davelepka

You sure about that? You mean to tell me that with no outside influence, no reference point from which to work from, you think you would have come up with 2k all on your own? I'm not suggesting it was an active decision on your part, but I am 100% sure that your thinking was influenced by the fact that from the first day you started jumping, all of the 'expert' jumpers you met and were trained by, were permitted via the BSR to pull at 2k. To suggest otherwise is just being naive.

That's the problem with the current system. It says you should pull at 2.5k, unless you have a C or D license. The message that sends is that it's really OK to dump at 2k, just not for the new guys. Of course, too many of the new guys don't consider themselves to be 'new', what good for the goose must be good for the gander. The idea is that if it's out there, people will take it. The GoPro thing is a prime example, but at least you can see that a guy is wearing a GoPro. Pull altitudes are very personal in that each jumper can make their own, independent decision on each jump, and generally with reprocussion. As earlier stated, who can tell 2.5k from 2k looking up from the LZ? In terms of 'losing' things, outside of skydiving, we now have to wear seatbelts when we drive, or risk a ticket. You can't smoke on an airliner or in a restaurant anymore. At the risk of going a little too far, black people can now sit anywhere they want on a bus and use any drinking fountain they want. All of these changes were lamented by vast numbers of people at the time they were instituted, but we can clearly see that they were all for the best and that the world is a better place because of them. I think the idea here is to think ahead. Five or seven years ago I pushed for a WL BSR, and to every person who bitched that it was unfair, I replied that in a few years they would be beyond the BSR, and there would be a whole generation of new jumpers who entered the sport, and only know the sport with the BSR. How many posters on here have been jumping for less than 7 years? How many new jumpers at your DZ have been jumping for less than 7 years? All of them would have been a-OK with a WL BSR, because that would be all they know. It would become a part of 'the deal', and wouldn't be an issue at all. This is the same thing. Clearly there are reasons why skydiving has changed, and pulling at 2k is less and less applicable. I, for one, don't expect those changes to reverse anytime soon, I expect that things will continue to drift further away from 2k being the right number. Let's recognize the trend, and put the machine in motion to make 2.5k a part of the sport, and what people come to know as 'the standard'.

So then why do you think 2k is the min? I've probably pulled under 2k 100 times, and it always worked out. I've dumped out of terminal under 1k a couple times, no problem there. Have you ever had a cutaway, and not had your reserve open by 500ft? If no, you could have been pulling at 1500ft this whole time, and been just fine, including all your cutaways? The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping. Someone, long before you came into the sport, chose 2k at the min, and that's what you came to know as 'safe'. If I'm not mistaken, there are some countries that don't allow pulling any lower than 2.5k, regardless of experience or equipment. The fact is that it's a number someone came up with a couple decades ago. A lot has changed in skydiving since then, from the equipment, to the type of jumps we do, the size and jumprun altitude of the planes, and the sport itself has become far more accessible to a wider cross-section of society. The idea that the same margins that applied back then should apply now is a little off. Virtually every other facet of the spot has changed. License requirements, training methods, equipment, etc, and now the time has come for this aspect. Just like people were opposed to the BSR when it was created in the frist place, they felt that the current system of the jumper being a able to choose was just fine and the way it should be. Here we are, years later, and people are usnig the exact same argument to defend the BSR. All that does is show the temporary nature of these things, and support my assertion that people will attach themeselves to what they are used to, sometimes to the detriment of logic. To answer your question of 'escalation' and why not 3k or 4k or 10k, that is where, again, logic comes back into play. I'm not suggesting that having 2k as a min pull altitude was a cluster-fuck from the start, and an embarrasment to the sport, it was a fine solution at the time it was implemented. Over time, all of the factors that would lead you to determine a safe min pull altitude have changed, and thus, so should the min pull altitude. Seeing as 2k was good at the time, and 'sort of' good today, all that's needed is a small 'adjustment', not a radical change.

Me? No. You? No. Both of us, and most of the us posting on this thread have been jumping longer and made more jumps than 90% of the jumpers out there. We have proven that we 'get it', and can take care of ourselves. This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps, is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well. The thinking, as always, 'I'll be fine, if it's cool for guys with 200 jumps, then it's cool for me too because I'm awesome'. Notice that nobody pulls at 1500 ft. The reason being that 'rules' stop at 2k. The rules say that 2k is good for some jumpers, and it's the jumpers who think that they have to push every limit to the max are the ones who this is for. Jumping isn't exactly what it used to be. There used to be more of a 'challenge' to jumping, and it took a special kind of person to 'fit in'. At the risk of offending some, it has in a way, become 'pussy-fied' not in the good way, where there's a large amount of pussy, but in the bad way, where there's a large amount of pussies. People can't even pack their own rigs. I have seen DZs come to a halt after one weekday load when no packers were around. When you combine that with the gear issues mentioned above, none of these people need to rock it down to 2k and learn the hard way how fast you have to be to save your ass if things go wrong. If a guy can't recognize that he should be able to pack his own rig (or gear check his own rig ala the recent incident in Deland), he's the same guy who's not going to understand that 2k isn't always a good idea. if 2k is possible, then 2k it will be. We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't. The truth is, other unrelated issues they should be focusing on have no relation as to the merits of this issue. If I told you I was having a pork chop for dinner, and asked you the best way to cook it, telling me that a steak is a better choice is not an answer. I'm still having the pork chop, and still need to know the best way to cook it.

Waive the BSR for PRO rating holders in the case that that have to exit lower than 3k. Problem solved. Let's face it, 2k is pretty low in terms of high speed malfunctions. There's not a ton of time available if you have any type of high speed mal. Pile onto that slow opening main canopies (if you can get it out, or if it clears itself after a second or two), AADs, and smaller reserves, and you can see where some extra time isn't a bad thing. Again, it's not that nobody should ever open at 2k, it is 'do-able' for some jumpers with some rigs, but it's clear that as a written 'rule', it's becoming a little outdated. I get a sense of some old-school 'machismo' coming into play in some of these arguments, but a large majority of my support stems from the equipment and type of jumps people are doing, and less from the individual jumper. Like I said, if any jumpers wants to swoop a Velo and wants to start their turn at 800ft, I would suggest that 2k is fairly low to be pulling out the PC. I don't care how many jumps you have, how long you have been jumping, or how low you're used to pulling, it just doesn't 'fit' into that type of jump. I just don't think 2k 'fits' in the majority of jumps that are being made these days. There have been a rash of lwo cutaways and people going in with partially deployed reserves, and there's no way to argue that more altitude wouldn't have been a good thing in those cases. I'm not saying that all of those jumpers would have reacted quicker or implemented their EPs sooner, but at least there would have been a chance. Add to that the problems with collisions and the focus on canopy control and landing patterns, and again, more time for traffic management and sequencing in the the pattern isn't a bad thing.

You really do have to make it a rule if you expect anyone to pay attention to it. If 2k the min pull altitude for any jumper, there are always going to be jumpers who consider anything down to that to be 'OK'. Even when there's nothing to stop them from pulling higher, they'll just hum it down to 2k because its 'safe', and the USPA says so. If make the rule that 2.5k is the bottom line, then it becomes the new 'standard', and even the boneheads who take it to 2k for no reason will start opening at 2.5k. The thing people are forgetting when they argue against this is how the 2k number was established in the first place. The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in looser rigs. All of those factors contributed to coming up with 2k in the first place, and now none of those factors are a part of the current landscape. I'll save everyone the play-by-play as to why 2k might not be the prudent number with the demise of each factor listed above, but I'll make a comparison. 2k might have been great for skydiving circa 1988, but jumps in those days were a different mission, with different equipment. For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight. The point is that I have a specific mission, and forgetting about time to react to a mal, or bouncing, or any of that, I simply need more time to make sure that I can take care of my business, and get my swoop on. Of course, you can always skip the swoop, but it's part of my mission, I'll open 1000ft higher than if I wasn't going to swoop, and account for the extra time I need under canopy. So when today's jumper has a mission that involves jumping a canopy with a 600 to 800ft snivel, at a 1.4 or 1.5 WL (enough to get a good spinner going), and stuff it all into the smallest rig the packer can handle, then 2k might not a good place for them to cleared down to. So many other things in skydiving have changed since the mark was set at 2k, why should that mark be immune to a likewise change?

No it's not, but they might be after the secondary effect of making such a rule. Once 2500ft becomes the hard deck for everyone's main deployment, it will work it's way in as the new 'standard'. Eventaully, it will become accpeted as the standard, and people will begin planning jumps around it. It's not that bad of an idea given the changes to the sport since the 2k rule was instituded. Canopies have shifted toward slower openings, and at the same, become more HP and are flown at higher WLs, making malfunctions that much more violent and/or with a higher descent rate. Both situations make more altitude a good thing.

No, what I'm saying is that the toggles are the control input you apply to make a turn. I'm not suggesting you shift your weight in the harness to make a turn. However, when you do apply input to the toggle, the mechanism that creates the bulk of the change is the weight of the pilot being shifted under the wing. Do you pull on a toggle to make a turn? Yes. Does the tail defelction alone create the bulk of the turning action? No, it starts the turn, but is the pilots weight swingin off-center under the wing that creates the bulk of the change effected to the wing. Again, it sounds like you think I'm suggesting that the pilots weight shifting is a direct action from the pilot, but it's not. It's an indirect action, the result of toggle input getting the canopy to begin a turn and the weight swing occurs when the canopy tries to turn and the pilot tries to continue moving forward. This moves the pilot out from under the center of the wing and pulls the wing into the turn. If you are talking about a pilot directly shifting their weight, then yes, a turn is possible with no weight shift. Case in point are the automated ram-air delivery systmes being developed for the military. The pilot is replaced by a payload and it has a control module attached to it with motors attached to each steering line to reel them in/out for steering and a GPS to guide them. These devices make turns without the payload actively shifting it's weight in the harness because the payload is an inanimate object, incapable of doing anything with it's weight. If you are suggesting that it's possible to turn a ram-air canopy with the pilots weight swining under the canopy, you are sadly mistaken. Again, the lines are the lever arm, the pilots weight is the force, and those make up the simple machine that effects change to the canopy. Just because you might enact those changes with the toggles, the operation of that simple machine (the lever and force) are what really make the canopy 'move'. Even the inanimate objects referenced above swing about under the canopy to effect change. There is no way to make a canopy turn, brake, or dive without the load shifting accordingly under the wing. Sorry for your confusion.

Just because it stills sounds like a simple misundertsanding, I'm not suggesting the pilot is moving their weight around in the harness to effect change. What I'm saying is that the toggle input itself in turn swings the jumper (who can remain still in the harness) around under the canopy, and this is what effects the majority of the change in the wing. The pilots action is to pull the toggle, the result of that is the jumpers weight being moved under the wing and causing the change in flight. Regardless of the number of cells, or complicated internal structure, a PG is still just a ram-air canopy and it operates on the same principals as every other ram-air canopy. It's similar to a weight-shit control system, as on a hang glider, but without the mechanical connection to the wing, I have used the term 'weight-swing' to describe the system. Again, you might a very nice person and have only the best of intentions, but you are simply not correct on this matter.

I don't think that qualifies as advertising. The guy literally 'wrote the book' on canopy flight, and since it's the only one out there, you have to promote it. I'm glad this thread went the way it did, as it exposed this young lady for what she really is. She might be very nice and well meaning, but she's certainly a little short on the understanding of the mechanics fo flight. Beyond that, the more you poke holes in her theory, the further she gets from a 'wingsuit'. Now it's to the point that she's looking for a continuous spar to carry the load with an articulated joint at some point in the span to allow for control inputs. How long until you need some sort of mechanical (spring? hydraulic? electro-magnetic?) assit to make it all possible? At the end of the day, she's talking about something far off from a wingsuit, and far off from the reality of the technology available today. Even then, it's not even a fully realized idea, so let her dream and let he think that the toggles are doing all the 'work', and be gald she's not designing anything I'm ever going to wear or fly or whatever.

I you wanted a baby or two, congrats to that. In a related, but emotionally disconnected point, if you really are hanging up a rig for the duration, if you have a Cypres in there, pull it and sell it today. It's just losing money every day based on the life limit and MX requirements and since you know you won't be using it, sell it off to a jumper who will actually jump it. You'll get the most money out of it, and some jumper will have an AAD to jump. I have seen countless Cypres wither away and die in storage due to jumpers who are 'sure' they're going to jump 'next year' and never do, or jumpers that just disappear and leave their rig in the loft for a year or three. There is a huge market for mid-time Cypres, take advantage of it if you have one. Along those same lines, if it doesn't look like your going to jump in the next two to three years, sell the rig off too. How many rigs out there have lost 80% of their value sitting in a closet for years? You always see those rigs in the classifieds where it's a 1993 Javalin with a Sabre (1) and reserve, and it's been in the closet for 10 years. It might have been a 'marketable' used rig 10 years ago, but by now the old-sghool Jav and last generation Sabre are worth a fraction of their previous value. Just be realisitc, and sell the stuff if you're not going to use it anytime in the foreseeable future. If it's going to be 5+ years before you jump again, just think that what's 'new' today will be a reasonably priced used rig by the time you get back to the sky. Let's face it, with any number of kids on the way, you're going to want the money and closet space more than you're going to want to look at the rig you don't jump anymore. Now jumpsuits, that's another story. Hang on to those for sure, even if you're never going to jump again.

First of all, a PG and a skydiving canopy are both ram-air wings, and both operate on the same principals. Due to design differences, they each to different things better than others, but they are fundamentally the same. Maybe I should phrase it differently. The pilot doesn't shift their weight to effect change on the wing, the pilot's weight is shifted, and thus effecting change on the wing. Yes, pulling a toggle will slow one side of the wing, allowing the other side to fly around it. However, as the canopy attempts to turn, the forward inertia of the pilot wants to continue to carry them in a straight line. At this point the pilot swings out to the side of the canopy, and in doing so, pulls down on the canopy at the inside of the turn, creating the bank angle of the turn. Picture a conventional aircraft, and think of the tail empannage. Essentailly, it's a lever used to position the wings and effect changes in direction of flight. Control inputs to the rudder and elevator move the empannage in one direction and in turn, that moves the wing to the desired pitch/bank angle. The pilot under a ram-air wing is the same thing. The lines are the lever, and the pilot swinging around under the wing is the control input to the wing. Yes, you use the toggles or risers to position the pilot, but it's the line tension and the load of the pilot that does the 'work' of positioning the wing. Think of it this way, when you turn on a faucet, you turn the handle and water flows. Turning the handle itself does not actually cause the water to flow from the faucet, that's due to combination of water pressure and gravity, turning the handle is the mechanism that allows that other process to take place. I'm not suggesting that the aerodynamic effects of the the tail deflection don't contribute to the turn, because the do, but until the pilot weight shifts under the wing, no real change is going to occur. Another example - when a jumper flares too high for landing, we tell them not to let the toggle back up too much because the canopy will dive to recover that airspeed. The problem is that if they are too close to the ground and need to flare during the dive, they will not get the same response from the canopy they are used to. When the canopy dives to recover the lost arispeed, the jumper shifts behind the center of the canopy. This allows the nose to drop and the airspeed to build. If the pilot need to flare at that very moment, the response will be delayed because the pilot needs to first swing back from being behind the canopy, return to the center, and then proceed to swing froward of the center to ptich the nose up, and actaully arrest the descent. The pilot can pull the toggle down to full deflection almost immediately, there's no delay to that reaction. The delay comes from the need to wait for the pilot to go from behind the center to ahead of the center, and the reason is that, like I said above (several times), it's the weight of the pilot moving under the wing that effects the majority of the change. In a flare from a 'normal' approach, where the jumper is centered under the canopy, the flare response is far more immediate because the jumper only needs to swing through one 'step' to effect change, that being the 'step' from centered, to forward-of-center. It's the added step of first swinging from rear-of-center that creates the delay and proves my point. (Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting a jumper will swing from behind the center to the center, and then stop, and then continue on to forward of center. It's one fluid motion, but until the jumper pases the cneter point, the descent will not be arrested and there will be no 'flare' to speak of). This applies to every input you make a to a canopy. Regardless of your brake position on either side, your inputs all serve to reposition the pilot under the wing and that position is what dictates the attitude of the wing.

I've been flying ram-air canopies since before you had your first training bra, and I can assure you I am quite correct. I did not imply that weight shift in the harness is the control method, it's the weight of the pilot shitinf below the wing that effects the change. You make that happen with control inputs, and that might be your toggles, but when you pull a toggle, the aerodynamic effect is just the slowing of the that side of the wing and of the other side of the wing flying around it. What allows the canopy to bank into the turn, and actually change direction, is the pilots weight swinging toward the outside of the turn, at which point line tension pulls the entire wing into a bank. As skydivers, we know this because we jump canopies with different length line sets. Short lined canopies react to inputs faster because the pilot is swinging through a shorter arc, and can move through that arc more quickly. Longer lined canopies react more slowly because it takes longer for the pilot to swing through the longer arc. The pilot is the load and provides the line tension which allows the wing to be a wing. When that load moves, so does the entire wing. It's what makes things happen, and if you had any credibility in this forum, it has just been lost. If you had not realized the relationship between your position under the wing and the attuitude of wing at any time in the last 7 years, you haven't really been paying attention.

Nice try sweeheart, but applying the brakes simply slows one side of the wing, and swings the jumper out to the other side of the wing, effecting the majority of the change to the wing. Pilot position under the wing is the primary control method for a ram-air canopy. You adjust that position with the control inputs, but at the end of the day, the pilots weight shifting around does the bulk of the work in effecting the attitude of the wing.

Keeping mind that a new container is going to be 2 to 3 times the price of a used one, and you'll lose more money on the deal if you sell it without putting 500-700 jumps on it within about 4-5 years, used is generally the way to go for a first rig (or two). Rigs are not 'custom' fit to each jumper. manufacturers have a selection of sizes, and they pick the one that closely matches your size. There are one or two areas where that can make some very small adjustments, but rigs are similar to winter jackets. If a rig was built for someone who is your size +/- an inch or two in height and your weight +/- 10 or 15 lbs, there's a good chance that it will fit you just fine, and you'll never notice the difference. You can alter the fit of a rig with the reserve pack job. Some riggers will pack a rig that makes it tighter around the yoke, and some will pack it looser around the yoke. I'm not suggesting that it's a way to 'fit' a rig, but that it makes slight differences in harness size moot, and not worth spedning $1500 more to get a new container. Long underwear and a bulky sweatshirt under your jumpsuit will alter the fit of a rig, but nobody has a summer rig and winter rig. It's not an exact science. Go to the DZ, look for jumpers about your size, and ask to try on their rigs. You'll see that they all fit differently, but they all fit.

The point was that it's a single camera shot of an activity that needs far more than that. Watch the video, and notice how much time you're NOT in the frame, and even when you are, it's not exactly 'exciting'. I do like how you quickly edited the part of your post where you claimed to be confised. We all know it was about DSEs post, but it was just inviting comments about other things you might be confused about. Back to the tpoic at hand, here's another reason what you're talking about won't work - control. Both hang gliders and paragliders require the pilot to shift their weight about under the wing to effect change in flight. Of course, to do this, they need to be seperate from the wing, and thus both hangs the pilot underneath. A sailplane, that hold the pilot as 'one' with the wing, used control surfaces to effect change in the wing, and thus uses a tail boom with mutilple control surfaces to make that happen. The intersection of hang glider and sailplane is something called a Swift, and it's a rigid wing with no tail boom and no landing gear, the pilot uses their legs as the landing gear. It's a foot launch device, and then the pilot sit in a sling in a 'cockpit'. Again, though, the swift has hard surface, pilot actuated control surfaces. Your assertion that spars can be made to allow for longer, soar-able wings, is lacking any sort of control methodology. If you intend for the pilot to manipulate the wings, then they cannot be connected with a load-bearing spar, as they would need to be moved independantly (like falpping, but not), and the pilot still has the problem of lacking the strength to support such a wing with just their muscularity. If you do intened for a continuous spar, meaning the pilot does not have to support the loads from the wings, you have no control methodology. With a 'rigid' wing, and no weight shifting ability, you now need control surfaces and an actuating system for them. Esestially, you could build that today by making a fabric winged Swift. In the end, what you have is far from a 'suit' of any kind. You have some interesting ideas, but you're bouncing back and forth between paraglider, hand glider and wing suit when making your asserstions, and all of those are VERY different flying machines and cannot intermingled when looking to design something new. They have fundamentally different design pricinipals whcih you cannot just mix and match if you expect to actually succeed.

When you say 'custom' what else do you need besides a left hand main deployment? If everything else is the same, all you need is a BOC pouch sewn on facing the other way, not really a big deal, and not all that 'custom'. If that's all you need, you don't need a new container to have a left hand deployment, you can just have a rigger sew a fresh BOC on facing the left side. Truth is, a fresh BOC when you buy a used rig isn't a bad idea at all, no matter what side you need it on. Are you good with your emergency procedures? Can you pull the cutaway handle with no problem, and with a good deal of strength?

It's all just BS until you have an offer in front of you, so just keep on keeping on for now. If the time comes that company B makes you an offer, take a day, and contact company A. It's not being pushy, or annoying, it's about being honest and professional. You honestly would rather work for company A, and are OK with waiting for them to do whatever it is they're doing, as long as you don't have another offer on the table (a guy's gotta work, ya know). If the time comes that you have an offer on the table, you have 'nothing' to lose by asking company A to shit or get off the pot. It's being professional becasue you would rather work with company A, but once you take a position with company B, you're in for the duration. Let them know you're not the type to take a position, let the company go through the cost of bringing you on board, and then quit for a better gig shortly there-after. Also, if company A has some reason they're dragging their feet, and you choose to go with company B, let them know it's only an 8 month contract, and that you'll be available afterwards if they have any positions at that time.

This is the second time in as many days that someone had used the stupidity of other jumpers as a reason to not be logical themselves. If everyone is that stupid, then it's up to you to do better, and have a plan. Like I suggested, pay attention, and if you a problem is occuring, cut through the stupidity with your common sense. Tell those idiots to remain seated, and prepare for an exit command from the pilot. If there's too much chatter, ask for people to quiet down so you can hear the pilot. The situatuion will add panic to the mix. You can remove some of it by taking control of the situation. If people have instructions and someone who appears to be in charge, there's going to be a little less panic. Keep in mind that part of taking charge is assesing the situation, and if another, more qualifed, jumper is taking the lead, your best contribution might be to let that happen and asist that 'leader' in any way you can. I know we don't live in an 'ideal world'. Is that odd for me to suggest you trying to interject some order and logic into what could easliy become disorderly and chaotic?

Some DZ actually have an SOP to keep seatbelts on higher than 1k ft agl. Some even go so far as to keep them on up to 2k ft agl. As Bill mentioned, it's not going to be so quick that you don't have time to take your belt off. There will be a delay between something going wrong, and the pilot calling for an emergency bailout. If you're at all paying attention to the aircraft, the sound and pitch will both indicate that there is a problem, and if you're above your min bailout altitude, you might want to pull your belt off. In the event that the pilot does not call for a bailout and chooses keep the jumpers on baord for landing, you have plenty of time to belt up before landing. By the time you get too low to jump, it's still anywhere from 30 to 45 seconds until the wheels are back on the ground. Get the idea of climbing over people out of your head. Replace it with the idea of being attentive to the aircraft, and in the case of a 'possible' emergency, turn your attention to your fellow jumpers and encourage everyone to remain seated, but to prepare for an emergency exit on the command of the pilot. That's means belts off, and jumpers should be ready to jump if the comand is given. This way if the pilot does call for a bailout, there's no need for a climing over people or the like, everyone is aware and ready to jump.

How about just hooking your hand over the back edge of the door frame? That's how I do it anytime I need to rear float a 182 (like filming AFF jumps with two instructors). The nice part about the back edge of the door frame is that it's already installed, and there's no paperwork required.

I don't believe the community is fostering that behavior, I think it comes from within the individual jumper. Young, impressionable jumpers see the experienced guys swooping the little wings, and it looks cool as shit. They want to be cool as shit, and they feel the only way to do that is to swoop the little wings. Think about it, let's say every car on earth cost the same amount of money, how many people would drive an F1 car because that's what the 'cool guys' drive? What's cooler than an F1 driver? Maybe a figher pilot, but again, if you had your pick of airplanes, how many young pilots would want to fly a Hornet like the Blue Angles, or that Oracle monstrosity that Sean Tucker flies? The problem we have is that all canopies do (pretty much) cost the same, and there is unrestricted access to them for all jumpers. You'll never be able to get rid of the 'need for speed' (or need for cool-ness) from new jumpers. This sport attracts the types that want to push the limits, and when you have no limits (like the state of canopy flight in the US) you get what we have now.

Fun thread. All the fun aside, 6 years is a very long layoff, regardless of your experience before taking a break. However, if you want to be treated like an 'experienced' jumper, how about you start acting like one? You know how it all works, and you know you're going to need to 'ease' back into things. Get yourself a rig with a nice 150, and get back to the DZ and start pounding out the jumps. Here's the kicker - downsize AS NEEDED. Nobody knows when that will be, or what canopies will be involved, you just get back to jumping and do what makes sense when it makes sense. You know that you can demo canopies, you know that you can borrow rigs, and you know that can you sell and buy used gear all day long without spending much more than your initial investment. Take advantage of all those things, just do what seems right, when it seems right. You seem to already know that you need to start off with a 150-ish canopy, so do that. It's all just bullshit until you buy the gear, get current, and make some jumps. None of the downsizing BS is even relevant until you actaully get started, and crank out 50-100 jumps in a reasonable amount of time. If you do that, and find that you're 'feeling good' and able to spend enough time at the DZ to keep the learning curve steep, then take a look at what's available and go from there.

Really? You might want to adjust your 'rest easy' altitude up a few hundred feet. How long do you think it will take to get the door open and for you to actaully leave the plane? If the engine quits, you're going to start losing altitude NOW, so every second that goes by, your 1000ft gets lower and lower. On top of that, Porters are somtimes loaded 'tight', which makes it that much harder for everyone to get out, especialy from a seated position. If one person in between you and the door has trouble getting up, or getting out, you're going to be well below 1000ft before you get anywhere near the door.

Again, you're making a false assumption based on childish perceptions. Just because you can stand erect and falp your arms in a wing-like manner does not mean that humans have a 'good' structure for flying. Your assertion that we're better suited to flying is based solely on the fact that we have evolved into a bipedal species and pigs remain quadrapedic. Their range of motion is tailored to their posture, and ours is tailored to an upright posture. To suggest that it's bird-like, however, is a stretch at best. Simply because we can mimic the motions, does not mean that the structure or muscularity is suited to that, and it's quite the contrary. That's what wingsuits, which themselves don't allow for a range of motion or allow your arms to even come close to the position of a bird-like wing, tend to tire out fist time fliers and even the best of the bunch start to wear out when they approach 3+ min of flight time. Simply holding the wingsuit in a static postion well short of flapping is over-loading the structure of the human arm/shoulder. Just because we can flap our arms, our stubby little arms, in a bird-like manner, doesn't mean it's a good tool for that job. The act of mimicing a bird involves pushing the structure to it's limit, and using in a way for which it was not designed, and where it lacks strength. Your assertion that we're suited for flying is like suggesting that a Smart car with a hitch on it is good for towing. It has a hitch and 4-wheels, but in reality if were to hook anything of significant weight (the whole point of towing), the rear suspension would bottom, you might blow both rear tires, and even if you didn't, you wouldn't get very far, very fast. Can you put a small, empty trailer on there, and move it from one place to the other? Sure, but even then it's not going to do a great job or be very 'stable', but you could do it. It's not really 'towing' because there's no payload, and it's not doing it very well, but it would be 'doing it'. I know that some of your supporters feel that everyone else is just a naysayer, and that throughout history, all the great inventions have had their naysayers, but take the Wright brothers, for example. There was no proof that powered flight was even possible, and the list of people who had tried and failed was extensive. In this case, however, we have experience in these areas, and the concept has been push in either direction, with very large suits and very small hang gliders and canopies. It's very clear that without a rigid support structure (turning a wingsuit into a something besides a wingsuit), the human structure lacks the strength and design to effectively soar.