davelepka

While that sounds very patriotic, the 'American way' hasn't exactly been working too well. The simple fact is that the majority of other countries have some sort of 'official' oversight in the areas of canopy control and selection, and they also have a lower rate of open-canopy incidents than the US. The problem with your suggestion is that new jumpers don't even know what they don't know. No amount of education can replace the lessons learned over time and experience. Do you really think that anyone jumping the US today doesn't know that open canopy incidents are on top of the fatality list? Is there anyone here not familiar with the idea of starting at 1 to 1 WL, and working your way up from there? Even the canopies themselves having warnings and guidelines printed on the label, the same label that's face up, looking right at you everytime you pack. People are educated, the information is out there and readily available, but everyone thinks they know better, or they think they are better, or who knows what they think, but people continue to make bad choices in the area of equipment selection. As far as what you're a 'fan of' or not is of little consequence here. With 13 years in the sport, nobody is looking to control you, and truthfully, with 13 years in, you have proven that you don't need to be controlled anyway. You made it much further than the average jumper who quits the sport within 5 or 7 years. My ideas aren't intended for you, it's for the new jumpers of today. Some of them might be like you and not need any oversight, but the majority are not. Just lay down the law, tough out a year or two of complaining from the new guys who think we're trying to 'hold them back', and the idea will take hold. Soon enough, new jumpers won't even remember or know that you used to be able to jump 'whatever', and they'll just accept the idea of some basic limitation and educational requirements as the 'status quo' and that will be that.

I disagree. I saw very little backing up involved. You can see how steep the angle on the tandem is, and if you pause at 2:38, you can see the top of the canopy as it begins to inflate, and a hard opening or surge would have been trouble. Keep in mind that the problem is not the video guy hitting the canopy, it's the video guy hitting the tandem pair 20 ft down the lines. Even if the canopy is 'out of range' the tandem pair is further down, and will allow for more closing of the horizontal gap during the close of the vertical gap. All the more reason this is dumb. He has a personal connection to the '05 incident, but it seems that he does not brief his camera flyers not to repeat the actions that killed his friend. How does that honor the memory of your friend, and contribute toward avoiding a repeat incident? Years ago I worked with Bram Clement for a couple years, and right off the bat he told me all the shit things that camera flyers did to him, and what was not permitted when filming him. I obliged his requests, and adjusted my routines accordingly (I also took some of his advice, and adjusted my routine for all TIs). In terms of 'professionalism', I don't think there are many in Bram's league, and while I might not be up there, I'm good enough to follow his lead.

Not true. For the second time in two days I've seen tandem videos posted where the video guy pops up and films the opening from above. Am I the only one who remembers this - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1716520;search_string=tandem%20collision%20jason;#1716520 ? This video was 'Team Fastrax', who claim to be 'professional' and 'the best', meanwhile their video guys are pulling dumb shit like this on high-profile jumps. If you look at the thread, the incident I'm referring to happened right down the road from Start Skydiving, Fastrax's home DZ. It was a miracle the student and camera flyer wasn't killed in the '05 incident, do people really expect another miracle? There are so many other ways to film an opening, why do people insist on repeating mistakes that we know can lead to a fatality. It's just fucking dumb.

The truth is, a combination of jumps and time are what should be used. Something like '100 jumps and 1 year minimum on each tier'. The only thing it takes to make a shit-ton of jumps in a short time is money, and that's no indicator of skill. With two rigs and a packer, you could make an easy 20 jumps a week, and even at that rate I would argue that you might want to hang onto a canopy for more than 5 weeks. Keep in mind that a jumper doing that would have a limited number of days they would have jumped in, and a limited amount of exposure to the DZ, and the sport in general. If you do 5 jumps per day over 20 days, that's 20 unique days at the DZ, compared to half of that for a guy who does 10 jumps per over 10 days. In terms of the test, as long as it's in conjunction with the min time/jump requirements, that's fine by me. My problem is with the 'test out' idea that some people (generally low timers) seem to support. I distinctly remember having some mind-blowing good days when I was learning to swoop where I would crank out 10 out of 10 'perfect' swoops, and if I had been tested on those days, I would have passed hands down. I also remeber days where I narrowly avoided terra-firma several times, and just had bad judgement all day long, so my test results would have been different on those days.

In the US, yes. In many other countries, they have tiered licensing systems where you start off with a restricted license that limits the size of the bike you're allowed to ride, and how/when you can ride it. The only way to advance is to hold the basic license for a fixed time period (like a year) and take a continuing education class. There are typically 3 or 4 tiers, with only the top tier being unlimited. Interestingly enough, the same can be said for canopies, where most other countries have tighter controls over what size and type of canopy you can jump based on your experience level. Having a 'test out' system wouldn't work for canopies, as testing someone is limited to the conditions at the time of the test, and the opinion of the test administrator. A much better control would be similar to the tiered licensing system, where you have to remain on a tier until a certain amount of time has past, and you have taken an advanced canopy control class. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a series of 4 tiers, all with a year in between and a canopy control class to move up. At a minimum, this would ensure that jumpers have at least 4 years in the sport and have taken 3 canopy control classes, each tailored toward the performance level they're trying to advance to. Sure, some jumpers will have more jumps when they advance, and some will have less. In the end, it's a minimum requirement, with no maximum of any kind. Jumpers are free not to downsize if they don't desire, but if they do, at least they are not 'free' to do so, it will be done with some level of sense and oversight.

Is it just me, or is there a difference between 'promoting' competition, and 'funding' competition? What about the record attempts? When was the last time the USPA donated money toward a record attempt? Or even donated money toward a plan to raise money for a record attempt? I would agrue 'never' to the latter, and I would also argue that the lack of financial support for record attempts indicates that funding competition is not appropriate or part of the USPAs purpose. Want to promote competition? I know how to do that, it's called advertising and oversight. Get the word out there to skydivers and the general public that competitions exist, and where/when they are taking place. Then oversee those competitions with judges and establishing/enforcing rules so the competitors know what to expect, and that things are on 'the level'. That's promotion, what they're doing now, I don't know what to call it. I'll quote myself here, just because I was surprised how stupid this sounded whan I typed it - -now I was making the comparison to how the USPA was treating record attempt vs competition, even though they are lumped together in the mission statement, but what I wrote sounds absurd. What the USPA is doing is not donating money toward competition, they're donating (loaning) money toward a plan designed to raise money for the US Team. What this tells me is that the plan is so shitty that the team themselves can't seed it. If there's such promise of repayment and eventually bearing fruit, why isn't the team behind this venture? By my math, with 60 people on the US Team, all it takes is $160 each to raise the $10k they need to seed this program. That's one day of jumping they have to invest to get a 'free ride' to compete internationally AND get the money paid back. Quick poll - who out there would loan me $160 if you would get your money back next year, and then get the bulk of your trip to a world meet covered? I'm guessing most of you would go for that, so why isn't the US Team funding the establishment of the US Team fundraising machine (aka the demo team)? Spoiler alert - the answer is twofold, first off, the US Team is looking for handouts, not to pay to play. The other half is that this plan is bullshit, and nobody in their right mind would spend their own money on this, hence the reason for the USPA to fund it, it's not their money that's being spent. If the person who gave this 'loan' the nod was taking the money out of their own pocket, this thread wouldn't exist.

He's playing the 'free market' card? After taking membership dollars to compete with members, he's playing the 'free market' card? Let him establish the team and the act on his own dime, or at least money he didn't take directly from the membership, and then he can leave the show selection process up to the 'free market'. In this case, the market wasn't exactly 'free', as the other teams didn't have access to an easy $10k to jump start their operation. There's big money in Lasik surgery, and I could make a mint opening a clinic, but I don't have a million bucks to buy the laser. It's easy to make money if you have the laser, but getting that money together is often times the hardest part and the thing that stops people from going into business. The more I think about this whole thing, the more upset I get with the USPA. We have elected these people to be the stewards of our sport, and yes, our money. What other projects are the USPA footing the bill for? Why don't we have more transperecy, as a member funded organization, as to where the money is going?

What's with that deployment shot from above the canopy, you guys trying to kill off a TI?

For the US team, right? Based on what, doing demos? So the idea is to find a sponsor so rich that they'll sponsor the demo team create awareness and advertise their business, AND sponsor the US Team 'just for fun' at the same time. From my point of view, I'm not sure the US Team is sponsorable outside of jumping. The US Team competes internationally, but they provide very little exposure relative to what an international corp would be looking for. Case in point - the Red Bull air races. These guys also compete globally, but at the same time they get massive exposure through the televised, youtube'd, and Red Bull efforts to promote the events. As such, those racers have garnered some good sponsors, but if you notice, they're all international corps with global brands to promote. The US Team also competes in a different international setting each time, but the events lack the exposure to attract a big money sponsor with an international brand. How many Rolex customers follow international skydiving competition? Cmopare that to the number of Rolex customers who are pilots or aircraft owners and follow the Red Bull series. It's simple, there are no sponsors who fit the bill they're selling. The ROI on sponsorship dollars for a skydivign team, let alone an international skydiving team, is slim to none. The old Coors team, that was an idea. They jumped at airshows, promotional events, and sports event all acorss the US, the same US where Coors sells 99% of it's product. The whoel idea that the USPA, or anynoe, should be coughing up $300k to $500k a year to pay people to complete is absurd. This is not 1976 with a 6 man US Team. This is 2011, and there are 60-some jumpers looking for a free ride to where ever to complete. It's just not in the cards anymore. Hayhurst wants money for the team? Solicit donations from manufacturers and DZs, and raffle the shit off. Come up with an effective advertising campaign, and run ads in Parachutist convincing jumpers to donate (I'd even be up for giving him the ad space for free. Out of 33,000 members, $10 a head would pay for most of the US teams needs. Figure out a way to make it worth $10 to every jumper, and your problem is solved). Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, all free to utilize and create a following of some sort (if there's anything interesting, compelling or worthwhile about the US Team, it should be a snap). The whole idea that the USPA is funding (with dues money) an unlikely scheme to attract sponsors for the US Team is bad enough, even if you leave out the part about competing with USPA members for demo work. Of course, you can't leave that out because that's really happening, so the whole deal just sucks that much more.

Look pal, if you think I 'bit your head off', you need to toughen up or you're going to have a tough time in skydiving. To be fair (to me) your statement was complete, and contained none of the 'what if's' you added in your response to me. You're new, and should keep two things in mind, the first is that you learn way more listening than talking. The other is that you have to be very careful what you say when talking about skydiving and safety related situations. People will take what you say to heart and apply it to themselves regardless of the validity of your statement, or if it applies to their specific situation. Considering what is at risk, you have to be VERY careful when you make a statement condoning one course of action or another. Disapproaving of an idea is fair game. If something looks iffy to you, speak your mind as nobody ever got hurt based on choosing to not do something. However, approving of something is another story, you better be dman sure you have all the facts and understand every aspect of a situaiton before encouraging another jumper to do anything. You can never go wrong keeping your mouth shut if you approve of a situation, just let it be, and things will work themselves out.

This is a very poor way to judge the skill of a canopy pilot, and I would advise against using that metric to determine your own skills or when making equipment selection. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, and like the saying goes, 'the devil is in the details', and you're asking for trouble ignoring those details. One of the most dangerous things I see at the DZ is a poorly executed flare or landing where the jumper avoids an injury or severe impact by inches, but manages to stand up the landing. They come away thinking it was fine, and thus become more comfortable with a canopy they have no room to be 'comfortable' with. One small mistake could make the difference between 'getting away with it' and 'getting a ride in an ambulance'. Somone on this site has a sig line along those same lines. It goes 'The most dangerous thing you can do is bust a BSR and get away with it because then it makes you think the BSR isn't important'. I've got grass stains on both my jumpsuits and my rig.

Lucky for the OP, rigs have serial numbers and our national organizations maintains a database of known stolen gear. So he 'clears' the rig through USPA and Mirage, and then goes one step further as to make an announcement on the largest skydiving website in the world (I think) and nobody can confirm that the rig is stolen. The OP has done his due dilligence, and can purcahse the rig secure in the knowledge that it is not stolen. What's the old saying, 'If it seems too good to be true, it probably is'? The operative word in that sentence is 'probably'. Most times, they are too good to be true, but sometimes they are just great deals.

Tell him it's worthless without 'papers' and offer him $250 for 'parts value'. Explain that 'papers' are like the title to a car, and it's illegal to jump a rig without them.

If you're 180 lbs, then your exit weight is more like 205 lbs, and your WL on a 170 is more like 1.2+. If you're 155, then your exit weight is around 180, and your WL on a 170 is more like 1.06ish. It's a big difference and one you need to figure out before moving on. The bigger factor to consider is your ability, and your experience jumping a 190. First and foremost, keep the WL down, below 1.1 to 1 for sure. That doesn't mean find a rig that will put you at 1.1 to 1, and start there, it means don't go over that. Second, look at your experiences with what you have jumped already, how many jumps you have on that size, and how well you did/are doing with that size. Make sure you jump each size multiple times in a variety of conditions, and don't downsize until you can put together a string of 'good' jumps on your current size. 'Good' meaning you're in control, follow your flight plan, and have good accuracy and a good landing. A 'string' meaning that you can do that 10 times in a row. Not that you do it 10 times over the course of 20 jumps, that's only a 50% success rate, it's 10 times in a row, so you have a 100% success rate for those 10 jumps. Only then, should you consider downsizing. You don't have to downsize, you don't have to jump the smallest canopy you think you can 'get away' with (and that goes for mains and reserves). There is no penalty to jumping a larger canopy, it will always be the safer choice (and no, high winds don't count - you may get backed up under a bigger canopy in high winds, and be able to get some penetration with a smaller wing, but you shouldn't be jumping in those conditions anyway, so the 'rule' stands, and there's no penalty to jumping a bigger canopy).

Based on what? The DZO has a documented history of not properly maintaining his aircraft to such an extent that some have fallen out of the sky and that the FAA has levied close to $1million in fines. One of the problem areas was an inspection of the airframe where the wing attached to the fuselage. What do you think a cracked bulkhead looks like from the outside of the plane? Do you think it's an outwardly visible problem, where you can asses the severity of the crack, and choose to stop flying on that plane when it gets too bad? The truth is that nobody would see the crack forming, and the only way it would show itself is when the wing seperates from the fuselage. How about the over life-limit control cables. These don't run outside the plane, to where you can see them before boarding each time. These cables run through the hidden tunnels and channels in the airframe, the only outward indication you would have that there is a problem is when a cable snaps. Up until that point, it's busines as usual, with full, unrestricted control of the aircraft. Going there to 'take a look' will get you nowehere closer to knowing the status of the aircraft. The vast majority of aricraft problems are undectible to the outside observer until there is a failure. I'm amamzed that people keep going there, and that the staff/fun jumpers didn't beat the shit out of Bill when the lid came off this can of worms. I, for one, would be fucking pissed if I found out my DZO was sending me up in an airplane they knew was nowhere near properly maintained. Bill got lucky, and had no way of knowing that those ignored maintenance items weren't going to manifest themselves in an outright failure. Let's remember the failure of the drive splines on the fuel pump in that King Air incident up in Pitt Meadows. Also one of Bill's planes on a 'Bill approved' MX plans, I'm sure the plane made full power and ran like a top on the previous load. It was probably 100% on the run-up and take off on the incident load, everything was just fine - and then it wasn't. That's the nature of these types of failures, and the very reason that mandatory inspections and life-limits exist on certain components, they're designed to fix the problem before it becomes a problem. For the life of me I just can't fathom why anyone would put themselves at risk like that, and why they would continue to patronize a business that has no concern for their personal safety. It's just stupid.

It's just a tool for adjusting the range of fall rates you can film. If you're a lightweight who works with heavy TIs, you may not need a camera suit. If you're a 'big boy', a camera suit is probably a good idea. That said, the person in the suit makes a big difference. A lower time camera guy may want to have the suit on 'just in case', or to help erase mistakes in flying or judgement. A higher time camera guy might be able to 'fly smarter' and get away without a suit on a slow falling tandem or two. The cons are simple, more stuff to deal with. Depending on the type of suit, youl'll have swoop cords and possible attachment of the lower portion of the wing to the suit/harness. A failure or any of those points, or of the flyer to hook up any of those points makes it tough to shoot a clean video. Of course, if you pitch your PC through the 'hole' in the bottom of the wing, or get your swoop cord stuck on your hand, these are other problems.

Check out these guys for any coating needs. They come highly reccomended, like the PD of coating companies. Great work, prices and cust service. http://www.qccoatings.com/index.php

That's the problem with a reccomendation over a requirement, it leaves it up the personal opinon of the individual. While the S&TA might be the best choice out of all the local jumpers willing to do the job, it doesn't mean that they are an expert in every area of skydiving. A very wise S&TA at the first DZ I jumped pointed this out to me years ago. In the very early days of freeflying (also my early days of skydiving), I approached him with a question about group freefly jumps and his reply was, "I don't know, I don't even know how you guys do that freeflying stuff. Truth is, if anyone else asked me a quesiton about freeflying I would have sent them to you guys. When you ask me a question about freefying, I'm not sure where to go". Does this other S&TA have any experience jumping a camera? Not just wearing a side-mount or GoPro, but being an actual 'camera flyer'? Do they have any camera flying experience from when they were a new jumper? There's a chance he simply doesn't undertstand the nature or scope of problems a new jumper with a camera could encounter, and therefore has a higher tolerance for it than other S&TAs who might. The days of 'one stop shopping' when it comes to S&TAs is probably over. The most dangerous things in skydiving, like swooping, wingsuits, camera flying, and freefling are all very specific, highly technical disciplines, and a jumper with only a casual knowledge of them makes a very poor 'keeper of the keys'. I know where I jump, there are different jumpers 'known' to be the experts in certain areas, and only one of them is an S&TA. We have a wingsuit guy, a camera flying guy, a freeflyer guy, a swooper guy, etc, and any time there's a 'call' to be made in those areas, we generally tend to refer to the local 'expert' for advice.

Yes, and the key thing to keep in mind is that the offender was put on notice when you established the 'lot lines' and called to inform him that you thought he was on your land. Even if the realtor gave him reason to believe that it was his land, once you put him on notice that it was not, it was his duty to investigate the matter before cutting further trees. Now if the realtor did steer him wrong, you may have a case against them for the damages done to your land before you put the offender on notice, but anything beyond your notification falls squarely on the 'logger'. One other point, you mentioned the DA upthread, and if he does bring charges, a conviction in a criminal case makes a civil case a slam dunk. The civil case goes from 'did they do it' to 'they did it, how much is it worth' based on the criminal conviction. Even if the DA cannot make a case, or doesn't even bring charges, you're not sunk. There is a much higher standard of proof in a criminal case than a civil case. Just because a DA cannot win (or doesn't think they can) in a criminal case, you still might be able to prove your case in a civil trial. Based on everything you've said thus far, I would think that you should have no problem finding a lawyer to take your case. It's clear the guy has done you wrong, and it appears that he has some assets to speak of, and generally those two things will make a lawyer sit up and take notice.

It's interesting to wonder, but in terms of a civil suit, the lumber value of the trees is not relevant as the trees (and land) were not purchased for the purpose of harvesting the lumber. The trees were always intended to be a feature of the land, and to provide privacy and 'ambiance' to the land. The damages in this case are not the loss of revenue from the harvested trees, it's the loss of value and functionality to the land they bought due to removal of the natural features. Forget the price of the cut trees, what they should be interested in the price of replacing the live, mature trees, that's what it will take to make the OP 'whole' again.

How is it that you load a 210 at 1 to 1, and you think a 170 will be just above 1.1 to 1? That math doesn't add up, and neither does your 'plan' to force the issue with your canopy size in order to 'make it last'. Slow down, and put a 190 into your first rig. Look for a reasonably priced used 190, and put 100 jumps on it. Then sell the 190, and buy a reasonably priced used 170 for the same amount of money. Keep the container, reserve, and AAD you started off with, and enjoy an easier pack job due to the smaller canopy. You make a rig 'last' by sizing the container to fit your current, and next size canopy, not by forcing the issue and starting with a smaller canopy. In that case, your rig will last, but it might be due to you being broken and the rig sitting in the closet. Along those same lines, what size reserve are you planning on for this rig? Keeping in mind that using a bigger reserve will never hurt you, but a smaller one will, you should be looking at 1 to 1 MAX for your reserve, and just leave it that way until you need to buy a new rig. If you follow the plan, that will be several hundred jumps from now, and you'll be a MUCH better jumper by then. When did I start swooping? A couple years and 300+ jumps in, and even then it was a different animal back then. Canopies were slower, and what we asipred to what about 40% of what the average swooper is in to today. Forget about everything but your next 10 jumps. Come up with some goals and a plan for those jumps, make the jumps, then start thinking about the next 10. Keep that up for 100 jumps, then you can bump the number up to 20 jumps. You have so much to learn right now that you're just wasting time and losing focus thinking about things that are nowehere near right now.

No, anything is not better than nothing. If it blocks too much of your vision, has too high of a profile and a riser snags it, or the visor blows off at any time, you would have been better off with nothing. It's not helping people to have them watse $300 on a helmet they can't use for jumping. Benny, $65. BH Echo, $125, Hurricane $205, BH Mindwarp-Gunner-All Sport, $210, Cookie M1, $210. Cookie Rok, $225. Cookie Ozone, $260. Nvertigo X, $270. All cheaper than what you posted, all designed, built and proven for skydiving. As an added bonus, none of them will make you look like a cross between a 'confused' metrosexual on a Stella, and the pilot of an X-wing fighter. I left out the $40 Protec and the $100 Gath as neither were designed and built for jumping. Both, however, proven over countless jumps.

Why do you need an audible to ride a scooter?

I don't think the prices change all that much. Even just in the US, the northern half is busy jumping in the summer, and the southern half is busier in the winter. When it's 4 degrees outside in Ohio, we don't jump much, but at the same time when it's 112 in Arizona, they don't jump much either. The other difference is that in skydiving people don't always change their gear that often. I know skiing and snowboarding, for example, come out with new models every year, but parachutes are not quite the same. If you're shopping for used gear, between sizes and models there are enough things that need to 'match up' for gear to be right for you, that when you find equipment that fits all your needs and passes a riggers inspection, just buy it. Waiting around to save a $100 or $200 might find you without gear, or jumping your 'second choice'. A word on buying used gear, have one of your instructors refer you to a good local rigger. If you're planning to buy a rig, you'll need a rigger anyway, so establish the relationship now. Anytime you see or hear of gear you might be interested in, see what your rigger thinks. If they think it's worthwhile, have them arrange to inspect it. Never ever buy antyhing without your rigger inspecting it, or without the understanding that you can return it if does not pass your riggers inspection. Your rigger can generally work out having things shipped to them before payment is made, or if not, some gear dealers will do an escrow deal where you pay them, the seller ships to them, and they handle making sure everyone gets what they need. Check with Chuting Star if you need escrow service, I think they do it for free, but you have to pay them to inspect the gear being escrowed.

Let's take the Lodi issue one step further. So far the pro-Lodi advice has been not to show up unless you're ready to take care of yourself. They say the place is 'old school'. If it's 'old shcool' in that they still use printed tickets, great. If 'old school' means the staff shirts are tie-dye, that's cool. When 'old school' means that nobody gives two shits about new or visting jumpers, is that really a selling point? Sure, the DZO has a reputation of being 'gruff' or 'direct', but what does that have to do with every other jumper on the field? Why have they all seemingly adopted this same persona, and why do they take it so far as to tell you not to show up if you don't like it? Look, there have been some DZOs I liked as people, but it never led me to emulate their personality, or effect the way I regard other people. The fact that this is going on in Lodi is just weird. I know Bill has a rep of 'my way or the high way', but I doubt that extends to watching out for other jumpers, and I doubt he would give anyone the boot if he saw them watching out for new or visiting jumpers, yet the jumpers there (and others) have all made the suggestion that nobody will look twice at you, and not to even show up if you don't like it. Again, this is where you want to go? This is a place you want to travel to and jump, all for the sake of saving a couple bucks? Look at it this way, you're taking a mid-winter trip to get some jumps in while you're snowed in at home. Just save up your money so you have enough money to jump all day, every day of your trip, at regular price. We all know that's never going to happen, between weather and sleep, you'll miss a few of those loads and end up with more money than you need. If you can't save that much, do one less jump a day, or take a day and go see the beach or LA/San Diego, or whatever. Saving $100 or $200 is not a reason to contribute toward a DZ where the DZO and the fun jumpers seem to have no regard for the FAA or anyone esle, including every other DZ who gets to deal with the fallout from the attention they drew from the FAA. Show more character than all of them, and don't let a couple bucks lure you into being a part of the problem.