davelepka

You are such a bytch.

Of course, which is why I mentioned trying on any rig (packed) before purchase. Either way, the container is a couple sizes to small for what he needs anyway, I was throwing the harness size in there just to make it seem like less of a 'loss' that the rig he found isn't going to work him.

Consider for a minute, the arch and 'boxman' position. It requires several different part of your body to be correctly oriented, and if any one of them are not where they are supposed to be, you run into stability problems. Look at the big X, it's a simple position, and somewhat easier for your brain to coordinate. Everything is flat and pointing straigh out, easy enough. What you're missing is what happens when you take that big X to terminal. The stability is not so great, and your ability to 'fly' your body is zero. This is why the big X has fallen out of favor, if you expect to eventually freefall and jump with others, it's not the way you want to learn. On top of that, try to avoid 'learning' things on the internet and then just trying them on skydives. You can get yourself into trouble doing that. If you haven't been specifically trained on one technique or another, consult an instructor before trying it in the sky.

Good call on the rig/canopy situation. Trying to jump the smaller canopy just becuase that's what the container holds is a bad idea, and tyring to stuff the 170 in there is also a bad idea. About the harness, how tall are you? If you're 189lbs exit weight with a student rig, what's your body weight, about 160/165lbs? A C-19 is a little on the 'bigger' side for a harness, and it doesn't sound like you're on the 'bigger' side yourself. It's a given that you want to try any rig on before you buy, but keep in mind that you need to try it on with both canopies packed to really see how it will fit. There's a chance that this rig is a little big in the harness and a little small in the container. If there's a way to try it on, great, but keep looking in the meantime. Also, keep in mind that the WL rules in your country are the maximum WL allowed at certain jump numbers, and by no means are they requirements. You don't have to downsize to a 150 when you have 100 jumps, you may not be ready or want to downsize at that time, and you don't have to.

Tell the seller to call Sunpath with the serial number and he should be able to get a copy of the order form which will tell both of you everything you need to know. That said, I don't think it was available in '02 and I also don't think that should be a deciding factor in buying a used rig. If the harness fits you, and the canopies are properly sized for the container, it will be comfortable enough and 100x better than student/rental rigs.

So it can fire in a plane if a door or window is opened, they can fire when you close the trunk of your car, and they can fire in a plastic bag. What I want to know is what the justification for progamming the device to make these events possible? What real-world scenario do they anticipate that would make it neccesary for the device to fire under these circumstances? Short of any such explanation, why isn't the device programmed with some 'fail safes' in places to prevent such things? Why would an AAD arm unless is has recognized a climb and reached an altitude of at least 500 or 600 ft? That would be the bare minnimum you could expect a jumper to be able to exit, get up to AAD firing speed, and still have time to get a reserve out (just barely), so what's the point in making an AAD that will fire without meeting those requirements? I just don't get it.

This alone is reason enough to steer well clear of you. What you're missing here is the pattern of behavior that you exhibit. Let's remember that when you first started posting, you had recently returned to jumping. I don't recall the exact details, but both before you stopped and after you resumed jumping, you were jumping at a much higher than average WL, and didn't seem to think anything of the advice you were given to the contrary. Moving forward, you start wingsuiting, and almost immediately begin flying a suit that others remarked was too much suit for your experience. In both cases you seemed to believe that the generally accepted guidelines in the community for things like canopy size and WL, ands wingsuit progression don't apply to you. Similarly, you've revealed that you make your skydiving decisions based on what you believe are the best choices for big wall BASE jumpers, as you intend to be one 'some day', paying no attention to the fact that you are currently skydiving, and not big wall BASE jumping. It's this pattern of behavoir, where you don't seem to think that the 'conventional wisdom' applies to you, combined with the statement that you can't see any difference between the protocal of flying two canopies togeher and flying a wingsuit past an open canopy, that leads me to believe you don't have the common sense of a tin can, and that I don't want to be anywhere near you in an aircarft or in the sky, and I think others share my feelings.

With this line of thinking, please do us all a favor and reveal your real name and where you jump. I'm sure there are more than a couple people who would like to avoid both you, and anywhere they might end up in a plane with you.

Are you asking in terms of using a computer to edit the footage, as compared to now where you're just mixing in music and dumping it on what, a DVD? I would think the quickest way would be to simply allow them a preview of the jump. Dedicate an old camera or use a card reader and show them the raw footage right off the card (or camera). Why even watse your time editing and mixinf music for something they're not going to buy. Plug it in, and let it play, then make your sales pitch. It will take one minute to get the video set up and playing, and then you can walk away and do something else for 5 min. If they want to buy, then move froward with dumping the footage to the computer, and starting the edit. If they don't want to buy, you're done and have invested very little time in the selling process. One thought, if there's anyway to store or archive the videos that people don't buy, you might send those people home with a printed sheet with some info in case they change their mind. One price for an edited DVD mailed to them, another for just the raw footage, and maybe another for an upload to Youtube or whatever. Give them 30 days to change their mind, and you might end up with some additional sales. Back in the days of 35mm film still cameras, we used to shoot video for one price and video/stills for another (higher) price. The trick was that we shot a roll of stills on every jump, and if they didn't pre-pay for them, we would try to sell them the stills after they saw the video. More than half would buy the stills, but those who didn't got an info sheet about how to change their mind and order them at a later date. We kept all the unsold rolls of film, and labeled them with names/dates/ etc, and probably ended up selling half of those within a week or two of the actual jump.

I tried this thing, called reading, and it seems that a combination of 2 LZs, 3 planes, and densly populated surrounding areas all add up to nowhere for them to go. I'm sure that the DZO of a busy 3 turbine DZ, the expert jumpers and wingsuiters he consulted, and all the time he invested in trying to figure this out were just no match for your intellect and expertise. Maybe do all of the locals a favor, give him call, and just explain how it possible for wingsuiters to safely share the airspace around Harvey Field. Tyson Harvey (weird, that's the same name as the airport) 360-568-7703

What about a hard pull? PC hesitation? Stuck slider or brake? Brake fire? Line twists? All of the above can be fixed mid-air, but will effect the altitude at which you have a controlable canopy, and thus the radius of the areas that you can reach under canopy. These could all be emergencies and all would still have landing under your main. Even if you just cutaway, without fixing the problem mid-air, again, the altitude loss of the cutaway would similarly reduce your options. A parachutist does have the right to land where ever they 'need', but at the same time they are responsible for any damages they do. They won't be charged with trespass, and cannot be held accountable for anything outside of actual damages, but in this case those could be significant. A spooked horse can hurt itself to the point of needing to be put down. Short of that, the vet bills alone to check an entire farm worth of horses would be immense, but probably called for if all of them were spooked. As mentioned upthread, if the horses are being boarded there, and the owners pull them out due to this issue, you be on the hook for the horses medical care as well as the lost income for the farmer. Who ever made the point about the prison was right on. If it was a high security prison or an old army land-mine training facility, both would feature an open field, but both would be avoided like the plague when it comes to landing off. What they need is a more generous go-around policy at the DZ in question, and some sort of jump run 'hard deck', like no exits beyond 1 mile (or whatever) in the direction of the farm in question.

I'm sure it's just me. You're fine in thinking that you can dive and 'swoop' a wingsuit along level ground for what had to be 1000's of feet, but I'm the one with the problem when I get ticked that you won't even listen to the correct, common sense answers that you're given. I don't live in a bubble, and I remember all the other posts where you have 'your reasons' the skydivign desicions you make, and most of them had something to do with, 'I intend to BASE jump with a wingsuit one day, so everything I do now is aimed at getting me ready for that'. Even then, when the error of your ways was pointed out then, you stuck to your gins that even if skydiving and proxy flying were two different things, you were going to follow the proxy flying protocols while skydiving because you thought it was 'getting you ready'. You're not special or unique, and puds like you come and go all day long. You get so focused on what you think you want to be, that you forget what you really are today. You're not a BASE jumper, wingsuit BASE jumper, big wall jumper or proxy flyer, you're a skydiver with a hint of wingsuit experience with a suit that's way too big for you, and an inflated self image that's too big for just about anyone. You think I have a stick up my ass? Great, I'll look at your track record for being right about shit, and consider the source of the remark. Truth is, if anything I said had even a hint of being incorrect, or even poorly worded, any one of 20 guys would have been all over it and corrected me, both in thread and via PM. Happens all the time, and I do it to others all the time. Some of it is in the interest of maintaining correct info on the board, and some of it is just busting the other guy's balls. In either case, I said what I said, and you know I heard in response (aside from your genius remark)? Zippo.

This is most likely the result of just not connecting the dots. Did you have a landing pattern/direction planned before boarding the aircraft? I'll assume yes, and with that in mind, once you locate the DZ, you'll be able to determine your orientation and the direction of the wind. Let's say you wanted to land to the south, and you opened up too far south to make it back the DZ. Once you see where you are in relation to the DZ, you can picture the direction you wanted to land, and simply take that direction to the LZs that you can reach. To take that one step further, you can take your pattern to your off field landing as well. Think about the directions and altitudes of the pattern you planned, and place the whole thing over top of the field you choose to land in. Doing this will improve the safety and accuracy of your landing. When you use a pattern, the tendency to turn low is reduced. You know by the time you enter the pattern if you're 'on pattern' or off pattern', and if you find yourself 'off pattern', you have 1000ft to correct the issue before touchdown. Without a pattern, it you might no find out that your set-up is off until you are much lower, and making a low turn becomes more of a reality. A pattern will also help with your accuracy over unfamiliar fields. Keep in mind how you can adjust the altitude/location of the turns in your pattern to adjust where you land, and you'll see how it gives you a structured system to land where you want to land. The other benefit to a pattern when landing off is that the downwind leg gives the chance to overfly the LZ at a lowish altitude for one last scan for obstacles/hazzards in the touchdown zone. You can scan the LZ, and then adjust your pattern to compensate for any hazzards you might spot. That said, 7 jumps is not a lot, and the planning/use of a pattern takes time to develop and understand. Having a safe landing of any kind is a good thing, and with 7 jumps, exactly how it happens isn't as important. What is important is realizing the lessons to be learned, and putting them to work from this point forward. I'll add one other thing, the definition of a 'good' landing is any one you can walk away from. How it looks, if you stand up or not, or how it look is not important now or ever. Don't rate yourself on those criteria, or let them dictate your actions in any way. Do what you need to do in order to walk away from the landing, and call it a success when you do.

My god are you dumb and convinced that you know everything about everything. Given the massive WL of a wingsuit, and the shit aerodynamics, what sort of duration would you expect the effects of a 'small dive' to last? One second? Two? Half a second? Would there even be a tangible result in terms of GR? Get over yourself, and go sit with the other 'average Joe' types who think that proxy flying is anything but an average WS flight next to a very steep mountain. Here's a hint for the next time you watch a proxy video on Youtube (which I can only assume will be within the next hour), look at the trees, and their angle relative to path of the WS pilot. Trees always grow straight up, so the angle of the trees to the ground will show you the truth of the matter.

Higher performance canopies are not more likely to malfunction (for the most part), but they are more likely to turn a 'problem' into a 'malfunction', with the difference being that a 'problem' can be fixed and a 'malfunciton' will require a cutaway. Line twists are a good example, where you could just kick out line twists on a slower canopy, but a faster one might resist or start to spin making it tough. There is some thought about the aspect ratio making a line over more or less likely. A lower aspect ratio being a more 'square' canopy might have less of a tendency to line over due to the shape and the difficulty of a line getting all the over the nose. A higher aspect ratio, or more rectangular canopy, with a thinner chord (the measurement from the nose to the tail) might make it easier for a line to get over the nose. It's all moot, however, because good packing, maintenance, and use will prevent most malfunctions. For a new jumper, simply stick with canopies and WL appropriate for your experience, and you'll be fine. By the time you jump something with an ability to 'spin up' on opening, you should have the experience to handle the canopy and not allow it to spin up. Proper body position, and how you load the harness during the opening can effect this, and that's why you wait until you have the 'feel' of openings to jump those types of canopies.

Again, my point is that you assume she would have anything to do with you. You seem to be working off the assumption that the limiting factor is that she was not your type. I'm suppgesting that even if she was, you still wouldn't have to worry about what to make for dinner. I could go out and see 100 women who are my type, who I could think of plenty of things to do with, but that doesn't mean that any one of them would give me the time of day.

What are the chances of finding a qualified wingsuiter to mentor you at those DZs? What are the chances of learning to flock at those DZs (beyond a 4-way, if you can even figure out how to get 4 wingsutiers out of a cessna at the same time)? Given the above limitations, what the prospects for the wingsuit market in the future? Like most things it seems, you need to look beyond your own horizons when considering this issue.

I like how this is a recurring theme in your woman bashing posts, as if them not being your type is the only hurdle to the two of you becoming an item. Ever think that you're WAY less their type then they are yours? Or you under the delusion that every woman you deem 'beneath' you is just waiting on baited breath for you to give them the time of day? You're a fan of the model-type female, so just for fun, take a copy of GQ into the bathroom and compare the guys you see in the magazine to what you see in the mirror. See how far off you are from that? That's about how far off from the female model-type that you should be looking if you have any sliver of hope of fiding a woman who would be remotely interested in you. It's called reality, stop talking to your calculator and give it a try.

An advantage of googles is that they are soft. Even if you have impact resistant lenses in sunglasses, they still have hard frames and lenses, and in the case of a collision, those would not be an asset. A pair of soft goggles with an elastic strap will not shatter or break and stab you in the eye during the middle of a skydive. Keep in mind that whatever happens in the middle of a jump, you still HAVE to finish the jump. Also, polarized lenses don't play well with digital altimeters. That may not be a problem now, but in the future if you go to a digital altimeter, polarized leses are a no-no. You may be able to see the altimeter at times, but in certain lighting and certain angles, the display will vanish.

We've all seen those too. How many tandem and AFF jumps were conducted at your home DZ this weekend? 50? 100? 200? How many nation-wide? Of all those, how many included, as you say, epic fails? Not that many. The point is that if the USPA puts a standard in place, it places some importance and weight behind the subject. Like it or not, people recognize the standards of the USPA, and tend to stick to them. If for no other reason than the legal liability of following the 'industry standard', when the USPA lays down the law, by and and large it is followed nation-wide. Everyone is assuming the USPA is going to add to the existing program, and somehow do it harm. If the status-quo is so great, and the USPA sticks to that, what's the harm? Nobody has seen the USPA proposal for the wingsuit instructor program, so to assume that it's going to do harm to the discipline just isn't called for. A nod in their favor is that they seem to be looking to the existing experts and the wingsuit community in general for input. With that in mind, keep those lines of communication open, so if they plan they draw up does look like it will do harm to the comminuty, you can speak up and get some changes made before they put the plan into motion.

I think you need to stop asking questions and just start your training. According to your profile you live in Miami, and there are more DZs in the state of Florida than almost anywhere else in the world, and they're all open year round. Rushing though your training is rarely a good idea. You have no idea how you're going to perform on your jumps or react to the physical and mental stresses involved in learning to skydive. Planning to just knock it out in a 'weekend' is only going to add pressure to that situation, and given your location and proximity to muliple DZs, you don't need that pressure. Sure, plan a weekend trip to a DZ, lots of jumpers do that. Jumping Sat and Sun, with some hanging out and socailizing Sat after dark. As far as how many jumps you make, take it one jump at a time, and go from there. Keep in mind that ground school can take anywhere from 4 to 6 hours, so most of day one will be spent on the ground. The VAST majority of jumpers take a month or more to go from jump #1 to having a license. It's a process, and it takes time. It's also fun and you'll learn a ton. Stop looking at it as something to 'get through', and more like something 'to look forward to'.

I agree with your first point, but in regards to your second your point, when is it during your canopy flight that you expect to be able to check your notes? What I mean by that is if you really 'learn' something, you don't need to go back and refer to your notes, and in skydiving you cannot stop and refer to your notes, so if you don't 'know' it, you didn't really 'learn' it. About rear risers, I would agree that it should be lower on your list. Using rear risers is fun and easy up high, and you should work with them and see what the range, response, and stall are like, in case you find yourself needing to use them. If you experience a control problem with your toggles too low for a cutaway, for example, you'll need to land on your rears. However, that's unlikely, and with that in mind actually landing on your rears is better left to later days. First off, you want to be VERY good at judging your approach to the ground before trying to land on rears. The control stroke is very short and the stall is faster than toggles and more abrupt. What that equals is a 'one-shot' deal for flaring with your rear risers. You either get it perfect, or you hit the ground hard. Toggles have a long control stroke, and with modern canopies you can flare in stages with little to no reduction in ocerall flare performance. It's forgiving situation where your timing can be off, but still offer you a reasonable landing. Rear risers are not like that. The other reason to hold off is that you need to be 100% 'present' to start landing with rears, and able to over-ride instinct and muscle-memory. If you 'forget' that you're landing on rears and try to flare them like you flare with toggles, you'll stall almost immediately and hit hard (this has happened many times). You want to feel so 'in control' during the landing phase that you can go agaisnt every habit you've built on every jump thus far, or you want to stay off the rears for landing.

Why would you want to wash your rig before taking it HI? With all the sand/dirt you're going to encoutner, just wait until after your vacation, and then wash the rig properly.

With the 'ethics' of selling something you got for free aside, I thought this would be a good time to bump this thread back up to the top. Maybe because it's the week after the 4th of July boogies, but it seemed to me like a good time to revist this topic. So have a glance at post #1 before you consider buying any type of coupon from anyone. Almost every single coupon out there will not turn out to be much of a deal if you pay anything more than $25 or $50, and even then you add the risk of another transaction, and another 'complication' of buying gear. Good luck out there in classified land.

First, pull the ripcord and you won't have a problem. Beyond that, keep in mind that every tandem rig uses a drouge, and if there was a problem with reserves clearing the drouge, I think we would have discovered it by now. Just so you know, reserves are packed in something called a 'freebag', which contains the reserve, but is not attached to the top of the canopy like the deployment bag on a main canopy. So if the reserve pilot chute or bridel should become entangled with the drouge, the reserve can still get out of the bag and open without being tangled in the drouge.