. Points of contact should follow- feet, knees, hip, and shoulder, with your hands down and arms held tight to your body. Do this and the only thing you'll 'skuff up' will be the jumpsuit the DZ provides you.

With friends like those, who needs enemies.....

What's a GoPro cost these days? $200 each? $250? What I do know is that I paid $200 for a used CX100 off ebay, and maybe $500 for a new Rebel kit a few years back. I don't know what they go for new these days, but again you could pick up a used Rebel with a lens for about $300 off Craigslist or ebay. The end result for either set up is about $500 worth or cameras. A reasonably busy camera flyer can make that in two weekends at the DZ. Money-wise, it's a wash in terms of dollars, and a blip on the radar in terms of potential income from the cameras. Now let's look at functionality. GoPros have shit audio, fixed super-wide lenses, zero adjustability, and no control over when stills are taken. Just from my personal experience, I needed all of those features last weekend shooting tandem videos. When the sun was in the windshield and I was shooting forward in the cabin, it took two seconds to bring up the manual exposure on my CX, and get a good shot despite the backlight. Likewise, I was able to use the zoom to get a tight shot in the plane, and then to get tight shots of the canopy in flight before landing. If the TI comes up short or has to divert for traffic, I can still zoom in and get a tight shot of the landing. As far as the stills goes, just letting the camera run is a cop-out. Learn to compose a take pictures. Beyond that, how about exposure compensation or ISO adjustment for overcast days? How about using zoom and flash in the plane to get some nice pics there? I remember the days of film cameras when you had a limited number of exposures. We would have loved to take pics in the plane of the passengers and their friends, but it wasn't going to happen. Now we have virtually unlimited exposures, but people are using cameras with no zoom or flash, so what do you come up with? Shit pictures, that's what. This thread took a turn when it was revealed this was for outside video. It actually took two turns. The first turn was in favor of the DZ. $120 for a package if you have to pay for a camera flyer and a slot isn't really that far out of the 'norm'. The other turn was for the worse. The laziness and apathy of an outside camera flyer who can't be troubled to do any better than a pair of Gopros is hard to understand. For a handcam deal, two Gopros is a pretty good set-up, and the best you can expect from a TI, but for outside video, with tapeless video and digital stills, it's downright lazy and pathetic.

Insist on using Chutingstar's escrow service. They're a reputable gear dealer, and any seller who won't ship to them without payment is hiding something, or just a scammer. They'll accept the shipment, and inspect the reserve (the only cost is for the inspection), and if it passes, they'll accept the payment and forward it to the seller. Beyond that. why would you buy a reserve from Poland? Between the added shipping cost and added risk, just keep looking until you find one in the US, but even then, still use the escrow service.

That's why I was sure to state that 'as far as tandems and video/stills goes', a DZ is a business. While it is nice to share the experience of skydiving with others, and it can be used as an entry-way to traditional training and 'making' new jumpers, it's no secret that tandems are a money maker for the DZ. Now if this type of practice was in place with regards to fun jumpers, like if a DZ was gouging them with crazy jump prices or business policies just because they could, in that case I would have more of a problem with it based on the 'moral' grounds of skydiving (among experienced jumpers) being more than just a business. Of course, I'm not sure that situation could exist based on the education of the consumer. In that case, the experienced jumpers would know they're getting fleeced because they would know about 'normal' jump prices or DZ business practices. One of the reasons a DZ could charge $120 for a dual GoPro handycam is becasue (as you mentioned) the customer has no idea what the 'standard' is, and they come to accpet whatever the DZ offers as being the standard. Case in point, all those people who pay a 'big plane' fee, or 'extra altitude' fee just to get to 13k at Skyride DZs, as far as they're concerned, it was money well spent to enchance their experience, all the while not knowing that the DZ down the street takes every tandem to 13k in an Otter all day long.

What sort of stills can you pull off a Go Pro? Anything you can use for an 8x10? Ok, on the one hand, the price doesn't really reflect the investment/effort. Given that a traditional outside video package generally runs about $100, and involves an additional slot, two cameras more expensive than a GoPro and a helmet, charging $120 for a product that requires none of that is clearly a money-grab on the part of the DZ. On the other hand, if the customers are willing to pay, it's a free country and DZs can charge whatever they want for their products/services. Seeing as the majority of tandem passengers are one-time customers, the idea of maximizing the return on each customer is valid. Think about most succesful retail businesses you patronize, they make no bones about tyring to upsell you during your transaction. Fast food wants you to upsize, and cell phone stores are always trying to bundle a case/charger/etc, and it's all in an effort to pad the bill. To summarize - it's a bold move and quite a return on the investment/effort, but at the same time a DZ, in terms of things like tandems and video/stills, is a business, and if they can get that type of return per customer, that's good business.

For who? By distracting a tandem student from their own business? By asking them to jack around in their harness near the door while their TI is trying to conduct a safe skydive? Worry about your gear, your handles, your pins, your mindframe, your skydive, and your spot when you're in the door preparing to jump.

Don't. Asdie from the extra bulk, the last thing you need on your rears, the place that your toggles, brake settigns, and extra steering line live, are more loops. There's enough going on back there to begin with, and when the time comes that you need to clear your brakes in a stressful situation, it's just more shit to go wrong if you have another set of loops back there. The huge difference in the front and rear risers is in what happens when you pull them. When you pull the fronts down, the canopy speeds up, and the increased airpseed leads to increased pressure on the front risers. Based on this, the lopps are needed to allow you hold onto the fronts for more than a second or two. The rears, on the other hand, have the opposite effect. They slow the canopy (airspeed) and reduce the amount of force needed to hold them down. The end result is that you don't need an 'aid' to handle the rears. Another aspect of the rears is that they will cause the canopy to stall without too much input. So again, there's a limit to how much input you can apply to the rears, and as such, no need for help in that area. The jumpers who have chimed in that they use rear riser loops are the CRW dogs, that's a different story. When each canopy ride is 15 min long, and can sometimes involve continuous control input, the assistance of the loops can be a benefit. Outside of a dedicated CRW rig, however, there is just no need for the extra stuff on your rear risers.

I know some things about safe exits. For starters, make sure that all of your parts are going to be well clear of all the airplane parts. Hitting your head on a door frame or step is no way to start a skydive. Breaking your hand on exit is going to make for a shitty pull time. Beyond that, watch your handles and pins. You need those things to complete a safe juimp, and any exit that allows them to be moved, bumped, or contacted in any way with any part of the plane or another jumper is a bad idea. Can exits be fun? Sure. Do you still need to keep your head in the game and watch out for yourself? Sure again.

I would suggest that safety trumps comfort. I'm not saying that street clothes cannot be jumped safely, I'm just putting the idea out there that street clothes are not made for jumping, and there are some special considerations when it comes to taking clothes not made for freefall into the freefall environment.

Some relevant thoughts - as mentioned, your shirt can blow up and cover your handles. Long shirt tails can also wrap around a hackey. Shorts/pants pockets have turned themselves inside out and interfered with hackeys in the past. These are serious safety concerns. Another thought- a jumpsuit will provide some protection in the event of a rough landing. A single head-to-toe suit cannot ride up or slip down and expose skin to whatever it is your landing in/on. Another thought - at your early stage of learning to fly your body, jumping a suit that you will be using for when jumping with others will let you get more out of each jump. The type of suit you wear will impact the drag on each part of your body, and in turn what it takes to hold that body part in place (or move) as needed. The more jumps you put on a suit, the more you will become familair with how to fly that suit, and the better you will do with others. Jumpsuits serve several purposes, and unless you have a good reason, you're better off in one than out.

Yeah, I feel like I'm reposnding to one right now. Use your brain and think about the questions you're asking. Show me the world where every canopy is loaded at 1 to 1, and there is zero windspeed, and then I'll give you some absolute answers. That world doesn't exist, so consider the factors at play, and come with with your own answers. It's not hard to balance out the various factors and come up with a 'good' answer. Case in point, what winds are too high to jump in? That's a personal question, for the most part, but ultimately what is the limiting factor? It's the ability of the canopy to penetrate the wind and achieve some forward speed. Eventually you reach wind speeds high enough that your canopy will come straight down, or even be backed up. So we know that's the 'limit' and I'm sure you have an idea of what is considered 'higher' winds at the DZ, so add it all up and what do you come up with? The answer is the forward speed (or approx) of a canopy. So if the student wind limit is 15/16, and most fun jumpers seem to stand down around 20-ish, you could then add in a couple mph for 'safety', and come up with a forward speed of (big surprise) the answer that was spoon fed to you, about 25mph. If you want to be an engineer, fine, be one all the time. Don't be a know-it-all half the time, and a dumbass when you don't feel like thinking.

Really? You don't think this statement makes it sounds like a good choice? It sure does to me, and to a guy with a handful of jumps, 81 seems like a lot and enough for you to know if a helmet will work or not. Be careful with what you say and how you say it. You would be surprised how many people will show up at the DZ with odd equipment or ideas about jumping that they 'researched' on their own, and are now ready to take them 'live' on a real jummp.

One of my favorite all time lines in an interview was when Sully ended up on (I think) the Today show, and the lady (Katie Couric?) ask him, 'Did you pray before you hit the water?', and Sully look right at her and says, 'I really didn't have time to pray, I was too busy flying the airplane'. To me, it sums up the essence of airmanship. Prayers and good feelings won't get you back on the ground in one peice. Hard work, dedication, good training and professionalism will get the job done.

So far you two reports, one suggests that a half-shell is not good for jumping, and the other says he's had no problems jumping the exact lid you're looking at. Now check out the jump numbers and time-in-sport between the two of them. The half shell Protec producst aren't a great idea because you can see the 'thickness' of the Protec designs. Due to the extra layer of padding, they stick out further than most skydiving-made helmets. There have been reports of lines or risers getting stuck under the 'lip' at the back of a full-shell Protec, and in those helmets the 'lip' is lower and curved in around the bottom of the head, reducing the amount it protrudes. The half-shell design moves that lip up higher on the helmet, and up further out on the curve of the back of your head, increasing the snag potential. Just because a guy with 81 jumps has used it without a ptoblem on 'some' of his jumps, doesn't mean it's a good idea. The other Dave says a Bonehead will fit your melon, so look into one of those. Yes, they run a couple hundred, but it will be worth it. If you stick with the sport, the helmet will last a lifetime. I have been jumping a Bonehead Mindwarp for 14 years and probably 4000 jumps, and it's in great shape. If you end up not sticking with the sport, you'll be able to get 75% of your money back selling it on the used market no problem.

Never tried it, but one of things that makes the one I jump work well for jumping is that it's a one-piece shell, and provides fairly 'full coverage' and seems to 'seal' pretty well all around your head. It keeps wind noise out, and helps to prevent wind from getting in and trying to rip it off your head. From looking at the pics of the Gedi, it looks like it's more 'open', and might not seal quite as well to your head. Again, just my guess based on the pics, having never seen one in real life.

You don't want that one, that visor isn't going to be good for skydiving. If you want a Gath, this is the model you want - http://www.murrays.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=52-10&Category_Code=G-S&Store_Code=MS I've been jumping this style for years, and never had any problems. Very light and low profile. As an aside, the page I linked from Murray's sports is the same place I ordered my last one from, and I would buy from them again.

I think you just join the USPA, and then find a USPA DZ. Bring your logbooks, licesnes, etc, and then take the tests for the different licences. I think you can take all the tests (A, B, C, and D) all at once and then just pay for the D (provided you meet all the requirements).

Here's a couple of the problems with your idea - For one, people are looking for light and simple when it comes to cameras like the GoPro. They also need to have easy access to the camera for downloading, removing cards or charging. So if you did want to 'french' it in, and stick to the above requirements, you're looking at making thin, removable fairings, and that's going to involve some sort or hinge and latch, and that adds weight and complexity. Also, what helmet will this fit? A stick-on mount works on any helmet, while what you want to do would be specific to one helmet. Along those same lines, what happens when a new camera comes out next month? Your entire mount would be obsolete. It's the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) at work. The adhesive mounts work, and anything more than that is just added complexity. People have gone to great lengths to make custom camera helmets, mounts, and boxes, but that was more popular back in the day when the tech moved a little slower. If you went for the top of the line Sony, you could count on a couple years of the tech still being relevant, but not anymore, and not for cameras like the GoPro. The camera itself is so small, light and simple, the mounts should be likewise.

No, a valid question would have been asking why no women were included in the shoot. Your question lost vailidty and became sexist when you specified a cute woman in a bikini. Your bullshit is so tiresome. It would be one thing if you were at least consistant, but when you spend half of the time whining like a bitch and the other half spouting off like sexist pig, neither one feels very genuine anymore.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. There is no data because there is no certification for skydiving helmets to compare to the Protec. I'm not even sure the Protec is built to a standard of any kind. Motorcycle and auto racing type helmets are built to a standard, and it's very specific to deal with the type of impacts you could expect from an incident involved with those activities. The main shock-absorbing feature is the EPS foam liner (expanded ploy-styrene). It's like styrofoam, and what it does is crushes on impact, slowing the decelleration of the brain/skull in an effort to prevent TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury). Once these helmets are involved in an impact, they should be retired as the crushed liner can no longer absorb a shock. The shell material, and the strenght of it are somwhat irrevelant. If it can remain in one peice through the certification, it matters little what it is. Skydiving helmets, including the Protec, do not work on this pricipal. They are designed to protect from a much lower energy impact, more of a 'bump' than an impact. The Protec is regarded as safer based on the thickness of the padding. In addition to the comft padding, they have 1/2 of stiff foam (not crushable) that provides added protection over a skydiving sepcific helmet. Skydiving helmets feature one thin layer of comfort padding between the user and the shell. The purpose is to allow for a low profile helmet, which skydivers favor for the aerodynamics and unlimited range of peripheral vision. The use of carbon fiber in the shell was not for strength, but for weight, or the lack of it. Again, the weight is a plus to the jumper who has to wear the helmet though potentially high-g parachute openings. Again, beyond a certain level, the strenght of the shell is academic. Your head/body can only survive so much of an impact, so if your helmet lives or not matters little. No shit, try making one jump before rewriting the way things are done. A can guarantee that anyting you're going to think of for the next 50 to 100 jumps has been thought of, discussed, and tried at least 500 times before. Despite this, the status quo is what it is because that's what works in the real world. Make a jump, see what you think of how it all works, and if you like it make another.

Follow the advice of taking the rig as a carry on. First off, if you're travelling for the purpose of jumping, and you lose your rig, what do you do now? Beyond that, think about what it would take to replace your rig if it was lost. Even if you could insure if for full value, you're still looking at several months to wait for a new rig. When I travel to jump, I keep the 'essentails' with me at all times. My rig, jumpsuits(s) and helmet/alti go in my carry-on, and everything else gets checked. Clothes/shoes/toiletries can all be replaced in an hour, so that all get's checked. Note- if you jump a full face, good luck getting in a carry-on with a rig. I jump an open-face, and have found that you can 'fit' it over the top corner of the rig and get it all to fit in a bag. A full face helmet might have to go in a checked bag, but a hemlet is actaully fairly easy to replace. Most 'destination' DZs will have a gear store where you can buy one, or you can always just go Protec from Walmart for $30 if need be.

Right, so asking if pushing 'THE' envelope is good is a poor word choice. The question should be if swoopers pushing 'THEIR' envelope is a good thing. Pushing THE envelope implies that you're on the very edge of what's known to be possible in all of swooping, and probably should be reserved for the very best swoopers in the world. Swoopers pushing THEIR envelope means using their current limitations as the scale, with a push being some incrementally beyond the top end of those limits. In that respect, it's hard to fault as it's the basis of learning and advancement in all of society. At some point your have to exceed your limitations in order to move beyond the status quo. So on an individual level, it's hard to fault anyone pushing their limits, save for a situation with a definite end. Take pull altitudes, you cannot simply continue to push those lower and lower, because there is a definite end to the progression, and at some point it just becomes too close. Swooping, on the other hand, doesn't have a definite end, so how can you fault swoopers for pushing THE limits, provided it's not too far outside THEIR limits? It's like suggesting that the current scores for 4-way competition are high enough, and that jumpers should stop trying turn points faster.

Most of the time the radios used to help guide studetns to the DZ for landing will be mounted, either whole or in part, to the student helmets procided by the DZ. End result, you have to jump their helmet. If you find a DZ that uses radios with no attachment to the helmet, and your instructors approve of the fit of your own helmet, and it's ability to let you hear the radio through the helmet, you may very well be able to jump your own helmet. However, there's a chance they won't and a chance you're not going to like skydiving (or be any good at it) and then you just wasted $250. I suggest not being such a pansy, and just jump the same helmets that most students end up jumping. Throughout the day of your first jump, you're going to be intentionall falling down and rolling around on the floor (PLF practice), laying down in various locations at the DZ (practicing your arch), crawling around on the floor of the plane, and then most likely falling down in the dirt when you land. If you think a 'clean' helmet is going to make for a 'clean' experience, you're sadly mistaken.