davelepka

Where does the shape of a pig come into the magic of flying (the pig from the Pink Flyod concert does not apply). Humans are way closer to pigs than birds. We have evloved into one thing, and birds have evolved into another. Pigs might not be able to fly, but I wouldn't want to wrestle one. Birds might be able to fly, but if I had to wrestle one, I have a feeling there would be some hollow bird bones snapping in the near future. See the point? Birds are good at some things, and pigs (and people) are good at others. To keep rolling with this, whales will never walk on dry land. Some whales can't even survive out of the water due to the weight of their bodies crushing their organs out of the boyancy of the water. Great swimmers, not so great at walking, crawling, or even not dying in any way on dry land. Certain things were made to do certain things, and sometimes to a very specific end. Look at the differences between a Cessna 152 and a sailplane. They're both flying machines, much better flying machines than a jumper in a wingsuit, but even then, only one of them is good for soaring. If you want to hold out for the perfect suit, and the perfect ultra lightweight, yet ultra-strong jumper, standing on top of the perfect slope, with steady 50 knot winds coming straight up the hill, then you might see something. You might also grow old and die waiting for all that. The problem comes back to the wing loading, and what it takes to lift a human. Unfortunately for you, we already know what it takes to carry a man aloft. Hang gliders and paragliders have all been built and flown, and they have all been downsized ad-nauseum 'just to see' what would happen, and we know what it takes. It takes more than we as humans can support without assistance, be it from a rigid frame work, or an infalted wing and lineset, but we need some kind of help. Some of us need more of it than others.

What you do is get a CX-100 style camera, then mount it 3/4 of the way up your head. You want it higher than a traditional side mount so that it tucks in with the curve of the helmet and ends up mounted further inboard of where it could be when side mounted down low. Keep it low enough, however, that the top of the box isn't higher (or much higher) that the top of the helmet. You get the benefit of not having anything on top of your head, and a narrower overall helmet than a side mount. If you want to get really crazy, you'll cut a long elipse shaped cut in the shell of the helmet, from front to back, right along where the lower inboard edge of your box will rest. This will create a 'shelf', and allow you to sit the edge of the camera box on the shelf, thus tucking the box even tighter in to your head.

Might have something to do with rampant poverty, or the fact that the interior compartment of the cars are already filled beyond capacity (note the people hanging out of the doors). Could be either one.

Good question, but the answer is not - The one thing you should have before making any jump is a complete understanding and agreement with the operating procedures for the DZ and aircraft you are jumping. Knowing how everything is 'supposed' to work can go a long way toward knowing what to do when things do go the way they're 'supposed' to. Every time a load flies, every jumper and the pilot are all working as a 'team' to get everyone safely on the ground. If every member of the 'team' doesn't know or understand their role, you increase the chances for running into a problem. What to do? Speak up. Before jumping, if there's something you don't understand or agree with, speak up. There's a chance that what you think you see isn't what's really happening, or that you simply don't understand how things work at that DZ. For example, at DZs in the UK, they have mandatory flight line gear checks. What that means is that before boarding the plane, every jumper gets a gear check from another jumper. Now if a jumper who had only jumped in the UK went to a DZ in country without mandatory flight line checks, they might see it as that DZ cutting corners on gear checks by ignoring the regulation, but the truth of the matter is that the flight line checks simply aren't required. The DZ in question might be a safe operation, and might cloesly follow the regulations in their country, it's just that those regs are different than in the UK. So speak up. The end result will always be positive, as one of two things will happen. Either the 'problem area' will be explained to your satisfaction, and you'll learn something new, or they won't have any excuse for the 'problem area', and you'll learn not to jump there.

Ever notice that everything sacex250 posts is based on info that as previously been posted on DZ.com, or 'research' he's done elsewhere online? It occurs to me that I've never read anything from him along the lines of, 'I have done xxx before, and yyy happened....', or, 'At my DZ we tend to do 123, but I've visted a DZ where they do 456'. Just about every other poster, even the ones with 2 jumps will sooner or later reference their actual experience or situation, or comment on a brand of container, canopy, jumpsuit, helmet or altimeter. Well, every other poster that has actual jumping experience, that is. In the end, this video should really be the begining and end of the discussion on the danger of cameras. Two jumps, both with 500-1000 jumps at the time of the incident, with at least 100 jumps freeflying together. The only difference in this video is the addition of a camera to one of the jumpers. This was many years ago, when mini-DV was first out, and they were stoked to have POV video of one of their jumps. Both of these jumpers were respected in the local community (Perris and Elsinore) at the time as experienced and skilled jumpers. They got so wrapped up with one filming and the other being filmed, they flew head down into dual cypres fires. The camera flyer came darn close to getting a very large bird feeder up his ass. Remember, 500-1000 jumps, respected by the locals... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoer1LmWTL4

I'm gald you mentioned this aspect. Consider that all of the jumpers in DSE's thread were licensed jumpers. Every one of them was smart enough to get through AFF and earn (at a min.) an A license. However, each one of them was not smart enough to jump a GoPro without incident (or not smart enough to realize the limitations of their experience at the time of the incident). What this tells us is that being smart enough to earn an A license is not the same as being smart emough to jump a camera, or smart enough to have good judgement with regards as to went to start jumping a camera. With this in mind, why would you support a regulatory environment where it's OK for anyone with an A licesne to jump a camera? Beyond that, let me ask you another question, what benefit does it bring to the community to allow newbies to jump cameras? What would the reason be for allowing something to occur that the most experienced camera flyers in the sport feel is inappropriate? Let's keep in mind a few thoughts about the BOD, with the first one being that not all of them are camera flyers, have camera flying experience, and some of them don't even jump anymore. While they are the jumpers with the time and money to donate towards being on the BOD, it does not mean that they are the be-all, end-all, experts on all aspects of the sport. The other thought about the BOD is that their actions are not always 'pure'. I'm not suggesting corruption or self-interest, what I'm suggesting is that they have a limited amount of time and resources, and that creating a BSR isn't fast or easy. As we have seen in the past, the BOD has gotten themselves into a legal jam or two, and they end up costing the USPA countless dollars (countless because the out-of-court settlements are always sealed). The end result of that it they have to play their actions vey carefully, espcailly when wording regulations that may very well become part of a lawsuit. Pointing to the actions or position of the BOD is not an effective argument against this. In a 'perfect world', the BOD would act very differently on a number of issues, but seeing as this is far from a 'perfect world' you get what we have now. Overall, I think the biggets mistake you're making is not deffering to the experts. Experience is everything, and those 'in the know' seem to frown upon the idea that a small-format camera makes it OK for an 'anything goes' policy with regards to who can jump them. If there's one thing I learned from skydiving that I apply to my non-jumping life, it's to 'know your role'. In some instances, I am the expert, and the best man for the job. In other instances, there are more qualified candidates for whatever the job may be, and my best contribution to the success of the project is to support those people getting the job done.

Yep, the nearest DZ. Show up with a current USPA card and make a jump. Full answer, the USPA just requires a recurrency jump, and what that entails is up to the DZ. Expect some sort of refresher training, maybe a quiz, and then to jump with an instructor. You might want to call ahead, just so they know you're coming and can staff accordingly.

Keep in mind that all reserves are inspected at each repack, and they will not be packed if they don't pass. If PD doesn't want it until it's been packed 40 times, and a rigger has inspected and passed it 15 times, I wouldn't worry about the age. My own PD reserve is a 1996 model, with a few more than 15 repacks. In regards to the rig, if a 193 is an appropriate sized reserve for you, look into the deal and work the numbers. How much can you get the complete rig for vs. how much will it cost you to buy everything but the container. You might be able to get a 'package deal' for the whole thing that will save you the majority of the cost of a resize compared to buying only canopies and AAD, and then finding another container. Buying new, at this stage, is rarely a good idea. Keep in mind that a 'custom' fit container isn't really 'custom'. It's not a like a tailored suit, where they build you a one-of-a-kind suit, it's more like buying off the rack where you find the 'closest' size for you, and then have it 'tweaked'. The manufacturer has a number of sizes they can choose from, and pick the best one for you based on your measurements. There's a fair chance you're going to want to switch rigs or canopies long before you put enough jumps on a new container to make it worthwhile. Buying used saves you a ton of money up front (use it for jumps) and loses you less money at resale (use the savings on your new gear). Try the rig on and see how it fits. Check with Mirage and get an estimate on a resize, and see how it all looks. You might even hammer the seller to split the cost of the resize with you, and you get the rig for even less.

The Cypres has a fixed price based on it's age and if it has all it maintenance checks. Go to the SSK website, they have a calculator there that will tell you the 'market price'. The Sabre 2 with only 50 jumps (even if it's 100) that's pretty new, and going by what's currently for sale, looks to be in the area of $1500-$1700. PD doesn't make a 190 reserve, they make a 193, and that's probably what you mean, but just make sure it's an actual PD 193R, and not a 190 reserve from another manufacturer. It's probably worth $600/700-ish. If you're going to try and get the guy to break the rig, why make an offer on the reserve if you're concerned about the size? Why not just go for the Cypres and main, and find a reserve that fits you better? Either way, keep in mind that for between $200 and $400 (depending on the rig) Mirage can resize the harness to fit your exact measurements. Get the serial number from the rig, and send it to Mirage along with a completed measurement form, and ask how much to make it fit. If it's not too much, you might be able to bet a better deal buying the complete rig and having it resized, and then you know it's going to fit. Then shop around for a PD-218R and sell the 193R.

No, you have nothing to do with what I wrote and I never suggestred as such. You have everythying to do with what you wrote, which was completely useless. Coming from a college physics professor, pilot, and wingsuiter, I expected more than a simple 'You're wrong', which adds nothing to conversation. I might have been wrong about part of my post, but you were a dick in your entire post.

It looks like all of their work is currently in cropdusting, but if they can complete an STC on the 206 project with a PT-6, the sales opportunities would go way beyond just skydiving. Given the numbers you were quoting for a completed ship, even if you bump them by $50k for a nice panel/paint/interior, it would be a very attractive price for GA pilots looking to get into a turbine. There are no other choices for a turbine single short of a Meridian, and you could undercut the used cost of a Meridian by several $100k. On top of that you can offer it in a 'trusted' Cessna airframe, which goes a long way in GA. Previous Cessna turbine conversions were all more money and didn't feature a PT-6. With the availability of cheap -20s from King Air upgrades (1 KA could make 2 PT-206s), it represents a significant shift in the two big areas, the price and the powerplant, and they're both in the 'right' direction. The price is lower, and the powerplant is an upgrade, two things that rarely go together. Talk to the guys doing the executive interiors on Caravans, and they'll tell you that GA is looking for 'affordable' turbines for private use. I'd almost be willing to bet they could sell more of these 206s all dressed up for GA than stripped down to DZs. The business side of this deal is a shame. Hope things come out in your favor in the end, the idea is a winner all around, and it looks to be far enough along not to just let it die.

Don't worry, as it turns out the OP has all the answers. Of course, in that case, it's anyone's guess why he posted a question, but he seems to think he's got the bases covered.

I am also a divorced dad, and also take my kids with me to the DZ sometimes when I have them. Most of the time they have fun, and some of the time they 'take one for the team' and sit around bored while I have some fun. In either case, we only go to the DZ when they have no other plans or previous commitments, their stuff always comes before my stuff. That said, I have known some single fathers who brnig their kids to the DZ in a much less responsible way. One kid, in fact, was known amongst other jumpers as a DZ 'orphan' because when he was there he was straight up 'on his own' (and this kid was about 10 at the time). It was to the point that me and my then wife would pack extra snacks and food for this kid, just to make sure he was cared for. Now I'm not suggesting this guy didn't care for his kid, but when he was at the DZ, others tended to do more of the 'caring'. At the end of the day, we don't know the circumstances of the guy this thread is about. Sure, maybe his ex is hitting him where it hurts by bringing skydiving into the divorce, but at the same time, skydiving might have been a point of contention that led to the divorce, so it was already involved before the ex brought it up in court. The guy needs to buck up and deal with it. Skydiving isn't going anywhere, and court orders can be withdrawn and re-written. Soon enough, his kids will grow up and prefer to spend time with their friends anyway, and even on weekends when he 'has' them, he won't really 'have' them because they'll be off doing their own thing.

No, I get pissy when you bother to post, but make no real contribution. As one of the few people here who is 'overqualifed' to speak on physics and aerodynamics, I value your opinion and consider it to be the 'final word' on these matters, and would look forward to a correction and learning something in the process. Meanwhile, your useless post wasn't even on-topic, it was pointing out that you thought I used an incorrect definition of a term that was secondary to the topic at hand. Using the correct definition of 'lift' or not, the purpose of the post, and how it was related to the thread, was the subject of ground effect and if it applies to wingsuits, and your 'drive by posting' didn't speak to that at all. True to form, you still have not made any meaningful contribution to the thread. Bravo sir, consistancy is thy name.

I don't know your educational background, but that's more of what I would expect from a college physics professor/pilot/skydiver/wingsuiter. Informative and a contribution to the discussion.

Great. You pointed out that I used an incorrect definition of one term within the context of the point I was trying to make. How about contributing something to the thread and either provide a correction to my definition, or better yet, realize that the point of my post wasn't to define 'lift', it was to comment on the validity of claiming that wingsuits benefit from ground effect, and that it played a critical role in a previous wingsuit flight, and contribute to that discussion. For an over qualifed college professor, you sure post like a high-school drop-out sometimes.

Indeed, but not enough to qualify as a positive value in terms of the weight of the jumper. A wingsuit can lift 'some' of the weight of a jumper, but it cannot lift 'all' of the weight and provide for a zero descent rate. Again, as I'm not a fan of apples to apples comparisons between wingsuits and planes, I'm not sure at point ground effect becomes a realistic factor in terms of effecting the lift produced. I can't say for sure wingsuits produce enough lift to allow for ground effect to become a factor. You can't look at one instance in one jump and make the claim that it's ground effect that ground effect is a useable and reliable occurance with wingsuits. If you can devsie some method of testing, and produce consistant, repeatable results, in that case maybe you can claim 'ground effect', and consider it in future flights, but without that you still have a single occurance which could easliy be chalked up to jumper action, as-in, an adjustment to body position, and not a shift in the aerodynamic properties of the suit. For example, if a new pilot was to attempt a landing, and the AC floated halfway down the runway before he could get the wheels in the ground, most would point to ground effect as the cause of the float. If that pilot taxied and reported that he 'forgot' to deploy the flaps on apporach, and dumped them just before the round-out, that could easily explain the float. The change in configuration played a factor, and there's nothing to say the same isn't true for the example you mentioned. My point is that you can't say one way or the other if ground effect is indeed present in wingsuits. With this in mind, it's bad form to point to specific incidents and chalk them up to ground effect when there's been no proof that the concept even applies to wingsuits. I have made some valid points to the contrary, and without any testing or 'proof' of the concept, it remains an 'unknown'.

If he claims the income on his tax returns, and the income was considered when they established child and/or spousal support, then he might have something. If it's under the table, or just money he leaves at the DZ for fun jumping, the 'I need to make money' argument will not work. Overall, I don't the the judge is discriminating against skydiving, he's discriminating against whatever it is that this guy's ex feels is going to keep him from spending time with his kid. It could be anything really, any activity that clearly does not (and can not) involve the child, and that the ex knows the other ex is likely to be pre-occupied with might be subject to this type of ruling. Is the ex just trying to fuck the guy (not in the good way)? More than likely yes. Maybe not because she's a bad person, maybe he spends too much time at the DZ, and too much of his other time thinking/talking about jumping. It wouldn't be the first time an ex tried to screw someone, nor would it be the first time a jumper ended up 'married' to skydiving instead of his wife.

That sounds like a guy who was looking to 'impress' you with the story of almost having his altimeter ripped off. If you, as an instructor, have a real fear of that, the solution is not telling the student and then having the student demonstrate what not to do, the solution is to be pro-active and 'shadow' every strudent's hand as they go for a practice pull, even if they look spot on. This way, you can quickly intervene if anyone makes a grab for your alti. Which beings me to my other point, in reference the different ways different instructors handle the practice pull situation. In the end, the instructors job is to assist the student if they need it. Some are happy to sit back and wait for the student to do something wrong before reaching in, and some prefer to 'shadow' every practice pull so they're that much closer if they need to step in. I don't know if one is better than the other, but they do tend to teach new instructors to shadow the practice pulls, but I think that's due more to the 'formality' of the instructor certiifcation course, where they want to teach them to the letter of the law. If an instructor wants to 'relax' that proceudre a little once they're certified and in the field, so be it. I have seen many instructor examiners (the ones who give instructors their ratings) on live student jumps just sit there and watch, and don't make a move unless the student is way off base. I've even seen them let a student 'hunt around' on their own when they're close to the PC and trying to find it.

What you have described is locating the bottle cap through mucsle memory. The important step is the one where you finally locate it, and establish it's position. The unsuccessful attempts leading up to it aren't helpful, you really don't learn where it's not, you just miss and keep hunting for it. If the case was that you only had 3 or 4 choices for where it could be, then maybe the misses could count as 'process of elimination' and you would locate it by default, but that isn't the case here. Your finger is either in the bottle cap or out, and 'out' could be any one of 100 spots around it. With that in mind, you can see that getting your hand on the PC on the first try establishes the location and begins to build the muscle memory. Allowing the student to miss does not contribute to the learning, and with the limited time available, it could become a blockage to learning if you hit pull time before the student works out the actual location.

This is true, but every jumper planning to make more than one more jump shares the goal making their next jump a safe one. What I'm suggesting is that becoming an instrucor is the end of a long journey with many challenges along the way. Don't downplay the journey, it's all part of the experiences that 'create' a skydiving instructor. You'll have a better chance for success (and fun) if you reign in your goals a little, and focus on something you could accomplish in the next 6 to 10 months. Do the work, and make the jumps, and the experience and skill will appear on it's own.

Just to be clear, I didn't mention ground effect, and don't believe it has any bearing on a wingsuit. I question the capabilty of a wingsuit to produce 'lift', and even if it could, they are not flying over flat, unborken ground, such as a runway. We only know about ground effect because aircraft encounter during take off and landing, which is accomplished over (relatively) smooth and level ground. The consistancy of the ground maintains the consistancy of the ground effect. When you're talking about a brief pass over a specific point of a rocky, un-even slope, I'm just not sure the principal applies. Also, what we do know about ground effect is that it's only present within a height of one wnigspan above the ground, and gets more pronounced the closer you get. The wingspan of a wingsuit is about 4ft, so anything higher than that is out of ground effect, and even anything in the 3 to 4 ft range is going to be a very slight occurance of ground effect (if any). Another 'known' fact about ground effect is that it primary cause is the interruption of wingtip vorticies and the reduction in drag that allows. I'm just not sold on the idea that a wingsuit produces wingtip vortices to the extent that it induces drag to the suit, and that there would be a benefit to the reduction. Overall, the 'design' of a wingsuiter is so far off from 'normal' aircraft that you can't always make an apples to apples comparison. The wing loading, wing shape, and sweep of the wings push things more towards that of a figher jet, which are not known for inherent stability, glide, or any sort of performance with an engine out (like a wingsuit).

In the case of proximity flying, and getting 'close' this is absolutely true. Without the experience of doing so, nobody really has any idea about the 'accuracy' of a wingsuit. When I say accuracy, I mean to within a foot or so, because those are tolerences that things are going to. Maybe not in extended flight, but the 'balloon' stunts are cutting it to the point where a variation of a foot or so will make all the difference. Every swooper out there has 'lost lift' during a surf and had to add input and tuck their legs up to avoid hitting the ground. The other 'unknown' is the condition of the air surrounding these objects. Every one will be different, and different days will cause different conditions on the same object. Are there pockets of 'dead' air, or turbulent areas surrounding these objects? What's the effect of these phenomenon on wingsuits? All of the above are considerations when getting within a couple feet of something at those speeds. Consider airshow pilots, who have far more control and accumulated experience/knowledge, and what they do close to the ground. When do the trick where they cut a ribbon with the vertical stabilizer, they remain 10 to 15 up (the height of the poles). Any manuvers they do closer to the ground than that they fly upright, with the landing gear in place in case they should 'lose lift'. Swooper might cut it a closer, coming within inches of the ground, but by the time they are flying at that height, they're descent rate is zero, and their forward speed is far less than a wingsuit, and certainly survivable. If your canopy 'drops' you on the ground mid-swoop at 40mph, all you have to do is slide across the (presumably) flat LZ you were swooping. A wingsuit in proximity flight will be going 2 or 3 times that speed, over less 'friendly' terrain. At the end of the day, this is what Jeb wanted. In all of his interviews and TV appearances, he talks about living life to the fullest, and getting out there and doing things, and that's what he did. He's been at it long enough and kown enough jumpers who are no longer with us that he's fuly aware of what's just on the other side of the edge he's been living on. Kudos to him for keeping his shit together and getting a canopy out. As someone else mentioned, not many guys could have pulled that off. On a less serisous note, I'm willing to bet that the huge legwing on that suit wasn't doing him any favors with both of his legs being broken.

Anyone else see Gus Wing in part 2 as one of the outside camera flyers? RIP......

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I've got news for you - right now your goal is making a safe solo skydive, not everyone can do that. Once you have that behind you, your goal is making a safe second jump. This idea continues on for as long as you're going to jump, but it's never more true during your first few years in the sport. There is a long list of accomplishments and goals you will have to reach before you are ready to become an instructor.