davelepka

I think some people might be saying that. I disagree with that point (obviously).

You're getting mixed up here. There are two different sets of rules for two different levels of instructors. A coach is trained and required to have jump experience thus that they are not expected or intended for catching, stabilzing, or pulling for students. As such, the best thing they can do is to follow the dive plan, and track off at the correct time, hopefully helping the student to understand that the skydive is over. An AFF I has a higher level of required experience, and is trained to catch, stabilze and pull for students. As such, they have more options available to them when dealing with problems on a skydive, be it student, coach, or even a licensed jumper. The coach should never deviate from their stated purpose, that being to dirt dive, gear checks, monitor the student in the plane and freefall, observe the canopy control and debrief the student. As for the AFFI, the 'generally accepted' policy is that you stop chasing the student at 2k, when you are 'supposed to' open your own parachute. As I mentioned before, if you don't have hand-on-harness by 1500ft, your chances are slim of beating the Cypres, not being involved in a Cypres-induced wrap, or being able to deploy both the student and yourself, so you might as well give up. The difference is that an AFF I would know this, and have a better chance of having the situational awareness to see if they would make that 'cut off' altitude or not. If you're at 2500ft and still 50 ft from a student spinning on their back, you know to just dump because you know how long it would take to get there and get to the handle. A coach might just 'keep trying' because they have no experience or training for them to know what's really involved in pulling for another jumper. The other difference, and this is not in all cases, but most, is that the majority of AFF Is would never let things get that far out of hand. They would never be that far away in the first place, and would never let a situation develop to the point where they were so far out of their slot on the bottom end of the skydive.

Maybe your fucked-up, superficial version of man law says to forgive him. Mine says if you marry a chick and have kids with her, you either stay completely or leave outright, there is no inbetween. The irony that he was caught on tape is nice. While I do support what he does with NBC, what he did to his wife and kids was a real douche move.

Took my kids to see last night in 3D. It had the usual Hollywood movie endless freefall deal, but other wise was pretty well done. Very little use of close-up shots of the 'stars' supposedly skydiving, which always ends up looking especailly fake and subtracts from the effect. I looked to me like they used all the footage of actual jumpers, then used the computers to mulitply the jumpers and adjust their trajectory. Knowing what I know, you could tell it was altered, but non-jumpers would easily believe the shots are genuine. I did like the part where they had a group of jumpers carve around a building, and a second later there was another 'squadron' coming around the same corner behind them. Again, it was just them laying multiple shots of the one group over one another, but it appears like there were 15-20 wingsuiters bombing around a building at once. Given than I saw the footage of the actual jumps, it was a surprise to see the other group come around the corner, and it looked real. The rest of the movie was 'meh', like most Micheal Bay summer blockbusters, lots of action and cheesey lines, short on much of anything else (except wingsuits and BASE jumping in this case). I would see more of his movies if they all featured wingsuits, skydiving and BASE jumping. I could think of 10 ways to work them into 'Pearl Harbor'......

Not to pile on the biker, but the other thing to notice is how slowly the SUV pulled into traffic. It wasn't a quick 'whip out' into traffic, the SUV was easing into the road anticipating a space in the trafic moving opposite to the bike. I agree it looked like the bike was travelling a notch faster than everyone else, and he did hit the brakes late. Earlier braking, or a possible swerve to the right to cross behind the SUV would have made a big difference. It really looks like the guy was speeding and almost just hauled straight into the SUV. That said, I ride and have nothing against bikes. For the SUV driver to just drive away is unforgivable. Not everyone is capable and 'together' enough to jump out of the car and administer aid, or even comfort to the injured biker, but you don't leave. Even if you just pull over to the side of the road, call the cops, and weep in your car until they show up, you don't leave (and I mean that morally, the legal aspect notwithstanding).

For those not familiar, the Isle of Man is an island in the Irish Sea in between Ireland and the UK. They do a roadrace there where they shut down most of the roads on the island to create a 37 mile road course. This is not a racetrack, nor is there any type of safety barriers or run-off areas. It goes road, curb, sidewalk, building, just like every other public road. The top guys in the top class are topping 200mph at the end of the fastest straight. Check out this on-baord camera view of a complete lap by one of the top riders. Any time you see the camera point up, and then back down, that's the bike catching air over the many rises in the road. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXc29ZgutI

Take one month of skydiving and set it aside. Take out a loan for $2200, add the $300 and buy a rig with an AAD. Use $100/mo to pay the loan, and $200/mo to jump with, and the rig will be paid off in 2 years. Now you own a rig worth most of what you paid for it. You can jump it, or sell it and upgrade/downsize at will. Buying a rig is a big hunk of change, but it only hurts bad the first time. Once you own one, you can always jump it or sell it to fund future gear purchases. It's a fairly 'safe' plan in that your $300 'down payment' help to keep you on top of the loan for the first few months. With the realtively low depreciation of a used rig, it's value will remain steady as you pay the loan down. If you need to cash out in a year, or get hurt or quit jumping, the rig is still worth most of what you paid, and the loan is down to half of what you borrowed. You can sell the rig, pay off the loan, and have a pile of cash left over.

Don't ever cut away a good canopy because something bad 'might' happen. Did you clear the airspace below you? What if you avoid one wrap and casue another? What if you unload your canopy, and it floats up into the path of the oncoming jumper, even thuogh she otherwise might have flown above you? Now you caused a wrap when you would have just had 'no shit, there I was' story. What if your resere malfunctions? The bottom line is also my first line, don't cut away a good canopy because something bad 'might' happen. Many, many wraps end in both canopies bouncing off of each other, and flying away just fine. Even a close call is just a close call, and if she flew by you 3 inches from your canopy, that's still 3 inches and no need to cutaway. The idea is to 'see and avoid' traffic, and only take drastic action when it's absolutely needed.

Go back to the OP, and look up the rally racing. Those guys are all kinds of sideways, on the dirt, twice as fast as driters. They also have jumps, and trees and cliffs and people lining the course and jumping into the road to take pics. Drifting is cool, but it's a show. Rallying is racing.

How is this different than just renting? You would be jumpng a rig that you don't own and that you don't take home with you at the end of the day. You have to consider how many jumps you do, and what the cost of half a rig would be. Then add in half the cost of maintenance and repacks, and see how long you would need to own the rig to make it cheaper than renting. Then factor in that your 'partner' would have to want to keep their half of the rig for at least that amount of time, or you're stuck selling it or buying them out of the deal. You're better off just buying the least expensive used rig you can get your hands on (within reason). A freefly freindly container with 1000 jumps? Check. A PD reserve with 2 or 3 jumps on it? Check. Sabre 2 210 with 800 jumps and newer lines? Check. All of the above would be on the low end of the price scale, and wouldn't lose much value over the course of 2 years a 200 jumps. You could buy it for one price, and sell it for 90% of that when you're done. The AAD is one area where you'll lose value with use, but that's generally the way of the world. The AAD will provide a service, and you pay for it.

Keep in mind, the 'worst' happening could include the student throwing the PC in your face if they get their shit together at the same time you're closing for the pull. Another one that would suck balls is if the student's Cypres fires as you close in for the pull, nothing like getting hit by deploying canopy to ruin your day. You could another layer of suck if you have a Cypres and it fires at the same time as the students while you're right next to them, now you have the potential for a nice reserve wrap. There are reasons the coaches are not supposed to pull for a student, some of them are above, and the other biggie is because they haven't been trained to do so. Put them in the middle of the shit, and who's to say that they'll have presence of mind to chase the student and watch their position relative to the student's PC. If you get over or directly in front of them when they (or the AAD) finally deciedes to pull, you just created more problems than you sloved. None of this is mentioning the amount of time it takes to dock, stabilize and actually get a hand on the PC and get it out. A trained AFF I who has stopped spins, assisted with pulls, and actually pulled for students in the past will realize this, and realize that there comes a point in the jump where if you're not there, you're never going to get there in time to get the job done, and you need to bail. If you don't have hands on the harness by 1500ft, you might as well just dump yourself because you're not going to make it. All you're going to do is get in the way of the Cypres (if it works) or suck yourself down so low that you'll go in trying to deploy your own canopy. If you figure a perfect pull would take 3 seconds from dock to PC extraction, that puts you right in Cypres-fire land with one hand on the harness and the other reaching back over the rig for the main PC, and that's if it goes perfect. If you don't get the perfect grip, or the student figths you, or you miss the handle, or you blink one too many times, it's over and thanks to Airtec things are about to get interresting. A coach needs to do his job, and that includes leaving at break off, setting the good example for the student of planning the dive and diving the plan, reinforcing the pull priorities, and doing their best to make the student feel lonley in freefall below break off. Keep in mind that not too many years ago before coaches existed, students cleared to self-supervise would have been alone, and self supervising. There was nobody to save them then, and below break off when jumping with a coach, there's nobody to save them now.

Some riggers will charge for inspections on used gear, and they are completely justified in doing so. Their time and expert opinion have a great deal of value in this area. Some riggers will waive the inspection fees, and charge only for assembling and packing the rig once you have it. In either case, it's a chance for both you and the rigger to establish a business relationship. You are going to need a rigger, and one who knows your gear and it's history is an asset to you. The rigger gets a customer that will be back at least every six months, but probably more often for repairs or modifications.

Just to be clear, a certified rig has to assemble and pack portions of the rig for it to be legal to jump. Other parts you can assemble yourself, although this isn't always a good idea. Beyond that, you rig will need to be repacked every 6 months, and some repairs will also require a rigger, so if you buy a rig you'll need a rigger during the purchase and moving forward. Do consult your instructors as to what size main and reserve canopies you should be looking for. You can also keep them in the loop as you narrow your search to specific models and sizes to ensure they approve as per your abilities. Beyond that, use the rigger to inspect everything before buying. The rigger will also make sure that the components are compatible, and that there are no recalls or service bullitens that need to be addressed.

Suck it up cupcake. Or, more specifically, suck it down in that case. You correctly identifed the the problems of the situation, that being spatial disorientation in the clouds inhibiting straight tracking. You cannot ensure a safe break off in that circumstance. One alternative mentioned, break off above the cloud, all that leads to is spatial disorientation under canopy when everyone tracks off an opens in the cloud. The bad answer is that there is no good solution to the problem. Parachutes and parachutists are not equipped for operation with zero visibility, and this is why we're not supposed to jump through clouds. It goes without saying that prevention is the best plan, but if you end up where you end up, I think you did the best thing you could have. Suck it down a little lower and see if you come out of the bottom, and if a few extra seconds doesn't put you in the clear, proceed with break off and hope for the best. You might add in a few extra seconds after break off to see of you can track out of the bottom, so you can open and fly your canopy in the clear. You don't want to track further than normal to avoid conflicts with other groups, but you might just hum it straight down at the end of the track to see where the bottoms are. DISCLAIMER - All this talk about taking things lower then planed is dependent on having a conservative plan at the outset that allows for 'wiggle room' and it's applicability will differ from jumper to jumper depending on their skill and experience, as well as the skill and experience of all jumpers in your group. Prevention, that is not jumping over clouds remains the best course of action.

http://www.desertsandaircraft.com/

All of what you said is 'technically' true, my suggestions were from the 'chances of actual success' camp, and that his chances are pretty low. If the guy closed up shop, and walked off with his creditors money (I guess the OP is a creditor at this point) with no notice or attempt to settle, the chances of him responding to, and making good on a small claims suit are probably not that good. On top of that, it could be 20% or more of the total monies owed just to file the claim, and even if he won a settlement including his filing fees, he's still out of pocket those fees until (if ever) the guy makes good on the judgement. None of that is mentioning the OPs time in filing and actually going to court. As a OTR driver, he's probably not home all that much, and it might be tough for him to make it all happen.

Yeah, it does suck. Did you even read the title of the thread? The guy starts off saying that the landings 'hurt'. if you read further it turns out that he's got 75 jumps, a 1.3 WL (after putting on 30 lbs since buying the canopy) and that his problems are with no-wind landings. He's the poster child for in-over-his-head. He can land the canopy OK in specific circumstances, but not all. It's only a matter of time before the known circumstances in which he cannot land, no wind, and an unknown circumstance, such as an off landing, come together on the same jump. What then? That's when 'hurting' goes from creating temporary pain to creating real injury. For the record, we teach every student the 3 part flare from jump one at my DZ. I am fully aware of the technique and it's value to all jumpers. However, just getting the guy to finish his flare is not going to change his situation. His WL is too high for his experience on both his main and reserve. As for you jackass, you continue to 'contribute' with your contrarian viewpoints, but still lack the sack to man up and indentify yourself. No name, no location, no proof you're not a 13 year-old kid playnig skydiver in between jerk-off sessions on the internet. How about it? Stand behind your ideas and indentify yourself. Share some details about who you are, where you jump, and what you've done, unless of course all you've 'done' is your hand and a box of tissues.

You realize that for you to win in small claims court, first they have to be able to find him to serve him. If you know where the guy is, how about just go there yourself and try to work something out? Also, you may have paid the business, not the individual. In that case, depending on how he 'went out of business' you may not have any luck in collecting, or at the very least, be in line with others looking for monies owed. Chances are, if the DZ went out of business three years ago, all financial matters have been cleared up and what's done is done. You really needed to follow up on this the first time you tried to go the DZ and found it closed. That would have been the time to track down the DZO or file a claim against him or the business. At this point, you should just write this off and move on. Maybe your accountant can find a way to write off the loss, and you can recoup $100 in a tax credit. If you want to jump, just go jump. If all you have to spend on jumping is the $450 you gave this guy, don't even get started. The least amount you would spend to get a license is $1200, and then you need a rig for $2000 and it's $25/jump after that. Some people drop $450 in a long weekend in jumps, but it's not unreasonable to figure that you would spend twice that in jumps for a slow year. It sounds counter-intuituve, but it costs more the less you jump. If you let your currency lapse, you need to do a recurency jump with an instructor just to get back in the air, and that can run $75. Regardless of how many jumps you do, a rig needs to repacked with the 6 months to be legal to jump at that runs $75, so the more do, the less you spend on rigging per jump. If you jump 5 times in six months, it's still $75 for the repack.

To be honest, you're an injury waiing to happen. Jumping at 1.3 with under 100 jumps and 30lbs overweight. Think for a second what that extra 30lbs is going to do to your skeletal system in the event of a significant impact with the ground. Did your bones also get bigger when you put on 30lbs? The others are right about the cost of an injury. Even with insurance, the co-pays, deductibles, and lost income will make the upsize pale in comparison. Your reserve is another area of concern. What you should do is sell your complete rig, add whatever cash you can swing to the proceeds, and use that as your budget for another rig, with a larger main and reserve. Most rigs that will hold a 190 will also be able to hold a 170, so if you lose the weight or your skills come up to par, you can trade in just the 190 for a 170 at that time, while hanging on to the container and larger reserve. The last thing you need if you jump infrequently is a canopy that you can barely land. The other thing you don't need is brand new gear. The used gear market is a good place for people switching around sizes, as you can sell your stuff and buy different with little to n cash outlay. You might even make money. The idea with skydiving is that you want to make choices that are in the middle of conservative and aggressive. The more frequently you jump, you might be able to scoot toward the aggressive side of things, and the less frequently you jump the more conservative you want to be.

Go with the Sony CX camera of your choice. It's a tapeless high-def deal, and has become the new standard and replaced the PC line. The CX 100 can be found on ebay for $250ish used, and 'I think' is the only one with a memory card access slot on the side. The others have the slot on the bottom and generally require removal of the camera to get the memory card out. I switched to this camera after year of PC camera use, and I am loving not having to take my camera off after every jump. Of course, check in with the DZ if they do the editing for you, and see what they want, or can accomodate, before buying. For stills, the Rebel is still the 'old' standard, but now it's the digital Rebel. There are many versions like the Rebel X, Xsi, etc, but any of them will work. The kit Cannon offers comes with an 18-55 zoom lens that actually turns out to be a great lens for skydiving. Very light weight, and wide enough to match a video camera with a wide anlge lens attached. Keep in mind that 'low end' digital cameras like the Rebel line are not 'full frame' sensors, and what thay means is that the sensor only records the image off the center of the sensor, and cuts off the edges. The practical result is a narrower field of view. So if you have a 28mm or 24mm lens left over from your film camera days, it's going to give a narrower effective field of view on the digital camera. That's why the kit lens goes down to 18mm, to compensate for the difference. Another word on the zoom, it's very leightweight as it's mostly plastic. That's a plus, not a minus. I was a fixed lens guy for years shooting film, with 24mm and 28mm lenses, but the zoom has proven quite handy. For example, with unlmited pictures available, I take more pics in the plane now. I can use the flash, and zoom in from the back of the Caravan, and get good tight shots of the tandem sitting up in the front of the plane. Beyond that, the quality of thelens is very high. Not as good as the Cannon fixed 15mm lens, but that lens costs more than a new Digital Rebel with the kit lens. I haven't shopped around in years, but my guess is that the newest version of the Rebel with the lens is probably less than $600. Overall, consult the other camera guys at the DZ where you intend to work. If the DZ edits for you, they may have some preferences as to what gear you jump, and if you have to edit your own, they will have tips on what cameras and editing gear go best together. That end has also changed with different file formats and editing programs (it's all on computers) so getting the right stuff will make a big difference in the end.

If this is a serious question, my guess would be the manufacturer probably has a demo 'contract' that states the demo-ee is responsible for loss or damage, and they probably have a credit card on file that was used to pay the demo fee (and if the mfg is smart, the contract states that the CC is used to cover any loss or damage). If this is a real question, I don't know. I would guess the manufacturer might try to clean it, but blood isn't known for coming out fabric 'completely', and I doubt they would want to send out a blood stained demo canopy. I guess they would write it off, and maybe offer it to an employee or friend of the manufacturer for free or steeply discoutned. If it is a real question, it's another sad layer to an already sad story.

Jump again and see if you can remember to keep an eye on your altimeter this time. Repeat as needed until you can. Seriously, it's just experience. There are few activites in your life where you have to 'wacth the clock' so closely, while also being overwhelmed with a rush of sensory inputs. The good news for you is that the solution is to jump more, and you'll both get used to checking your alti and develop an internal clock that will help you stay altitude aware.

Sure it's foreseeable. If said generators were improperly installed by a contractor other than the manufacturer, you believe the manufacturer is responsible? Even if the manufacturer built a water-proof generator and provided adequate installation instructions, it's still their fault that an independant contractor, not trained or overseen by the manufacturer, improperly installed the generators in a way that caused them to fail in flood conditions? I'm starting to suspect that the others are right, and you're just digging for info. Dig all you want, you're not going to find anything that will help you implicate Airtec or SSK in this incident. They're just not liable for the actions of the FAA certifed rigger who improperly installed the AAD. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't name them and let them do math between paying to defend themselves and settling out of court, and hope that the settlement comes up the winner and they pay you for being a dick, but that's your call. I have feeling, however, that Airtec has a legal team on retainer somewhere in the US, and they're just dying to get something for their money.

"Flaring" your body after a track is sitting upright, belly to the relative wind, in an effort to present as much surface area to the relative wind of your forward motion and stop the motion as quickly as possible. If the manual instructed you to flare your body before deploying after a track, it's instructing you to stop your forward motion before deployment, not the other way around. Reccomending anyone pull in a track is a bad idea. People's definition of track will vary from person to person, and people's version of a track will vary from jump to jump, none of which promotes consistancy or the ability to tune openings during R&D.

More than a couple. The theory is in reposnse to the other guy who was pushing his equally odd theory that Airtec had responsibility because it didn't include a 'loop confirmer' in it's design, so the jumper has no way to confirm the loop is through the cutter. If you give me two minutes, I could probably come up with 3 other angles both pro and con Airtec in this instance and they would all seem off kilter to a jumper, but could make sense to a wuffo juror.