davelepka

First off, that was not my quote. Not that I don't agree with it, but it wasn't me. Second, I'm not discounting the opinion of older jumpers, but the way he was speaking about modern canopies was as if he had expereince with them. He made a great number of generalzations, most of which were incorrect. Back to canopies, even if you jump a Pegasus and a Sabre2 at the same WL, yes the Sabre2 will have lower toggle pressure and a better flare, both of which I see as good things. Let's make yet another comparison to cars, newer cars flat out perform better than older cars. They turn quicker, handle better, stop better, and in most cases, are faster. Does that mean that everyone should learn to drive in a 1977 Olds Cutlass? No, it just means that new drivers need to be taught to drive a modern car, and the way you do that is to train them in modern cars, and teach them techniques for driving modern cars. Related example - I have an 81 Superglide w/ a Shovelhead. Riding it is akin to driving a tractor, the controls are heavy, and the throws are long. I have to lift my foot off the peg to upshift, as my ankle doesn't flex enough to just 'flick' the shifter. Riding the bike involves big exaggerated movements for the clutch, throttle, shifter and the brakes (which aren't the best, even with two discs). If I learned to ride on that bike, and then got a newer bike, I would be over-doing the control movements, and would have to learn to 'tone down' my movements to suit a more modern bike. In terms of canopies, a jumper who learns to jump on a newer wing, and downsizes slowly to a Sabre2 at 1 to1 will have no problem with the lower toggle pressure. They will just come to know that as 'toggle pressure', because without the Pegasus to jump for comaprison, the toggle pressure isn't light or heavy, it just 'is'. If you were trying to interject a Sabre2 into 1986 skydiving, you might have a point, but it's not 1986 and that's part of the problem. While the old equipment isn't around anymore, the training isn't much different. Jumpers today have the advantage of being 'calibrated' to new canopies with lighter toggle pressure and better flare, but that's just curcumstantial based on what they have available to jump. That circumstance would be enough if people stayed at, or around, 1 to1 WL, like they did in the Pegasus days, but they don't. Most jumpers don't even buy a first rig at 1 to 1, it seems like 1.1 or 1.2 is more of a standard starting point. It all comes back the training, or lack thereof. The canopies, when compared WL for WL are not all that different, and the few changes are for the better. The scope of canopies has expanded exponentially in the last 20 years, and the training has not. HP canopies are not to blame, it's the jumpers. The canopies do exactly what the jumpers tell them to do.

You're talking about a U206 (utility) that has the cargo doors in the rear. The OP is jumping out of a P206 (passenger) which has the same door/step/strut arrangement as a 182. It's an honest mistake, and you are correct that the U206 AFF exits are more difficult than the 182/P206 AFF exits.

First thought, USPA reccomends 200 jumps min for a wingsuit, how many jumps do you think you're going to get in Oregon in Dec/Jan? Keeping in mind if you're going there for flight training, that's a 'nice weather' activity, and probably what you'll be doing when it's 'jumpable'. My next thought is that you're making some 'aggressive' choices for a guy with 44 jumps, who lives in a place where they don't jump year-round, and lives 500 miles from the nearest DZ. Both the main and reserve canopies are small for your weight and experience level, and you're looking to 'rush' into a wingsuit, even if you do wait until the 200 jump min is reached. The problem is that jumping is all about experience, training, and currency. From what you described, you're going to be light on all three, and getting into what had been proven to be 'advanced' parts of jumping. Wingsuits take the complications for gearing up and gear checks way up, and the less often you jump, the more you get out of the 'routine'. The USPA actually came up with the 200 jump min for a wingsuit in reaction to a guy with about 100 jumps who was learning to jump a wingsuit and forgot to put on his legstraps. He fell out of his rig and died, and this was a guy jumping with a coach at a busy DZ with plenty of jumpers around. Think about the type of jumping you'll be doing, and how often you'll be jumping, and make your choices accordingly. The less you'll be jumping, and the less you'll be exposed to a busy DZ and all the experienced jumpers at such a DZ, the less you want to 'push' the limits of anything. There are lessons to be learned from the experience of jumping and lessons to be learned from the experience of being around experienced jumpers, and if you're going to be light on both of them, take that into account with your gear choices. To answer your specific question about the fit of a Mirage. don't buy any used rig without the understanding that you're allowed to return the rig (unjumped) within a week or two after a rigger has inpected it, and you've had a chance to try it on.

How could you compare the two? If you compare them WL for WL, you'll find that the Sabre2 is not a high performance canopy. How big was a Pegasus? 220sq ft I think, so if you put an average sized jumper on a Sabre2 210 or 230, it is not going to perform like a HP canopy. It's going to perform better than a Pegasus, but it's not high performance. The problem is that average sized jumpers don't jump 210sq ft or 230 sq ft canopies. The average sized jumper is jumping 150sq ft and 170 sq ft canopies. Like any canopy, the more you load it, the higher the performance. So once again, it's not the canopy, it's the pilot and what they're doing with it. If you load a Sabre2 at .8 or .7 to 1, like a Pegasus, it's a very doclie and forgiving canopy. Likewise, try loading a Pegasus at 1.2 or 1.3, and see how forgiving it is then. They are. We give students PD Navigators where I jump, and I don't know of any DZ where they give students anything close to a HP canopy, or anything with a WL that would add performance to a canopy. Every DZ I've ever been to has 90% of their student rigs with canopies larger than 200sq ft. I think we have one 190 in our student room, and that's in the rig with the little harness for the leightweights, and even then they don't start off with that. Again, students are trained on the right equipment, it's just that once they're done training, they are free to jump what they want. Based on what they see, and 'popular opinion', they make the choices they do. If they didn't have carte blanche right off the bat, they couldn't make bad choices. Once they have the commensurate experience and training, then they can have carte blanche, and jump whatever they please. But again, it's not the canopies.

A tunnel only contributes to one specific part of the skydive, that being the freefall portion from just after exit to the break off. Everything before, and everythig after are 'skydiving' specific skills, and the tunnel is of no help. The exit itself is different than a tunnel. The wind direction and speed are different, and making the transition from the door to freefall, and flying in the subterminal air on the hill are not things you can learn in the tunnel. You might be able to turn 20 points in 35 seconds in the tunnel, but that does not mean you can compete at nationals and expect to fly exits with the best of them. The break off is a no-brainer, there is no tracking in the tunnel, and the end of any safe multi-person jump will involve tracking. You might be able to freefly like a champ from your tunnel skills, but what do you do at break off with 4 or 5 other jumpers with you in the sky? Other areas of concern - aircraft safety, aircraft emergency procedures, and safe movement in and around an aricraft with a rig on. Deployment, emergency procedures, canopy control and traffic management. These are all skills that you develop over the course of many jumps, and skills you will use on every jump. From once you hit terminal to break off, the tunnel is THE training tool. At that same time, let's remember that freefall is probably the least important part of the jump. You can make a jump, turn zero points, and actually tumble until pull time, and as long as you can get stable and pull, it's a 'good' freefall. Not colliding with any part of the aircraft on exit, and deploying and flying a parachute to a safe landing are the important parts of making a jump. I think the important thing for an ace tunnel flyer to remember when starting to jump is that no matter how good they are in the tunnel, they only have the number of actual jumps in their logbook. When I learned to groundlaunch, I had 14 years of jumping experience, and 4500+ jumps on high performance canopies, but I was sure to remind myself that I had zero launches, and I was in somebody else's 'playground'. Much of it was simialr to skydiving (my playground) but I new a noob, and made sure to approach it accordingly. If tunnel flyers training to become skydivers can do the same, I'm sure they'll be fine.

No, but they are worn for the purpose of protection, and a damaged-then-repaired helmet will have a decreased level of protection in comparison to one that is 'intact'. Another angle, is that what they're talking about is replacing a helmet after even a minor impact, as the foam liner is crushed and useless for the next impact. While the exterior may look 'OK', the liner is not, and the helemt is comprimised. I think any helmet in any sport needs to be retired when it's suffered severe structural damage (to the point of seperation) to the shell. Liner talk is one thing, the shell breaking into two peices is another. Skydivers like to bag on skydiving helmets because they're not built or certified the way that motorcycling helmets are, however, they are built for two seperate purposes. Motorcycling helmets are designed to absorb imact at high speeds with hard, solid objects like roads, curbs, cars, etc. Skydiving helmets are desgned to protect you from mroe casual impact with softer object, mostly other jumpers, and maybe the occasional door jamb. They are not intended. nor designed or advertised, to survive or protect you in high speed collision with just about anything. Your brains and your parachutes are there to prevent that. For their intended purpose, skydiving helmets do a fine job.

Here's where your disconenct from reality is showing through. The Sabre2 and the Spectre are most certainly NOT HP canopipes. As for the others, yes, people are going to die under high performance canopies because they're engaging in a dangerous activity. Much like we all make the choice to accpet the risk of skydiving in general, some of us make the choice to accept the risk of flying and swooping high performance canopies. It's like motorcycle racing, or car racing, or boat racing, it takes an activity that already has an aspect of danger, and adds to that by increasing the speed of performance of the vehicle. It also surely adds to the number of fatalities or injuries, but it's not because there's anything wrong with racecars or bikes. The problem we have, and I've said it many times before, it all the people who are injured or killed who are not swooping and all the people who are trying to swoop without sifficient experience and training. The VAST majority of swoopers are not injured or killed as a result of swooping, and that's becasue it can be done safely. The EXACT same thing could be said about skydiving in general. How about I've been saying that almost since the day I registered on DZ.com? I'm willing to bet I've put that forth several times in this thread already. I've also freely admitted that it wasn't my idea or concept, I stole it right from all the countries in Europe that already have such systems in place. I don't think training needs to be specific to one canopy or WL, but it should cater towards classes of canopies and WL. For example, your 'A' license will come with a 'Canopy 1' rating, and that clears you up to a 1.1 WL on a certain list of canopies, all docile and easy going. You could hang on to your 'Canopy 1' rating for your entire life, and just leave it at that. There's no need for further training, the traiing you recieved in earning your A license is enough to allow you to jump at the 'Canopy 1' level (the canopy control training to revieve an A license will need to be boosted a bit). Beyond that, if you want the 'Canopy 2' rating, you need to earn it by making a set number of jumps, lets say 150, and taking a canopy control class that get's into some more advacned techniques and concpets of canopy flight. This would start to work in some aerodynamics and canopy theory, because the faster you want to go, the more of this you need. Did anyone ever notice that every military fighter pilot has a college degree in some form of aerodynamics, avaiation tech, or the like? There's a reason for that. Once you earn the 'Canopy 2' rating, now you're cleared for a higher WL, and mayebe some additional canopies. Not every level of canopy rating is going to include a new set of canopies you can jump, there just aren't that many differences to allow enough classes to go along with the number of steps in WL you shuld be taking. From your first jump (with an 'Canopy 1' rating at 1.1 WL or lower) up to the 'Unlimited' rating, there should be at least 4 'steps' in your downsizing. That's not to say that 4 steps is enough to go from 1.1 to 2.5 WL, but it's enough to go from 1.1 with just basic training, to 'Unlimited' which starts at 1.5 at which point you have the training (and hopefully the judgement) to be smart enough not to make a huge downsize. So you could have three classes of canopy, Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced. Beginner canopies would serve the 'Canopy 1' and 'Canopy 2' ratings, with a bump in allowable WL inbetween the two. Intermediate canopies would serve the 'Canopy 3' and 'Canopy 4' ratings, again with a bump in allowable WL for each rating, and the Advanced canopies would gl along with the 'Unlimited' rating. The whole system is pretty simple. If you would gather up a panel of instructors, canopy control coaches, manufacturers, and canopy competitors, and lock them in a room for 3 days, you would have your system. Based on their experience and knowledge, they would hack the canopies up into the three classes, bolster the training required for the A licesne, and develop the cirriculum for the 3 additional canopy control course (most of which already exists in the cirriculum of privately run canopy control courses). Then it's just a matter of the USPA giving it some 'teeth' and making it a BSR. Each DZ could select an 'instructor' to run the classes, and it could be anyone who understands the material and has an ability to speak to a room full of people. You don't need a rating or to be certified, you're not jumpnig with anyone or working with students, this is classroom time with experienced jumpers. With a well-written cirriculum, it's about the same as the stewardess going through the safety procedures on an airplane (not exactly, but you get my point). What to do is not really our problem. Getting it done is the problem. There's no way I'm the first guy to think of this, but with regards to this subject, I think USPA stands for 'USless Parachute Association'.

It's not the P206. That plane is almost identical in the climbout/exit as a 182, and the 182 was (and is) the backbone of the majority of DZs in the US. Countless AFF jumps have been from 182/206 without problems, it's not the plane. Just arch. Skip the part of the exit where you describe 'flipping around, then arching' and replace that with just arching. Get the idea out of your head that there's anything wrong with the plane, or with yourself. You arch fine after the exit, so you are capable, just do it sooner. It's all just mental. Get your mind right and just arch right off the step. Look up at the bottom of the wing and arch, it works.

You're making an incorrect comparison. The Pinto had a design flaw that prevented it from being safe, even with the best driver. In canopy terms, the Nova was a canopy that was 'unsafe at any speed' in that even the best pilot could not stop it from collapsing. The original Crossfire was similar in that it exhibited a tendency to collapse (though not as bad as the Nova). The Nova went out of production, and the Crossfire has an update issued, and eventually was replaced by the Crossfire II. A Velocity, like I jump, and many other HP canopies do not have design flaws, and can be flown safely be the right pilot. I have jumped every HP canopy on the (US) market over the course of 1000's of jumps without incident. It's not the parachute, it's the pilot. You still have not responded to my quesiton about your actual experience with modern, ZP canopies. If you have none, come forward and admit it. Many of your comments about the nature of modern canopies are incorrect and your arguments are, in turn, also flawed because they're based on those incorrect conclusions.

You would be hard pressed to repair a helmet like that in any 'graceful' way. The problem is that you need a 'strong' repair, or you risk the repair coming loose and the chinbar breaking or coming loose due to a minor impact. If a foot to the helmet will cause the chinbar to break off and contact your face, you almost would have been better off just taking the foot to the face, it's probably not as sharp as the busted helmet. The problem with making a strong repair is that there's not alot of surface area there. If you tried to epoxy the chinbar along the fracture, it's not going to be very strong. You would have to epoxy it, then build up the area with some fiberglass to make it as strong as an unbroken helmet, and that's the 'ungraceful' part. It would be big and lumpy, and look like shit. It would also be heavier than an unbroken helmet. From what I can see, 30% off a new one brings it down to about $200. Just buy another, and be more careful with it. If you really want to go ape-shit with recycling, trim off the sides of the helmet with a dremel, add a chin strap, and make an open-face helmet out of it. But still buy a new one.

Indeed. It had been awhile since I saw that video, and all I remembered for sure was the canopy spinning (rotating is more like it) at a high rate of speed. It was indeed a heli, and you can see the jumper hanging almost motionless under that mess. Still fun too watch, especially with the 'questionable' plan the video guy and instructors had after the student opening on that jump. I worked out good for us that everyone just dumped in place without even turning away, but it's not how I would have played the bottom end of an AFF jump.

That's the one.

You don't hear those two things together very often! Sure there are TIs with good 'day' jobs, but how many that had the good job before they got the rating (I'm sure at least a few will post to prove me wrong, but I'm sure that money is big motivator for people getting tandem ratings). It's hard, dangerous work, and it exposes you to a great deal of liability, and I don't believe there an insurance carrier that would cover you. Forget having insurance as making you a target, try being involved in an incident in any way, pilot, TI, DZO, gear manufacturer, etc, and you'll be named in a lawsuit. The idea is to throw as much shit at the wall as possible, and see what sticks (and then see who's got money out of that group). Look into video work. If you can manage not to run into anyone, you'll be liability free and 'involved' with students. I know a guy who filmed a jump that resulted in a fatality, and everyone under the sun got sued, except him. He got one voicemail from a lawyer looking for him to come to a deposition, and he didn't even return the call. Everyone else spent years and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves in a case that was eventually dropped. The instructor spent more in legal fees defending himself than he would have made doing tandems for 5 years (summer weekends only).

Does anyone remember a video posted here awhile back, it was an outside video of an AFF I having a spinning mal on a Velocity after an AFF jump? For some reason I think it was a Russian guy? The canopy spun up instantly and at an amazing rate? I looked around Youtube and did a search on this site, but came up empty. I really only spent about 2 min total looking for it, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about and where it is, post up a link.

There have been reports of hard cutaways in high-G spins, with a root cause never being determined. There have also been hard pulls/no pull on the cutaway due to the yellow cable getting folded in half and getting sucked through the grommet. If it just begins to get sucked through, and kinks the cable, it's a hard pull. If the cable is folded in half and gets pulled completely through the grommet, it's a no pull on the cutaway. Another high-G related cutaway problem that has been reported was jumpers having dificulty physically lifting their arms to their handles to grab them. Not gear related, but related to high-G spins, and a good reason to cutaway sooner than later.

I would guess no. I would actually guess nobody has ever done that for the purposes of canopy flight. There might a jumper or two (probably more) who are either involved in aircraft aerobatics and military avaiation, so they might have experience/training with that, but not for skydiving purposes. In order to build and sustain those types of Gs, a canopy pilot would need to turn so fast for so long that they would become dizzy, lose a ton of altitude, and possibly spin themselves into line twists, and I don't see anyone doing that intentionally. A malfunction that would spin you fast enough to require the HIC manuver would need to be cutaway before it would become a factor. Again, and spin of that speed would eat altitude, so a mal like that needs to go so you can open a reserve before impact. Also, very high G loads like that have been known to cause hard pulls due to problems with the 3-ring or cutaway cable, so you want to pull the handle before the Gs have enough time to screw up your gear. Another factor to this is that the HIC manuver is generally done by the pilot, the same pilot who is aware of the Gs before they begin to build. A pilot can begin the HIC manuver an instant before hauling back on the stick, putting them 'ahead' of the Gs. I think non-pilots in those types of planes have a much harder time as they don't know the G load is coming until after it begins. Canopy pilots would have to begin the HIC manuver before each deployment in order to be ready in case there is a high-G malfunction. The problem with that is that it will probably cause more malfunctions than it will help because you're better off being relaxed when you deploy a canopy, as opposed to all tensed up with your legs.

You really don't know anything about bikes, do you? There's nothing easy about spinning wrenched on a Honda V4. They're great bikes, and highly reliable, but easy to work they are not.

And so it is. I just made a donation through paypal, and it was a snap, 3 clicks and it was done. They also take credit cards if you don't have paypal account. I did attach a note that the money was for skydiving, and that she should get video/pictures and post them here after her jump.

Granted, but if you figure that the TI, packer, video guy, and pilot will work for free, the only remaining cost is the plane and wear/tear on the rig. You're looking at $75 for a 1/2 hour in a 182, and $15/$20 for the rig, so under $100. Maybe hit the TI and video up to cover their own slot, and they're in for $20/head, and the DZ only has to cough up $60. Let's face it, all involved are 'professionals' and make money jumping out of planes. Footing the bill for a jump of this nature is the least they could do. That aside, if the DZ/employees won't ptich in, anyone one who wants to donate can PM me for my paypal address, and I'm sure we can whip up the $300 to cover a tandem with video. Let's find out for sure that we need to raise the dough, and how much, before anyone sends any money so I don't have to deal with a bunch of refunds and the like if it turns out we don't need anything.

This should be a snap to pull off. Get the RD to sign off on the waiver, and have the RD contact the BOD members to vote on this ASAP (waiting until the Feb meeting is not an option). Find a DZ and TI willing to do the jump, and it shouldn't take more than one phone call to the manufacturer to get their permission. The whole point of tandems needing to be 18 is the legal liability. It's got nothing to do with the mechanics of the jump or the gear, it's just that nobody wants to get sued. In these types of cases, a lawsuit isn't a real problem. Beyond that, the DZ, pilot, TI, video guy and packer should all be willing to do the jump for free. I've shot video for a couple of these 'make a wish' jumps, and would never dream of taking a dime for any of it. If some sick kid's dying wish is to do what I get to do every weekend, it's my honor to be able to share that with them.

Good point. In many areas of aviation, a checklist and a 'flow' are used to help avoid missed items. A checklist is a no-brainer, it's a written list of what needs to be checked, and you run down the list each time. A 'flow' is more of a concept, and it's what you would use to set the order of a checklist. The idea is to have a logical order in which things are checked, and it's determined by the location of components. What you do is come up with a 'flow' of action around the rig where you start with one item, and then check the next closest item, and so on. It helps to build the routine, and makes it 'logical' to move around the rig and make sure everything is checked. I use the idea for my gear checks, both on the ground and in the plane. For example, in the plane (while wearing the rig) here's my 'flow' - - I start with a pin check (I can check my own main pin, not everyone can. It's more than just being able to reach your own pin, it's knowing the rig well enough to be able to check the pin accurately without disturbing anything back there. A huge contributor to this is a consistant pack job where you bridle routing and pin placement is exactly the same every time). If you cannot check you own pin, ask another jumper, and start your 'flow' with the next step. - Check the hackey - Next I slide both of my hands from the bottom corners of the container along the lateral to the hip junction. This verifies that you didn't have a legstrap 'flip through' when you donned the rig. It would show itself in a twisted lateral. It's not a real 'problem' unless you jump an legstrap mounted PC. -From the hip junction, I slide my hands up the harness, and check the handles. -From the handles I slide across the chest strap checking that it's properly routed and not twisted. - You can add a visual check of the three rings, but that's tough to do with the rig on, and with the three rings so close to your face, I think you would notice if something happened that could 'foul' the three rings. If they were good on the ground, they're probably good in the plane. You can see that the check starts at the back/bottom of the rig, and 'flows' toward the front and up the rig. It covers everything in between, and invovles touching everything along the way.

Keep in mind that each rig is slightly different in the location and assembly of the components. Flaps, pins, bridle routing, RSL arrangements, etc, could all be different from rig to rig, so any online reference would only apply to thay rig. Even then, the same brand of rig can be assembled with different configurations, so the gear check needs to be specific to the rig you are inspecting. The best thing for you to do as a new jumper is to get a step-by-step lesson on each new-to-you rig you're going to jump. While you're a student, your instructor can provide that service. Once you buy your own rig, sit down with the rigger who inspects and assembles your rig, and have them go over the entire assembly, and walk you through a gear check.

I'm going to shoot it down, and I'll tell you why - complexity and lack of scope. It's too complex in that you end up needing a coach/mentor for each jumper looking to progress, and that's just not feasbile. You cannot count on having that many people, available on a reliable basis, willing to work for no money. It leaves too many 'cracks' for jumpers to fall through if nobody is around or paying attention. It lacks scope in that you're only looking at one set of jumpers, those looking to swoop and with the pre-set qualifications to swoop. What about jumpers with 100 jumps? 200 jumps? Jumpers who don't want to swoop? What oversight and education do they get? What's needed is an effort right from jump one to both regulate, educate, and impress upon jumpers the importance of quality canopy piloting skills, and prudent canopy selection. WL restrictions are a snap. You write up a chart, and jumpers simply follow the chart. Easy. Continuing education is also easy to administer. Let's say there are 3 canopy control courses required to advance to the 'unlimited' catagory. DZs can simply schedule the different classes once or twice per season. Just because a jumper has the jumps to advance in WL, they smiply have to wait until the next calss to get the educational requirement met, and advance to the next class/size of canopy. It's not all the different than live water training. You need it for a B license, but most DZs only offer it once or twice per year. If you're otherwise B qualified, you just have to wait for the next training session. Ditto for night jumps, if you want your D, you have to wait for the next round of night jumps. Back to the canopy contol classes, when you run it like a class, you need one instructor for the entire class. one guy can teach a room full of people all at once, as opposed to a coach/mentor, where you need a bunch of them, all working in an unstructured environment. If make things too complicated, it's not going to work. If you try to involve too many people, it's not going to work. If you don't make it a requirement for all jumpers, it's not going to work. What's needed is a shift in the thinking and approach to canopy flight for all jumpers on every DZ, and you can't make that happen by only targeting a select few.

Super, that's why I said from boaring to altitude, not wheels up to altitude. If you add in 1 or 2 min for loading, taxi and take off, plus another 1 min on jump run while others exit, you're in the plane with your student for 10 min. If you're that pressed for space, hook up your lowers once the student slides back to you on the bench. You'll never have more room than that to hook up, so take advantage of it. If it's tight in the back for snugging the side straps, work together with the TI/jumper next to you. Have them lean over and get tight to the wall while you use the extra space to snug up your side straps. Then you hug the wall while they do their thing. There is no excuse or reason not to be fully hooked up and tightened before a non-emergency exit.

Check out the post above this one, reading in between the lines, the guy is saying he's going to have a third-hand Javelin for sale once his Infinity comes in. I don't know what sized canopies you need, or what size harness you need (or what size the Jav has), but shoot him PM and see what the deal is. Might be a lead on a container, who knows?