davelepka

That's odd. I get that if you mark the lines you can better see them through the fabric, and make sure they're not working their way around the sides of the pack job, but if that's the case. why mark the C lines and not mark the steering lines? The C lines generally stay put, and the steering lines are more likely to sneak around the side. Beyond that, if that was the reason for marking them, you have to wonder if the guy marks lines on all the reserves he packs, or if this was an islolated incident? If it was, why mark only this one? In terms of the canopy itself, I vote for contacting the manufacturer. They might reccomend a fabric test and they might ask what type of marker was used. If I was the rigs owner, I'd start calling all the riggers who packed the rig and get to the bottom of this. It might turn into a big problem if the factory says 'no go'.

Because they have more handles than the rest of us. They have another person hooked up to their harness who may be effecting things without the TI noticing. Tandem rigs are for more complicated than a sport rig, and an out-of-sequence deployment could create for more problems and risk twice as mnay lives as one on a sport rig. On top of it all, once the drouge is set, they have nothing but time, and they might as well check them. As to the assertion that 80% of TIs don't check handles, that's not the case where I jump. I can't recall shooting a tandem video in the last number of years that didn't involve a handle check.

Maybe, but it doesn't fix the real problem that the jumpers were not aware of their (and others) handles. Beyond that, a soft handle introduces more problems that are harder to fix. It's easy to tell people not to touch your handles. You have control over than, and can dirt dive and door jam scenarios that don't involve people getting close to handles. It's not easy to control the specifics of a malfunction situation, because by definition, things are not going to plan. The location, accesability, and your avbility to grip or leverage the soft handle may be comprimised in a malfunction scenario. The rigid and looped nature of a D-ring will minimize these risks, and ensure that you have every advantage available to you when the unexpected or unplanned should happen. People who argue that soft handles avoid snags are looking at it backwards. You want a handle you can snag when you need it, and when you don't, structure your activites to protect your handles. It's basic skydiving, and looking at it the other way is bastardizing the process.

So if you have a soft reserve handle, you're telling me it's OK to shove my top mounted camera helmet into your handle before exit? That's what it sounds like. Let's be clear on a few things - no matter what sort of handle you have on any part of your rig, do not let anyone grab or place a body part on or in the vicinity of that handle. Soft, d-ring or loop, it does not matter. Keep hands and anyting away from them. Extremities are for grips, end of story. Arms and legs, and if you can't make it work with those grips, then make another plan. No type of handle is fool-proof, so don't jump with a fool who thinks it's OK, or neccesary to 'get up in your business'. As to the GoPro issue, is certainly is an issue. Before the Gopro, camera helmets were that much more expensive, that much heavier, and more prohibitive for jumping on every jump. Yes, camera technology and camera flying mentality has been heading this way for year, but the GoPro has really pushed the 'POV' idea of camera flying over the edge, and the number of people jumping cameras for no other reason than 'just because' has gone up sharply. How does this relates? Why the hell would the base of a tube dive wear a camera? What sort of shots are you going to be able to get, what sort of lighting and composition are you going to be able to do with a 20ft tube trailing off your foot? The answer is obvious, but never the less, the camera was there and in interfered in the jump in a big way. All involved were LUCKY that things turned out how they did. A slight error in exit timing could have put that PC or reserve right into another jumper. Everyone claims they'll just 'turn it on and forget about it', well, it seems that's what the base did in this instance, and that was the problem. If you're going to jump with a camera, do it right. Be aware of your equipment and what you're doing, and leave it on the ground when you're not able to give it it's due consideration.

My god are you a sap. You realize that the problem here is not the theft of the units. I couldn't care less what people do in their personal time, and if that inclides theivery, then so be it. The problem is that he knowingly sold improperly programmed Cypres to unknowing jumpers. Quote from the article- The articles also state that this was a 3 month investigation, due you think the cops are also jumping the gun? It took them 3 months to get to this point, and I have a feeling they wouldn't waste a 3 month investigation on a baseless charge. If anything, they would just keep investigating until they could make a case that would stick. It bugs me a little that the guy is a theif, but the real issue that skydivers should have is that he peddled improperly programmed AADs to unknowing jumpers. Unsafe AADs were enough of a reason to make the majority of jumpers jump without AADs in the pre-Cypres days. They would rather take their chances without an AAD then with one that could fire unexpectedly. This dumb fuck took matters into his own hands, and sold people usafe AADs dressed up like safe AADs (as safe as regular Cypres is). This is not deserving of sympathy or understanding in the least.

Those are two valid options. Add to the list, the manufacturer gave him the units for resale as part of the sponsorship. These were surely used units, and maybe Airtec had priovided them as loaners rendering them as 'used' and they utilized them as 'payment' for sponsorship. So between your two good ideas, and my one, there are three vaild and possible reasons that a sponsored jumper might be selling a batch of AADs. Contrast that to the idea that the units were stolen, and I still cannot point toward the buyers for failing to ask questions. The odds were well in their favor that the sales were legitimate. None of this is mentioning the idea that these are life saving devices, being sold by a skydiver who is 'known' and fully aware of the consequnces of using an improperly programmed AAD, up to, and including, firing on the step and bringing down a jump plane. It's one thing when you buy an item from a guy on the street. You don't know him, or what he knows, or possibly where to find him after the sale. In those cases, you don't want to purchase life saving equipemnt. In this case, they knew who the guy was, what he knew, and where to find him after the sale, all reasons for the buyers to trust that the deal was on the level. It all comes back to the seller. That ass clown risked lives and took a huge dump on skydiving in general. If you're hard up for cash, go sell your bodily fluids, knock over a liquor store, or here's an idea, sell all your skydiving gear to pay for the food or shelter that you and your family needs. Unless he was destined to live in a cardbaord box, and sold everything of value he owned, this situation is unacceptable to the highest degree. Even if he was on the streets and had no possesions left, it still unacceptable, but I would have an 'ounce' of understanding for what he did. So, how many rigs and wingsuits does he still own?

Now you're blaming the buyers for not questioning the price? Wow. It's common knowledge in skydiving that 'professonals' sometimes get sponsorship in the form of discounted gear. Is Sunpath gives Ian Bobo a new rig every year, it keeps him in pretty, new gear, and then he gets to sell last year's rig to put some cash in his pocket. So this guy, who fancies himself a 'big deal' wingsuiter has a Cypres for sale below market value, and you think the buyers are to blame for not questioning the source of the product? Even people who don't know about gear-based sponsorship probably think that 'big deal' skydivers have it made, and can afford to sell below market cost. Beyond that, who would think that someone who was tyring to (or already had) make a name for themselves in skydiving would sell a stolen Cypres, complete with a serial number that a rigger would be soon recording onto the reserve repack card? You still want to blame the buyers? In the end, the guy was arrested and charged with larceny. I think that's the final word as to who was right or wrong in the transaction.

Depending on how many jumpers you need around the ball, I can get it done for $20k if you provide the cameras for the jump, $25k if I need to supply my own cameras, and it will take 6 weeks from when the check clears until you have the footage.

Fuck youtube. Buy this - http://www.chutingstar.com/newgear_en/skydiving-survival-series-dvd.html The 'Breakaway' portion involves intentionally rigged malfunctions, filmed from every possible angle including the eventual cutaway and reserve pull. It remains the best example of intentional mals filmed for the purposes of training. The other videos in the series are also helpful, and they include packing, canopy flight, and general skydiving safety. All of the videos were produced right after the advent of digital video for skydiving, and before the age of youtube where you can't make a dime producing DVDs. It was the right time and the right place for this to occur, where the money and the people present and willing to make it happen. I highly doubt anything like it will be produced again, as there's no market for it anymore. If you did this today, and sold one DVD to the wrong guy, it would be streamed all over the internet and your sales would tank. Spend the $60 and watch Billy Weber risk his life for your education. Good times.

As to the costs, be it loss, repacks, or down time, any instructor or DZO who let's that be a part of the equation should not be in the tandem business. If you cannot afford the loss/repack/down time, then you cannot afford the lawsuit that could ensue from an injured passenger. As to the ridicule, if you're not past the point in your life where the opinions of others matter so highly to you that it effects your decision making while dealing with malfunctions, then you lack the maturuty to be an instructor, and quite possibly a skydiver in any respect. As for the training, every TI is required to have at least one cutaway as a prerequisite for the rating. Even without that, again, if you lack the fortitude to pull the handles, you should not be instructing or skydiving. I understand the points you're making, but this is remedial stuff here. Like others have pointed out, the criteria of 'square' is taught during the FJC with regards to identifying a good canopy. This canopy clearly did not meet that criteria, yet this jumper chose to fly it to the ground, with an eldery passenger in the harness. Between this, and the recent fataility in Uruguay, I have to wonder what the hell people are thinking. There should be page after page of posts, speculation, and what-if's in the wake of any incident. Simple obvious things like we see here and in Ururguay should never come into the equation. It's like I said, when I read the OP, I had a picture in my mind of what the canopy looked like. It was similar to a canopy with one brake stowed, and the other pulled down to counter it, like a knot in the steering line alone. When I opened the pic, I was shocked at the condition of the canopy, and that anyone would think to land it. It's just dumb, and if you're going to do dumb things, this is what happens. Where the hell did common sense go?

The condition of that canopy was easy to judge fron any sight. I read the OP, and had pictures in my mind of what was happening. When I got to the end and opened the first pic, that was all I needed to see. Much, much worse than what I had pictured, and not even close to a 'landable' canopy for any tandem on any day. Not even close. The fact that three other jumpers did a 'fly by' to see the mess, and more than one person found it noteworthy enough to take pictures says a lot about the situation.

True, and as such, the scope of the rating is limited to what the average 100-jump jumper could handle. Again, the rating is built around the lowest common denomenator, that being the 100-jump coach, and while this may be a limiting factor to the 6000+ jump coach, it's the way it needs to be in the interest of the students. Look at it this way, I took my kid to the go-kart track where anyone over 58" tall is allowed to drive. If Mario Andretti showed up at the track, he would still get the same 9hp go-kart that my 13 year ol son gets. Surely Mario could handle a more powerful kart, but the track allows anyone over 58" tall to drive, and 9hp is what they feel the average person over 58" tall could handle, so everyone is limited to that type of cart. To take the example one step further, if someone was talking about the karts at that track are so slow, they would mention that it's because that's what the least skilled drivers allowed could handle. Surely they are not talking about Mario, and I doubt that Mario would take it that way. Nobody is suggesting you or your skills are on par with a 100-jump wonder. Your coach rating, on the other hand, is identical to that of a 100-jump wonder.

I'm sure you realize that was not directed at you. If there was someone who could vet each person on their own abilities, and assign them responsibilities based on that, then you might have a point being insulted. The fact of the matter is that you hold a rating available to jumpers with as few as 100 jumps, so in designating the level of responsibility a coach, it has to be done with the 'least common demonenator' in mind. If it's not something you want a 100-jump wonder doing, than you cannot have it fall under the responsibilities for a coach.

Sounds like a classic defense mechanism to protect yourself from another failed relationship, but what di I know, I'm just a skydiver. Beyond that, you sepnd way to much time thinking about and focusing on relationships with females. Just live your life, and if you don't have one, get one. Meet some people, pick out the ones you like, and see them again. Continue seeing them until you stop liking it, and move on. Might be a day, might be a decade. In any case, you'll always have you, so get a life of some sort and get on with it. Just a retarded 'what if' - you seem like a busy guy, with all your job related stories, and lack of time for jumping. What are the chances that another 'busy' person is going to mesh with your schedule as such that you have to time to have a relationship? Maybe you would do better with someone who has more 'free time' and is able to flex their schedule to match up with your limited 'free time'. At the end of the day, out of things like - -only smart is going to stand the test of time. Looks and drive will surely fade with age, and if you're looking for a 'relationship' you have to consider the end-game. If it's going to last 'forever', you're going to have to deal with all the phases of life. Stop trying to engineer a relationship, or an excuse for not having one. Just meet some people, and stick around the ones you like as long as you like them. Repeat until you're dead.

That's the citical difference. The one grip is used for building an established formation, and if you're trying to pull a piece out of the door, you need that grip. If the exit goes bad, the plan is to drop the grip and rebuild after everyone is stable. A harness grip on a two-way with a student where you are not launching a piece is there for stability and control over the student. If the exit goes bad, the grip is there to allow the instructor to correct things in short order. The problem is that some coaches, unless prohibited from doing so, will begin to blur the line between coach and instructor, and start to do 'instructor things' when they have no business doing them. In essence what happens is that the coach ends up gaining experience at the expense of the student, and that's the exact opposite of what the coach is supposed to do. The whole point of the coach program is to enhance the students learning post-AFF, not subtract from it. Of course, the natural extension of that is that if the coaches get used to that type of interaction on the exits, they'll begin to adopt it later on. Using a harness grip to dock and stabilize the student, which leads to them feeling responsible for the stability of the student, and of course, a harness grip puts you right in the neighborhood for deploying for a student. I can easily see a coach docking on a unstable student with a harness grip, and when the student doesn't become stable, what do they do? The PC is right there.... Coaches are like any other jumper. Just like every newbie who buys too much canopy for them, and insists they'll be careful with it and aren't going to swoop, sooner or later they swoop it anyway. Coaches have a defined job and set of responsibilites, and that needs to include what to do, and what they're not allowed to do. It's simple - follow the book, and do the dive the way it says. It's nothing more than a structured two-way with a newbie. Plan the dive and dive the plan, to include freefall manuvers, break off and opening protocols. Don't deviate, don't make shit up as you go, the best dive you can do is one that is 100% representative of what the book says.

About 100 what? On your next jump you need to asses your brake settings, and after that jump you need to have them adjusted according to the results of your testing. Trying to do anything with the brake lines improperly adjusted is like trying to push a rope, it just doesn't work. To test - you need to perform a toggle stall, and note your hand position when the canopy finally stalls. You want it to stall after 2 or 3 seconds of your hands being as far down as you can reach. If the canopy stalls with your hands higher up, or with your hands down without the 2 or 3 second delay, you need to let your steering lines out. Adjust them in 2" or 3" increments, and test the new stall point after each adjustment until the stall characteristics are as described above. Any rigger or comptent canopy pilot can assist you with this process. Once your canopy is properly set-up, go back and investigate all the things you had questions about and see if things are more clear to you. There's no sense in jumping a canopy that's not properly set-up, and attempting to learn about canopy flight. Most of the guys who put on canopy control courses will eyeball everyone's steering lines on the first jump of the course to see if anyone is way off base and help them get adjusted so they can fly right during the course.

RW jumps are made with licensed jumpers, and the exit grips are part of the dive flow. Coach jumps are made with unlicensed jumpers, and those grips are not part of the pre-written dive flow. Beyond that, harness grips are starting to blur the line between coach and instructor, and there are a ton of coaches who would like to 'assert' themselves beyond their rating. As has been discussed before, the coaches are trained to do one specific job, with a limited scope of responsibility. The rating and the job they are intended to do are designed around that scope of responsibility, and staying within it is important to the success of the program and safety of the student. We have already seen the results when coaches don't follow the plan. They have been trained and rated to do a job, and their actions should remain within that training and job description.

That's bullshit too. The only way a student gets dependant on the radio is when an instructor allows it. If they short the student on training in the area of canopy control, use a radio, don't debrief the canopy ride, and let that cycle continue on for the duration of their student jump, then the student may very well become dependent on the radio. If the radio is used as a tool to assist in learning, then there should be no problem. Each canopy ride should be discussed a flight planned before the jump, and that plan should be reviewed against what really happened after the jump. Starting with jump 2 or 3, there should be a stated expectation of the student that the level of assistance they need should be diminishing. Any students not meeting that criteria should be put through additional canopy control training to get them up to speed and flying their own parachutes. Part of skydiving is being preparred for the unexpected. Changing spots, weather conditions, traffic conditions and gear problems and effect the canopy ride, and what the jumper needs to do in order to land safely. Expecting a student to 100% be able to handle any and every thing that could come up is unreasonable. A radio provides a way for a qualified instructor to literally speak right into their ear as events are transpiring, and helping them to make decisions. You teach them as much as you can on the ground, but your realize that between the random nature of skydiving and the random nature of students, giving up that line of communication is just plain stupid. It can easily make the difference between a non-injury and an ambulance ride. Again, I'll point to the AFF hand signals. I don't know of one AFF I or DZ that is willing to forego the immediate, real time input an instructor can provide with freefall hand signals. The radio is the same tool for the canopy ride. If you have an AFF student who can't remember to arch without an 'arch' signal from a AFF I for 10 jumps in a row, you would not pass them and focus the training to get them past that hump. Ditto with the radio, if you get a student who won't unstow their brakes without being told to via the radio, and this goes on for 10 jumps, you stop the process, and refocus the training to get past the trouble. None of this is even mentioning the most basic use of the radio, orienting the student to the DZ once they are open. Many students have never been a small (or any) plane before, and none of them have spent time trying to pick out one specific field from altitude. If you figure that an Otter might drop a student a mile or more from the DZ, and who knows what direction they'll be facing when they open, a simple 'Left 180 Billy, look out in front of you and you'll see the airport' can be a big help, and get them to the DZ so they can fly the pattern you taught them. With open canopies and canopy control problems being the current #1 killer of skydivers, any DZ that would pass on the safety and training benefits a student radio can provide is being run by a much of morons.

Is that what the people at the DZ say? You learn more thinking on your own? What other parts of the first jump course did they not teach you so you could figure it out thinking on your own? I hate to disappoint you, but the people at that DZ are being cheap and lazy, and that's why you don't have a radio, or anyone to help you with the things that you obviously need help with (no offence to you, it's common for new jumpers to help 'getting' the pattern work and flare timing). The radio does not inhibit learning or free thinking, it enhances it. There is no way for you to know how to fly a pattern or flare a canopy on your first jump. I can tell you about it all day long, but without actually doing it, you will never get the 'feel' of it. Without a radio to hepl you out the first time or two, you might not do it right, and thus not create any positive learning experiences to build on for the next jump. For this reason, a radio is used to assist you in doing it properly, and illustrate to you the look and feel of a correct pattern and flare. Proper use of a radio includes reducing the amount of assistance over the course of the first 4 or 5 jumps (on average) at which point the student is given the choice to go off-radio if they are confident in their abilites. Just wondering, but what training method did you use? Was it freefall training, like AFF, or one of the variations with a few tandems followed by AFF-tyope jumps? If so, maybe ask your instructors why they taught you hand signals for the freefall portion of the jumps? Why didn't they just hang there and let you 'learn more by thinking on your own'? The answer should be obvious to you, and this it because it's bullshit. You learn much better with direct, real-time assistance and input from a qualified professional, and it's the same under canopy. FYI - there is a DZ in northern California that still doesn't use radios, and a year or two ago a young lady who didn't get the 'hang' of canopy control managed to fly herself into a telephone pole. She was hospitalized with facial fractures and other injuries, but I guess she learned a whole lot on that jump, huh? Cheap and lazy, the only reasons not to use ground to air radio in student training. Plain and simple.

What a fucking dick. Here's a guy trying to make an informed desicion, and that's the best you can come up with? You don't fill out your profile, you never make any useful contribution to any discussion, and on top of it, you're belittling the OPs canopy choice and desire to be smart about what he's doing. Rigless? More like brainless.

A lot of those 'We buy gold' places have been suspected of either figuring the value with a lesser gold/silver content, or misrepresenting the weight, or the actual price of the gold/silver, so be careful. Depending on the overall value of the collection, you might want to pay for an expert to appraise the collection. Tell them this is for insurance purposes, not for resale, so they're not tempted to lowball the values and try to buy the collection from you. If it's a straight paid appraisal deal, you stand a good chance of getting a fair value appraisal. If the collection is really valuable, you might even get a second opinion from another expert under the same guise, and compare the results. You could also take the collection to a jewelry store to have the gold/silver content of the coins testes and weighed, so you know exactly what you have. While ebay is a pain in the ass if you have a bunch of items, you can use to guauge the market value of some of the pieces. If people are listing identical items, the final selling price is a rough indicator of 'market' value.

A few points to consider - The WL you'll be jumping at isn't too far outside the 'norm' for your jump numbers. At the same time, the majority of your jumps were a couple years ago, so currency isn't on your side. The WL you'll be jumping at isn't too far outside of the 'norm' for your jump numbers. However, the model of canopy you're considering is. So if you look at relevant factors in canopy seleciton, those being WL, canopy type, jump numbers and currency, you only have one working for your (WL) and three against you (the rest). Let's also consider your non-skydiving related shoulder injury. Is this something that could return, or become aggrevated on a jump? The Stiletto is known for having very little inherent stability on the roll axis, that's why you have to stop the turns yourself and 'fly' it to make it go straight. This makes for a quick and fun canopy, but also makes for the worst possible canopy to land with a shoulder out of the socket or otherwise injured. You're not a kid anymore. I started jumping when I was 18, and took some hard hits over the years. In my early days of jumping, I bounced back from those hits much faster than I do now, and I'm still a couple years younger than you. Even a minor injury could put out of jumping for another 2 years or maybe the rest of your life. Is that worth pushing the limits in terms of canopy selection? I think the biggest factor in your decision should be your own misgivings. I made 10 or 12 jumps this weekend, shot some video, did some freeflying , swooped on a bunch of them, etc. I didn't feel the need to post before any of them outlining my plans because I was secure that what I was doing was safe and within my abilities. You, on the other hand, have posted a lengthy write up listing all the reasons you think it's OK to jump the Stiletto, and openly admitting that people are going to flame you. It sounds like your shopping around for approval just to satisfy that little voice in the back of your head that keeps telling you it might not be a good idea. It's been a tough year for open canopy incidents. The incidents forum will show that, and then just guess how many non-fatal injuries there were that didn't make it into the forum. Canopy selection and WL is proving to be a very important decision in terms of your health and welfare. Give it it's due consideration and good luck.

Low - $2500 High - $3000

Stop thinking of it as a 'tracking dive' and just think of it as a 'dive'. Look at the base, and figure out what you need to do to get there. Need to move forward and down? Trying arching and sticking your legs out. Need to move up? Try de-arching. The moves you make to enable relative movement are the same, it's just that your 'neutral position' isn't falling straight down, it's moving forward. Regardless, the changes needed to 'fly' relative are all the same. OK, that's the simplified version. Like anything in skydiving, there is more than one technique to flying in a tracking dive, but the above is the most basic. Work with that until you have some success, then expand your horizons with some experimentation into different methods.

Ya think?