davelepka

This is going to sound sarcastic, but it's a serious answer to your question - 1. Come up with about $25,000 2. Spend $12,000 of it in the first year on training and equipment. 3. Spend $6000 of it in the second year on training and equipment. 4. Spend the remaining $7000 of in the thrid year on training, equipment, and an instructor certification course. That's the fastest way. Get your licesne, get your gear, and start knocking out 200 or 250 jumps per year. Get professional coaching along the way, and by the end of your third year, you should be good to go. If you're not good enough by then, you never will be.

Again, it's all a matter of how it was taken care of, and as others mentioned, where it was jumped. In 'average' condition, I would guess around $1500/$1600. If it's exceptionally clean, maybe a couple hundred more, if it's been 'ridden hard' maybe a couple hundred less, all of the above assuming that a rigger inspects it and deems it airworthy. One thing to keep in mind is the cost of any repairs needed. If the rigger says it need $200 worth of work to be A-OK, tell the seller and get that knocked off the price. The new PC and risers are a good start, as those are 'wear items' that need to be replaced from time to time. Overall, the 'market value' is one thing, and the value to you is another. There are a number of factors to consider when choosing a rig, it needs to fit you and an appropriate main and reserve (ideally, you also won't find it replusive to look at). With this in mind, sometime finding a 'suitable' used rig can be a trick. If you find one that is 'just right' for you, don't be afraid to pay a little extra to get it if need be. There's value in getting a rig and being able to jump it now as opposed to renting gear for another month while you keep looking. It's better to spend that rental money on a rig and get to jump your own stuff than to keep renting and searching for a 'deal'.

Big canopy, open at 5k, out last due to the big canopy and higher opening altitude, he could have been 1+ mile(s) out on opening, and cruised downwind for the remainder. It would also explain why nobody on the ground saw him under canopy flying the wrong way and they had to institute a 'manhunt' to go find him. He was just too far away when he opened.

It all depends on the care and maintenance, but keep in mind that rigs (in the US) are inspected and repacked every 6 months by an FAA rigger. If anything looks less than 100%, they will either repair the rig, or decline to repack the reserve. With that said, a harness/container can go 2000 jumps no problem, most likely more. Canopies are about the same, but all need regular maintenance to operate properly. Also, keep in mind that jumps on a rig are like miles on a car. High miles are OK, but they certainly lower the value of the car, and rigs are the same. You can buy gear with a ton of jumps, just make sure the price takes those jump into account. If this is a first rig, try to spend as little as possible. Your first few hundred jumps will have a steep learning curve, the the gear you want will change more during those jumps than they will in the 1000 jumps to follow. If you buy a new rig and try to sell it with 100 jumps, you're going to lose $1000's on the resale. If you buy a used rig at a fair price, you can typically sell it for most of what you bought it for after 100 jumps. A brand new rig might run you $6000, and that rig with 100 jumps on it might sell for $4500 or $5000. A used rig with 500 jumps on it might run you $3000, and that same rig with 600 jumps should sell for about $3000 (maybe $2900, maybe $3100, who knows). Whatever happens, don't buy any used gear without having it inspected by a rigger. Some sellers will ship gear to a rigger for an inspection without being paid for the gear, and some will not. If a seller will not, make sure it's understood that you can return it within a week (without jumping it) so your rigger can inspect it. Shipping charges back and forth are usually split between buyer and seller.

I don't think he has any intention of doing that. He knows nobody in Nashville is going to pay further attention to this story, or hold him to his claims to persue felony charges. In the court of 'public opinion', the prosecuter has scored a 'win' for keeping the streets of Nashville safe. Even if there was a follow up story, it's doubtful anyone would remember the pledge to felony convictions or take the prosecutor to task for not following through. During the exciting 'breaking news', the prosector got what he wanted. In the much less glamourous world of reality and due process, these guys will probably walk away with tresspassing charges like countless other BASE jumpers.

Indeed. I was going on the idea that the felony charges won't stick, and they'll end up with lesser charges like tresspassing.

Jeb Corliss spent a fortune on a good lawyer. The lawyer was the one who got the charges dropped. These guys should retain some good legal counsel in Nashville. Felony charges are nothing to toy with, and if the prosecuter is having a bad day and tight with the judge, I wouldn't want to trust my fate to a public defender. Uless they rented a room on the top floor, tresspassing is a vey real possbility, I can see the Sharaton people wanting to press charges. Depending on what they did to get on the roof (if they left from the roof), breaking and entering might come into the picture. I'm not sure how long it will take, but they should get their gear back eventaully. Once the charges are all sorted out and they take care of fines and/or jail time, the gear should be returned to it's rightful owner.

Humid means you're not in the desert. Canopies that live in Eloy, or other dry dusty environments will show wear MUCH faster than places without the sand and dust. Some people feel that if a canopy has 'X' number of jumps in a desert that it's close to twice the wear of the same number of jumps at a more canopy-friendly DZ.

Things to keep in mind, and I speak from experience here - the fabric has to be the correct weight and weave for what you want to do. Fabric store stuff will not survive flapping the freefall breeze, and will begin to self destruct within 10 jumps. A good idea would be to work out the 'details' like the pattern, the fit, the sewing etc with some cheapo fabric, and once you're all set contact a suit manufacturer and buy a couple yards of fabric from them to assemble the 'final' suit. Also, when building the suit, pay attention to the bias of the fabric. It's like the grain of wood, and it's orientation to seams, etc makes a difference. A good idea might be to borrow a suit similar to the one you want to build (in a similar size) and use to get started with the pattern. You can literally trace the outline of the suit onto paper and go from there.

I find it hard to believe that any DZO would continue to employ a TI like that. Right off the top of my head, this guy - - Busted the seat belt rule by unfastening it below 1000ft (or whatever the DZ mandates) - Left his student alone in the front of the plane -Requested the door be opened when the jumper sitting next to it (presumably) was still wearing a seat belt -Threatened violence against another jumper -Threatened violence against another jumper in front of a student (aka a paying customer). ..all in the course of 30 seconds. This is not the guy I want in my plane, jumping my gear, working with my customers or representing my business. Truthfully, I find it hard to believe that any grown man would act that way, but if there's one thing there's never a shortage of at the DZ, it's surprises.

The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount. The idea with 'loser pays' isn't to provide a winfall for the winners (they just won, that's their winfall) it's to discouge frivilous lawsuits. So you the courts were to assign a 'value' to legal services, and then have an independent auditor (at the expense of the loser) make sure the legal fees submitted are 'appropriate', then you have your solution. It discourages frivilous lawsuits, and prevents Joe Public from being saddled with the bill from a $1000/hr corporate attorney. In the case of Joe Public suing John Average, the loser may end up covering the winners legal fees in full. In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour. In terms of skydiving lawsuits, if a DZ hires an 'avearge' priced lawyer, and they prevail in the suit, their legal fees might be covered in full.

An RW suit has a loooong list of choices and options you need to make when putting one together. See if anyone at your DZ, or close by, is either a dealer or manufacturer of jumpsuits. Then ask jumpers you see with that brand, and see what they think and if they seem happy, that might be a good choice. The idea is that getting measured is a big step in ordering a suit, and having done right is a huge part in getting a suit to fit. A dealer who is experienced with measuring for one brand of suit will be able to do the best job. With your first suit, you'll need help with virtually every chioce, expect maybe the colors (avoid white, it won't be very 'white' for long). So having a good dealer or manufactuer to work with will help you make the right choices. By the time you jump the suit for awhile, and are ready for suit #2, you'll have much more experience, and be able to build off of your experiences with suit #1 and you'll have an easier time putting together suit #2.

Do you think everyone has forgotten about all the whinning and complaing you did when your ex 'used' you for whatever you think you got used for, and then left you? Why do you think anyone is going to take you seriously (here or in the real world) when you bitch and moan about women being superficial and users, and then you yourself turn around and act the same way? My guess? There are no nights with multiple girls, and there are few nights with any girls like the online-Shah claims to only be attracted to. You're in or around NYC, which is the biggest shark tank on the planet, and no amount of money short of 8 figures is going to get a second look unless you're a male model. You're not. Get over yourself and stop trying to make yourself out to be a playboy. The biggest playboys I know all share the same public persona - nice, polite, respectful to women,and generally liked by all. It's called character, and when you stick it into an attractive man, it leads to success with the ladies. You appear to be, or have, none of the above, and it's tiresome to hear you go on the way you do. Yeah, you are 35, start acting like it. You sound like I did when I was 22 and between grilfriends. Now I'm 36, and have managed to learn a thing or two about life, what's your excuse?

That might be true in some circumstances, such as a student who has lost altitude awareness and is making no attempt to open a parachute. In the case of a student who is trying, and failing, to open a parachute, I think the angle that it 'may' send the wrong message is incorrect. The student already knows that it's time to open a parachute, and the instructor is making an effort to assist.

If you figure on an average canopy speed of 25 mph, so a closing speed of 50 mph in a head-on, you're looking at about 70 feet-per-second, or 140 ft in between chirps. So if you set the chirps to 'echo' each other at, say, within 200ft, you could have one chrip un-echoed at 205ft, and the nect chirp (with echo) would be at 65ft, or less than one second from impact, not enough time to react. Then you're back to the problem of filtering that info in the pattern so you can tell the difference between canopies normally closing in on the pattern, and canopies approaching you for a collision. The idea remains good, but the problems also remain.

This is a fine idea. There are a couple of problems, but a fine idea. In terms of everyone having one, this could easily be solved by making the DZ responsible for such things. Add .25 to the cost of a jump to cover the cost of provising them, and that takes care of that. The DZ would need 2x the number of slots in their largest plane (plus a couple extras), so they could insure there are enough for everyone. Some jumpers might choose to have their own. The downside is that there would need to be a 'universal' technology. None of this, 'I use a Cypres, you use a Vigil' stuff, everyone would have to use the same brand of device (or all brands would need to use the same tech). The biggest problem would be programming the device. If you figure that head-on closing speeds can easily top 50 mph even for slow canopies, you need an alarm sensitive enough to give you enough warning that you can react to canopy appraoching you at that speed. It becomes a problem in the landing pattern, where canopies are intentionally close to each other, and collisions are the biggest threat. How do you filter the info of canopies simply closing in on the same landing pattern, and canopies ready to collide?

This is unacceptable, and easily fixed. There are two options, the first is to thread the chin-cup or back-strap ratchet strap through the swoop cord of the jumpers camera suit, and fasten the ratchet strap. The second, is to stich up a lanyard of appropriate strength material with loops at each end. One end is larks headed around the jumpers arm or through a chest strap, and the other end is passed through the above mentioned ratchet strap. Problem solved for free or very little money.

Watch the video that was posted upthread. You'll see that the gear is attached inboard, and then locks into a 'channel' that leads outboard of the fuselage. The underside of that channel is like a back-stop that the gear rests against when deployed, and where the load is focused when the gear is loaded. Note that there is nothing supporting the gear from the bottom, as there is never a load pushing down on the gear (besides jumpers). Im not even sure what holds it up, but I would imagine that it's a pin or interlock that's designed to support the weight of one gear leg which I can only assume is less than the weight of one jumper. When you double or triple that load, you might have a problem.

This is what iTunes has done to the music industry and music stores in general. It used to be that while not everyone in the band couldn't afford a car, or their own apartment, at least they could all afford their own instruments, but now this is what it's come to. All that aside, does anyone esle think the guy on the right looks like Scott Miller?

I don't know how these things make it to trial. The student hade made 5 previous solo jumps, and before each jump (I assume) he was told over and over that opening his parachute on time was extremely important, and then he (I assume) proceeded to do so. If he did not, he would not have been passed to the next level. On the jump in question, he was again told that he would be opening his own parachute The dive flow which included both him tracking away from the instructor and opening his own parachute was taught and reviewed (I assume) multiple times, up to and including, in the aircraft minutes before the jump. With all this in mind, the student chose to exit the aircraft, and in doing so, accepted responsilbility for his portion of the planned skydive, to include opening his own parachute. On top of that all, the dive flow was the same one used for every Lv 6 student at this DZ, and is in accordance with the USPA trainging program they are following. What part of this is negligence, and what part of this is 'skydiving is dangerous'?

Most common problems - not finishing the flare and putting your feet down too soon. The one actaully leads into the other, because it's also common for people to stop 'flying' the canopy as soon as their feet touch the ground. If you have to run a few steps, keep 'flying' and the canopy will support some of your weight, and smooth the transition from canopy to ground. The other common problem is that jumpers insist they don't do any of the above. This is where video comes into play, and you can see what you're 'really' doing, and not what you 'think' you're doing. As far as the speed of landing on a no wind day, the canopy needs some forward speed in order to remain pressurized. Some canopies can fly straight down or even backwards, but the vast majority of sport canopies need some forward speed or they will stall. Keep in mind that this is airspeed, not groundspeed. The reason you can kite a canopy on a wind day is becasue you have airspeed. The wind passing over the canopy makes the canopy 'fly' even though the canopy isn't moving across the ground. So on a no wind day, the slowest you can land will be just above the stall speed. Let's say the stall speed is 10 mph, that means you can land your canopy with an 11mph groundspeed. It's just above stall speed, and you have no wind to effect a difference between the airspeed and the groundspeed. Now if you're landing into the wind, and you have an 11mph, that wind will counter the airspeed, and you can land your canopy with zero groundspeed. When landing into the wind, your groundspeed = airspeed - wind speed. Turn the wind around, and it adds to your groundspeed, so the 11 mph wind plus the 11 mph airspeed gives you a 22 mph groundspeed. When landing downwind your groundspeed = airspeed = wind speed. Back to the top of the page, you can lower the stall speed of your canopy by lowering the WL. The way you lower the WL is by getting your feet on the ground and still flying the canopy. In this way, you can get the canopy to support some of your weight slower then the stall speed. In short, flare all the way, keep your feet up until the canopy won't carry you anymore, and then keep flying the canopy while you put your feet down and start runnuing/walking, and get video.

No difference to the FAA. In certain matters, yes you can 'catch more flies with honey', but in situations that pertain directly to the safety of others, and are governed by an FAR from the FAA, the way the message is delivered is of no consequence with regard to the action. If the jumper in question wants to make it a personal issue with regards to the TI giving the instruction, that's their right, but choosing to not wear a seatbelt is not their right, and there's no way to argue against that. That said, I do find it odd the details of the story. That it was a TI speaking to a fun jumper is what really surprises me. I know that if this was at a DZ where I was on staff and doing a working jump, I would not have been the one getting off the plane. As a staff memember conducting DZ business on a DZ aircraft, I would have offered the fun jumper the option of buckling up or getting off the plane, there's no way I would have gotten off the load, disappointed a customer and disturbed the workflow for the remainder of the day.

I'm sure it has a lot to do with low cutaways. People revert to their training, and in the training they are taught a 'procedure' that includes both handles in the right order. The catch, is that these people, by virtue of being low under a mal, have already either forgotten or fore-gone the part of their training where they were taught to respond quickly to a malfunction and given a hard to deck with respect to cutting away. So since there is a 'catch' and since that catch relies on an initial failure on the part of the jumper (riding a mal below the hard deck), we have a 'situation' on our hands. We teach people the procedure so they can react quickly to a mal, and they have a procedure at the ready when they need it, but it seems that this is at the risk of a low cutaway if a jumper busts the hard deck. The operative word there is 'if', and we cannot plan for jumpers to bust the hard deck, we have to train them to respect the hard deck, and train them as if things will be done properly. Does that suck for people who do bust the hard deck? Sure it does, but those people have a variety of things in their life that will be sucking, so this is just another. Sport skydiving isn't perfect. I consider my rig to be safe, and fulyl believe that it will save my life when I jump. That doesn't mean I can deploy my Velo at 500ft, or toss my PC while curled up in a ball falling on my back, because the rig wasn't designed to work that way, but if I'm stable and have enough altitude, I believe it will work. The EPs are the same way. If you use them 'as-designed', they will work for you. 'As-designed' in this case, means you initiate them high enough to allow for the cutaway and reserve deployment. Just like a rig, if you try to use them in a way they weren't designed, you do so at your own risk.

There are plasic snaps on the bottom skin of the canopy and also on the four corners of the slider. During packing, with the slider all the way up and quartered, the snaps line-up and snapping it into place just helps to hold it in position. As to why, and why only on the Velos, I have no 'official' info, and haven't even 'heard' anyting, but I have a guess. My guess is two-fold, for starters, in case you didn't know, Velos have fairly large sliders in comparison to the size of the canopy, and that's because they would hammer open with a smaller slider. So in order to prevent them from hammering open (even occasionally), they snap the slider in palce. My other guess is that it has something to do with the nature of an 'uncontrolled' opening on a highly loaded, high performance canopy. A high WL and HP canopy will 'magnify' any problems during the opening, and a spinner/mal on a little Velo can be a big deal, so the snaps are other layer of 'protection' from that. Back to confirmed, PD approved news (at least as of last year) you can have snaps added to a Velo that was built without them. I was offered snaps during a reline this time last year, I declined, but the offer was there.

That's only half of it, the other (first) half is the work you need to do before you even start swooping. It's the one discipline where you more or less need to be an 'expert' canopy pilot (non-swooping) before you even start swooping. You should be able to pilot a variety of different canopies, at different WL, and in different conditions, all with the same outcome of a controlled, accurate, soft landing, all of this before you even begin swooping. If you're not good with a canopy at 'regular' speed, what business do you have flying one with added speed? There's no way to say for sure that there's a 'set' ratio between the two. If will differ from jumper to jumper, and situation to situation. My 'gut' tells me that it's more related to the points on the RW jump. Each point is chance to practice your flying, so as many moves as you make might be the number of 'experiences' you have on the jump. A swooper gets one experience per jump, so you can see where it would take much longer to build the time needed to be an 'expert'. (No offence to 4-way guys, by the way, they put in their time and have that shit down to a very sharp edge) One comment about that comparison, however, the price that an RW guy pays for blowing a move is much different than a swooper.