davelepka

Let me guess, a side mount camera, and the back corner of the camera mount would catch under the yoke/shoulder area? I had that happen to me a couple times, but it was with a Racer, and only when I would look up and to the side. It was also after I repositioned the L bracket for what I thought would be 'superior' camera placement. Turns out it wasn't 'superior', it was too low and allowed for that type of interference. Either way, given the multitude of helmets and camera mounting options, different sizes of jumpers, and different sizes of rig, the problem you had isn't a Jav problem, it's a 'you' problem with those Javs. The only way to tell if one rig or another will work for you and your camera helmet is to jump it. The real solution is to buy the rig you want, jump it, and if there it interference, just re-do your camera helmet to eliminate the problem.

Whatever you meant to say, consult your instructors before deviating from what you were taught. You might be right, but you might also be wrong and you're better off finding that out verbally from an instructor than physically from an impact with the ground. Using your own gear is downsizing from where you are now. The cost of a jump and your canopy control skills are not related. Downsize too fast, and you'll gind yourself laid up with a borken leg or twisted ankle, both of which will cost much more than gear rental and both of which will have you making no jumps what-so-ever during the six weeks to six months of recovery time.

Maybe he did mean that, but by the way he said, 'I was thinking of...', as opposed to saying, 'I was planning to do xyz like I was trained and have done on my previous jumps...' it shows that his intended course of action is not what he had been taught or practiced on his previous jumps and my advice to consult an instructor stands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XYFcw1c-Oo&feature=related

You're going to need more than one more jump on the 240. Based on your description, you're far from 'comfortable', and you shouldn't downsize further until you are. When going from a 280 to a 260 to a 240, you're always below a 1.0 Wl, and those downsizes are farily minor. Once you get up to 1.0, the downsizes become more significant and it will take more jump on each size to acclimate to the new canopy. Where you could get away with just a handful of jumps on a 260, you're going to need more than that on a 240 before downsizing again. Likewise, you'll need 50 to 100 jumps on the 220 before you're ready to come down to a 210 or 200. Being comfortable is one thing, and it's a good thing, but you also need to be able to demonstrate a pattern of good landings/canopy control on the 240 before downsizing, and that means 10 or 15 'good' jumps on the 240. 'Good' meaning that you have a good landing, make good decisions under canopy, and feel good about your time under canopy. This line of thinking is completely wrong, and exactly why you need to spend more time on the 240 before downsizing. The truth of the matter is that airspeed equals lift, and killing your airspeed by flying your approach in partial brakes will actually give you less flare power, not more. You want to let the canopy fly at full flight, and start your flare from there to give you the most airspeed to convert to lift. It's a big mistake to 'think up' your own conclusions about almost anything in skydiving because the price for being wrong is too high. Don't deviate from your training without first running your ideas past an instructor or senior jumper.

Continue to jump the 240 until you are comfortable with it in all conditions, and no longer feel that it is 'really fast'. If you can get to a point where you don't feel that going even faster is unreasonable, then transition to the 220. In terms of the WL, the 1.0 figure for the first 100 jumps is for the 'average' sized jumper at a sea level DZ. Provided your DZ is not a high elevation, the fact that you're bigger than 'average' will play a factor (for the record, I'm using 175/180 lbs as 'average'). For a variety of reasons, people bigger than average are able to load canopies on the higher side of the reccomendation, and people below average should be load canopies toward the lower end. With that in mind, 1.08 for a person your size is not unreasonable, provided that you follow a sensible course of downsizing and have the approval of local instructors who have seen you fly a canopy.

Not real familiar with jumpships, eh? How exactly do you program a wing-over followed by a 4000 fpm descent from 13k in to a FMS? Unlike the majority of aircraft out there, paint, panel and interior are very low on the list of 'desireable' features in a jump plane. Jump planes are a different breed and operated in a different manner than most.

Both of the concerns you mentioned have nothing to do with the gear, and everything to do with the operator. If get your hackey (or any part of your rig) stuck under the flap handle (or any part of anything), that's not a problem with the rig, that's a problem with the jumper and their awareness of their rig. The location of your pins, pin covers, and handles should all be on your mind 100% of the time your rig is on, and every move you make should be done with these things in mind. When was the last time you got your dick stuck under a flap handle? I guessing never, and it's because not getting your dick stuck somewhere is important to you and you proceed accordingly, just act the same way with your gear. Having a hard pull on a freefly handle is also operator error, be it improper packing or improper pull technique. The catch-22 with a 'secure' freefly handle is that it's 'secure'. It's deisgned to stay put unless it's packed and pulled in a specific and deliberate manner. Make it your business to learn the proper operation of the handle, and than use it that way. If you use a packer, remove the handle and re-seat it yourself before each jump to ensure that's in properly and that it will come out properly when the time comes. That said, you need to make more careful choices when it comes to your equipment. 'Because it looks cool' is a shitty way to chose a main deployment system, one of the few systems you will use on every single jump (hopefully). The intent of the freefly handle was to provide a more secure handle for high speed freefall, not one that can better withstand careless jumpers moving around in the plane, but that's the reason you stated for choosing that handle. You then went on to explain that you knwo twice as many people who had total mals because of the freefly handle as opposed to the one who had the hackey under the flap handle. I agree that a PC out in the plane is bad, but you have to see that situation as unusual in that the hackey and flap handle rarely come together. It's only a possible problem for the jumper in that one seat, and how many other times has it happened at your DZ? With that in mind, you chose the freefly handle, even though you know of two people who have had problems with the regular and intended operation of the handle. It just seems like an odd decision. As it sits, neither problem is an actual 'problem', but an easily correctable user error, so the end result is that you'll be fine if you conduct yourself properly. Maybe take some better decision making as a sideline benefit to this situation, and think through your choices a little bit more beforehand, as opposed to reacting to one aspect of a situation, taking action in that regard, then worrying about related aspects after the fact.

That would be great if price wasn't such a concern to DZs. If you want to the least amount of money the DZ, TI, pilot or packer is willing to take for a tandem, just call the office and ask the regular price of a tandem and that will be it. What they charge is the lowest everyone is willing to work for, and then a sur-charge builds off of that. For to some sort of 'average' deal, with higher and lower prices for larger or smaller people, you would need to raise the everyday rate for 'average' people so you had room to discount the light-weights, and that's just not going to happen. Unlike AFF or almost any other personal service provided, taking a tandem involves literally physically moving a person around. Be it in the plane, on the step, or the increased toggle pressure under canopy, more weight equals more work, and the TI should be compensated.

Doesn't matter, you were wrong then too. The fact is that it's a physical reality that it's more work to take a heavy tandem. Not a fat tandem, a heavy tandem. TIs have no insurance, no workmans comp, no benefits, no profit sharing, and they make no money when it rains or when the wind blows too hard. They show up each day with a limited amount of energy and strength, and if a tandem is going to require more of that than average, then the TI deserves to compensated for that. Nobody is being charged extra for being old, or ugly, or because of their race or religion, there's a physical reality at play and if you exceed a certain weight, you have to pay extra.

Are you ready to have the rug pulled out from under your 'discrimination' argument? It's not discrimination because it has nothing to do with being fat. A 250 lb body builder with 3% bodyfat still has to pay extra. A 6' 7" guy with a normal BMI still has to pay extra. Get it through your skull, it has nothing to do with being fat, it's a weight issue, plain and simple. If you were 5' 1", and weighed 180 lbs with zero muscle tone, how do you think people would describe you? Most would say fat, the medical community would say 'morbidly obese', but you wouldn't pay a dime more than the 87 lb Japanese lady that jumped before you. It's got nothing to do with being fat.

It's not the exact same product. A bigger tandem pax equates to a higher usage of finite resources, such as drouges, canopies, line sets, and instructor strength/energy. Fall rates between tandems can be drasitcally different based on the weight of the pax. Wear and tear on the gear is higher in those cases, and that needs to be accounted for. The amount of physical effort it takes to manuver a larger pax in the plane, and fly/flare the canopy is significantly higher, and needs to be accoutned for. There's no 'discrimination' at play. This is an 'at will' recreational activity, and the participants to do of their own accord with the terms clearly laid out beforehand. This isn't health care or public transportation, if a passenger doesn't like the terms, they don't have to jump.

Not a Catch 22 at all. Scenario #1 - 'If you haven't been doing that, you lack the required experience for a downsize'. 'That' could refer to the skills outlined, such as non-swoop landings where you exercise your 'utility' landing skills, the type used in off-field landings, or other 'non-standard' situations. 'That' could also refer to the idea of selecting a canopy for the 'worst case' as opposed to the 'best case'. If you're not doing that, and the 'wrost case' comes up, you're in trouble, so if you've chosen your canopu that way, you lack the experience for that canopy (the 'worst case' type of experience, real or practiced). Scenario #2 - 'if you have you lack the judgement' In this case, the jumper has been practicing the 'worst case' skills, or thinks they are choosing a canopy for that eventuality, but they are still considering a canopy that is clearly outside of their 'experience bracket', which in itself is an error, an error in judgement, I don't see those two scenarios as being mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other. They both lead to the conclusion that the proposed downsize is ill advised, just through different means. That aside, I do like how the OP thinks that 'deleting' the thread really 'deletes' anything.

If you would make up your mind, and stop posting one contradiction after another, maybe I could. Maybe.

You did say that, in a couple of different places, but then you started a thread called - Confusing, eh?

MidwestFreefall (Randy) has a bad ass 182. I've jumped it before, and been in it when it passed another 'fast' 182 on the way to altitude like it was standing still. PM him for the details of his exact configuration, but it's fast and has proven to be durable and reliable.

Yup. This thread was the first, the OP is his son - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4283783;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; If you look through the rest of his posts, you'll see further discussion of HP canopies, and some trolling around asking about 'some girl swooping an X-brace at 1.6', which is clearly his attempt to justify himself getting an X-brace canopy. Good stuff.

This is just a guess, but I don't think the DZ Pree was talking about was the same DZ where the incident took place. For example, an incident at Chicagoland Skydiving Center could be reported as a skydiving incident in Chicago. At the same time, Skydive Chicago would probably be linked to that incident in a search based on the word 'Chicago' being present in the title of the incident thread. In that case, it would be bad press for Skydive Chicago for no good reason.

An A license applies to skydiving only, and requires 25 jumps and competetion of an approved training course. You can get an A license in as little as week if you spend every day training and jumping, but that's not the norm. Most people work their way through the training over the course of several weekends, and will take a month or so to get the licesne. If you want to wingsuit out of a plane, you need a min of 200 jumps and to take a training course. There is no license for BASE or wingsuit BASE. It's not a bad idea to become s skydiver first to develop some skills flying a parachute before starting BASE, but it's not required. It's also a good idea to spend some years BASE jumping making several hundred BASE jumps before do one in a wingsuit, but again, it's not required.

Canopy size is determined by looking at the weight of the jumper, and their skill/experience flying a canopy. The more weight you put under a canopy, the faster it will fly, among other things. It's similar to a wagon rolling down a hill. If you put a child in the wagon, it will reach a certain speed when it gets to the bottom of the hill, and if you put a full grown man in the wagon, it will end up going faster. I'm sure it's not hard to imagine that a faster canopy takes more training and experience to fly safely, so for newer jumpers (or brand new jumpers) the goal is a very slow parachute. The relationship of the canopy size to your weight is the wingloading, and it's figured by dividing your exit weight by the square footage of the canopy. Your exit weight is how much you and all of your clothes, shoes and parachute gear weigh combined, this is the weight that you esit the plane with, hence the name 'exit weight'. As a student, you can count on at least 30 lbs of equipment, so your exit weight would be about 200 lbs. If you divide that by the average size of a student canopy, lets say 280 sq ft., and we come up with a wingloading (or WL) or .71 lbs per every 1 square foot of canopy, or .71:1. That's the facts, but as they apply to you isn't really up to you. Your gear will be provided by the DZ where you do your training, and they will select your gear based on your weight and the conditions (wind, temp, etc) on the day of your first jump. Beyond the first jump, your instructors will look at the above factors, as well as your performance on your previous jump, when choosing your equipment moving forward. By the time you progress to the point where your instructors are not choosing your equipment, you will have a good understanding of the concepts and your skills, and be able to choose your own.

To answer your question, turbulence can collapse a canopy, and in terms of canopies, that turbulence is typically the result the wind being disturbed by objects in it's path like trees and buildings. Picture the wind as the flow of water in a stream, and when it hits an object like a rock, the flow is disturbed in the area behind the rock. Just like in a stream, the level of distrubance will vary depending on the size of the object and the speed of the wind. Higher winds and bigger objects will produce more turbulence. What this means to you, right now? Not much. There are wind speed limitations on student jumpers, and requirements for the size of the landing area with relation to objects. If you find yourself landing off the airport, simply aim for the center of a large open field. That, combined with the lower wind speeds for student jumps, will make a collapse very unlikely. Now to answer a question you weren't asking, try to avoid this line of thinking or 'research' before taking an first jump course. By doing this, you're creating situations or concerns on your head that shouldn't be there, and may effect your thinking or performance during an actual jump. Go to the DZ, and let your instructors teach you the info they want you to have, and in the way they want to teach it. Every jump can be made 10 different ways, with 10 different types of rig. Due to this, the student program at each DZ is tailored to the equipment and techniques they use. Looking for generic answers on the internet may be putting the wrong info into your head for the place you will be making your actual jump.

I would say the same thing, if this was over the course of a weekend or so, but according to the OP this issue has been going on long enough that the first excuse was that everyone was at the Skydive Expo in Deland, which ended April 8th, about three weeks ago. All jokes aside, in that time they could have found a hard wired desk top, a land line, or they could have even mailed a letter to the recipient in Atlanta and it would have gotten there by now.

Pretty good, I'd think, but unless someone from NZA gets on the horn and makes some calls, I doubt anything will come of it. Think about it, let's say you got a canopy in the mail that you didn't order. Then you get a call from a guy in Spain claiming that the manufacturer sent it to the wrong address, and that it's really his canopy. If it was me, I'd be surprised the guy calling wasn't from Nigeria, because it sounds like some sort of scam. Now if the manufacturer called, and explained the problem, I'd be happy to help them out and correct the error, but again, it all comes down to someone from the company doing their job.

Away? I must have missed the part where one (or all) of them are in jail. What I did see is that one of them is at a 4-way camp in Eloy. Last time I checked there was cell service and wi-fi up the yin-yang at Eloy. I'll go out on a limb and figure if your business can afford to go halfway around the world to the Skydive Expo, and you can afford to then do a 4-way camp in Eloy, you or your business can afford a laptop and/or a smart phone. There's no excuse for not taking a few min and making some calls/sending some emails and getting this cleared up. Case in point, the last time I was in Z-hills I rented one of the trailers from Judy. Actually, I split it with a buddy, so when my phone started ringing at 6AM with work calls (like it does every day), I got my ass out of bed and spent an hour or two walking around the trailer park taking care of my business. Just becasue you're on vacation doesn't mean your business is too.

I would vote no, and I would base this on the success of the majority of HP canopy pilots. Consdier for a minute that while you might see a dozen fatalities of experienced jumpers on HP canopies, the vast number of pilots who jump them regularly without incident. Add to that the idea that many HP pilots do hop n pops in order to train for swooping, and thus end up making more jumps per day than others. Add to that the idea that each one of those jumps involves a multi-roation, high speed landing, and you can see that the level of risk, and the exposure to that risk is potentially higher than for any other group of jumpers, yet you don't see an unusually high number of incidents related to that group. The reason is simple, and it's because the equipment is sound. It's consistant, reliable, and performs as expected every time, with the variable being the pilot. Take the example of the Penta-thing that collapsed in Dubai. It folded up, and then reinflated, and the jumper landed without incident, however, the collapse itself was huge news to swoopers as that sort of thing is unheard of for the given conditions. For a very good reason, swoopers have become accustomed tot he idea of their canopies working 'as designed'. The problem, is in the pilots, or more specifaclly, the lack of training. The equipment has outpaced that by a mile, and it did it many years ago. We're not to the point that we need a computer to fly our canopies for us like an F-22, but we are to the point that you need a good deal of training and experience to be able to them safely, more along the lines of an Extra 300. Is there anything wrong with an Extra 300? Countless aerobatic competitors will argue no, and would probably go the opposite way and suggest that the airframe is 'brilliant'. At the same time, the inhernt instability, roll rate and high stall speed would add up to more than a handful for a low time pilot, who might view it as a 'death machine'.