davelepka

Members
  • Content

    7,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by davelepka

  1. You might want to look into the other factors surrounding picking a location besides the local DZ. If you're going to be in Florida, you're going to be right in the middle of a ton of DZs and will have no shortage of places to jump. You're talking about some drasticaly different metro areas, between Tampa, Daytona, Miami, etc., maybe figure out which one works for you, and just live with the nearby DZ. Let's face it, you might hate the DZ that the next guy loves, but you just took a job and moved in 20 min away. Next thing you know, you're driving 3hrs every weekend to a DZ you actually like. You might end up hating the city as well as the DZ, and now your whole life sucks. Pick a city that seems to fit you and offers you the best position with your company. Spend some time and visit all the DZs, and see what works for you. If you really lock onto one, maybe you can get a transfer to a town closer to that DZ.
  2. Nobody said the fines were dropped (and by dropped, I'm assuming you mean reduced). Last I heard the fines, or rather the amount of the fines, was being contested by Bill. I assume that in the land of the free, the federal govt. has some sort of appeal process available, and every citizen has a right to use it. Up against $664,000, even a 5% reduction is a nice chunk of change to keep in your pocket so you'd be a fool to not even try for a reduction. How's this for you - Ignoring the life limits of aileron cables and not performing corrosion inspections on wing attachmens points - The Parachute Center at Lodi - Guilty Assigning excessive fines for maintenance violations on Otters the Parachute Center at Lodi - The FAA - Guilty -does that make you feel better? I really do wonder about the denial from some with regards to this issue. This isn't a 182 that barely starts and has oil streaking down the fuselage, those are some pretty clear warning signs that something isn't right. Exactly what sound does an aileron cable make in the days before it fails? That's what you would need to make it ok to fly in a plane with timed out control cables. If they woudl broadcast their condition audibly for days before failing, you could stay away from the DZ until they snap, and come back when everything is fixed. How about the wing attachment points? What exactly is the indicator to the jumpers that the corrosion has weakened the attachment points such that the wing is going to fail? Surely you would need to know that if the operator of the plane skipped the required corrosion inspections. I guess if the operator isn't going to watch out for your safety, then you have to watch out for yourself. Just listen for the faint 'hum' of cables that are about to snap, and the slight 'whine' of a wing attachment that's ready to fail, and stay off the plane for awhile, right?
  3. The amount of the fines are what is in question, not the cause of the fines. Has anyone heard about the multi-million dollar libel lawsuit that Bill Duase has filed against the FAA? I don't know about you, but if the FAA press released a story about me that I was a scofflaw, and that I endangered the lives of my staff and customers, and this was not the case, my new job would be to sue the piss out of the FAA, and retire on the winnings. Jumpers, DZOs, pilots, city councilmen, and disgruntled ex-employees might spend their time spreading unfounded rumors about Lodi, and what happens there. The FAA, I would gather, has better things to do, and when the FAA stands up in a crowded room and yells 'fire', it's probably because something is actually on fire.
  4. Ok, so there are two parts to the story - 1. The FAA found that control cables were not replaced on time (or at all), and corrosion inspections were not performed on time (or at all). 2. The FAA fined them $664,000. If only one of them was true, which would you prefer be the reality and which the fantasy? The fines, and the payment status of those fines should be the least of your worries.
  5. The difference in other sports is that when you 'fall down' and hit your head, the impact speed is generally far less than your overall speed. For example, if you fall off a motorcycle at 50mph, your head hit's the ground at something much less than 50mph. Your body too. True, you might pinball though traffic and hit other things, but each impact is less than the previous one because each one uses up energy. In skydiving, when you impact hard enough to overcome the protection of a skydiving helemt, your entire body takes the same 100% impact as your head. You could wear a much more capable helmet, but your neck will snap far sooner than your helemet will. Big deal. Case in point, anyone remember the pic/story about the motorcyclist who ran into the back of a semi-trailer and got his helmet/head lodged in the back of the truck? His helemt stuck there, and his body hung limp from his helemt and he was dragged down the highway until other motorists flagged down the driver, who didn't even feel the impact. The point is the impact in that case is closer to a skydiving impact, where your entire body comes to a complete stop with the full force of however fast you're going. In that case, his neck snapped instantly and he was dead on impact. Who knows, his head might have been intact, but the rest of him was shot. Consider Dale Earnhardt. He had a relatively minor impact with the wall, snapped his neck and died. At the time NASCAR was fairly safe, with tons fo safety gear in the cars and on the drivers. The one area they did not protect was the head/neck conenction, and it got Dale. Now, most drivers (maybe all) use a HANS device, which connects the helmet to the body to limit the movement of the helmet (and head) relative to the body. Without the HANS, you can see how minor of an impact caused a fatality. You need to face the fact that when you skydive, you're exposing yourself to risks that no safety gear can mitigate. The helmets we have will protect you to about the extent that you can be protected. If you exceed those limits, a 'better' helmet isn't going to help as the rest of your body is still exposed to those massive imact forces.
  6. That's the one question that only Mike can answer. Questions about fabrics, cuts, options, etc are fairly universal, and can be answered by anyone with experience with Michigan suits. Lead time, on the other hand, all depends on what materials are in stock, how many orders are ahead of you, and the current rate of production. The answer to 'how long' literally changes from week to week. Just shoot him an e-mail and ask.
  7. Yeah, about that challenge, it was a dumb idea from the start because almost every jump out there has 'problems'. Nobody is perfect, and there are always ways to improve on every jump. I'm not saying that you can't have a personal level where you feel it's 'good enough' and the jump makes you happy. The problem is that your level is going to be different than my level, which is nothing like someone else's level. So when you put the question out there for everyone, yes, you are going to get people who would look for different things in their own jumps. What made you happy isn't going to be what makes everyone else happy. Again, don't get your panties all bunched up over this. Now you know not to proclaim 'perfection' in a room full of neurotic perfectionists. No need to get defensive, or feel bad about your jump, just learn what you can from it and move on.
  8. Nobody said for you to get directly above him and stare straight down the whole time. How about you stay on level, and within 100 ft or so? That would keep you in proximity, well away from a deployment, and in a good spot to dump out and be able to land with him when he eventually pulls. In reference to I-15, if you can't land on the shoulder, what are you doing jumping a wingsuit? If you want to take the suit way out there and fly home, you better be ready for when the 'fly home' part doesn't happen. What if you get into spin, and burn through 10k feet going straight down, what are you going to do then? What if it's right above I-15, are you going to call 'time out'? It's one thing to make a call that's not the 'best choice' in the middle of a jump. There's pressure, target fixation, just not thinking about it the right way, all sorts of legitimate reasons you might have chosen the 'less popular' choice on that jump, and they're all 100% valid and nobody can hold that against you. Shit happens and you're learning, that's how you become a better jumper. The real problem is when you try to defend your 'mistake' as being right after the fact. Sitting calmly at your keyboard, you have to realize that hanging the guy out to dry was the wrong move. We all know you weren't going to swoop in and 'save' him, but following him down and making sure he lands safe isn't asking a lot. If sustains an injury landing 'where ever', you would become a huge asset in terms of providing aid and making his location known to others. Just own up to it. Big deal, there was an angle you didn't think of at the time, and you made the 'other' call. Now you know, next time you'll do it differently, and it's a win/win for everyone. If you shut down a get defensive, nobody gets anywhere.
  9. Don't expect much more than garage sale money unless it's been inspected and deemed airworthy by an FAA certified rigger. Age, abuse, and improper storage can damage it to the point of not being safe to jump. Even then, there are 'limited' uses for that type of gear in sport skydiving, and a good supply of ex-military jumpers with access to used military gear of 'known' quality. E-bay might be a better resource for finding a buyer.
  10. Step one - learn to skydive. Step two - don't worry about it, focus on step 1.
  11. Check your PM. I removed the above post.
  12. Mr yellow/green jumpsuit has his bridle hanging out of the side of his main pin cover flap. There should be no bridle visisble when the rig is properly closed. Also, it looks like the earphone wire for his iPod is hanging out of the back of his helmet with quite a bit of slack swinging around. Even if I leave out the part about having headphones in his helmet, he could manage that wire better. In terms of your buddy in the falt spin, yeah, you guys coudl have followed him down. You were probably pretty far from the airport at exit, and you don't have any 'glide' in a flat spin. Best case scenario - he gets it cleared up in short order, and you continue on with your three way. Wrost case scenario - he never gets it cleared up, and his Cypres fires with him still in a spin. Severe line twists on his reserve, he's dizzy and maybe can't see straight, has hard landing off-ariport and is injured. With you chasing him down to 3k, you're on location within minutes. Leaving him to fend for himself, he lays out there until the DZ sends the plane back up to fly a search pattern in the area toward the end of jumprun. (Of course the real worst case is that he's goes in and is laying dead somewhere, but there's not much you can do for that).
  13. Got it. That's where you can work in a 'pop up' into your freefall routine. I like to combine the pop up with an orbit. I'll drive around the tandem, and pop up to a height about 2 or 3 feet above the tandem. Coorditante it so the peak of the pop up occurs when you are directly behind the tandem, at which point you begin to sink back down. By the time you are back 'front and center', you're back in your slot. This gives you, and the cameras, a chance to look down a see where you are. The cameras don't really care, but the perspective for the student is a nice change up. I know that low and in front is the 'universal' tandem video slot, but the main reason for that is that the original Vector tandem hung the tandem head low in drougefall. You needed to get down and look up, or all you could see was the top of their head. Now that tandems hang more or less level in drougefall, the camera flyer has more flexibility. So in addition to the 'low and looking up' shots, I always try to get a couple 'high and looking down', and 'on level' with the horizon in the back ground. It adds variety and shows multiple perspectives of the event. In real time it only takes a few seconds of manuvering to get the shots, but the stills capture the angle and last 'forever'. THE DISCLAIMER - know and understand the 'cone of death' that extends above and below the tandem. If you pop up or use an orbit, you need to back off to stay out of 'the cone'. Never get above the tandem, or even close. You can be higher than the tandem, as long as you back off an appropriate amount realtive to the height difference. Pop up 2 or 3 feet, back off a couple feet. Find yourself 100 feet above the tandem, you better be 100 feet out as well. Also, if you intend to use an orbit, check in with the TI ahead of time. Let them know your intentions so they're on the same page you are. The first couple might not be 'quick and clean', and what that means to the TI is that you are out of their sight line for a bit. It's a problem when that's a mystery to them, not a problem when they know what you're doing. It's also not a good idea to use such a move on the bottom end. Try to stay 'front and center' from 7k on down, so the TI always knows where you are, and is never thinking about pulling and where you are at the same time. When it gets close to pull time, make that the only thing on the TIs mind by planting yourself right in front, and there's no question as to your whereabouts.
  14. I'm suggesting that the first jumper to climb out in each group should be in a position so that as soon as the door is clear, they can look out at the previous group and check the spot. It doesn't take much more than a second or two to confirm that you are where you want to be. It's each jumper responsibility to check the spot before they jump. What happens when the spot is long, and you're too far from the airport? Not every pilot is assigned max distance from the airport to allow jumping. Seeing as that distance is variable from day to day, and from jumper to jumper, most pilots will hit the green light, and just keep fling the plane until it's empty or someone says 'go around'. Given that, how do you know when the spot has gone too long? How do you know when the pilot blew it and gave the green light .5 too late? The first half of the load can probably still go, but that last half is hosed. How do they know when they're hosed? In this case, were talking about tandems. There's certainly more than enough time between tandems for me to confirm the spot. If we're long and pulling high, that gives us even more time because we're already pulling high. When you're too long you take the go-around. In general and in my exmaple, I do think that one jumper from each group should confirm the spot is still good before climbing out. This isn't rocket science, and nobody is calling out corrections to the cockpit. You know the jumprun direction, you know the spot, and you know the exit order. If the pilot is giving the light .5 past on a heading of 270, and you're in the 4th group out, you can expect to be west of the DZ about .8 or a mile. All you do in the door is double check that guess against reality. If what you see is what you expect, climb on out. If it's not what you expect, yes, take the time confirm your location and proximity to the DZ. If the pilot gave the light early, you have extra time to determine that your spot is good (not what you expected, but good). If the pilot was late on the light, then yeah, take the time and make the go/no-go call for your group. If you're already long mid-pack, someone on that plane is going around. Nobody cares if it's one, two or three groups that go around, so take the time to ensure you're making the right call for your group based who you're jumping with, what you're doing, and what are you over in the case of an off field landing.
  15. What your saying is that you get in the door, and lead your tandem to do the same without looking at where you're at? (It's not really a question, that is what you said, I'm just phrasing it that way so you see the error) Don't be so impressed with your sweet backflying skills that you forget to check the spot.
  16. I think you're reaching a little here. There are a couple of universal hand signals, and pointing at something is one of them. Problem with the gear? Point at it. Big problem with the gear? Point at it over and over while backing up and shaking your head. Problem so big they need to pull immediately, add in a wave off as you back away, and they'll get the message. You can't really get more specific than that. Let's say you see a problem with the drouge bridle, like it's frayed just above the 3-ring and getting ready to snap. There's no way in hell for a TI to see that, and no way in hell for you to have a hand signal ready for that exact scenario. The best you can do is alert them there is a problem, point to the general area, and let the TI do their thing. Long spots are one area to consider, however, I have better success simply discussing it in the door before exit. Like any good jumper, I'm watching the group before me exit, and also checking the spot. If it's long, simply lean back toward the approaching TI, and say, 'long spot, can you pull high?'. Then I'll usualyl back that up with some 'meaningful' eye contact and an altimeter tap toward the bottom end as a reminder. I'm of the opinion that communication in freefall is limited to some general ideas or feeliings. How you point at something, and the look in your eyes says a lot about the situation. It's way easier to manage than trying to establish a collection of hand signals for all to remember. The other thing about hand signals is that not everyone knows how to throw them. With the exception of some AFF-Is, in an actual emergency situation, most people will qiuckly and franticaly flash hand signals than nobody can understand. Another reason why simple is better.
  17. This is your answer. It's never tensioned near enough to stress the stiching holding it in place. The failure would be from wear, not breakage due to overload. With that in mind, if the confluence wrap is intact and protecting the bartacks, you're in good shape. Also, despite the apparent belief that they are, risers are not 'lifetime' components. They wear out and need to be replaced well before the harness they came with. Some people say 500 jumps, I tend to go about two seasons, whatever that equals. New risers and toggles are under $150, so for $75 year I get to jump relatively new risers all the time. A fresh set of risers and new lines on a canopy feels a lot like a new rig under canopy.
  18. Go to the Farm. It's near Atlanta, so several thousand miles closer to England. They have a package deal to get your A license for a good price. I think you can camp there while you learn. Look them up and see what they say. Lodi is all the way in California. They also have a 'pending' issue with the FAA regarding aircraft maintenance. It's been determined that they ignored requirements to replace control cables and inspect wing attachment points for corrosion on their Otters. The 'pending' part is that the FAA wants to fine the owner $663,000 for ignoring these requirements, and the owner wants to pay less. Again, the maintenance problems are confirmed, the amount of the monetary fine is pending.
  19. I didn't say one word about Brian's course. The thread caught a hint of a corsswind, and I drifted it right into my personal agenda. Mea culpa. I'm a firm supporter of education in any area of skydving, Brian in general, his canopy courses, his WL chart, and even his thoughts on using beepers in the pattern (see his thread in the Swooping forum).
  20. My mistake. Your words from post #1 in this thread led me to believe otherwise. Maybe not the reality you live in, but it works in my reality. AADs are a comprimise between successful operation and being non-invasive. Early AADs, which were unpopular, not widely used, and generally frowned upon had the problem of being too invasive. They fired at odd times, and even when the firing 'seemed' right, the exact circumstances were never very exact, the speeds and altitudes when the AAD would honestly fire were 'loose'. Jumpers didn't like any of it, so they didn't jump them. So Airtec went to work, and came up with a good comprimise between firing speeds and altitudes, packaged it with reliable sensors and electronics, and brought the AAD market back to life. The point is that if you start to change one aspect of the programming, it effects the functionality in other ways. What do you want, the student Cyrpes to have a higher firing speed? OK, what happens then when a student freezes up with a higher-speed canopy malfunction that's not fast enough to fire the AAD? That student loses the functionality of the AAD, all so another student can disregard the training of not making hard turns under 1000ft. I'd rather see the toggle whipper and the scared student both have AAD fires and two-outs, than see the toggle whipper get away with it, and the scared student go in under the malfunctioning main alone. See? Again, the devices are what they are, and they have limitations. Published limitations that jumpers should be aware of and work toward staying within. The Cypres work well in 99.99% of all situations. When you weigh the number of jumps made with Cypres AADs in the last 20 years against every incident where a Cypres fired as-designed, but unwanted, you can see that it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. Hardly the type of statistic that merits a redesign and the resultant ripple effect it will have on the 'regular' functionality. If that's not good enough for you, build your own, or just don't jump one.
  21. Does that mean you're going to go away? I hope so, because that would just further prove the point I was trying to make in the other thread. If we, as a community, refuse to sit idly by while jumpers thumb their nose at conventional wisdom in terms of safety and especailly as related to canopy control, we can make jumpers guilty of those infractions so uncomfortable they'll just leave. Doing it on this website is just an example, what really needs to happen is in the real world at DZs everywhere. Call the schmucks out for being schmucks. If someone is jumping a canopy obviously well beyond their skill and experience level, speak up. If someone is flying a reasonable canopy in an unsafe manner, speak up. In either case, if we do it loudly, often and with a united front, the offender will get the message or get sick of hearing it and move along. If every DZ does this, the 'move along' becomes 'move along to another sport' and not 'move along to another DZ'. Skydiving, when done 'by the books' in a generally accpeted conservative manner is dangerous enough. Those that cannot repsect that and insist on further pushing the limits within the sport should not be welcome on our DZs, websites, or anywhere. It only makes it more dangerous for the rest of us, and makes the sport look bad to everyone else. When a kid with 250 jumps hooks it in on a botched swoop, jumpers everywhere nod in understanding, realizing that it was only a matter of time, and that the jumper was pushing way too hard and being way too irresponsbile with their choices. However, all the general pubilc sees is that another young man was cut down in his prime, even though he had 250 whole jumps, which to a whuffo sounds like alot. No offence Pop, but my main goal here is to get you to staighten up, or get the fuck out of the sport. I don't give two shits what you want, feel, or think. You know you're giving the finger to conventional wisdom in the areas of canopy control and selection, and there's no room for that in this sport. Think this website is a joke? Good, log off and never come back. Heopfully the jumpers at your DZ will follow suit, and you'll pull out of the parking lot one day in the coming weeks and think that the DZ is a joke too.
  22. I haven't read this entire thread because it seems like another round of the same-old same-old, an Agrus jumper wants to start pointing fingers at other AAD manufacturers. Whatever you beef is, your fundamental argument is flawed. You stated that there are incidents that are unknown to the 'general skydiving community' for all brands of AADs. Then you conceed to Sparky that the 'rigging community' may be fully aware, but the 'general skydiving community' is being kept in the dark. I've got news for, the 'rigging community' is the only one that counts, because that includes the manufacturers (ever notice how many riggers work at each rig manufacturer?), and they are ones making the calls at to what is, or is not, safe to continue jumping. So even if these 'secret' incidents were kept from the 'general skydiving community', if they passed with the apporval of the riggers and manufacturers who have to build and pack the gear we jump, that's good enough for me. I trust them to design, select materials, build, pack, and maintain my gear, and that trust extends to them allowing or dis-allowing different brands of AADs. Beyond that, just the fact that you consider a student Cypres firing under an open main after aggresive manuvering an 'incident' really waters down whatever argument you have left. That's a simple case of an AAD working as designed, and the user making a mistake. In the case of a student, the 'user' is the instructor who put too big of a student on too small of a canopy for a student cypres, and then did not properly train them with regards to hard turns below 1000ft. Ditto for swoopers setting off their AADs. Anyone jumping long enough to be swooping at a high enough level to fire a Cypres is well aware of the perameters of 78mph and 750ft, and if they bust that it's their fault, not the AAD. There are simple ways around the problem, even before the release of the Speed cypres. It's called turn off your AAD before making a jump where you plan to do a 'big turn', or limit your turn to one where you start no higher than 750ft to prevent the AAD from firing. In either case, the error is with the user, not the AAD.
  23. Let's be clear about 'self supervision'. You are still held to the same standard as a 'student' jumper with regards to equipment requirements and wind limitations. You are also from from 'unsupervised' even if you don't realize it. The instructional staff at the DZ is still keeping a close eye on you as you proceed to 'self supervise'. To suggest that you are considered 'all set' to skydive at will anytime, anyplace, and any way you want is incorrect. Your fundamental mistake with this argument is that it doesn't work that way. You don't get to film a tandem or hot VRW team with zero camera jumps under your belt because you're counting on the other players in the jump to agree to have in the video slot. Any instructor or team member who works with a video guy realizes that the video guy is very much a member of the 'team', even if it's just for that one jump. The performance of the camera guy is key to the success and safety of the jump, and as such, they do not take the filling of that slot lightly. A more accurate comparison would to two jumpers, both of limited experience, and both 'trying' to jump a camera for the fist time. The one does a POV thing on a sit fly jump, and the other picks up an outside video slot on a 3 way RW dive with some low-to-average time jumpers. Even in that case, the POV guy is what I would be more worried about. Regardless of the intention of the jumper beforehand, you cannot deny that strapping a camera on your head is going to use up a portion of your brainpower, and going to be 'on your mind' throughout the entire process, from gear up to landing. When you combine that with trying to also fly inside of a skydive and interact with another jumper, you have added significantly to the workload. The guy flying the outside slot is another story. Aside from coordinating the climbout/exit and the breal off procedure, the outside camera flyer is flying his own skydive, with the single goal of keeping the formation in frame. Nothing more, nothing less, one single job. This description of a possible 'first time' camera flyer is probably the most telling of your lack of understanding of camera flying. It's not a knock against you, there's no way or expectation for you to know, but this is so far off base it's not even funny. The jump you have described above is not the jump of a first time, or 50th time camera flyer. The jump you have described is the result of hard work and dedication, developing the skill, the eye, and the confidence to be able to string together that series of manuvers. You're going to have trust those that have come before you, it's harder than you think, there are more things to go wrong than you realize, and that everyone (you included) will be better off in the end when you put some jumps between getting off student status, and getting on camera flyer status (and that number is at least 150).
  24. Based on what? Your first hand knowledge of camera flying? Wouldn't you think that an experiecned camera flyer would have a better perspective on the issue, and be better equipped to make that call? How about a community of camera flyers falling back on tens of thousands of collective camera jumps to their credit? Might they be able to make that call? I hate to break it to you, but that's where the USPA got their number from. Members of the BOD called on their own camera jumping expereince, and the opinions of the experiecned camera jumpers they know, and this is what they came up with. 40-some jumps total, and you can't recognize that there might be more to it than the limit of your current understanding? Do you share this opinion of other areas of skydiving in which you have no experience? I'll revert to my question from above - Based on what? 20 or 40 incident-free camera jumps? I'd venture that it takes between 20 and 40 jumps to really 'try' anything in skydiving and see if it's for you. That's between 4 and 8 full jumping days dedicated to the new activity, and that seems about right before you really 'know' one way or the other. That what you got? 20 camera jumps, all went well, and you feel good about it?