davelepka

The problem with the waiver, any waiver, is that you cannot waive gross negligence. Let's say you sign a waiver, then the TI pushes you out of the plane un-attached, and attempts to catch you mid-air (ala Dropzone the movie), but fails. That wouldn't be covered by the waiver. The above example is easy for anyone to understand that the TI acted improperly, but in real life incidents, the suttle details of what happened are what's important, and no judge knows enough about jumping to unilaterally throw a case out of court. The end result is that they agree to hear the case, and then it's up to the lawyers to prove negligence (guilty) or that it was an accident and that the TI acted properly (not guilty). In the end, the cost of the defense is what get's you. Waiver or no, you better have a good lawyer on your side when you walk into court (the plantiff will), and that's going to run you $300/hr. Between all the pre-trial jacking around that lawyers do mailing letters back and forth, trial prep, and time in court, it's not unreasonable to run up between 50 and 100 billable hours. Do the math, it's not cheap to win in court. The main problem is that everyone in the courtroom (expect you) is a whuffo, and needs to be explained in great detail what happened, how it happened, and how it was an 'acceptable' incident. That takes time, and costs money.

I've never tried the new one, but I have an old Mindwarp that uses the same internal liner system (although mine has a velcro strap and buckle instead of a ratchet). Anyway, I jumed it for years as a side-mount video (Sony PC series) and top-mount still camera (Rebel 35mm) with no chin cup. The liner would snug up and hold the helmet tight enough that the video was smooth and I always felt like the helmet was secure. I added a chin cup when I went to a digital still camera a few years back, mostly due to the cost of the camera, and thoughts about losing it. Even now, I still feel like tightening down the liner is the primary system for holding the helmet on my head, and the chin cup is just a back-up. When I switched from a PC camera to a CX camera last winter, I thought about buying a new helemt, and the only one I considered was the Hell's Halo.

There are a lot of factors that go into canopy flight. Canopy size, type and material, weather, wind direction, and jumper skill/experience are others. To sift through all of them, and give you a play-by-play for each one would take all day (and what should be covered in an all-day canopy control course). Most of the info here is pretaining to one scenario or the other, and none of them apply directly to yours. Without mentioning the type of canopy, your weight, and the wind/weather conditions for the day, it's hard to tell you one way or the other what you should/could do. However, I can give you piece of univeral advice regarding canopy control, and more specifically, canopy control in the landing pattern - don't ever do anything under 1000ft that you haven't been briefed on by a qualifed jumper, practiced on more than one jump above your hard deck, and that you feel you have a 'complete' understanding of. Below 1000ft is no place for experimentation, or coming up with last minute ideas. Stick to the basics down low, because you're out of your greatest resource in a skydive -altitude (or time, they're sort of the same once you leave the plane). There are techinques for sinking in canopies, and your canopy might work for that, but you need to understand the in's and out's of it fully before putting it to use on an actual landing. Furthermore, you're choice not to S-turn in a busy pattern was a good one, but realize that going to deep brakes is also a disruption to the flow of traffic to anyone behind you. It's like stopping on the freeway, and not cool. Deep braked accuracy approached are typically flown in competition or practice, where they have a dedicated low pass, and everyone on the pass is looking to sink it in.

Here's what I like the best about your posts (and PMs)- You say this about me ...and then continue on with such gems as - I'll leave out the details of your PM to me, but it included one of the above insults, and a brand new one 'for my eyes only'. Who's the emotional one now? All I did was attack your position, you attacked me personally. The good news is that you've revealed your intellect to the group, so now it can be duly noted, thank for your service to the community.

That's a good start. Now take a 1/4" wedge, and put it under the tail end of the camera. Now it's pointing further down and toward your back. Just because you 'want' something doesn't mean it's safe, or that there is a safe way to do it, or you are equipped if there is a safe way. At the end of the day, you're trying to film your back. Not that exciting, nothing close to new, and not worth the risk you're tyring to add to your skydive. I could see if there was something back there; another jumper, a mountain, or a Porter chasing you, but just for your own back on a solo, not so much.

You realize that seeing a photo of something does not make it a good idea. A photo does not indicate how many jumps were put on it, what the outcome of those jumps were, or if the user has since found a problem and done a redesign. Furthermore, seeing a photo does not make you privy to all of the design elements. You may have an idea of the 'rough' configuration, but you do not know the exact details of the camera placement, method of attachment, and materials used. I know what I build a camera helmet/mount, those things are carefully considered and specifically selected for the given application. Given the width of lenses these days, stick with mounting your cameras directly to the helmet, and simply slide it fore/aft along the curve of the helmet to get the angle you're looking for. I understand that if you mount the camera on top, like when you're filming forward, that it will be shooting up into the sky if you simply rotate it 180, so rotate it 180, and slide it back a few inches along the curve of the helmet, and eventaully it will be pointing downwards, and you'll have the shot you want. Much like selecting a canopy, you don't design a camera helmet for the 'best case scenario', you design one that will function (in the case of a camera helmet, one that will 'do no harm') when a couple of things go wrong. Maybe in an ideal main-canopy deployment, your camera mount will not provide any interference. What happens if you blow out a wing or zipper on your jumpsuit? Of if a shoulder pops out of the socket? What sort of airflow and direction of the relative wind can you exspect then? While I admit that your mount looks like it might clear a normal wingsuit deployment, it also looks like a major snag point in a 'comprimised' deployment. None of that is mentioning the reserve system, which is in VERY close proximity to that mount, and by it's very defeinition, a reserve deployment is never 'normal'. You're only dumping your reserve because something has gone wrong. What that something will be, and how it will effect the airflow or deplyoment, is anyone's guess, and you mount is not designed with that in mind.

Ask the guy I responded to. He accused Square 1 of taking advantage of students. He also suggested they served no purpose to the community, and that the idea of them being of use was akin to 'smoking crack'. I for one, DO NOT agree with that... Edit - I forgot the best part! He's complaining about a gear store renting a rig for the going rate (per-day) in a thread about the guy who used to ship customers a free rig to jump with their custom order was being filled. The same guy who was taking everyone's order, and their money, and not forwarding any of it to the manufacturer. The same guy who ripped off countless jumpers for what could be north of $100k. It's in this thread that he complains about Square 1, who's still in business, who sells gear everyday of the week, and has managed to maintain a good reputation while doing so (with everyone but the OP, of course).

Most DZs don't even offer a day-rate, it per-jump and can be as much as $20/$25. At $75 for the day, you come out ahead in 4 jumps. If you're motivated, even a slow-pakcing newbie can make 8 jumps a day. That's less than $10/jump, not all that different from owning a rig when you add in repacks, maintenance, ADD service/batteries and wear-and-tear (which newbies are know for). You really think $75 is a lot to ask when they're letting you use a $6000 piece of equipment to throw yourself out of an airplane, uninsured, as many times as you want? You think the other guy is on crack? Interesting that the guy who doesn't have one rig thinks he knows all about owning and maintaining 20 rigs.

Too much elevator would screw up the control balance while everyone was in their seats (or the plane was empty). Moving the elelvator up will take care of some of that problem. In addition to making a tailstrike less likely, it keeps the elevator up in the clean air, out of the burble of the jumpers in the door, maintaining good airflow over the elevator with jumpers floating. That aside, I'm confused about this thread in general. The questions being asked are basic, basic, configuration questions, and there's no way on earth to take a plane that hasn't made it that far in the design process, and have it certified by the FAA by 2012. A clean sheet design will take years to achieve certification, and the majority of the questions asked would have to be answered within the first six months of development.

Which business is that? Not skydiving, for sure. The problem with being sued for skydiving is that it's almost always personal injury or wrongful death, and that's expensive. If you have a business deal go bad, the judgement rarely exceeds the value of the deal. There may be some slight punitive damages, but more times than not, the plantiff is 'made whole' and that's the end of it. If you injure or kill someone, that's another story. An injury case is a bitch because you start off with every penny of their outrageous medical bills, followed by the punitive damages for their pain and suffering. If you kill someone, the damages for the familes pain and suffering alone is enough to casue you pain and suffering. What this means is a potentially big judgement, and plantiffs lawyers willing to work the case ad nauseum to get their cut said judgement, which leads to your lawyer working their ass off (billing your ass off) fighting the case. In a bad business deal, the value of the deal is commensurate with the business you're in, so the judgement should be easy for you to swallow. In a bad skydiving deal (an incident) the value of the jump ($30) is nothing like the money you're going to spend simply defending yourself and winning. If you lose, the difference between the money you made and the money you lost is literally 1,000-fold or more. At the end of the day, the laibility just doesn't add up. Some guys are OK with the risk, but if you're not that kind of guy, being a TI just isn't the business for you.

The guy didn't mention anything about his weight or his budget. With that in mind, I suggested that he might want a canopy that is at least on-par with an average student canopy, not a generation behind. Read my post, I admitted that it would deliver him to the ground and provide a survivable landing. Some people (most people) are jumping for reasons other than utility, and want more from their canopy than that. It's not about 'sporty', it's about a consistant and reliable flare, and the type of glide and forward drive you can expect from newer canopies. Seeing as there are Sabres out there for $300-$400, it's hard to justify a canopy that costs less than a weekend of jumping. No matter what you say on this forum, someone has a reason or example why it's not right. So you jumped a cheap peice of crap rig and canopy when you couldn't afford anything better. Guess what, I did the same thing, also with a PD190, and it sucked. That was a different time when better gear was more expensive. Now you can get a much more 'functional' rig for not much more money than the OP was thinking about paying for the overpriced rig with the undersized reserve. Excuse me for giving him some good advice about not buying outdated, undersized gear.

That sucks, and I hope it works out in your favor. In the US, that money would just cover your legal bills, the actual lawsuit would be for 10 times that amount. You'll spend that on a laywer even if you win the case and the pax gets nothing.

Most of the BOD and the RDs are DZOs. They have knowledge of the problem and the risk, they also have the ability to effect industry-wide change, but they don't. Will other DZOs listen? Interesting factiod, at least one BOD member/DZO I know keeps a tight reign on canopy selection and canopy control at their DZ. Why they don't insist (make a BSR) on this from every DZO, I do not know.

Me personally? I try to give good advice here on DZ.com, and when I'm on DZ.real-life, I try to watch others under canopy, and offer advice when I see areas that need improvement, or report to the management when I see areas that could cause injury. Beyond that, I've posted my ideas for fixing the 'big picture' several times, and back when I first developed the ideas, I forwarded them the USPA BOD member in charge of the Safety and Training committee, who proceeded to do nothing with them. According to another BOD member I know (who was not on that committee), the ideas, or anything like them, ever surfaced at a BOD meeting. Since then, I have reposted my thoughts many times, and they have been read by many BOD members (many of them are members here), and still no realistic action has been taken. So what do 'we' do? I don't know, I don't know what it will take to get the USPA to pull it's head out of it's ass, but they spend an awful lot of time (and money) on things that have no bearing on the FAAs desire to 'keep an eye on things', which is hard to believe. Considering that the letter from the FAA was featured prominently in the USPAs own magazine, the fact that they don't seem to be addressing the #1 problem in skydiving is just plain dumb. All 'I' can do is try to keep things on the right track in the little patch of grass I call home. I guess if more jumpers did the same, maybe we would have less of a problem, but that's not the answer. That requires a large number of people to indentify the problem, form a solution, and put the solution into practice with no real reason for anyone to listen to them. If the USPA would step up, on the other hand, it onyl requires the BOD to identify the problem and come up with a solution, then the large number of people step in to enforce it, this time with some 'teeth' behind them.

Fear not, I won't keep you waiting. If such a canopy existed, you would simply deploy it above 4500ft, and it would not be lethal. However, no such canopy exists, so while this statement would be 'theoreticaly' true, it's not 'really' true. This is the same as the above. I guess it would be true if such a canopy existed, but it doesn't, so it's not. Again, no such canopy exists. Every canopy out there has the ability to fly straight with a range of speeds, and turn with a range of turn rates. None of them will take off on their own without pilot input. This is true, but it's true of all canopies. I'll give in that you got this one technically right, but not to the point that it serves your purpose of singling out what you believe to be HP canopies. The fact is, some canopies have more of a tendency to collapse due to very light loading, the exact opposite of HP. At this point there's little reason to go on, as we've determined that every canopy is potentially lethal. They can all collapse due to turbulence, and they all do it at an unrecoverable altitude. Just for fun, let's go on anyway - I just lumped them all together, because again, none of the above perameters are things the canopy can do on their own, they are require some sort of action (or in-action) from the pilot. The moral of the story, it's not the canopies, it's the pilots. Put any of the modern canopies in the hands of a qualified pilot, and it will respond properly to the input the pilot gives. From the outside looking it, you might think it's the canopies, but the fact is that they do what they're told. There are (literally) millions of jumps on the likes of Sabres, Stilettos, Sabre2s and Spectres, all without incident. It couldn't happen if the canopies weren't good, it couldn't happen if the canopies didn't do what they were told. Get off the idea that the canopies are the problem. It's the pilots.

When I said that the LLC idea had 'proven' to be less than effective, it was in reference to a TI who had an LLC who got sued, and this guy had no assets to speak of. I think the bigger consideration here is that the pay a TI can expect, and the liability of even defeneding a baseless lawsuit, just don't add up. If you look at it from a risk/reward perspective, if you make $35/jump and as a weekend TI you end up doing 250 tandems a season, you're looking at less than $9000/year. Consider that the above instructor spent in excess of $30,000 defending himself against a suit that was ultimately dropped, it just doesn't add up. At the end of the day, the pay a TI can expect doesn't even justify the risk of defending a baseless lawsuit, let alone the risk of losing and have a judgement brought against you.

This has proven to be less than effective. Somebody mentioned it upthread, somthing about personal action and being sued personally. If a UPS driver was drunk and hit your car, you could sue UPS but you could also sue the driver personally as it was his personal action that casued the harm. In the case of a DZ, I'm sure the DZ and the 'shell' corporation would be sued, but with neither one of them being insured, they would also sue the TI, the pilot, the gear manufacturer, and maybe the aircraft manufacturer. It comes back to the 'sue everyone first, see who has money later' plan. I think the main advantage of creating an LLC is tax based at this point, and even than varies from state to state.

It just depends on the WL. If people loaded them the same way they loaded a Pegasus, the Sabre2 is not high performance. The problem is, people load them heavier than a Pegasus, and don't recieve any training beyond what you would have recieved to jump a Pegasus. Lighter control inputs don't make something high performance. Again, look at modern cars. If you turn the wheel or step on the brake in a car with power steering and brakes with the same force that you used in a car without power steering and brakes, you would swerve off the road, or come to a very quick halt in the middle of the road. Despite this, brain-dead teenagers everywhere manage to drive modern car, with their lightly calibrated control inputs, without incident. The reason is that from the first time they got behind the wheel, they were dealing with power steering and brakes, and they learned how much force was required, and that's the force that they used. When was the last time you loosened a stubborn screw without stripping the head? You know that you cannot just apply 100% of your strength, you meter out what's needed, and get the job done. When was the last time you ripped your dick off treating it like a screwdriver being used to loosen a stubborn screw? I'm guessing never, and that's because, again, you learned what level of force was appropriate, and used it. For further reference, we have a Sabre 190 as the 'small' student/rental canopy. It's in the rig with the little harness, and only used for the leightweights. Just this weekend, I was helping a newbie with 15 jumps pack his new (to him) Sabre 190 in his first rig. He's about 130 lbs, so it's lightly loaded and a good choice for a first canopy. Many years ago, my first 'small' canopy was a Sabre 107 that I loaded at about 1.7 to 1, and I put about 500 jumps on it. I learned to swoop and fly a small canopy with that wing, and it was fast and liked to fall out of the sky. The point is that the same canopy, but in a 190, is suitable for lighter students and newbies, while I used a highly loaded one to learn to swoop. The way some people jump them, the Sabre2 can be a HP canopy. The way newbies should jump them, the Sabre2 is not high performance.

The company 'Sportations' is a spin-off of Skyride, which has a history of 'questionable' business practices. That said, one of the ways they work is by booking tandems at legitimate drop zones, places that run good, safe operations, and will provide a quality service for your money. Another way they work is by running their own drop zones, some of which have poor reputations among jumpers. Here's what you do - first, post the name of the srop zone that is supposed to provide you service, and we'll see if it's a legit place, or a Skyride Dz that you should avoid. If it's a good DZ, just call them and try to book your jump. Understand that by doing a Groupon, they're going to have a flood of business, and you might have to wait a couple weeks for an open slot, but if it's a liget DZ, there's a good chance you'll get your jump and have a blast. If it's a Skyride DZ, then you have to make a choice between taking your chances with them, or trying to get your money back from Groupon ( I don't think they do that), or just taking a loss.

Guess not. Wonder why? I'm guessing you're preparred to toss these couches on the curb and buy new when this fails. That said, if you want to try, ditch the miter cut and go with a butt joint. It's a couch, not a picture frame, and a butt joint will save you the trouble of cutting the cushions and one of the couches all together. Lop off one armrest, figure out a way to clean up the cut, and slide the other couch into position. Then, sell everything you own that you didn't buy a Walmart, and move your 'new' couch into a double-wide. Watch 'Joe Dirt' for grooming and fashion advice, and start you new life as a redneck. At least you already have the fake tuxedo.

Hey John, good idea to ditch the PD210. If you don't fire an F-111 canopy in time, it will up and quit on you when you really need it (during the flare). Do yourself a favor and take a look at a Spectre. Wink only jumps Spectres and he has for years. He currently has a 135, 150, and a 170. They're available used at any price point, and a 190 would be a great transition canopy from your 210. The Stiletto is a bit of a stretch based on your experience. One of the things that makes the Stiletto a Stiletto is that is has very little stability in the roll axis. It doesn't want to fly straight, and it won't do it by iteslf. The upside is that it helps the canopy to turn quickly, the downside is that it makes it extremely touchy in the flare to asymetical inputs. 3000 to 3500 of my jumps are on Stilettos and they are great canopies, just not coming right off a big F-111. If you're thinking about buying a new canopy (bad idea, too hard to pack), hold off untill the spring and demo the Sabre2 and Storm from PD. The Sabre2 is a 9 cell, and the Strom a 7 cell, and see which one floats your boat. PD should have both in stock, so you can have one in your hands the week after you demo.

It's true, the rig costs $800, but it's just not that good. It might be airworthy, but that doesn't mean it's going to meet your needs as a sport skydiver. I've made this comparison before, but if you were into amateur auto racing or drifting, a Pinto is not going to be the car for you. A mint Pinto with 3000 miles might be a good car, and it might do the basic job of a car, but it's not going to work for the 'sports' driving you're intending to do. Step one - ask everyone your DZ about gear for sale, see what's around and then see step 2. Step two - hook up with a local rigger. If you want a rig, you need a rigger to pack and maintain it, so you might as well meet one now. Ask their opinion of anything you're thinking about buying. If they approve, make a deal with the seller to buy pending your riggers inspection. Make sure you can return anything that doesn't fit or doesn't pass your riggers inspection. This does not include jumping the gear, and you should not hang on to anything for more than a week if you're not going to keep it, just make sure that your rigger has a chance to do an inspection before a sale is 'final'.

What is your exit weight? That's you, wearing a rig and all your skydiving gear. If it's more than 150 lbs, the reserve is too small. If it's more than 180 lbs, the main is too small. The PD-190 is F-111. Even with just 100 jumps, it's not what you want. Look for a more modern canopy, something made of zero porosity fabirc. A Raven reserve is just fine, as long as the wing loading is 1 to 1 or lower. What that means is that your exit weight should be equal to, or smaller, than the sq footage of your reserve. So if you weigh 175 lbs, your rig is 20 lbs, and your clothes/helmet/etc are 5 lbs, your exit weight is 200 lbs, so your reserve should be 200 sq ft or larger. The Dolphin is a 'bargain' container, but it 'can' be a good rig. If it has the freefly updates, then it's OK. If it hasn't been updated, stay away. It's still a 'good' rig, but you won't want to freefly with it, not even one or two jumps. Look for an updated one, or a different container. The deal you posted is cheap for a reason. It's an odd assortment of gear, most of which has little value.

How is that different from what I've been saying all along. If you read my post, I stated the following, which says the same- Again, it's not the canopies, it's the people, and what they choose to fly. If everyone stuck to larger canopies, even the new ones would be docile and forgiving. Want to talk BS? That's it right there. Skydivers will always be skydivers, and they'll always want the 'hot' canopy. Why do you think everyone was jacking-off on the Pegasus? It's because it was faster and better than everything esle. The difference now is the scope of canopies available, and the top end of that scope is a touch higher performance than a Pegasus. Guess again, slick. My first 10 jumps were on various F-111 canopies, sized from 280 to 240. Then I was allowed to jump the 'hot' student rig, an F-111 220sq ft Cruise Lite (aka the Bruise Lite), and I latched onto it for about 40 jumps. When I finally bought my own rig around jump 50, it was stuffed full of clapped out F-111 PD190, and I pounded in on that right up until jump 100, when I finally had the money to upgrade to a Z-po canopy. I've been there, and experienced the suck. I've also been here, and everywhere in between. The canopies are good, they do what they're told, it's all in the lack of training.

Unless you're on the plane, then you won't have to worry about thinking at all.