davelepka

The funny part is, like I stated above, they're not just looking for sponsors for a demo team. They're thinking they can establish a demo team so good, so indemand, with such a high public profile that some corp somewhere is going to sponsor both the demo team and the US Team. The truth is that just sponsoring a demo team is a much easier goal. The cost would be consierably less, and the events the team would be performing at (airshows) are at a known location with a record of attendance over a period of years. Let's say Arctic Cat Snowmoblies wants to sponsor a demo team. You can sure as hell bet they're not going to bid jobs in the southern US where nobody buys snowmobiles. But if they limit the team to shows in WI, MN, and the like, there might be some value to Arctic Cat in having their name in the program and announced all day long. What value is there to Arctic Cat in sponsoring a team competing at the world meet in whatever country it's going to be held? At the end of the day, I think Ed Scott said it best himself in his letter where he was hoping to clear things up - It's been well established that other sports have more media presense and public exposure, but the real point is that when you come to the conclusion that corporate sponsorship is the only option, isn't that another way of saying that the game is over? Think about it, you have a venture which has become so expensive your only option is to seek a corporation with so much money that they can fund it in exachange for publicity. Keeping in mind that the only way that corporation got all that money was by making sound business decisions, why the hell would they spend it on this? Skydiving has taken shots at this in the past, and from I can see, it hasn't become 'business as usual'. Skydiving has also been 'hotter' in the media, and it didn't even take then. Skysurfing, ESPN, the SSi Pro Tour, the X-Games, that was the peak of 'mainstream' skydiving, and if there was any way to connect a business to skydiving, that's when it would have happened. I'm sorry USPA, but the general public doesn't care about regular skydiving. If you want to do a 'stunt', or sensationalize it in a movie, or someone gets hurt on video, people perk up, but outside of that, nobody but skydivers cares about skydiving. To take that one step further, nobody cares about the US Team besides the US Team. The membership has proven it by not contributing in any significant amount.

Just for fun, I'm going to answer this question for the USPA, then prove them wrong. The angle the USPA is trying to play is that the team will be made up of 'championship' skydivers, a fact they think will add value to the team in terms of both bidding on airshows and attracting sponsors. Here's the rub - nobody gives two shits about skydiving competitions. A couple years back, we ran a local swoop meet series comprised of 3 or 4 meets. We earned points for each meet, and in the end, I was crowned the 'champion' of that season. Compare that to my buddy Joe who went to Nationals and earned a gold in freefly. Both accomplishments, both things to be proud of, but the differences between the two are lost to the non-skydiver. If I jump into a high-school football game, I'm a 'champion' skydiver. If Joe does the same demo, he's a 'champion' skydiver. I'm willing to bet that every member of the Liberty Parachute Team has some competition experience they can include on a resume when trying to attract jobs. Even then, when I go to an airshow, I watch the show, regardless of the qualifications of the performer. If they're good enough for the airshow to hire, they're good enough for me to watch. Truth is, when Patty Wagstaff is flying, she's not flying her competition routine, she's flying gher airshow routine. Even if she was flying her competition routine, I don't know enough about competition aerobatics to recognize a competition routine, nor the 1% or 2% more percision she has that makes her a champion and some other guy just '2nd place'. This idea sucks, USPA. It sucked when I assumed what the intent was and shot holes in that idea, and it still sucks since USPA was nice enough to clarify their intent, and I've been able to shoot holes in that.

You're saying this based on the idea that the loan is $10,000. If the idea of repaying $10,000 seems unlikely, what are the odds that this venture will make a dent in the $180k to $500k it will take to send 60 jumpers to compete? USPA themselves quoted 60 jumpers on the team, and a cost of $3k to $5k per jumper to compete. Twardo claims that the demo team would take two years to turn a $10k profit and repay the loan, but for the sake of this example I'm going to double that. Let's say they can generate $10k per year. Year one repays the loan and doesn't make a dime for the US Team. Year two they turn a $10k profit which contributes, get this, a whopping $166 per competitor. Being that this is an 'ofiicial' money making venture, that $10k better be split equally among all 60 memebers, which means that every Accuracy jumper, and everyu skysurfer and every camera flyer all get the same $166 as the 'star' 4-way and 8-way players. So in the end, it's worth $166 per competitor, who are (sorry guys) just looking for a free ride to compete internationally, to muddy the already scarce waters of the Pro demo market? Anyone heard of risk/reward? On top of possibly losing our $10k, they're inevitably going to be taking demos away from established teams. That sounds like two 'risks', and the reward is what? $166 a head for the US Team? Hey, USPA, listen up, corporate sponsorship is not going to happen. Even if you can assemble an airshow team, and even if you can find a corp sponsor to back it, they're going to be backing the demo team, not the US Team. It's one thing to find a sponsor to cover the costs of a demo team, those being some logo canopies, a budget for marketing, and paying the jumpers. That team would then do demos, and create publicity for the corp, and the team would get paid. What the USPA is after, it seems, is a corop that's willing to do all of that PLUS support the US Team in internaitonal competition. What makes them think that's going to happen? The corp will be paying for the demo team, which is where the publicity will come from, why would they pay extra to also back the team who will be competing abroad in what are essentially non-publicized events? I see the return for backing a demo team, they do arishows with tons of people, and the corp can control the market by only bidding on airahows in markets where they do business. But why would they also back the US Team? What's in it for them? Why wouldn't a corp just partner with Airtwardo and the Liberty Parachute Team, take advantage of their established team and contacts, and gain the publicity with the airshows being the end of the deal? The crop would be on the hook for all the demo team costs plus the US Team costs under the USPA 'plan', so the big question is why would any corp do that? The fact is that it's tough to find a crop to a sponsor a standard demo team, let alone one with the added burden of the US Team sponsorship dollars. Why is it the more I think about this the sense it makes? Nobody on the BOD thoght of any of this? Or did they just not want to 'rock the boat' and kept their mouth shut? Is that how it works on the BOD? I'll back your retarded pet-project so you'll back mine that I'm going to present at the next meeting?

Buying skydiving gear off of ebay from and unknown seller is not the greatest idea. If you're a rigger, or buying obsolete gear for collecting and don't care if it's airworthy, it might be OK. For a newbie looking to make smart, cost-effective purchases, not so much. The seller could be anything from a pawn shop owner to a garage sale shopper, and anything in between, none of which know anything about what they have, and even when they do, a pre-buy inspection is generally not possible due to the auction format.

I'm responding to your post because you started this thread, but my comments are in regards to the letter from the USPA you posted. First off, the USPA constitution may require them to supprt the US team, but by their own admission, in 1976 the US team consisted of 10 jumpers. Now that number is up to 60, and that changes things. Sure, in '76 there were fewer members in the USPA to raise money for the US Team, but with 10 jumpers total, all it takes is a percentage of the membership to make a 'nominal' donation, and then for a handful of DZOs, manufacturers, or basic rich guys to all kick in a couple hundred each, the whole team is on the road and competing. Today, with 60 members all looking for a ride to where ever they need to be, the economics are different. The letter suggests that each team member requires $3000 to $5000 to travel and compete, multiply that by 60, and you're looking at an annual costs ranging from $180k up to $500k to field a US Team. Now I can't speak for the forefathers of the USPA, but if they realized that it would end up costing half a million dollars per year to field a team, I have a feeling that it would not have been 'required' for the USPA to support them. Let's also consider the state of skydiving when that requirement was intoduced to the books. DZs were smaller, leagal problems were fewer, and skydiving itself was a smaller blip on the radar. Competition itself was of a much smaller scope (remember the 10-man US Team) and at the same time, a much larger factor in the business of skydiving. I hate to be the one to break it to the USPA (actually I don't hate it), but times have changed. Priorities have shifted (or should have shifted) and we have much bigger fish to fry. Without a way to really work this into the flow of my post, I'll just interject it here, but every other country on earth that fields a national team had national funding to go along with it. Technically, so do we, they're called the Golden Knights, and they kick ass for a reason, they have the unlimited funding of the US Army behind them. The shortcut to the USPAs problem of 'needing' to support a US team, is to supprt the real US team, the Knights. Partner with them, donate some cash to them, and call it a day. Back to complaing about the letter - so he admits they're doing a terrible job of backing the US Team, how about the terrible job they're doing promoting safety, canopy control and education, equipment selection, etc? Where is the shit-brained idea to take a bunch of USPA money and use to solve those problems? Like I said, bigger fish to fry, but we're supposed to give two shits about the US Team? I'm sorry in advance for any US Team members, but if you want to compete, then cough up the dough it takes to compete and go. Just like 99% of the competitors at Nationals, 99% of the competitors at any regional RW meet or swoop meet, or really 99% of all the jumpers anywhere who want to do anything jump related, it costs money and if you want to do it, write the check. Boogie in Belieze? Pay up. Jumping beside Mt Everest? Pay up alot. Summerfest? Not free. Lost Prarie? Drive forever and then say goodbye to some dollars. I'll make a comparison to smaller scenario. Jeff the jumper wants to go to Nationals. In 2008, Jeff had a great season, trained hard, want to Nationals and had the time of his life. By 2011, Jeff lost his day job, and was making a 'living' doing tandems. Jeff couldn't afford to train for Nationals. The lines on his canopy are so bad that one breaks every 5 or 10 jumps. His AAD is overdue for maintenance. Does Jeff go to Nationals to compete this year? Even if the DZO said he would cover his entrance fees, does Jeff go? The answer is no, and the reason is that competition is a game. It's a fun thing that jumpers do for fun. It produces nothing, isn't required for any reason, and has no effect on the whole of skydiving if it happens or not. Jeff has more fundamental problems, like gear in desperate need of maintenance, and his skills aren't what they were 2 years ago. If everything was great, Jeff's gear was 100% and he managed enough training jumps to stay sharp, but then he couldn't cover the entry fees and need to borrow the cash, or use a credit card, in that case, I say that Jeff does go, and has another time of his life, but as the story goes, Jeff has bigger problems than just the entry fee. See USPA? See what I'm getting at? Now is not the time for fun and games with USPA time and money. Now is the time to pull your head out of your ass and get to work catching up with the rest of the world and time in general (it's 2011, don't ya know). You (the USPA) are the very ones pointing at the big dog headed our way (the FAA), but you want to waste time and money because 60 jumpers want a free ride to travel and compete internationally? Give me a fucking break.

Hold on, I made a mistake when I posted that. I was assuming the USPA wanted to form the demo team to promote the USPA and jumping, and in that case, outsourcing to an established team would be the way to go. The truth of the matter is that the demo team is being formed as a for-profit venture with the proceeds intended to fund the US Team. Of course, this is twice as dumb as forming the team for promotional use. If there was any real money in pro-level demo teams, or if it didn't take a huge investment in equipment, training, and years of work to get the good gigs, more people would be involved in that end of the industry. As it sits, the demo game is a tiny slice of life, and piss-poor idea for starting a new 'business'. The US Team would be better off selling Mary Kay or Amway door to door if they want to make money. They could also hunt down sponsors to donate gear or services and raffle them off. They could do skills camps or big way camps. They could do T-shirts or any number of things that would make more and risk less than starting a demo team.

I ran into this was ebay and paypal selling some motorcycle parts recently. The money will actaully be released fairly soon, they hold for a couple days after the item is deliverd, and I think the idea is to minimze the hassle if the buyer wants to file a complaint. This was they just keep holding the money during the complaint as opposed to having to take it back if there's a problem. You do have to fill out the shipping info (tracking number, etc) with paypal so they know the status. I also think this is limited to those with a low number of transactions with ebay, or for higher dollar items. When my funds were held, I had less than 25 sales on ebay, and the item was over $1000. Either way, 3 or 4 days after it arrived, the funds cleared, and it was two weeks before their 'projected' date. Overall I get it, I was a little annoyed that I only found out about it after it happened. Paypal knows about my ebay status, and could have noted my account that funds over 'x' would be held until my ebay account met with their satisfaction. AS soon as earlier this year I had a couple sales in the $700 to $800 range with no problems, but I couldn't get my hands on this $1045 until I shipped the stuff all the way to Ca. The other trick is that they will release the shipping amount right away if you print your shipping label through them. It doesn't cost more to print it there, and they'll release whatever funds you charged for shipping in the auction so you don't have to go out-of-pocket to pay for shipping. Of course, I offered a deal on my item for free shipping if they used 'buy it now', so my shipping charge was $0 on the auction, and I had to cough up $95 to ship the thing to Ca (it was 92lbs). Again, it's not a terrible or unreasonable system if you know how it works, but they're not very up front about their policies. One thing that does bug me about ebay and paypal (keeping in mind that ebay owns paypal) is that paypal dings you for their 'fees' right away. You should be able to recieve money from ebay with no 'fees' to paypal, and spend that money back at ebay with no penalty. Ebay is already making 10% off the sale of the item, so if I want to sell something on ebay, then turn around and spend the money back at ebay, I should be able to with no paypal fees. If I want to take that money and send it to a person, or withdraw it as cash, THEN take your fees out, but if the money comes from your 'store', and I'm going to spend it back at your 'store', then give me a break on the fees.

I'd suggest the Sony CX105. I picked up a CX100 (I'm in the states) off ebay for $240, including a memory stick and an extra battery. Been shooting tandems with it all summer, and not a glitch or problem of any kind. I haven't priced the GoPro, Contour, etc lately, but I think a used CX can be had for less than the price of those, and if (when) they get dropped, lost, broken, etc, it sucks that much less.

Offer to trade some of that. Plenty of guys who jump and ride, and I'm sure one of them has a coach rating and would like to sharpen up their riding skils.

Look into buying a used rig that holds whatever sized canopy your instructors advise. Find a rig that is 'snug' for the canopy, and you should have no problem if (when) you want to downsize keeping the rig and just putting a smaller canopy in it. You can generally sell one used main and buy another for about the same money, so the downsize (or buying a bigger canopy to start with) doesn't have to really cost much of anything. The truth about gear is that new gear doesn't make much sense for anyone who's not going to put 500+ jumps on it. Much less than that, and you end up eating a ton of cash when you go to sell the rig. Used gear, on the other hand, can usually be had for $1 or $2 a jump, in that if you buy a $2500 used rig, keep it for a year and 100 jumps, you should be able to sell it for $2300. it just makes more sense in your 'early' days of jumping when you'll be switching around canopies, and maybe even switching around rigs to see what's what, and what you really like. If you deal in used rigs, you can do it all with very little additional cash outlay beyond the original purchase price.

The only one that really makes a significant difference is the brakes, so the order for the rest of it is just personal preference. I do my slider first because otherwise it's just up there making noise. Also, I don't make any adjustments to my legstraps, so for me that one is a non-issue. I don't jump an RDS so there might be a reason they want to do unhook that last, but I don't think so. Another note on descent rates with the brakes stowed, not 'all' HP canopies fall out of the sky with the brakes stowed. The Stiletto for examlpe has a very flat trim and a deeper brake setting, so it actualyl floats with the brakes stowed, even at WL approaching 2.0. The controlling factor is how steep the trim is, and how deep the brake setting. One of the things that lets a Velo dive so far is that the trim is fairly steep to start with. It's 'natural state' is falling out of the sky, so when you roll it into a turn is falls even faster.

No, but sort of. First off, let's remember that loosening the chest strap, goofing with your legstraps, and unstowing your brakes all come after dealing with your slider. If that means collapsing and pulling down a standard slider, or removing an RDS slider, either way it involves direct interaction with that area of your rig, and it's a prime time to do a visual inspection of your brakes, brake settings and extra brake line. 'Most' of the time if these look good, they are good, and will release with no problem. Another aspect is that aside from a hung brake or tangled extra brake line, there are really no malfunctions that would be 'hidden' by stowed brakes on a small, highly loaded canopy. It's very clear when there is a problem, and very clear when there is not. The reason for that 'order or operations' is that an x-braced canopy is very ground hungry in full flight. If you blow your brakes and then drop the toggle to work with your harness, etc, you're going to be falling out of the sky at high speed. Even with the brakes stowed, those canopies will descend faster than most other traffic, it's not until you unstow the brakes and get into 1/2 (or more) brakes, or rear risers, that the descent rate is tamed and becomes more 'normal'. Some people have caught on that you can unstow your barkes, and loosen your chest strap with the toggle in your hands, and this is true. On a highly loaded canopy, it can produce some wild rocking motions as you move your hands independently, so most swoopers will not go that way. For newer jumpers on bigger canopies, it is absolutely a good idea. Much like many areas of skydiving, there are suttle changes that go along with changes in equipment or the intent of your jump, and this is one of those areas. In reference to the incident that was linked, the core idea there is not to unstow your brakes before loosening your chest strap, the idea is to unstow your brakes above your descision altitude, and to make sure your descision altitude is one that allows ample time for you to cutaway and pull your reserve with a comfortable margin for error. I hear people who claim they would cutaway at 700 or 800ft if there was a problem, and while that technically might be enough time to get a reserve open, it is not enough time to miss a grab for a handle, or possibly get your brakes unstowed and flare for landing. The idea to keep in mind when setting a hard deck is that you only need your hard deck when things are already going wrong, so planning on everything going right when you need to cutaway is just plain dumb.

So they're going to ride $10K on a venture who's sole purpose is to turn a profit and fund the US Team. If it's going to take 2 years to repay the $10K, you're looking at bringing in a solid $5k per year, with dime one hitting the US Team fund 24 months after the inception of the team. How far does $5k get the US Team? For a 4-way team plus video, that's 40 jumps. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math, but an 8-way team gets 22 jumps out of $5k. All this is worth that type of return? With 31,000 dues paying members, if the USPA upped the dues by 25 cents with the proceeds going to the US Team, it would raise $7750/year, which is more than the projected revenue of the 'Team' and without the risk of our $10k, and without the conflict of interest created my competing with members for demo gigs, and the money would be available far sooner than 24 months. If money is the real goal here, none of this makes sense. There are far easier, faster and less risky ways to raise money. What about that deal that Arsenal pulled off? They got donations from every major manufacturer, sold raffle tickets and gave away something like $10k in gear to one guy. Manufacturers got to support the team and got some press out of the deal, jumpers got to fund the team and got a shot at a killer deal, and one guy made out like a bandit. It's just dumb, and it sucks that I have to be a part of this just to keep jumping. Yes, I want to keep jumping, and no, there is no non-USPA DZ anywhere near me where I can jump without a membership, so yes, I have to be a part of this.

Which is why I asked upthread, how long does it take to make a $10k profit doing demos? Is the idea that all these 'highly experienced demo jumpers' are going to work for free, making the venture more 'profitable'? Let's say you could get them to 'donate' their time to the casue, and work for free, that would certainly increase the profitability of the venture. Now if you balance that against the idea that this team isn't going to step on any of the already-established toes in the demo game, you end up with a zero-sum gain. Extra profits from 'donated' labor vs. reduced earning ability from not going after jobs already established teams have 'dibs' on (and let's face it, established teams take the jobs they do because they're the ones that pay well, and pass on the ones they do because they don't pay well). The truth is, when I first read this thread and thought the idea was to use the US Team Demo Team to promote jumping and the USPA, as much as it's a cheap shot to use member dues to compete with members who do demos, at least the concept made sense. The end goal would be promotion, and that generally has a cost associated with it. If the revenues from the 'Team' could offset some of the costs of the 'Team', it just lowers the cost of promotion. If you accept that there is a cost for promotion, the need to turn an actual profit disappears. Now that I understand that this is an attempt to create a for-profit business in order to rainse money for the US Team, it makes even less sense. There still remains the conflict of interest in using member dues to compete with members who do paid demos, but now you have a business model that appears to make no sense of any kind and looks to have little chance for any real success. I'll suggest it again, if they want to use our (the membership) money to fund this venture, why not let the membership vote on it? To me, it doesn't look like a good investment from a risk/reward perspective. We stand a good chance of losing all or most of the $10K, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the 'Team' come back for a second round of 'funding' once they discover that the $10K doesn't get them as far as they think it will, in which case we'll just increase our loses.

In a perfect world, if we had a bottomless pit of money, I agree. Back to reality, do you really think 'many' is the right word? Let's face it, if 'many' of us were really concerned with the budget of the US Team we would be donating money, and they wouldn't need to hunt down ways to raise (lose) money. It's the basic idea of the market setting the price of a product or service. What's something worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. How much does the US Team deserve? Whatever the US skydivign community is willing to donate. I keep seeing reference to what the US Team 'needs', and that's really a problem for the US Team, not the rest of us. As far as I'm concerned, the US Team gets what it deserves from the community. If it's not what the team wants, I'm sorry for that, but that's not the responsibility of the USPA to step in and tell us (the membership) what it should be worth to us. You are 110% correct that this US Team business is chicken shit compared to our much bigger, more pressing problem. Aside from the obvious negative of dead skydivivers, we also have the bad press and unwanted attention of the FAA to boot. Even if skydiving wasn't in trouble, the 'plan' doesn't make sense. Tyring to attract sponsorship for the US Team? What the Team really needs is a venue where they will have media exposure and be able to provide a return on the sponsorship investment they're looking for. Until skydiving competitions become mass media events, people participating in them can kiss the idea of big money sponsorship goodbye. Beyond that, now they're claiming that the US Team Demo Team isn't going to bid on any events that existing teams are already bidding on? Does anyone believe that bullshit? How many high-profile airshows and events are there to go around? How many of them do you think the existing teams are just leaving on the table and not one of them is placing a bid? If we are to believe the USPA, this 'for profit' team who we are going to loan $10k to is only going to bid on shows that are either too small or pay too little for any of the established demo teams to even bid on. So either the team is going to be a money sewer, or the USPA is slinging the BS, and they'll bid lean and mean on every job they can find. At some point in school I was taught that a just government was the few making choices that would benefit the many. This course of action appears to be the exact opposite. The only people who will benefit from this are the US Team members. The ones who will be on the losing end out number those few, and include every member who gets paid doing demo jumps, and every member who's dues and time are being wasted with these 'pet projects' that have no real benefit to the community at-large. Here's a fun idea USPA, now that we can vote online, how about you take a vote to see if this idea lives or dies? The USPA can state their case, Airtwardo can state his case, each side gets one shot at a rebuttal, and let the chips fall where they may. The US is a democracy, and this is the USPA, so let's settle this thing the democratic way.

You need a good pre-buy inspection, to include researching ADs, going over the logs (all of them, not the just the most recent page), and talking with the A&P who did the most recent annual. On that note, look for a plane that's in-annual, as that means it's still flying, any of the ads that offer a 'fresh annual at the time of sale', is just a nice way of saying that the plane is out of annual, and has been sitting. Look for a privately owned plane with no history of being a school-aircraft. School planes are typically higher time and are not always flown with CFI in the right seat, sometimes it's just one guy with 42 hours at the controls. Plan on spedning a couple thousand bucks on inspections, between the cost of inspections and getting a good A&P to where ever the plane happens to be. Look up the cost of soem basic repairs to a 172, and you'll see that this is money well spent, and whatever you do, do not go against the reccomendatrion of the inspector. They have no money or interest in the plane other than doing the inspection, so in addition to their experitse, they have an objective viewpoint. Also, don't forget the cost of getting the plane home once you buy it. Last, remember that paint and interior are things they make airplanes look fancy, but they're also the least important. Look for the best engine and airframe you can find, because that will get you flying, all the other stuff can be updated in time as money allows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of this 'team' business is going to be training the jumpers on how to interact with the crowd and how to promote the USPA, and providing literature to distribute to the crowds, right? How about they trim the budget a bit and cut out the team itself, and simply partner with the existing pro demo teams out there and have them talk up the USPA and pass out literature? The obvious answer is because someone 'wants' to have a demo team, and it's not their money that's being used to fund it. The truth is, that this is the exact type of service that's 10x more cost effective to outsource. While 'outsourcing' has become a negative in terms of companies shipping jobs overseas, when done correctly (and responsibly), it's a smart business move and what anyone who gives two shits about the bottom line would do. Why should the USPA shoulder the cost of going into the demo business, when existing pro teams have already done that and amortized those costs over years of doing actual demos? That's not even mentioning the fact that the USPA team would be competing with it's own, dues paying members, but when you add that in, it makes even less sense. Let me ask you this, how many demos do you need to do for a team to make a profit of $10k? Forget about the costs of training or equipment, just for fun let's assume that all the jumpers are already trained and equipped, and that the jumpers are willing to work for a reasonable per-diem, just how many demos will it take for the 'team' to make a profit of $10K and pay the membership back? Whatever the answer is, let's all remember that this not the type of deal where the USPA will 'loan' the 'team' $10k, and once it's paid back the USPA owns a profitable demo team. Equipment will wear out and need to be replaced, and jumpers will move on and new ones will need to be trained. What a bullshit waste of time and money. The biggest reason being that anyone going to Oshkosh, or any big arishow is already interested in aviation, and 99% of them have a smartphone in their pocket and could hunt down the USPA or a local DZ within minutes of watching ANY demo team jump. It almost reminds me of the Skyride scam where they're not actaully bringing in new business, just grabbing onto people already looking to make a jump and calling them 'their' customers. In this case the USPA is doing the exact same job the other teams are doing, but they're going to be able to undercut the other teams in bidding for the jobs thanks to our money.

And again before he climbed out of the aircraft. I call BS blaming the whuffos for this one. Long after the whuffos were no longer commanding the jumpers attention, he missed several chances to check his handles. It makes me wonder if this jumper actually had a habit of checking his handles in the past, or he just had a habit of packing correctly, and thus his missed handle checks went un-noticed, as they were always where he expected them to be. Just like 'getting away' with not checking your handles by packing correctly is an accident waiting to happen, so is blaming your own failures on others. If the jumpers only remedy is to quit talking to whuffos while he packs, then he's learned very little. If he can accept responsibility for his mistakes (missing the gear checks), then he's learned a great deal more. To anyone out there who is 'soft' on their gear checks, it's time to firm up your game. Let's remember that when the door opens, it's literally 'go time', and the only thing standing between you and death is the parachute system on your back. Leaving an airplane without the personal and timely knowledge that the parachtue system is properly donned and configured immediately before exit is taking a chance with your life. No offence to most of you jumpers out there, but all your handshakes, high fives, and fist bumps, should take a back seat to checking your gear after the 2-min call. You want a high-five? Look for me back on the ground in 10 min when you've actually achieved something and survived a jump, then I'll give you a high-five.

I think you did, here- I pointed to the size of the canopy without knowing that you had also jumped a 290 and had slower, softer landings. With that in mind, and your previous 'too fast' jump on a 250/260, I think your answer is right there. The mistake, it sounds like, was equipment selection. I'm going to gather that you were not selecting your own equipment on jump #5 (or lower), so the mistake was not yours. Provided that you had stand-up landings on the 290 previously, of you had jumped the 290 again and stood up, you would not have broken your hand. Of course, you stand the chance of not standing up any landing, and a proper PLF is key to minimizing any injuries in that event. If you hit the ground with a full flare and ready to do a (good) PLF, you'll be doing everything you can to minimize the risk of injury on landing. (Of course, you also need to be landing in a clear area and with a level wing, but that's another story).

Overall it just sounds like you took a bad fall during the landing. Sometimes injuries are just injuries, and not 'related' to skydiving, even if they happened while skydiving. I'm sure you've heard of people tripping and breaking bones, or stepping off a curb and twisting an ankle, it's not that walking or curbs are dangerous, it's just that sometimes things go wrong. That aside, I will mention that the canopy they have you jumping might be on the small side for a guy your size. With an exit weight of 250, and considering your age, I would much rather see you on a 280, 290, or even a 300 if they have one available. Another factor is the type of canopy. Newer Mantas were produced with a ZP fabric on the top skin of the canopy, and what this does is make the canopy more efficient (essentialy). ZP fabric does not let any air pass through the fabric itself, and better 'seals' the air inside the canopy. The other type of fabric used is called F-111, and it does allow some air to pass through the fabric, the amount of air will depend on the age and number of jumps on the canopy. Older canopies or higher use canopies will pass more air through them and become less and less efficient as a result. An older, F-111 260 might only be able to support the weight of a newer, ZP 240 or 230. Regardless, even if the 260 was a newer, ZP version, a 260 is still probably too small for a jumper your weight with only 5 jumps under your belt. Would ths have made the difference on your landing? Who knows, if you fell the same way jumping a larger, slower canopy, you still would have pinned your hand between the ground and your body weight, so nobody can say for sure. However, all things considered, I would prefer to be going slower than faster anytime I had to hit the ground for any reason.

In that case, start saving for 'gear'. As far as exactly what 'gear' means isn't important right now, no matter what you buy it's going to cost a couple thousand bucks, so just start saving. Learning about gear in general is important, and you should learn as much as you can. Looking up manufacturers websites is one thing, but you also need to spend time with the packers and riggers who actualyl work with the gear. It's like shopping for a car, you'll learn all about the different models, colors and option packages by going to a dealer or reading brochures, which is important, but you'll learn nothing about how to operate, maintain, or repair a car, which is also important. Make sure you learn as much about the inside of the rig as you do the outside of a rig. It sounds like you're going to be shopping for a used rig when the time comes, so what you end up with will be a combination of your skills at that time, and what's available in the used market. With that in mind, you can see how it's silly to start thinking about specific models and sizes at this point. When the time comes, then you have a look at the situation and see what looks good. Here's a hint - when you are ready, PM 'likestojump' on this site, and see if he can help you out. He sells a ton of used gear, is a straight-up guy, and about half of his stuff leaves the US, so he's got experience with international dealing.

In that case, why not bag the new car all together, and spend the money jumping? You say you're unhappy, and that jumping makes you happy, so why not make a commitment to it for a year or two and really hit it hard. Look around the DZ parking lot, there are two types of cars, nice cars and affordable cars. The nice ones are for the succesful guys who have money for jumping and a nice car, the others are for those who put jumping as more of a priority in their lives, and spend their money at the DZ, not the dealership. How many trips do you have planned this winter? Have you ever spent a week on the DZ in Z-Hills? Rent a trailer from Judy for next to nothing, eat at the snack bar, and knock out 50 jumps. You'll be amazed at what it will do for your spirits as well as your in-air skills. Toss in an evening trip to the Orlando tunnel, and it's perfect. Are you headed to the DZ this weekend? The weather looks perfect, what about the Ranch, or Crosskeys? Go somewhere and kick out 10 or 15 jumps. Crash on a couch at the DZ, and spend 36 hours on the DZ. You'll be amazed at how you forget about the rest of the world. If jumping makes you happy, then jump. In comparison to Proches and living anywhere near NYC, it's not that expensive. For less then $300 you can have a blow out weekend at a local DZ, and hit the 'master reset' on your brain. For $1500, you can go to Z-hills for a week, and forget about life for awhile. The solution is right in front of your face, recognize it and act accordingly.

No, you might regret the idea of it in the months to come, but with no experience owning or driving a Porche as your primary car, you don't really know what you were in for. A Porche is engineered for one thing, and that's going fast. Not going for groceries, driving across the country, or being cost-effective or easy to maintain. When it comes to their design goal, they hit the mark like a grand slam in the world series. There's a saying, and I'm not sure where it came from, or what it originally applied to, but it's fairly close to universal when it comes to vehicles of any kind. The saying is, 'Fast, easy, or cheap, pick any two'. You want a fast car for cheap? No problem, plan on being on your back working on the thing every weekend to keep it going. Want a fast car that's easy? No problem, pre-print your checks with the name of the local Porche dealership, and plan on being there once a month. Want a car that's cheap and easy? Simple, it's called a Honda, and they're slow. How about you give yourself a little credit, and don't write it off to feeling down and being 'gutless', write if off to being smart enough to see through the 'Porche-colored glasses' you were looking through, and listening to some good sense. BTW, two of the 'best' cars I ever drove were a Porche, and any of the last three generation of M3. So if you're looking at a manual shift 3-series, you're not that far off from an M3 or a Boxter, and for the driving you can do on public roads, a 3 series will be just about as much as you need. Once you get to the point that a 3 series can't keep up, you run the risk of losing your licesne and having your car impounded.

I don't see how that's 'perfect'. How do you build a formation if everyone is going their fastest? You can't all exit in formation, so at some point the divers need to be flying faster than the floaters for the formation to even get together. What's the suggestion, that every formation should get together, then all at once everyone slam into top speed mode? Look at any formation in skydiving, or even any flying of any sort, both human or animal based, and you'll see that nobody is going their fastest. You look for a middle ground, so everyone (tall, short, fat, thin, etc) can go both faster and slower than the base, and in essence, 'fly' in their slot. Everything else just turns into a drag race where the fastest will be grouped together, and everyone esle will be trailing behind. How is that fun or productive? For that matter, these 'guess what's wrong' threads are bordering on lame as hell, and are actually lame as hell when what is 'wrong' is a matter of opinion. Let's say an editor flips a video 180, and a group appears to exit out of the right side of an Otter, OK, that's legitimately wrong. When it's a matter of legs being bent, or a flying style the poster doesn't agree with, it's just a waste of everyone's time. If you have a beef with something, start an 'I think this is lame as hell' thread, and state your business.

Never has the line under the video been more right - " no description available "