davelepka

Right. People jumping canopies that are appropriate to their weight and experience will do far more to stop it. I'm not talking in generalizations here, I'm speaking directly to you. I have watched you voice your opinions in all these canopy related threads, but you're the poster child for everything wrong with the canopy situation, and need to look in the mirror before looking at everyone else. You jump a canopy at a loading that you have no business being on, and insist that you'll be fine, and that you 'know' the danger, but you don't know. You can't know for the same reason you shouldn't be jumping what you are, no experience. You'll argue that you're careful, and that it's the 'higher time' jumpers that hook themselves in, and sometimes it is, but I've news for you, that doesn't mean 10 or 15 years in the sport. Even at 5 years in it's not uncommon for guys to have 1000's of jumps, and with only 5 seaons in, it's still only so much exposure to the sport. How do you know if you should be flying high performance canopies? You spend an appricciable amount of time flying low performance canopies, you get good at it, and you learn how to exist under canopy. Then you take that PROVEN ability, and the good judgement you needed to get there and transition it to high performance canopies. Want to know how to fuck it up, push yourself, not develop a good base of skill and experience? Read your logbook, it's all in there. The one problem we can all agree on is people who are clearly not 'on program', be it in the pattern or with canopy selection, and nobody calling them out on their bullshit. So here's my contibution to the collective good for today, I'm calling you on your bullshit. Get yourself back 'on program' or shut the fuck up. Nobody gives two shits about your opinion when you turn around and go to the DZ only to perpetuate the problem.

As previously stated, leading is more challenging than peeling, timing-wise. If you're comfortable with leading in 4-way, just watch the door jams on the ground and figure out how to pick up the exit count. Depending on the climb-out you might need to go low and outside, leaning way back to see around the rear float, or up high to look over the top of the rear floater down into the middle of the door. I disagre with the idea of jumping up and out, especailly on a somethig the size of an 8-way. It's going to take a second to get it all out of the door, and lay down a pretty big burble in the process. Try staying tight to the aircraft, and sliding down the side of the fuselage, presenting with a little rightward slide (on a left side door aircraft). This keeps you off to the side of the burble, so even if you're late on the exit, you're not far from clean air. By hopping up and out, you're hopping right into the dead zone.

I don't think it's any of the above, I think it's real life. There might be some of the doppler effect at play, but think of it this way - if you fall 500 feet in 2.5 seconds from 5000ft down to 4500ft, you fell 10% of your total altitude in 2.5 seconds. Take that same 500ft, at the same rate, but now make it from 1000 down to 500. You just fell 50% of your total altitude in the same amount of time. All that aside, it's quite a visual in the video because you know the guy is just waiting. If I knew the guy was fighting for his life, and got the reserve out at 500ft, I don't think it would have been as scary. To know the guy was just sitting there waiting really adds to the drama. What a schmuck.

Hey Robin, It's either black or white with the two of us. Either we are 100% on the same page, or we couldn't be further apart on an issue. In this case, we are on the same page. Re-aiming the training is the key to this (long term). In five years, we would be dealing with a jumping population who will look at things differently if we start training everyone differently. All the students, of course, will have a new perspective due to the new training, and the existing jumper today will all be at least 5 years into the sport, and probably able to see the value of the new training, and fall in line. Some shitheads will remain, but such is life. Despite that agreement, I have (of course) a couple of different ideas on the implementation, and I'll (of course) tell you what they are. First off, we can keep AFF. It's a great 'hook' for new jumpers, and the training for the first few levels is pretty good as it sits. If a guy was going to make 2 or 3 jumps total in their lives, I wouldn't change much about the program. In the highly supervised environment of those levels, the canopy training is adequate, and gives way to more important things like pull priorities and EPs. However, once you get into levels 4 on up, all the way to the A license, things should take a drastic turn. Those students are working toward being jumpers, and as such they're going to need the in-depth training in canopy control that a 'skydiver' would need. So we re-vamp the program from that point on. The other area I have to disagree with you is the rules for the pattern and landings, and how you make them 'stick'. To suggest that each DZ could 'make their own' isn't progress at all, that the status quo. Whatever makes the DZo cringe is against the rules at their DZ, so what flies is dependent on how easily the DZO flinches. Even circulating a voluntary set of guidelines won't work either, because the DZOs have no reason to follow them. You might think it's a good idea, but if the DZO doesn't, then that DZO isn't 'on program'. As much as I hate to say it, you have to get the USPA (or the FAA) to make it a rule. Now the DZO has to pay attention because if an incident should arise, and it turns out the DZO didn't enforce 'the rules', that's going to look very bad in court. Following the 'standard industry practice' is the 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to negligence lawsuits. If you do things the way the industry says, and there's still an accident, it can be looked at as 'accidental'. If you break the rules and there's an accident, now it 'negligence'. Consider this, how many DZOs would put out students without AADs, or with timed out AADs if the BSRs (and FARs) didn't require AADs for every student jumper? With the costs of aqquisition and maintenance of AADs, multiplied by 10 or 15 tandem and student rigs, being what they are, would you be surprised if some DZOs let that slide if they could get away with it? The answer is 'sure they would'. Somebody somewhere will try anything if the law (or the rules) don't specifically prohibit it. So the solution to getting DZOs to follow along is to put their bacon on the line in court if they don't. Put their money, their DZO, their livelyhood on the line, and they'll do what it takes to follow the 'standard industry practice', and keep that waiver strong and steady if they need it to stand up in court.

For starters, WL to the chart works best in the middle fo the 'bell curve'. If you were a 165lbs, it would be right in the ballaprk for where you need to be. If you take that same formula and apply it to higher weights (like yours, or above) you'll find the chart a hair on the conservative side. Likewise, if you scale it down to a jumper who weighs 120lbs, than the chart isn't conservative enough, as it would have a new jumper on a 120 or 135, and for various reasons that's not a great idea, even at lighter wingloadings. Back to your situation, I also don't think you need to add sq footage for the hottest day in the summer. You could probably use the altitude at standard temp, which is 5000ft, and just add 20 or 30 sq ft for density altitude. In that case, you're looking at a 220 to 240 to be in the range of the chart. Again, back to the law of averages, if you happen to be an above average student, and downsized gradually with instructor oversight, you might be just fine with your 210. On the hot summer days with no wind, you might be wishing you had a 220, but that's a chance you'll have choose to take or not.

That's an open-air tunnel, and they're a little less smooth and consistant as an enclosed tunnel. Most of the 'training based' tunnel time is conducted in an enclosed tunnel due to being more consistant and having wind 'wall to wall'. I'm sure your time was helpful, and will make your AFF that much easier. Keep in mind that AFF was develped long before tunnels existed, and is designed to take a guy off the street and put him on freefall later that afternoon. Just go, pay attention to the training, and enjoy yourself.

Which tunnel was this? Beyond that, a floppy suit will flop and you will feel it. I'm not sure if the spinning of the fan has anything to do with your spinning, but it's very common for jumpers to turn when first 'let loose' in freefall (or the tunnel). It's just like riding a bike without training wheels, you never know how until you actually do it, and it might take a minute or two to get the hang of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQmIu_mQ04o&feature=fvsr

I know III was released on DVD, but I think II was only available on VHS, and I never saw a non-bootleg copy of the first one. Great all around, any way you can get them.

You just don't listen, do you? A lower, smaller turn would have had the swooper starting lower, much closer to same altitude as other jumpers in the pattern, allowing then to integrate in to the traffic better. A lower, smaller turn would have resulted in a less speed differential between the two jumpers, increasing reaction time. A lower, smaller turn would have encompassed a shorter duration and less degress of rotation, both reducing the opportunity for a collision. Your bigger turn might give you more options for an abort, but it also has you floating around twice as high as other jumpers in the area. It also results in higher speeds, reducing your time to react to problems. It also uses multiple rotations, increasing your opportunities to run into someone. It's a zero sum gain, just deal with it. For every step 'forward' you think your 'modern carve' takes, it takes a proportionate step back. It's no better or worse. Toggle whippers coined the phrase 'femur' back in the day because that's what happened. You snapped a femur (or two) when you screwed up. Bigger, higher turns have reduced the number of 'femurs', but increased the number of outright deaths. Yes, you have more room for error with a higher turn, but you reach a much higher ultimate speed, so if you do blow it, it's way worse than a 'femur'. Get off you high horse. I don't evem know why you think you should even be on a high horse. Everyone loses their traffic scan mid turn. The whole point of the swoop is to wind up the canopy with energy and then release it at just the right time, all while not over-doing it and going in, or under-doing it and air-balling. At some point, right as your canopy is really picking up speed, you have to focus on 'the gates'. Even if you don't have any gates, you have to pay attention to where you're going, not to outlying areas, the same areas where an errent jumper will be coming from if they wander into your path. The majority of 'close calls' I had with the ground were when something off my line caught my attention. Unexpected movement in my periphery caused me to look away for a split second allowing my canopy to dip below the 'glide slope', and by the time I returned my attention to my line and realized I was low, it took more 'dig' than I was happy with to recover. The lesson is that when you get the canopy moving, you have to watch where you're going. You can no longer be watching for everyone else because you yourself are accelerating towards the ground. It turns into your own personal 'me time'. On a standard approach, 'me time' starts about 2 seconds before the flare. If you're flying a stabilized final, and are 10 seconds from the flare, you can look away for 8 seconds and not have a problem. Take that concept to swooping, once your down on the deck, flying paralell with the ground you can look around with no problem, with the reason being that you're flight is now stabilzed in terms of descent rate, and decellerating in terms of airspeed. Few things can go wrong, those factors are reducing aling with your airspeed. Go back in time 8 seconds, and you're diving hard at the ground a picking up speed. You cannot look around, account for others, or use any one of your 'many outs'. Like it or not, at some point you become comitted to what you are doing, and lose the ability to account for others.

Of course he is. The point that everyone is missing is that the more experienced jumper on the more manuverable canopy is responsible for handling that canopy properly in any circumstance. Be it bailing right after you initiate your turn, or 50 ft off the deck doing 75mph, if you put yourself out there as being able to 'handle' that canopy, then you better be able to 'handle' it in any circumstance. I don't care if it's a student, or a guy with 50 jump, or just some dumb asshole, people make mistakes, if you're good enough to fly the hot canopy, part of that includes being good enough to take care of yourself, and everyone else out there. The simple fact is, if you intend to do something that differs greatly from what everyone else is doing, it's your job to make sure it's at nobody elses risk. Who cares where they are, what they're doing there, or where they're supposed to be, the others persons error would not effect you if you were flying a canopy at a similar speed. When you fly a much faster canopy, it is your responsibility to account for everyone esle, no matter how wrong they may be. The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not. Everyone else who won't get off the swooping in the pattern gig, are you afraid of actual progress or what? The swooping is the easy part to fix. Yes, a percentage of canopy collisions are caused by swoopers hitting non-swoopers, and we could eliminate them 100% by not mixing swoopers and non-swoopers. Look at the manifest for any load. If there is one jumper who is not intending to swoop, nobody is. Done, MOVE ON. How about the rest of the canopy collisions, the ones not invovling swooping in any way? How do we fix those? We can't just eliminate the problem like the swooping deal, this one is going to take some real thought, planning, and hard work. Any interest in moving forward and trying to find a way to keep the non-swoopers from flying into each other? How do we re-train the current crop of jumpers? How do we train the upcoming students to produce licensed jumpers who won't need re-training? How do we get EVERYONE on board with this? These are the real and productive questions that we should be focusing on, not bickering about swooping and what it can, and cannot, be compared to. It's the least of our problems, both in the actual scope of the problem, and quite frankly the scope of the solution.

On two occasions I paid the rush charge to Flite Suit and had problems with the suits when they arrived. One time was their error, and the other one was mine. In both cases I shipped the suit back, and they had it back in the UPS truck the very next day. It was literally in their shop for 30 hours. To be fair to them, I also paid the rush charge for two other suits (I like their suits), and those arrived as ordered, problem free, in about 10 days.

So I take it that you're within 'driving range' of SDC? The explanation is simple. Every fatality or incident will make the local news. How local depends on what is (or is not) going on in the surrounding areas, but if it's a slow news day, it could make the evening news 150 or 200 miles away. Back to what I was saying about the ratio of slots flown to incidents/fatalities, none of the people who watch the news reports have any idea of the massive number of slots flown at SDC, or that their incident rate isn't any worse than any other DZ. All they know is that SDC is 'always' in the news with an injured jumper or another fatality. Since I started jumping, there have been 4 fatalities at the DZ I started at. The last one was a tandem that took both the TI and pax, so that's 3 incidents and 4 fatalities in 16 years. It's a far smaller DZ than SDC, so that explains the short list, but whuffos only see the length of the list, not the related factors that you or I might understand.

Yeah, where have you been hearing that? From anyone with a grudge, or other reason to speak poorly of the DZ? I don't get the impression that the safety record of SDC is any worse than any other DZ. I've been around about as long as SDC, and it's never popped up on my radar as being 'less safe' than anywhere else. They have their share of incidents for sure, but compared to the number of jumps made, I don't think the actual rate is any worse than anywhere esle. Perris and Eloy have extensive fatality lists, but they also have the highest number of slots flown annually in the US (possibly in the world). Even then, it would be one thing if the lists were packed with students and tandems, jumpers under the direct supervision of the DZ management, but they're not. The majority are licensed fun jumpers who went in during the regular course of business in a manner that the DZ could have never prevented.

Unless you're trying to get someone to make you an integral part of their business, or have you handle a major project that the business is counting on. A guy who's a skydiver, in the eyes of a whuffo, stands a much better chance of ending up on crutches or in the hospital after a weekend than a guy who's into golf, or coaching his son's little league team. If you had to choose between two similar candidates for a job, and one was a 'risk taker' and the other a 'family man', you go with the family man to help ensure the success of the project. There is the chance that being a 'risk taker' might appeal to some bosses, but I'd be willing to bet that more bosses would lean toward steady and reliable as far as personality traits, then when you blend in possibility of missing work due to injury, and the related costs to the company, the vote has to go toward keeping it to yourself. Unless you are required to disclose such things to yoru employer, then keeping to yourself won't ever hurt you. However, for the above reasons, sharing it with your employers may cast you in a negative light.

Don't change anything. On a hop n pop, you're only a few seconds away from a terminal opening, so if for any reason you need to extend your delay, you just fucked yourself with your 'subterminal' pack job. Don't screw with your risers either. If you have a brand new rig, and the tuck tabs on the riser covers (if you have tuck tabs) haven't broken in yet, you can reach up and just flip them open right before exit. Magnetic covers, or tuck tabs with 50+ jumps on them will work all the same even subterminal. You're going 75 or 80 mph before you even leave the step, it's not like your jumping a helo or baloon. It's just a parachute and just a skydive. Don't overthink it.

Crazy idea, how about the JM leans out and turns it on before the student climbs out? Pop the door 5 seconds early to account for this, and you're all set. If it's one jumper per pass, they could shut it off during the go-around. Even if you left it run from the first door opening through to the last exit, it would still save all the pics that would be shot during the climb and descent.

We should hook her up with this Eagle guy, it would be a match made in pretend heaven. They could get married, and talk for hours about having octopus babies and building their dream house on the sun.

Jump from space? At this point I'd rather jump off a building sans base rig. How about you buck up and make a skydive before trying to figure out how to do it from space? it would go a long way with your credibility here, and probably wake you from the delusional sleep you're obviously trapped in. Let's consider that Joe Kittenger, who currently holds the record, had the backing of the US govt during the days of unlimited spending known as the 'space race', when he made his jump. Let's also consdier that others with far more expereince and education than you have spent year and millions (literally) of dollars persuing this dream, and have yet to succeed. How about you make one jump, from something far short of space, and then get back to us?

Just use a 1/2 drill bit, and then a rat-tail file, or dremel tool with a pointy grinder to punch it out to 15mm. In terms of a bracket to support the back of the switch, that's what I did. I don't know if it will work without one, but it works with one. I just didn't want the possibility of pushing the switch into my helmet on jumprun, so I went with a bracket. I used 1/2 wide, 1/16 thick aluminum bar stock. Looks like a good beginner set-up to me. You can step up to something more complex as you gain experience.

Given the nature of most of your other threads, I could not resist isolating the above quote.

I worked at a DZ that did a big static line business back in the day, and the DZO had a video system rigged up for filming SL exits. He sold a TON of them because he could offer them cheap, something like $15 or $20 a tape (back in the VHS days). There was no video guy to pay, no video slot to cover, just the cost of the tape for making a dub. A jumpers wife took over the operation, and she started filming landings as well, and would dub the exit and landing onto a tape so the jumper had a record of the whole jump. Again, it was very inexspensive, and most people ended up buying a tape. If anything, it was good fun to watch the videos after the load. Every other load they would switch tapes in the camera, and everyone from the two previous loads would gather around the TV and watch everyones exit. It really was a great way to wrap up a day of training, even if they didn't buy anything (but they always did). That GoPro should pay for itself ten times over, no problem.

I just happened to see this online, and couldn't resist. They even show it in super slo-mo, and you can see those things fly right off his feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgKoXzbw13E&feature=feedrec_grec_index

Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect. If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve pack tray, that would introduce two different factors to the reserve container opening. First, the energy that pushed the bag up and out of the container, something you would never see in a 'normal' opening. In a 'normal' opening, the freebag is pulled from above (by the PC), but in this case it would have been pushed from below. Second, you would not have the wind speed to carry the PC up and away from the freebag. The spring pressure would launch it upwards, but beyond the spring pressure, there would be nothing more to move the spring anywhere. What you end up with is the possibility that the freebag was pushed upawards with more force than the spring provided to push the PC upwards. Now the ffeebag has a way to overtake the PC on the way up, add in some lateral movement from either component on the way up or down, and you have the bridale wrapping around the lines. Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.

In that case, he's failing to 'make a go of it'. Making a go of it, and succeeding, would involve being able to afford, and understanding the importance of, proper vehicle maintenance. Safety is a huge issue, but let's say his tires wear through and blow out without causing an accident. Now he's going to be late for work, and cannot go anywhere or do anything until the car is back on the road. Is that the position a succesful person finds themself in? What you do now, is step in and teach him the lesson there is to be learned. Not the 'hard way' by waiting for something to go wrong with the car, but the 'smart way' by making sure his vehicle is safe and ready to help him 'make a go it' by providing reliable transportation. I have kids, and I'm all for teaching them lessons the hard way, but only when the 'hard way' is simply an inconvience. When it comes to their health and safety, I will always do 100% of everything in my power to make sure both of those remain intact.