davelepka

It's an election gig, you have to win your way onto the BOD. That said, between work and my kids, I barely have time to jump, let alone travel to DZ in the region and then to the BOD meetings. Also, I don't think I could beat the sitting RD, Randy Allison. He's a hell of a guy and I'm not even sure I could do a better job than him. Truthfully, I'm not even interested in most of the stuff the handle anyway. The problem with the BOD isn't the individuals. They're all very nice, well-meaning people, the problem is in the way the BOD works. It's tough to get things on the agenda, and even tougher to get them voted into a BSR. They have a laundry list of things to cover during the BOD meetings, that adding thinsg to that isn't going to get very far. When you take an issue like this, with the wide range of feelings and opinions, it could get bounced back and forth for years before any progress is made. What they need to do is just hand the job over to someone (or a comittee), and say 'Give it a shot, do something', and then just have a precusory review before putting it into motion. Something would be better than nothing, or so I seem to think. The BOD giveth and the BOD taketh away, or at least they could. If the idea presented didn't work, just take it back and start over. It's not like they're signing a 10 year contract to stick with the idea, just try it. If it turns out it's not working, or it's doing more harm than good, or something better comes along, just do that. But you see, that's not going to happen. None of teh BOD is willing to think that far out of the box, so they're going to put it off even further, and give it very little attention in the midst of an already busy board meeting.

Those numbers only reflect the number of fatal incidents without an AAD that one could have possibly prevented. While those numbers do represent the fatalites we could hope to eliminate with mandatory use of AADs, it in no way indicated the overall usefulness of AADs across the board. What we don't know is the number of times an AAD has prevented a fatality becasue those incidents go unreported. Those numbers, if available, would be a better indication of the overall benefit AADs provide to the sport. I would suggest that if you took the overall number of AAD fires each year, and split that in half guessing that half of them would not have resulted in a fatality if an AAD had not been present, there would still be enough fatalites left to make low pull/no pull the number one killer of skydivers. I guess Airtech and Vigil might have an idea about those numbers, but not every unit that fires makes it's way back to the factory. You can't even track sales of replacement cutters, because you don't know how many of them are actaully in use and how many on 'stock' on a riggers shelf. Much like open canopy non-fatal incidents that go unreported, this is another area where more transperecy in the industry regarding accident reports would be of service. If there was a no-penalty way of submitting accident reports, and sactions in place for DZs who do not report incidents, the industry as a whole would be much better off.

It depends on what sort of driving you plan to do. If you live in the mountains or any snowy areas, the Subi has all wheel drive, which can be helpful. Only use this as a factor if you live or dirve in snowy areas with hills and poor snow removal. I live in a snowy area in Ohio, but because I live in the city with good snow removal, I only drive in deep snow a couple times per year. Also, think about the milage and operating costs. Which will cost more gor gas, brakes and tires (my guess is the Subi). Also with twice the milage, the Subi will be up for 'major' service sooner than the Hyundai, like shocks or the like. As it sits, the Hyundai with half the milage and for over $1000 less is a better choice. I'm not up on the used car prices, but check kbb.com to see what they're really worth. You'll always pay more from a dealer than from a private owner, but unless they give you a warranty, you're paying extra for nothing. Yes, a dealer doesn't want to sell a piece of crap based on their reputation, but without a warranty they have no obligation to do anything for you if the car turns into a shitbox. At the same time, most private sellers are just selling a car, and not running a used car scam out of their homes. Here's what I did on the last two used cars I bought. I drive 30k or 40k miles per year for work, so I look for mid-like used cars with around 50k miles that have a good reputation for lasting a long time. I ended up buying Hondas, and the one I sold with 215k, and the one I have now is up to 150k, and running strong. Anyway, look for a used car from a private party. Go see the car and talk to the owner. Look at the house and size up the owner and listen to their story. See if it all makes sense, and if they look like the sort of person who could take care of a car (aka pay for regular maintenance). Of course, drive the car on the street and the freeway and make sure it's 'smooth'. No shakes, shimmys or vibrations under gas, brake or while coasting. Provided it passes all that, try to make a deal with the seller, and if you can agree on a price make the deal contingent upon a professional inspection. Find the nearest dealer for that brand. and make an appointment at the sellers convienence at your cost for a used can inspection. The dealer will probably charge $75 for the job, and you'll have experienced mechanics from that brand checking the car. If it passes, buy the car. If there are problems, either renegotiate with the seller to account for them, or just pass on the deal and consider the $75 money well spent.

Funny thing, the USPA agrees with you. For years now, the USPAs solution to improving canopy control was a reccomendation that 'all jumpers take a canopy control course'. However, they have yet to develop one, or make it a requirement for all jumpers. So they want you to take one, they're in charge of educating and training jumpers in the US, but they don't have a program, require a program, or even have a preferred provider that they reccomend you use on your own. Great job, USPA, real solid work.

Also, look for a Spectre 190 as well. They've been around longer and you might be able to find one for less money that will be even easier to pack. I think that for a first canopy, the exact model is less important than getting the right size. If a 190 puts you at a reasonable WL, then exactly which moderate z-p 7-cell you jump isn't going to make a big difference. Find a cheaper canopy, and spend the difference on jumps, that will make the most difference of all. What you really need at this point is experience, and that will serve you far better than a shiny new canopy vs. an older one.

The depreciation on a canopy is not linear. At $1 or $2 per jump, the canopy would be wothless in 1000 to 1500 jumps, and that's not the case. The new canopy will depreciate significantly right out of the box based on your colors. Nobody will pay you full price for a new 0 jump canopy in your colors when they can just order their own colors for the same price. Buy the used canopy. You're not going to keep it forever, and the colors shouldn't be a big concern. You'll spend less money upfront, lose less money when you sell it, and it will be far easier to pack. A brand new 190 can be tough enough to pack that, depending on the size of the bag, I would suggest you have a better chance of packing yourself a mal. It's tough to control all of that slippery fabric, and your odds of screwing it up putting in the bag go way up when the canopy it that new.

That's where education has to work into any one of these plans. Everyone should be taking continuing canopy control courses as their jump numbers increase. I'll make a suggestion, and some will disagree, but these are my thoguhts- If you make 200 jumps in a year and take 2 canopy control courses because all you want to do is fly canopies, and another jumper makes 200 jumps in 3 years with no canopy control courses and no inclination to do any sort of 'canopy piloting', I would be less concerned about the other guy, and here's why - You have it set in your mind that you want to do certain things with canopies, and that leads you to try different things. You take canopy control courses, do hop n pops and run canopy drills up high, and you begin to think of yourself as more of a canopy pilot than your 200 jumps would indicate. The other guy is just looking to land and do another 4-way or freefly, He's not going to 'try' much of anything. Indeed there are exceptions to all of these 'rules', but I have seen it many times over, where a new jumper makes a choice as to what they want to be, and immediately take up the habits and styles of those types of jumpers. Acting, dressing and ultimately tyring to fly like the people they want to be, not neccesarily the people they are at the time. In some cases, like RW, it's harmless as there's no pentaly to trying and failing to turn points. In the case of swooping, there are significant penalites for trying and failing. Despite all of your efforts, you're still a guy with 150 or 200 jumps, and for you to conduct yourself anyway outside of what would be considered 'average' for a guy with 150 or 200 jumps is asking for trouble.

How many landings did you work into those 25 jumps? I admire your dedication, but how does this increase the number of landings you get to make per jump? At the end of the day, you're still at a 1 to 1 ratio of jumps to landings, and landings are where the injuries are occuring. All of your 'practice' up high may be fun an enjoyable, but it's all just 'shooting blanks'. Without the hard reference point of mother earth, you can't be sure that your actions are correct the level of percision required for landing. Take flat turns, if you're not actually 'flat' you're not going to preserve the landing. If your flat turn is really descending, you hit the ground anyway. If your flat turn is ascending, you're going to balloon up and leave yourself high and without airspeed, which leads to a surge into the ground. I am suggesting you don't practice? No. Practice will help, but actual landings will teach you what you need to know. Look at it this way, if all you do are hop n pops, you can make more jumps in less time for less money, and you could work through the WL progression faster than others, but aside from that, you're not special. Regardless of what you want, what you like to do, or what your intentions are, you still have 143 jumps and 143 landings. To think that you are more advanced than anyone else at your level is exactly what got us where we are today. People overestimating their abilities, and rushing into siutaions they're not ready for. Want to know if your're ready to jump a 150? It's easy, make 100 successful jumps on a 170 and prove you can handle that canopy over a period of time and a variety of jumps and conditions. There is no other way. Everyone needs to take the time to work their way down in canopy size, there are no exceptions. Anything short of that it taking a chance that a jumper won't end up being 'OK' on a certain canopy, and then that jumpers suffers an incident because of it. It's hard to see it now from your end, but it's a road worth travelling at the right speed. I'm sue at 150 jumps, the idea of slowly downsizing through 400 or 500 more jumps seems like a lifetime away, but it's really not. Just a few years of hard jumping will get you there, with the flip side being making a mistake and pushing too hard too early, and you never get there.

Here's my hang up with the MARD system- the second you change your EPs because you have one, you have taken it from a back up device to a primary device. If you're willing to chop at 300ft because you have a Skyhook, you're counting on the Skyhook to work or you die. If you're willing to do anything you wouldn't do without one, you have defeated the purpose. Oh the irony, that Bill Booths product could be the one to prove his theory that for every safety advancement you give jumper, they'll find a way to negate the additional level of safety. What are MARDS good for? They do seem to limit the amount of 'stuff' that can happen between a cutaway and RSl activated reserve deployment. Quicker deployment means less time for spinning and inducing line twists. It's also hard to argue with the idea of more altitude. If a MARD can get you under a reserve at 1200ft, while an RSl would have put under canopy at 1000ft, that extra altitude can be used to find and make a suitable landing area. In the end, it's a narrow margin of improvement over an RSL. Anything a MARD can do, an RSL can do with an extra 200ft, and a human can do with an extra 400ft. While it's hard to argue with an improvement of any kind, I think the MARDs have fallen into a trap where people seem to think they're more than just back up devices, and have it in their mind that they really can cutaway from 300ft if they have to, and that's not really the case.

That's true to a degree, but several european countries have had WL restrictions and required canopy control course in place for years with good results. That's another thing I forgot to mention about the opposition to my ideas. They say that the stats (incomplete stats) don't support what I propose, and when I mention the success of the program in other countries, they either ignore that or ask for stats from both before and after the programs were put in place before they're willing to believe it will work. I don't have access to that sort of info, but posters from those coutnries report very few landing incidents of any kind since the programs were put in place. Which brings me to the next part of my position that's also largely ignored, that being 'what's the harm'. I have asked the opposition several times point blank what the harm would be in just giving my ideas a shot, and again there is nothing but silence. I admit it might not be perfect, and that I'm not married to the ideas, just in love with them for now. If somethig better came along, I'd be all for dumping my ideas and taking up with the new plan. Which, again, brings me to my next point. None of the opposition has ever actaully made an alternate propostion. They state what they think is wrong with my ideas, yet they never offer a solution or alternate plan. It's childish and unproductive. Childish? Sure. I have two kids who are now 9 and 13. One of the hardest things to do is to get them to agree on anything, from moives, to what to have for dinner, there is rarely a common ground. So a few years ago, I came up with an idea that has worked like a charm - if one of them makes a suggestion, the other is not allowed to say 'no' unless they can offer an alternate idea. They can go back and forth all day long for all I care, but the rule is that you can't shoot down one idea unless you have one yourself. Simple, easy, and effective, and not something those opposed to my ideas can seem to grasp.

Just for kicks, take note that in the first screen shot you posted, there are 14 low turn incidents, and 9 of them are from outside the US. Not that it makes it OK, just that if you're looking for a remedy to this problem you have to take it country by country, as they all have their own regulatory body and will make their own rules. That aside, the stats for the US alone aren't great either, and we don't even know the whole story. Only fatalities are reported, while non-fatal incidents go unreported so we have no stats on those. To me, any injury that requires a hospiltal visit is severe enough to warrant a report and should be looked into for causes and solutions. As far as what to do, I have been a strong proponent of the USPA instituting a WL restriction for all jumpers up through 600 jumps. Brian Germain wrote a great one that starts off with a limit of 1.0 for jumpers up to 100 jumps. Between 100 and 200, you can bump up to 1.1, at 200 you can go to 1.2, and so on. It also allows for adjustment for very light jumpers and high elevation DZs. To along with this, I also support the idea of a required canopy control course to go along with every license. The A license course would be a beginner course, the B license an intermediate course, the C license an advanced course, the D license would be an expert course. The idea is that as the jumpers (and their allowed WL) progress, so should their education. If a jumper chooses not to get a D license and in turn does not take the course, they are limited to the highest WL up to the min jump numbers for a D license. Since you need 500 for a D, you would be limited to the WL for 499 jumps, or 1.4. If you want to go above that, take the D licese course. Anyway, that's my take, and there are a shitload of people here who oppose it. The most interesting argument against it is that people say the statistics don't support the actions I propose. As mentioned above the statistics are incomplete at best, and of course, none of these people propose any sort of alternate course of action. I've even suggested that my ideas don't have to be written in stone, just that it's a good place to start. It's hard to argue against continuing education, and hard to argue against the idea that slower progression of downsizing is a safer route than a faster progression. I suggest implementing my ideas now, to get the ball rolling and get some sort of action, and if a better or more appropriate idea should come up than we adopt that plan ASAP. At this point anything is better than nothing, and something that seems to make sense and will 'do no harm' is a better choice than continuing to do nothing.

Were you around for that Sangi kid, and all his bullshit. Same story as you, thought he could do it on his own, thought he knew what he was doing, did all sorts of 'figuring' on his own, and ultimately drilled himself into the LZ somewhere. He used to post daily, but as of late he's been quiet. I'm sure learing to walk again takes time, so maybe that's where he is. Do a search for his name and look up the incident thread. He even posted a copy of his Gopro video of his incident. Same shit, different day? No, same shit, different jumper.

Yeah, because it wouldn't be over the internet, which is the point everyone is trying to make. This is not a venture to undertake on your own. You're right, flying some parachutes in some ways is not rocket science. Flying a HP parachute, or any parachute in a HP fashion, on the other hand, is close to rocket science, except that most rocket scientists don't have to ride in the rocket. You, on the other hand, do have to ride the rocket and personally suffer the consequnces of any mistakes you make in your 'calculations'. From reading the OP, as previsouly stated, you're already making mistakes. The solution is to stop what you're doing and seek out some training, not look online for advice to continue down that path.

I hate to break this to you, but that logo is going to be on the inside of the canopy. I hope your deposit is refundable.

I've always had good luck with Flite Suit products. Their Flite Suit model can be ordered cheap in a baggy cut with no grippers etc. Add a pocket or two, and reinforcements on the knees and butt area, and you'll be all set. http://flitesuit.com/originalflitesuit.html

Nope, saw that, also saw the following, and also read between the lines - If you think those are the words of someone who took the advice given by multiple people to heart, you are sadly mistaken. Those are the words of someone who wants to sweep that advice to the side, for some possible later date, and continue down the advised-against path they are already on. It clearly displays your attitude, and my error for taking the time to provide an honest reply to your post. Mea culpa, won't happen again.

You believe that your post made any more of a contribution? Aside from letting people know how NOT to proceed, and having some resopnses that reinforce the idea of seeking professional coaching, your post is just as useless as the one you commented on. Oh, I forgot the other thing your post did, it comfirmed that you're going to pass on the good advice you were given because is wasn't what you wanted to hear. Pot, kettle, you get the gist.

Give yourself a break, those don't look that bad. You need to do two things, and relaxing is one of them. It's tough to do, especially when things start to go wrong, but you need to focus on relaxing and doing the second thing, which is work on your body position. Look at your videos, your arms and legs are almost straight out. What this does is require you to keep them striaght out to keep a balanced body position. Your straight legs balance your straight arms, and if you try to move your legs, you lose that balance. Vise versa for moving your arms, if you bring them in your straight legs will over-power your upper body and throw you off balance. Try to relax. Push your hips forward into a nice arch. and keep a little bend at both your knees and your elbows. If you feel unstable, push into the arch and check your altitude. If you're above pull altitude, relax because there's nothing to worry about, and if you're at pull altitude, just pull. In either case, you won't be unstable anymore. Just keep at it. You've shown enough promise that you've passed 6 levels, and that's pretty good. Most jumpers have a 'breakthrough' somewhere between 5 and 10 jumps where they figure out the trick to both relaxing and holding a good body position. You still have 4 jumps to go before you're 'behind the curve' and even then, who cares?

So it makes perfect sense when a jumper is killed jumping out of a perfectly good airplane? Does it make sense when a jumper goes in with nothing out? The fact is that a skydive is not over once you have an open parachute. All you get with an open parachute is a temporary relief from the prospect of a high speed impact with the ground. The horror of going in clean is on hold for the time being, but the fact is that you are still a considerable distance from the ground, and nowhere near 'safe' in any respect. There are ten ways to misuse a canopy of any size that will take that suspension of risk, and throw it right out the window. It's up to every jumper, on every jump, to maintain the safety of the open canopy they have, all the way to the ground, to include a landing flare and safe touchdown. We're not jumping rounds, and we're not pallets of robust cargo that can land anywhere. It's the jumpers job to fly the canopy, and just because one incident involves a deployment, and the other does not, doesn't make the first incident any more senseless than the latter. I'm not suggesting that status quo is acceptable, because it is not. Work is needed in the area of canopy education and regulation so we can produce smarter, more well developed canopy pilots who are better equipped to deal with the higher speeds and more percise decision making required of HP canopies. What I'm suggesting is that demonizing HP canopies is not the answer. The simple fact is, the overwhelming majority of swoopers and HP canopy pliots manage to jump and land their canopies without incident. It proves that the equipment and techniques for using it are sound. In this case, don't hate the game, hate the player. It's the jumpers that come up short, the canopies can only do what they tell them to.

Here's the flaw in your observations - you openly admit that all of your cutaways were of the same nature, on rigs configured the same way, and with you following the same course of action. The only thing you know for sure is that 'your' method does result in a clean, open reserve after 5 seconds of freefall. While it's good for you that it worked out, you cannot say from first hand experience that cutting away from the same malfunction with an RSL would result in a less succesful (or unsuccessful) reserve deployment. Truth is, there's a fair chance that cutting away in that situation with an RSL might result in a clean, open reserve without taking the extra five seconds to get stable. There are many, many cases of jumpers going in with reserves out of the bag, but not fully infalted. All those jumpers need was another 100 feet or so, and the outcome of the jump would have been much different. For you to suggest that just an extra 5 seconds to get stable is no big deal is highly irresponsible, and not something you should be promoting to an audience that certainly includes students and very low time jumpers. Beyond that, I think it was Bill Booth who posted a good explaination of why an RSL provides for a stable, entaglement-free deployment even if the jumper is not in a stable, belly to the wind configuration. If has something to do the fact that the jumper is attached to the canopy at the shoulders, and the spin of the malfunciton itself throws the jumpers lower body away from the canopy and to the outside of the spin. Upon release of the canopy, the jumper will have an outward trajectory, and as is the nature of aerodynamic decellerators, the canopy will open in the opposite direction of travel. So your feet are toward the outside of the spin, and your canopy is opening toward the inside. Sounds good to me. As an AFF I, be very careful what you say and always remember that simply prefacing things with, 'For some guys, this is OK....', doesn't mean that people will know to exclude themselves from being 'some guys'. Jumpers in this sport, especailly newer ones, have a way of over-estimating their abilities and tend to make choices based on the jumper they think they are, not the jumper they actually are. It's the old monkey-see, monkey-do routine. There are a lot of monkeys out there, and if you give them any hint of an idea, they'll run with it, even if you never meant it for them.

That's a question that can only be answered by the USPA. It's no secret why people want to swoop and fly small canopies, it's because it's fun and it's a thrill. Show me the skydiver who doesn't like fun and thrills. The problem is that you're not going to get people, the type of people who like to jump out of planes for fun, to give up fun and thrills on their own. Jumpers are resistant to the ideas of regulation and control because none of them want to lose their 'freedom'. What all this means is that you can't count on the population to police itself in these matters. It's going to take enacting rules and regualtions that people are forced to follow in order to make it stick, and in this country that's the job of the USPA. Ask them.

The thing that gets me is that the CX line has no tape drive, so there's no noise associated with recording. Either way, what you need is a Hypeye controller to run a CX camera. It's a super nice switch and it does a lot more than just record on/off. I'm sure they're not that hard to get ahold of. They're the gold standard for all CX cams, and with all the shit going on at Skydvie Dubai these days, I have a hard time believing they don't have them there already, or have a regular shipment of skydiving 'supplies' coming into the DZ all the time.

Regardless of your question, the only answer I'm going to give you is that you need to seek some professional coaching. Swooping is not an activity that tolerates guessing and 'figuring' by the uninformed, becasue the consequences of being wrong are dire. You're on the wrong track in more ways than one. If you have half-a-brain. and vaule your health and welfare, you'll seek out some coaching and put a hold on tyring to figure it out on your own.

That's interesting. By way of a smaller turn, a bigger canopy, or something else? Maybe only swooping on days with higher winds (that's a joke, it would work, but I'm kidding).

Any swoopers ever quit swooping voluntarily?