davelepka

Exactly. The old tabs would actually 'lock' into the channel if you pulled them tight enough, and this would keep them secure during the deployment. Most jumpers didn't know or do this, and would just rectract the tabs 'mostly'. One of my skydiving heros and mentors had this happen to him when the drawstring sliders first came out. He then proceeded to ride the mal down to spot his cutaway main so it would land on the DZ. After cutting away, he opened his custom colored reserve which matched his main, so mobody realized he had a mal at all (in retrospect, I guess it was good that he spotted his main because nobody else was looking). This is also the same guy who taught me early on that if you're going to throw up under canopy, kick yourself into half a line twist so the vomit gets blown away from you, and not all over your jumpsuit. Fun guy.

That's an exaggeration. It's not quite that simple or easy, and the cost of defending a lawsuit is generally related to the size of the suit. In order for a case to make to trial, a judge has to review the facts of the case and determine if there's any legal precedence to the case. For example, if I tried to sue my neighbor because they look at my house too much, the case would not make it to trial because there's no law against looking at a house. In your example, a sprained ankle would not be enough of an injury to merit a trial in the face of the waiver, and the general assumption of risk when jumping out of a plane. Let's say the student could prove negligence led to his broken ankle. In that case, he might get to trial, but all he could recover would be the cost of medical bills and something for 'pain and sufering'. Given that the injury isn't that severe, the monetary reward wouldn't be that large, and there's always the chance that they lsoe the case, and are stuck paying their lawyer on top of their medical bills. To take it one step further, if such a case did make it to trial, the severity of the injury and size of the judgement their after would make it a very short trial, and keep the legal fees down. If that type of case did arise, you might just offer the guy $3000 or $4000 to settle the case without any of the trial or lawyer bullshit. What's been discussed in this case is a more significant lawsuit. If a student is injured to a high degree (broken legs/back/coma/paralysis/death) the medical bills alone could top $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000 (or more). On top of that is the pain and siffering, and the loss of income during recovery or maybe the rest of their lives. If you put a guy in a wheelchair and he can't work anymore, he's going to sue you for enough for him to live on for the rest of his life. In those types of cases, with the money involved, your legal bills could top $50,000 just for you to defend yourself. When the lawwsuit is for $500,000 or $1M, the plantiffs lawyer will do all sorts of work trying to get their cut. If they collect 30%, that's a big chunk of change, and they'll go after it like a rabid dog. On top of that, when the lawsuit is that big, the lawyers will pour on the pressure and push for a settlement. If they're suing you for $1M, and they'll settle for $300,000, the lawyer will pocket $100,000, so you can see why they invest the time and effort, and why it takes an equal amount of time and effort from your lawyer (who is billing you hourly) to defend you.

It's not a matter of knowing the right people, it's about being the right person. Anyone being given an 'experimental' high performance canopy for the purposes of competition has already proven themselves on production canopies. Experimental canopy or no, these guys will be on the podium. Just knowing someone might get you a prototype canopy for an afternoon at a DZ, but by the time a factory is handing you one and sending you to a high-level competition, it's because of what you can do, not who you know. Let's face it, sending a prototype to a competition is a way of introducing a new design to the public. It's the one place where there will be a ton of skydivers and industry people, and they'll all be paying attention to the swoop pond. A manufacturer isn't going to risk a poor showing (or worse) for their new product by handing it to just anyone. Look at the thread about the Penta-thing, and what happened when it spun up, instant bad publicity. Get your shit together, start posting some appearances on the podium, and then you can have the new stuff too.

Thanks for taking the time to state the obvious. The post that revived the thread was asking about the differences between tunnel time and actual jumps. I don't think the guy wanted to hear that a tunnel is inside and you fly without a rig, and that a skydive is outside and you jump from a plane, he was looking for the more subtle differences. Take the FJC for example, do they tell you it will be fun, and that you'll jump out and then fly a parachute? Sort of, I guess, but they spend way more time talking about the 'what ifs', the things that could go wrong and what to watch out for. How many people actually have a cutaway on their first jump? How many people are taught to cutaway before their first jump? Not all tunnel flyers are overconfident once they hit the DZ, we all know this. If you want to know the 'what ifs' of tunnel training for a skydiver, misplaced confidence is one them. It's not the majority of tunnel flyers, but it's something that happens and something to watch out for. The truth is, if the majority of tunnel flyers created or exhibited a problem when they went to DZ, they wouldn't be going to DZs.

The Sony cameras have zoom, there's more to shooting tandem video than the freefall, and having a zoom feature opens up a world of different shots. The Sonys also have a much better mic, and again, there is more to a tandem video than freefall, part of it includes speaking to the customer. Also, the Sony allows you to use a wide angle lens, and while the GoPro/Drift are wide to start with, the Sony lets you pick how wide of a lens (or no lens at all). That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other reasons that more tech-savy guys would know about, but I gave up on tech and editing a long time ago (10 years ago when I went to work at a DZ that provides an editor). Now I just buy whatever camera they tell me I need, and have fun jumping it. Edit to add - $500 should get you right there. A used CX camera can be had on ebay for $200 -$250, and that leaves the rest for a lens, some memory cards (or sticks, or whatever they call them) and an extra battery.

This site is a good start, and you can also check out something called the SIM over at USPA.org. There's a ton of useless crap in there, but also some important stuff. Here's the catch, be ready to shit-can anything you 'learn' online when you get to an actual DZ and take a FJC (first jump course). Each DZ will use different terms, different gear, and teach things in their own way, and it's important that you follow their program if you're going to jump their plane, with their instructors and using their gear. Some of things you read might only apply to more experienced jumpers. Some of the things you read might only apply to one brand of rig or canopy. Some things might only apply to one specific situation, and some things might just be flat out wrong (they'll let anybody write anything they want on the internet). So read up, watch youtube, and look at the pretty pictures, but keep in mind that it's all just 'recreational' study, and may or may not have anything to do with your actual jump. Truth is, you don't 'need' any of it, the FJC is designed to take a rube off the street who knows nothing about skydiving and train them to make a jump. Some of us (most likely including some of the instructors you'll be jumping with) started jumping before the internet was useful for much of anything, and we all turned out fine.

That's what I was thinking. I'm sure some of those guys were looking for a quick hook-up, but if you go out with 4 or 5 different guys per week, some of them are actually going to be genuinely looking to meet someone. Picture a guy who goes out on one date a month, and this is the shit he ends up with? So I wonder if she has her head angled to the side in her Match.com pic so you couldn't see her nose is jacked to one side? I wonder if her nose got that way when one of these guys wised up and 'adjusted' it for her? This gal is a hooker, plain and simple. She gets paid in food, and doesn't fuck the guy, but she's a hooker.

I disagree. It's a fair question as the $10k 'loan' was certainly a point of contention for the oppostition. If you simply sweep it under the rug because the USPA 'backed off the idea', you're enabling the same poor decision making that let the idea through in the first place. The financial apsect of the UPSA is a business, and the financial end of the deal needs to be delt with. They don't want to field their own team anymore, fine, now what about the money. How much was invested in this 'team'? How much was lost on the unused trade show space and travel plans? How is this going to be repaid? I can't recall seeing any loan paperwork for a business loan that doesn't require repayment regardless of the success of the venture. Although I don't have much experience is the sponsorhip arena, I can't imagine that many sponsorship agreements don't have built-in protection for the sponsor in the case of non-performance from the sponsored. Call it a business, or call it a sponsorship, I don't think you get to 'give up' and the money issue just goes away. Show us, USPA. Show us that you're running the show like a business, and that you didn't literally just throw our money away. At the end of the day, the only reason I'm a USPA member is for the benefits it provides me or the DZ I jump at. The ability to effectively provide those benefits, and provide sufficient benefits for the money I spend, is all related to good management of money and resources. An example - I'll buy anything my kids have for sale to raise money for school. The products are never that great, the delivery is generally delayed, and the value is below par with buying popcorn at the movie theatre. Despite this, I continue to buy and never complain about the above. I spending the money to help my kids because I love them, not because I want a painted tin with 3 bags of microwave popcorn inside (for $18). I don't love the USPA or (almost) anyone on the BOD. I don't pay my dues because I like them and want them to have money to play with, I pay my dues with the expectation that they will be wisely spent on projects or investments that will benefit the membership. With that in mind, I'm sorry your team didn't work out, now what happened to our money?

Common, no. A possible downfall of the tunnel, yes. Look at it this way, it only took one guy not putting on his legstraps to make every wingsuiter take notice put additional focus on their gear checks. Of course, this is nowhere near as dire, but it's the same idea. The tunnel is a great freefall training tool. Keep in mind it's limitations and that the freefall is only one small part of making a safe jump, and you'll be fine. You could almost make the connection between success in another sport, and over-confidence in skydiving. We've all met the guy who's an 'expert' snowboarder or motocrosser, and who thinks that those skills make him better able to 'handle things' and that the normal rules of jumping don't apply to him. Tunnel time can produce the same attitude, and probably to a higher degree than other sports due to it's similarity to jumping. It's hard to remember to be humble and that you only have 50 jumps when you're sitting under canopy after just cranking 18 points on a 4-way.

It's probably the same handle and velcro arrangement for the pull-out and the freefly pud. However, if you remove the velcro from the pull-out, there's nothing left to hold the handle in place (I don't think that bottom flap would do the trick). If you remove the velcro from a freefly pud, the handle would stay in the same area because it's attached to the PC in the pouch.

Ironicly, the only canopy I ever had that NEVER opened hard was F-111. My PD-190 always (yes always) took 1000ft to open. The slider had a hole in it so big there was more hole than fabric, and I pakced it with the nose flaked wide open, and it still took 1000ft. Of course, it had 1000 jumps on it, and I bought it for $100 from a guy who stalled it on landing and broke both wrists, putting him out of the sport. A few years later that same guy ditched a plane in Lake Erie after running out of gas, and a few years after that he was the cheif instructor at a local flight shcool. But yeah, any properly flying canopy can and will open hard from time to time.

Doesn't sound like it. He mentioned the thought of covering the velcro on the rig, and if it was a pull-out the handle would have nothing to attach to and would just be a full time floating pud. In a freefly pud set-up, the attachment to the PC and the BOC pouch would hold the handle in place if you cover the velcro. It wouldn't be as secure, and why it was discouraged upthread.

You make a good point, and in reference to students, it's especially valid. Think about it, part of a safe skydive is deploying a parachute, and doing that properly requires proper body position. Furthermore, at the student level, the freefall is structured to allow for practice of essentail skills like practice pulls, altitude awareness and general stability, so anything you can add to that before the jump is going to be an asset. In terms of jumpers who can get and remain stable, I agree there might be a degree of extra 'brain power' available if the freefall portion is easier to handle, but I would suggest that more jumpers will tend to focus more on the freefall and less on the other stuff. Once they have invested the time (and money) in the tunnel, and experienced some success during actual freefalls, they might tend to become overly focused on that part of the jump. We all know it can take 1000's of jumps to perfect RW skills, and the focus might shift to honing those skills to a razor sharp edge. Like I've said before, if tunnel flyers can remember that tunnel time is helpful for freefall, but in terms of skydiving they only have the number of jumps in their logbook, then they should be fine. It's when they let their tunnel time/ tunnel skills lead them to believe they are more of a skydiver then their logbook indicates, then you have problems.

Long story short, F-111 is old tech and it's flare performance will deteriorate over time. It's not what you want, just stick with Z-po canopies. In terms of openings, the big Sabres are not great. Canopies you might consider would be the Sabre2, Spectre, Pilot, Storm, or Silhouette, none of them are know to open hard in the larger sizes.

The tunnel is an excellent trainng tool for freefall. The modern indoor tunnels have such smooth and consistant airflow, they closely match the 'real thing'. Being able to train without the pressure of making an actual jump and being able to fly 5 minutes over the course of a 15 min session greatly accelerates the learning curve. How they relate to jumps? The tunnel replicates falling striaght down at one speed, the same thing you get in frefall from just after exit until break off. The tunnel will not train you for exits and flying on the hill in subterminal air, and the tunnel will not train you to effectively track, deploy a parachute or fly one to a sage landing. Let's face it, those last three items are of far more importance from a safety/survival standpoint than a good performance freefall. Think about this, you could leave the plane in the fetal position and hold it all the way to 5000ft, then assume a good arch and deploy a canopy which you fly to a safe landing, you just made a successful jump. Note that you had no performance in freefall, you didn't do anythying, and that's the point. The freefall portion (up to break off) is just a game, it's 'fun time' before you have to save your life. Aside from making sure you don't run into anyone else, the freefall portion of your jump has no meaning in terms of making a safe jump.

You are correct. I could have more specifically said that turbines are not air cooled in the same way that piston engines are air cooled, that being through external airflow over the engine structure. For that reason, the super cold air at jump altitude combined with the lack of heat produciton when the power is pulled, aircraft with piston engines need to descend slowly to order to keep engine temps stable and avoid damage.

See this thread for all the details - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3706926;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; More or less, he's looking at 3 loads per hour including time for fueling and loading. With 350hp and a turbine for fast descents, he's projecting 15 min wheels up to wheels down. I'm not sure why your PAC takes so long to get down. Piston engines will cool too fast if you climb for 25 min, then pull the power and dive toward the ground. The hot engine combined with the high speed airflow (pitson aircraft engnies are air cooled) can cause cooling to such a degree that the cylinders can crack. So you have to keep some power on to maintain heat, and descend slowly to keep the engine together. Turbines are not air-cooled, and can maintain more heat in the engines during the descent (and don't have cylinders to crack), so a tubine can dive as fast as the airframe allows. There's no reason that a turbine shouldn't be on the ground before the tandems.

You do. From a fore/aft perspective, you're just a side of beef hanging from a meat hook. If you hook a side of beef in the center, it hangs level from the hook. If you hook it to one side, the 'bigger' end on one side of the hook will droop, while the 'little' end will raise. If you look at it from the side, and imagine a plumb line exending down from the hook, you'll see equal mass on either side of the line. Same thing under canopy. You're always going to hang straight down under the canopy/3-ring, it's just how it works. Even if you could find some way to sustain an off-center position, the confluence wrap on the bottom of the riser will cancel out any forces you might be imparting. The risers don't become 'front' and 'rear' until above the confluence wrap, so any input intended to be specific to one riser or the other needs to be made above the confluence wrap. As it sits, the confluence wrap is above the pivot of the 3-ring, so you those two factors inbetween you as a hanging mass, and any discreet input to the front or rear risers. The benefit to the forward lean is aerodynamic. It's very slight, and reduces exponentally with the decrease in speed, but that's the benefit. More important than that is flying a clean approach, and maintaining correct control inputs during the swoop. I would venture to say that spending time learning to lay forward in the harness without perfecting the rest is probably a waste. Chances are that you're going to give up some distance jacking around your body position, so you're giving up one thing to gain another. Truth is, I wonder if laying back like a PG is the better way to go. As it sits, at the end of a distance run the pilot makes a huge move in the harness to pivot back and land on their ass. Some might argue that the swining motion might create a temporary pitch-up, but I would suggest that by the time the pilots are making that move, the canopies have 'given up the ghost' and are not going to be going any further. So if pilots could adopt a laying back position, they could remain still in the harness and maintain that position all the way to touchdown. That's limited to competition distance runs. For normal swooping, you do want to be leaning forward to get your weight out in front of your feet, and facilitate running out a landing.

That's a great point. Look at some of the shit planes that people jump out of as proof. Look at some of the shit planes that people will drive for hours and spends $100's/weekend to jump out of. Jumpers will take anything that's flying and 'safe'. A tailgate is one of the few 'draws' out there these days. Jumpers will travel further and spend more on a tailgate, but I think it's more than just the back door that brings them. Being able to stand-up in the plane, and being able jam 4/5 across the door is a big part of the Skyvan/Casa appeal. Both of those require a tall and wide cabin, and that requires two big, thirsty engines. If you were looking to produce an 'ideal' skydiving plane, it would be a single and haul 12-14 jumpers per load. It's not as much as an Otter, but there are more DZs that cannot support an Otter than can, so smaller is the way to go. If you built a 12 place tailgate with an Otter height cabin and a door that could fit two-across, I have a feeliing that tailgate would be less of a 'draw', than the bigger tailgates. The truth of this whole issue might be that VPR has the right idea. A PT-6 powered 206 just might be the 'ideal' skydiving aircraft. They're looking to be cheap enough that a DZ needing two 182s could afford one, and you could buy two of them and still be less than the cost of 'normal' turbines. Cheap to buy, fast turn around, and the ability to haul 3 tandems or two AFF lv 1's means a DZ can use to 'make money', and the fast turns means that can work the fun jumpers in there as well.

Why would you bring it up? Think about this - how many people have responded, 'You're crazy' when you tell them you took up skydiving? Most people think it's crazy, and don't see it as something reasonable people do. When looking for an employee, you want someone who will show up on time everyday, do the job correctly, and not make trouble in the office. What they do with their free time is not much of a concern. However, when interviewing someone for a job, you're trying to predict their behavior in the above areas over a long period of time. So they take your resume, what you say, how you say it, and what you wear, and try to make an educated guess about you. Anything you do that could subtract from their impresson of you is going to hurt your chances for getting the job. In terms of people who say that there might be a skydviver (or the like) in upper managment, that's not much of an argument. If there was, they would know that most of their employees will be non-jumpers and won't discriminate against someone for not jumping. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that a non-jumping manager chose to pass on hiring someone because they do jump. I'm not suggesting you have to hide your jumping forever, just long enough to get the job and prove yourself to be a 'normal' and 'productive' employee, once you have that established, nobody will care what you do in your free time. (I mean that literally too, nobody is going to care that you're a jumper or want to hear anything about it beyond an initial 2 min conversation)

In terms of comfort, the material itself isn't much of a consideration unless you mostly jump naked. It's a rare jump that you have less than two layers between you and your rig (jumpsuit + shirt/shorts), so the 'feel' of the material isn't a big factor. It's really a personal choice. Are you able to jump the rig within the next month? If not, you might as well let it sit there and have it built as ordered. If you have a trip planned or local jumping available, screw the spacer foam, get the rig and spend your foam money on more jumps.

Which do you think will last longer, spacer foam or parapack/cordura?

Just a guess, the 'No' was in response to the first part of question 3, where it asked if the bridle could get caught on the velcro. To that, I agree with the 'No'. In response to the idea that the velcro could wear something out, of course, hook velcro does wear out things that it comes in contact with (even pile velcro). However, in that application, I have never seen a velcro handle cause wear to a bridle or PC faster than the bridle or PC wears out on it's own. The 'freefly pud' as it's called is a sound system, and should not be modified to work less than it already does.

Not only that, I gave him instructions for an alternate mounting (as did you). True story about a related idea. About 5 or 6 years ago one of our local wingsuiters wanted to try a rodeo, and recruited another jumper to be a rider. He also convinced the rider to deploy right off his back, just hucking the PC at the given time and seeing what happens. So a half-dozen poeple sign up to chase this, and most of them have cameras, so we figure we'll get the footage. About halfway to altitude, the wingsuiter looks at his helmet (Bonehead Mindwarp w/ a side mount Sony PC) and realizes that if he puts the helmet on backwards, he'll have close-up POV video of the rider and his eventual deployment. So he puts his helmet on backwards, and get some of the best video of all time. The look on the riders face after he throws the PC but before the deployment was priceless (the PC danced around in the burble for a few seconds). The point is that the OP is claiming the only way to get video of your own back is via the giant hook on the back of his helmet, while another jumper simply put his helmet on backwards to the shot and it worked like a charm. No special mounts, no special lenses, no lining up the shot, just a 2 second desicion to put the thing on backwards. Disclaimer - don't follow any part of this example. The wingsuiter in quesiton is one of the most talented jumpers I know, and the rider is a really nice guy who makes some 'questionable' choices from time to time.

No, your HO is correct. The PAC is an update of a plane called a Cresco. It shares the same basic airframe with the Cresco, but has an updated engine, panel, and a host of improvements. They sell a version of it designed for skydiving in that it comes new with a jump door, steps, handles, no interior, etc. So in a sense, it is a 'new' plane, and it was built for jumping, but the airframe itself was not designed with jumping in mind. All that aside, since they made those claims, there is another 'new' plane that can be bought with a jump configuration, the Kodiak. It's similar to a Caravan, and can be ordered set-up for jumping. It was not 'designed' for jumping, it was designed to be a versitle, STOL aircraft (like the Cresco), and it just so happens that jumpers like verstile STOL aircraft. So they outfit it for jumping, and it's a 'new' airplane built for jumping.