davelepka

Let me chime in one more time, now that the thread has progressed some. For the record, I have 1000's of jumps on Racers, most on one Racer. On that rig, and the others, I had all manner of flaps, risers and toggles out in freefall. On the one I jumped the most, it was modified to tackle these problems, and was also a tiny, tiny rig. In terms of a Racer, the smaller the rig, the better it will hold together. Racers lack stiffeners in the flaps, and a big flap with no stiffener has more space to move around and make trouble. Back to the idea of the rig in question - will it work? Provided it passes an airworthyness inspection, yes, adn I would use to make a parachtue descent. That's different than 'skydiving' however. To get me to the ground, I would trust it, to use a piece of sporting equipment for modern day jumping, I would not. Think about cars. A 1978 AMC Pacer, provided it's mechanically sound, is capable of getting you from point A to point B. It will not stop, turn or go as well as a more modern car, it's not as reliabe, won't get the milage, but in the end, it is a street legal car and could be used for transportation. A rig, on the other hand, is not something you buy to meet the minimum requirements of the basic task. If you need a car to get to work, maybe a Pacer would work, it you're looking for a car to do some drifting or autocross, the Pacer is not going to make you happy. Sport skydiving is like drifting or autocross, it's something you do for fun, and you want a piece of equipment that lends itself to that fun. An old Racer and F-111 main is not that piece of equipment.

By the way, this is not that uncommon. People tend to get used to things being one way or the other, and when you PC slips out nice and easy for 50 jumps in a row, you begin to expect that. Meanwhile, you or your packer is in a rush and doesn't fold the PC the same way, or it gets squished around in the pouch while moving around the plane, and the result is a hard(er) pull. Do you best to be strong at pull time, and more importantly, be aware of your altitude at all times.

One 'rule of thumb' is 'two tries, two seconds' and the idea is to limit the amount of time you spend trying to do something. It only applies when something doesn't go right, and since you're never sure why it's not going right, you need some sort of guideline. Let's say the PC has melted to the pouch and will never come out (I don't think this is possible), without a guideline, you might spend valuable time fighting a losing battle. In your case, there's a little wiggle room. With a pull altitude of 4k, you have what newbies need, a little extra time. Take all the numbers in your stort, and subtract 1k, and you can see how there would have been a problem. Attempted pull at 3k, hoping to be open by 2k, but not open until 1k, which is getting a little low. It's an interesting situation, where on the one hand you might want to stick to the rule 'two tries, two seconds', in order to build mucsle memory and good habits, and on the other hand, do you really want to open your last parachute at 3500ft? A reserve mal can happen, and it would suck, but it was avoided by you taking a little extra time to get the main out. I think the important part is awareness. If you know you're high, and have time for a thrid shot, I guess that's OK, provided you also know when you're low and don't have time for the extra try. All of that aside, the solution is something esle, and that's to get serious about your pull. If you hand slipped off the hackey, it indicates a relaxed grip and probably a relaxed attitude. What should have happened in a hard pull is that you go for the pull, and your hand and the hackey both stay in one place. You need to grab onto the hackey like you mean, and pull/toss it like you mean it. The basic thought is that you wanted the skydive to end at 4k, and you should have acted like you meant it. On your side was the extra altitude you had, and that made this 'less' of a big deal, but in the end, it's still sort of a big deal. You were lucky in that you got away with no harm done, open by 2k, no reserve ride, etc, now take advantage of that luck, and learn the lesson to stay on the ball at pull time, and pull like you mean it.

A fair question was asked, and you replied to the post but didn't answer the question. This was coming from a guy with more time in the sport and more jumps then you, and I have 2x your jump numbers, so we're qualifed to speak on this. How about you respond to the question - I took your references to the 'old days' as a comparison, not as your complete frame of reference. If you've never jumped a modern canopy, let alone anything HP, then a big chunk of what you've said needs to be re-examined. An otuside observer might see one thing, but if you have knowledge of the situation (both the good and bad) has a real understanding of the situation. If you;ve never jumped a modern canopy, your catagorization of canopied in the first post also makes sense, when again, an outside observer might see one thing, while an active participant would see the real truth. Modern canopies can be safely jumped and managed, if just requires additional training and education as compared to the 'old days'. Countries that have requirements in place as far as WL, type of canopy, and continuing education have very few canopy related incidents. In the US, we currenly have no regulation or requirements for education, and that's what need to change, not the canopies. A HUGE number of jumpers jump these canopies all day, every day, with no problems. In terms of the guys with 1000+ jumps who go in on a swooping canopy, those are fatalities that are a result of the new 'sport' of swooping. Just like people will always die skydiving, people will always die swooping, but that a risk that they choose to take, no canopy swoops by itself. A jumper could choose not to swoop, and choose to jump a canopy not designed for swooping, and they will never die swooping.

In the end, the Indian fuel farm was the only business that ran like a business. It's the airlines fault for reserving the seats for the booking company without collecting payment. I can't call the airline a reserve seats without payment, so neither should they. Maybe the airline could extend them a 'grace period', where they reserve them seats without payment up until 30 days before the flight, and then require payment to hold the seats. This allows the booking company to collect payment, and not have to 'front' the cost of the seats. Any unsold seats at that time could go back on the regular market. Also, if the booking company defaults on payments, it allows passengers who booked with them to be notified and seek a resolution before they're sitting the plane reaching for their wallet. I get running on credit, and booking services and travel agencies and the like, but there's no excuse for letting a problem go so long that they have to put the passengers in that position.

Who exactly is it that regulates anything? Some sort of governing body, some kind of official group or organization, usually affiliated with one country or another. So if we had a group or orgaization in the US that oversaw skydiving and skydiving activities, maybe we could look to them? Last time I checked, which was never, but I heard it from a hang glider / skydiver I know, they regulate the type of glider you can fly. They have them broken down in classes, and they have licenses that go along with each class. According to what this guy says, it's a big no-no in the hang gliding community to fly a wing above your license. Scuba diving also has different classes of certification depending on what kind of diving you want to do. Not just anyone can hop in and breathe some weird gas while diving into a cave (I'm not up on the technincal jargon of diving, but I know the rough idea). Sure, anyone can jump in the water and do what they please, but not under the supervision of a PADI dive company or PADI instructor (the same could be said about possible canopy regulations, that anyone with a plane and a credit card can do whatever they want, but I'm limiting my sights to 'established' jumping at a DZ). All of the above aside, fuck everything else, why can't we just do what seems right for ourselves, regardless of there is an example out there to follow? It seems like such a no-brainer to me. Canopies have progressed significantly in their performance and capabilities. Some of the higher performance ones are real animals that you need to know how to handle. With that in mind, we're going to classify them and limit what the new guys can jump until they have some experience and specific training. Why does that seem so outlandish to people? Can I prove, without a doubt, that this will solve 100% of the canopy related problems? Of course not, nobody can really make that claim about anything. With the idea of a guaranteed solution out the door, let's just start with something that makes sense. Let's build some structure and organization into canopy selection and training, and give it the respect that it's due. Are we able to review the idea in a year? Or two? Of course. Can we revise, rewrite, or shitcan the whole thing based on that review. Of course. So the question remains why not do something? Let's get started with the most simple and obvious idea, some general limitations on what the new guys can jump, and some required continuing education, and see what happens. What's the downside to trying? The only argument thus far has been that DZO will suddenly be 'responsible' for everyones WL, and thus liable in the case of an accident, but that's bullshit. They're no more responsible for that then they are for the actions of any licesned jumper. Even now if a newbie goes in with a WL of 1.4, you can find ten 'expert witnesses' to testify that the WL is against the 'standard industry practice', they'll point to the reccomended WL on the warning label, and paint the DZO as uncaring and allowing the new jumper to go against 'the norm'. You don't need a BSR for a lawyer to get up your ass in court.

Then what's my excuse? Of 5000+ jumps, at least 4800 are swoops, and 4600 of them were made on canopies sized 107 and down. Despite this, I've never been hurt. How could this be? It comes back the same thing I keep saying, the canopies are different, and so the approach to canopy flight needs to be different. Back when canopies were benign and had a huge margin for error, canopy control training didn't exist. There literally was no such thing as a canopy control course. On top of that, it wasn't uncommon to bang a two-stack together below 2k, and fly it through the pattern. Now that canopies have changed, canopy control courses exist, and nobody does improptu CREW in the landing pattern. Different canopies, different approaches to canopy flight. However, despite those changes, the fundamental training and oversight of canopy selection has not changed, and that cannot stand. You can't change the canopies, and most of the behaviours with them, and not change the training and oversight. It's an imcomplete situation, and it shows in the fatality and incident reports. Let's also remember that more jumps are being made into busier traffic patterns than back in the day. Pre-1990 (when the Z-po revolution started) there was less and different activity on DZs then today, so any comparison made has to consider that. Just like airplanes, motorcycles and cars, performance levels will go up, and as long as training and skill development goes up too, there shouldn't be a problem. Airplanes have type-ratings, complex rating, high performance ratings, and all sorts of requirements if you plant o get insurance on anything 'fun'. You can't get your PPL one day, and just fly whatever you please the next, you have to work your up to bigger/better/faster and earn the right. Why are canopies different?

In this case, the 'marketing' ploy of the FBO or the city is not going to work. The FAA doesn't operate on anyone's 'word' with regard to airport operations, and they certainly won't disperse funds for airport improvements based on that. The city will have to provide documented proof of the number of airport operations if they expect any money out of the FAA, and that proof will settle the claim of 'too much traffic'. This is one area where the FAA is a benefit to jumpers, in that unilke many other issues that are decieded in city council, popularity and 'marketing' will have nothing to do with the outcome. No offence to Lawrence, KS, but the FAA doesn't give two shits about Lawrence, KS, or what happens there. They're simply going to look at the facts like the number of operations, the type of operations, and the size of the field, and compare them to existing airports. They'll make a determination as to allow (or not) skydiving, and tie that into the dispersement of federal funds. If the FAA can't see a good LOGICAL reason (not just that some locals don't like the idea), then they'll require the city to allow skydiving if they expect the money they're after. They are tyring to play both sides of the coin, but the FAA isn't going to go for it. Being a federal organization, there's no emotion or sentiment that's going to play into the matter. The locals can spin shit all they want at this stage, in the end, city council will have no effect on the FAA. They have the money and they have the power.

Eloy is 110 degrees in the shade all summer long, the same summer where most jumpers are active and current, just in a cooler spot than the Arizona desert. However, during the long cold winter, Eloy is a warm, inviting place to be for every jumper who is uncurrent, itching to jump, and trying to make the most out of their winter vacation. What visiting jumpers need to know is that they have to take it easy, get current, and remember that just because you're at a DZ where they're turning dozens of loads every day with some of the worlds best jumpers, they're still an uncurrent, average jumper on vacation. I remember being a new jumper, and traveling to Fla for a winter trip. The plan was always to make as many jumps as possible, all day every day, for the entire trip. During the summer when I was current, I was doing 10 to 15 jumps per week, then after not jumping for several months, I would go to Fla and try to make 50 jumps in a week. See where that could lead to problems?

Yep. The pilot is in charge of the plane, the jumpers are in charge of themselves. The green light means you can jump, not that you have to jump. On that note, it's a good idea to touch base with the pilot on any day a cloud layer might keep you from getting full alitude. Make sure he understands that you need more than a 2 min call at 8k to be ready to jump at 9k. If he's noticing the ceiling getting closer to the plane and doesn't anticipate full altitude, he should notify the jumpers ASAP, and give them time to get ready.

Just to expand on that, I tend to look over every tandem if I'm filming them or not. Once they're hooked up, the TIs have a limited view of the front side, and even if they checked on the ground, and leaned forward before the hook-up, there's a non-jumper up there with access to anything and everything, no idea how it all works. I'll eyeball the friction adapters for proper routing, the excess strap being stowed, googles and helmet in place and secured, jumpsuit zipped up, etc. There's no downside to it, with the benefits being a safer, more comfortable customer, and a TI with less extra 'work' on their hands. I'm confident enough in my own routine that I can make the time to worry about someone else. No offence to the tandem guys or any other jumper, but if you as a jumper don't have that level of confidence, then keep your eyes (and your brain) on your own gear and your own preperation. Everyone up there is 'supposed' to be able to take care of themselves, and TIs are no exception. It's not worth sacrificing your own safety to double check the work of the TIs on the plane. For the record, and to the credit of the guys I work with, I've never found any significant problems during one of these pre-flight checks.

Rigs need to be inspected and packed by a rigger every 6 months, and at that time the rigger determines of the rig is 'airworthy' or not. The vast majority of rigs out there, provided they pass a riggers inspection, are 'safe' and the cost has nothing to do with it. There are a handful of rigs and canopies that are known to be 'less than'. Most gear that turns out to have design flaws will be redesigned, and the existing ones will be modified to take care of the shortcoming. Very few make it to the market, and then stay there with flaws intact, but they do exist. That's the reason that you need to team up with a local rigger if you intend to buy a used rig. Search locally and here in the classifieds for gear, and then consult your rigger before even making an offer on the gear. Make sure that the 'idea' of the gear passes their inspection, and then start the process of getting your hands on it. Don't buy anything without either - A) Having your rigger inspect it first. This is easy for local gear, and harder for buying online. Some sellers are willing to ship to a 'known' rigger for inspection without being paid for the gear. Payment is then made after it passes inspection, or the gear is retruned. Make sure you discuss shipping costs (and who pays them) before staring that process. B) If a seller won't ship without payment, make sure you can return the gear in a reasonable time frame provided it doesn't pass inspection. Arrange to have the gear in your hands for one week, and still be able to send it back. This does not include jumping the gear, you jump it, you buy it. B2) Also, if you're having trouble arranging payment for used gear, you can call chutingstar.com, and they can escrow the deal for you. They're a reputable gear store, and the seller will ship them the gear and you send them the money, and they will inspect the gear and provided it passes, ship it on to you and forward the money to the seller. Last time I checked, they only charge a fee for the inspection. The last consieration for 'safety' with used gear is if the rig is new enough to be 'freefly friendly'. If you intend to freefly, you need a rig with flaps that will stay closed at high speed with you upside down. Not all rigs were built that way at one time, and if you buy one of those rigs, you should not freefly with it. Anything built in the last 10 years should be OK, but be sure to mention that to your rigger when looking at gear. A note on that - even if you intend to just freefly 'a little', you still need a freefly friendly rig. Even one jump is eough to have risers and bridle coming out of your rig and wrapping up with whatever they want, and that sucks. if plan to NEVER freefly, then don't worry about it, but if you think you might, get the right rig. Finally, main canopies went through a big change 20 years ago, and they started using Z-po fabric, which made them 20x better than they used to be. The old fabric would wear out within 500 jumps or so, and then the canopy would flare like a sack of bricks. Canopies with the old fabric were still in production for a while (some still are) but you don't want any part of that. Even one in great shape isn't for you, just insist on something made from Z-po. You can find Z-po canopies with 1000 jumps that still fly fine, and should be $500 or less. Overall, you can lock onto a used rig for $2000-ish without an AAD. A new AAD will run you about $1200-$1400 (buy a Cypres2, nothing else), and finding a used one is hard but you might get lucky). For that money you can expect a fairly modern rig that will perform well and have some resale value when you're done. Keep a constat eye on the classifieds here, and ask everyone at your DZ if they have anything for sale.

Let me clarify. When I said 'come out of the bag that way', I didn't literally mean it was going to come out of the deployment bag in that condition. I meant that the malfunction would present itself and almost immediately go to 'full tilt', as opposed to starting out as an 'easy going' mal, and develop into a high-g mal. In this case, using the term 'out of the bag' might have been a poor choice.

Like AFF? That's mandated if you want an A licesne, should we just say no to that? There was a time where canopy control was a more 'casual' aspect of the sport. Canopies were more docile, and there were fewer 'big' DZs around. If everyone jumped 200+ sq ft canopies out of Cessna 182s, we would be in a different postion right now. As it sits, people jumper higher performing, more capable canopies into much busier traffic patterns. The problem now, and what it's been for the last decade is that canopies took a huge step forward in performance and capability, and canopy control training did not. You cannot rely on mentoring, or word of mouth, or the generousity of others. We don't do it with AFF, and we shouldn't be doing it with canopies. If you want to jump a canopy like a big boy, then you need to be trained like a big boy. It all comes back to what I keep saying, WL restrictions that pretain to jump numbers, and required continuing education if you want to progress. The basic idea is that if you want to train like you're in 1985 (meaning no canopy control training at all), that's your choice but you have to jump a canopy like they had in 1985 (more or less, a modern Z-po wing, just at a 1985 WL). If you want to jump a more modern canopy, then you need to train to jump that canopy. Try this - grab any whuffo off the street, and ask them this, "Today in skydiving we have parachutes that are so manuverable and so fast, that they can kill you if you land them at half of their top speed. Right now in the US, there are no rules or regulations regarding what parachutes you can jump and no training required beyond the basic training you recieve when you first start jumping, and the parachutes used are much slower and easier to control. Does that make sense to you?" See what they say. I have a feeling that it won't make sense to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me. If you want to jump like an 'old school' jumper, then the old school training (or lack of) is fine. If you want to be a part of 'modern' skydiving, it takes a little more effort.

Just a thought, but it seems odd to me that you're planning for a very odd eventuality, and one that you have complete control over. I understand some of the 'out there' hypotheticals people come up with, but most of them involve things they have no control over, like the actions of another jumper, a pilot, or aircraft. In this case, however, the solution is to never leave the plane without all four points of attachment hooked-up, and triple checked. You as a TI have 'all the time in the world' to hook up your student. Even the fastest jumpship out there will take 10 min to get you from boarding to altitude, and the hook process shouldn't take more than 60 seconds. Most jump planes will be more like 15 to 20 min to altitude, so there is no excuse to not have the student fully hooked up, and triple checked. Focus more on doing these easy, simple, and critical things right the first time, than planning on what you would do if you didn't. Your #1 job up there is student safety, and hooking them up is the cornerstone of that. Unless your student is hooked up properly, there's little you can do to ensure their safety. Beyond that, the number of variables to consider in this hypothetical makes it tough to condsider. What point, or combination of points, that are not hooked up would effect the course of action you would take, so unless you want to hash through every possibility, and then try to remember your conclusions while you try to not drop a student out of a harness, the topic is moot. Stay focused, do your job, and check it 3 times. Get into a routine and never falter.

Any malfucntion that's going to cause a spin is going to come out of the bag that way. It's not going to 'develop', it's just going to start spinning, and canopies (any of them) tend to reach their maximum turn rate fairly quickly. Even if a spin doesn't start until you release the brakes, it's still going to get up to speed fairly quickly. As for the differences between sitting and hanging in a harness, there are some obvious physical differences, but the jumper plays a big role in it. If you're not trained to avoid GLOC, you're much more susceptible to it. Another poster mentioned a personal limit of 5 Gs when he was flying, which sounds about right for a civilian pilot without a G-suit. To contrast that, I started to grey-out (the first stages of GLOC) in an Otter once when I was riding in the right seat. The pilot dove the plane after the last tandem out, and then startes a spiral dive around the tandem for a couple thousand feet. The turn was tight, but I was also leaning forward to look out of the windshield and this was for 10 to 15 seconds, and with no efforts not to GLOC, the blood started drainiing from my brain. All I had to do was sit up straight and tense the muscles in my legs/abdomen, and I returned to normal vision, but becuase I wasn't ready for it, an Otter almost put me out. Add in other physiological factors in jumping, like fatigue from just performing a freefall, stress of being in a malfunction, dehydration, the pysical oncdition of the jumper, etc, and you can see how the threshold for GLOC can vary greatly. The post you were reading was full of inaccuracies. That guy was just being a 'grumpy old man' and use broad sweeping strokes to paint certain canopies as being dangerous. Even bigger, student type canopies, under the right conditions, can put you out. If you have a spinning malfunction that you don't react to, the prolonged spin can induce GLOC. A bigger canopy will have a slower descent rate than a smaller one, but the G force of the spin might be similar, just for a longer time period. There are very few canopies out there that can GLOC you so fast that you cannot cutaway. Chris Martin had this happen to him, but he was jumping an experimental 21 sq ft canopy (which he planned to cutaway before landing, and land a conventionaly sized canopy). Almost nobody jumps canopies under 50 sq ft, and the small number of jumpers who jump canopies under 80 sq ft are almost all young, in good physical shape, and aware of what they are doing. If you know your canopy will spin like a banshee if it mals, you're A) ready for that type of force, and B) aware that you need to cutaway in short order (also becauce you're probably losing altitude at a high rate).

See my comments above regarding video. Nothing beats a good video of your landing to illustrate exactly what you are, or are not, doing. It's free and easy, unlike most things in skydiving. See if you can team up with an another student or newbie, and alternate filming each others landings. Video tips - No cell phones, borrow a real video camera. Stand in the LZ, and try to not use zoom. Agree on a place to land, and work on your accuracy while getting good video. If you need to be out of the LZ and use a zoom, use a tripod or rest the camera on a picnic table.

This is another case of a city wanting all of the federal dollars, but not everything that goes along with it. According to the first article, the city stands to gain some $30 million in airport improvements while only spending $6 million in city dollars. It's a no-brainer that if you could get a $30 million airport for $6 million, and the bussinesses, aircraft and fuel sales that will generate, you would do it, but then they don't want to play by the FAA rules of fair use. What gets me is that they want to hide behind the same 'safety' concerns as every other city that tries this, 'There's not enough room for airplanes and parachutes at this airport'. The problem is that any airport big enough to warrant $30 million in improvements, and big enough to atttract business and revenue, is big enough for a Cessna DZ. Let's face it, if the DZ get's big enough that it doesn't fit at the airport, they're not going to hang out and make trouble, they're going to buy some farmland and build a private airport for the DZ. All of these 'battles' are so dumb. Everything happening here is to benefit the city, federal airport dollars, and the tax dollars the DZ will create, but the 'city planners' want to blow the whole thing for no good reason. What the hell is going on at the airport now that's so important you can run 40/50 loads per week? How about all the fuel sales to the DZ? What about the taxes generates by the DZ, and customers coming to the area? Is there a restaurant at the ariport? Last time I checked, skydivers are great at eating. The other point they're missing is all the 'operations' the DZ will add to the airport's yearly total, and what effect that will have on federal dollars. Hey city planners, here's a hint - the more operations your airport has, the more federal money you can get. In the end there's no good reason not to grant a short term lease to a DZ. Start with a 2 or 3 year deal, and see what the airport looks like before renewing. Just becasue you're planning on the airport growing and becoming one thing or another, it's not there now, and I'm sure the airport and the city could use the money the DZ will generate. I'm 99% sure that at the end of the lease, the city will see that it's not that hard to run a DZ on an airport (there are 100's of them running as we speak), and they'll renew. If they do get open, the DZ should do that gig where they mark all the bills they get with a skydiver stamp so every business in the community that takes in money that went through the DZ is aware of the DZs contribution to the local economy.

Landing problems are not uncommon among new jumpers. Learning to flare the canopy properly takes time, and different wind conditions can call for different flare timing and technique. Falling down, on the other hand, is something you have control over, and you need to exercise that control. I know they taught you a PLF in your first jump course, and you need to use it. Feet and knees tight together, arms in and tight to your body, and you take the impact with your feet, then knees, then hip, then roll. It spreads the impact out over all those point, and keeps you from getting hurt. Moving forward, recruit a local jumper, student or camera flyer who is not on you load to film your landing. Who ever you get, make sure they know why you want the video, for training purposes, and maybe have them stand in the LZ to film it. Have them borrow a 'real' camera from the one of the video guys, a cell phone video is not good enough. Review the video with an instructor after your jump, and have them point out your flare point, if you flared all the way, and how well you did your PLF. Do this on every jump until your landings are consistant and your confidence goes up. Many DZ downplay the importance of canopy control training, but don't fall into that trap. It's more important than stable exits and being able to do turns in freefall, and I'm sure they spend plenty of time on those things. All you need to be able to do in freefall is get stable for deployment, everything else is just extra. If you cannot make a safe landing every time, you won't be jumping for long. Even a sprained ankle will ground you for 6 to 8 weeks, set you back a level of two in your training, and just overall suck. The training your DZ wants to give you is the minimum they require for their studetns, there's no reason you can't do more to enhance your learning experience. If you want your landings filmed and debreifed, make that happen. If you want to repeat a level, or work more on one skill or another, speak up and get it done.

That would be one way for a jumper to alter their WL. Another would be to just hook up a smaller canopy without telling anyone. Another would be to simply go to another DZ and lie about their jump numbers. I never claimed that WL restrictions and continuing education was a 'perfect' solution, but while you're so quick to point out the flaws in the system, you haven't offered any alternate solutuions. Very few 'solutions' in skydiving are perfect. Take the minimum pull altitudes for example. Name the DZ where the S&TA is sitting in the LZ with a laser range-finder, shooting every canopy as they open and then comparing those numbers to the jumpers license. Or point out the DZ that distributes data logging audibles to every jumper in the loading area, and collects them in the LZ and compares their deployment altitude to their license. You can't do it because no DZ does either one of those, yet somehow most DZs don't have a problem with most jumpers pulling low. Why? Because the USPA made it a rule a few years back, and most people don't mind following the rules. The ones who broke the new rule eventually died, or quit jumping, or got sick of being the 'odd man out' and brought their pull altitudes up. An informal study was done in the last 10 years or so, and it showed that the average jumper stays with the sport for something like 5 or 7 years. So if you make a new rule, within 5 to 7 years there's a whole new generation of jumpers who came into the sport with the 'new' rule already in place, and who (for the most part) will just accept it part of skydiving in general. This is what happened to the attitudes about pull altitudes, after few years after the BSR, more and more jumpers came into the sport and simply accepted it as part of skydiving. Min pull altitudes were in place when I started jumping, and I never thought twice about them. I didn't feel limited or like my 'freedom' had been diminished, I just accepted the rule as the 'way it was'. I happened to learn at a DZ that was 'liberal' with the rules, and had a handful of jumpers known to take to low, and they were allowed to do so without the management lifting a finger, which brings me to my other point. With the rule in place, and some jumpers choosing to not follow it without repercussions, I had a choice to make early on to follow the rule, or just smoke it low and take my chances. I chose to follow the rule, and part of the reason was that there was a rule in place, and that made me think that it was important. Why would they have gone to the trouble to establish, print and teach min pull altitudes if there was no merit? Canopy selection and continuing education are the same. Put the BSR in place, and the majority of people at the majority of DZs will follow it. New jumpers will choose to follow it, and regard it as important, because by making a BSR, we are regarding it as important. In time it will become ingrained in the landscape of skydiving (in the US) and it will 'uncool' to bust the BSR, just like most other BSRs. On top of that, time will only serve to weed out those who scoff at the 'new' rules, and bring new jumpers into the sport who won't know what it's like to jump without the new rules. But yeah, I guess the existance of weight vests mean we should just give up, right?

Make sure you have a plan for either eventuality. If it's too fast, you don't have to worry about the pumpkin, but your buddy trying to catch it might be a risk. Focused on the pumpkin and diving hard, maybe he doesn't see you, or maybe he corks out of the dive near you. If it's too slow, same problem where everyone is looking at the pumpkin, and not each other. Of course, you also need to think about the pumpkin up overhead, and where it might be drifting before you go to track off or open. Like I said, have a plan, and have it invovle going the other direction as the pumpkin for a long time before pulling. You might need to adjust your break off altitude way up if it floats on you. If you're doing this off DZ, make sure you have a good LZ scoped out, one with clean air given the wind direciton of the day. Don't forget about wind socks or airblades, and try to get a jumper on the ground to be a spotter watching for cutaways, off landings, and that everyone gets open. Make sure they have the number of local ambulance/rescue, and they know the street address where you're landing and how to get first responders into the LZ if need be. Jumping off DZ can be done, but there are facilites and procedures in place at the DZ that nobody realizes until something goes wrong. Only then does the benefit of the DZ, their emergency planning, and the group of experienced jumpers hanging out become clear.

Those two things will add $300 to the price of the rig. $200 for the reline (I'm being conservative) and $100 for a new PC. How about the risers? Are the toggles held on with velcro? If so, you'll want to upgrade to velcroless risers as the Racer doesn't have great riser covers, and when velcro risers get out in freefall, the toggles come flying off. Add $100 for new risers. Is the PC pouch on the bottom of the contianer, or is it on the legstrap? If it is on the bottom, what's the condition like? Figure on a new one, $40. Once you get the rig, all the new parts will need to be installed, and you'll need a reserev repack, so there's another $100. Your $600 rig just about doubled in price. What you're left with is a rig you don't want to freefly with, and that some riggers won't even pack. The resale value will be about $500, now that you made it ready to jump. If you're tight on cash, look into getting creative. Ask around the DZ to see if anyone has any 15 year old gear in their closet, and try to peice a rig together that way. An old main from this guy, a reserve from that guy and so on. Even if you can only find one part locally, see if the guy will give you time to pay or take payments. If you can get an old main for $300 or $400, and you can pay the guy in the spring, you're 1/3 of the way to a rig, and you still have your $600 in the bank. Look into packing at the DZ if you can. You can make an easy $100 a weekend, and in a couple months you'll have enough for a rig. You'll be on the DZ, able to jump once or twice a day, and if you want to make friends and find out who has gear around, become a packer and opportunities will come your way. Pass on the Racer, and this is from a guy who put 3000 jumps on Racers. They were newer and modified from the one you're looking at, and I never would have jumped a stock Racer from 1990. Besides, that rig is worth about $200, and that's if the reserve is still airworhty. The main and the container are just too old and outdated to really have any value.

Sure, but do they need several jumpsuits? Sometimes you just buy a new one beacuse you feel like it, or it matches your new rig. Once you get to the point that you own a rig(s) and you're not looking to downsize, or buy any other gear, you might just buy a new suit 'just becasue'. There are other reasons to buy a new suit, like if you get fat (or thin) and need a different fall rate. You might sill keep your old suit for going faster or slower, but you'll need a new one for 'the middle'. If you get into 4-way and need competition style grips, then you'll need a new suit. You'll keep the old one and use it for non team jumps, but for team jumps you get a team suit. In the end, one suit could last you for 1000's of jumps, provided your needs don't change too much. The comment I made was to indicate the quality of the 'investment' in a suit, not neccesarily to describe the buying habits of the average jumper. Of course, if you want to freefly, you'll need a different suit for that too. Video, new suit. Tandems, new suit. Get married, new suit. Funeral, new suit. The list goes on...

For reference, a very good rigger and seamstress I know has commented that building booties and putting them on a non-bootie suit is one of the hardest jobs in sewing to get right. She was able to put tuck tabs on a rig for me that lasted for 1500 jumps, and I have seen her do extensive work to a suit (which I built) that made it last for well over 1000 jumps. With that in mind, when she says booties are tough to do, I tend to believe her. It's not that it can't be done, it's a matter of it not being able to be done 'right'. In addition to being able to last, the fit of a bootie is key to it's operation. It needs to fit 'just right' so you can 'open' it with a pointed toe, and 'collapse' it with a relaxed toe. Teh size of the shoe, the length of the bootie, and where it ties into the leg are all factors that need to be balanced to get it 'right'. Even if you find someone willing to tackle to job, that doesn't mean it will be 'right'. Do yourself a favor, and invest in a new, custom jumpsuit. I know they're expensive, but you can expect to never need to buy another suit for your entire jumping career. A good Tony suit will last for 1000's of jumps with only the need for minimal repairs and upkeep along the way. Get yourself a suit fitted to you, made out of the right materials (think about fall rate and climate) and with the options you want (booties, grippers where and how bog you want, pockets, colors, etc). Judging from your profile, you're newer to jumping, and a new custom suit is the way to go. It will fit right, fly right, and look right, and an investment you should make if you're going to stick with the sport.

So if a guy doesn't end up dead, you're not interested? One of the problems we have is that non-fatal incidents aren't recorded and available as data. As far as I'm concerned, anything that requires a hospital visit is worthy of being recorded and analyzed, and worthy of efforts to reduce repeats of the same incident. Keeping in mind that there are far more non-fatal incidents than fatal incidents, and that there are no statistics regarding non-fatals, let's use some logic to tackle the bigger (literally) problem. What is your personal opinion about WL limitations for jumpers under 500 jumps, and continuing education for jumpers under 500 jumps looking to downsize? Non-existant statistics aside, do you think that would be a benefit or a detractor to the situation regarding canopy selection and canopy flight in the US? For my money, I see it as a benefit on many levels, and even if I'm wrong about any benefit, I can't see how it would do any harm.