davelepka

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the simple fact is that it is MUCH easier to teach canopy control than to actually demonstrate the freefall skills you mentioned. The point of the AFF cert course is evaluate your skills as an instructor, so they focus on the most difficult skills required and work their way down from there. If you can't stay with a student, your ground training prowess (canopy or otherwise) is of no consequence. Admittedly, it sends the wrong message to the candidates when they don't stress the importance of canopy control training with regards to their future students, but even if they did include more on canopy control, I doubt it would it would be at the expense of spending time and focus on the freefall skills. Like it or not, AFF is still a freefall based learning progression, and the instructor must poses the skills to teach in that environment.

Yeah, I didn't have the sound up or watch past the landing the first time around, but after checking out the end, you're right. One other note, the video is another great illustration of why jumper need to be careful selecting a reserve canopy. All the newbies who have a reserve a size or two smaller than their main should take note of the area he landed in. It was tight, but also surrounded by trees, so if there had been a good wind that day, it would have been surrounded by dirty air and rotors as well. A reserve is a more doclie canopy than a main. So if you jump the same size reserve and main, you should have an easier time landing your reserve which is an asset in less than ideal landing conditions. If you jump a reseve one size bigger, you have added two layers of safety, one with square footage and one by virtue of the reseve being more doclie than you main. Jumping a smaller reserve than your main negates any advatage you get from jumping a docile reserve. You become the poster child for Booth's law that for every safety advance in skydiving gear, jumpers will find a way to cancel it out, and maintain the status quo. So if you want to be a dumbass, and validate Bill Booth at the same time, then jump a smaller reserve than you main.

Ok, here's the deal in gear for a newbie, and like most newbies, you've figured incorrectly. Buy a Cypres 2 new. They have a fixed value due to the 12 year life limit, so you can always sell it for the remaining value at any time if you quit jumping in less then 12 years. Don't buy another brand of AAD, you'll regret it eventually. Buy a new Cyrpes 2 mainly because used ones are hard to find because they sell almost instantly when they are put up for sale. Beyond that, buy everything used. The short explanation is that you will want to downsize from the 190 sooner than later, and even if you don't, you'll learn more about gear in your first year of jumping that you'll develop an 'educated' opinion about what you want, and you'll want to buy that. Anything you buy new that you don't put 500 jumps is going to be a money loser on resale. If you have $4k to spend, get the Cypres 2 for $1300/$1400. That leaves you $2600/$2700 for the rest, which is plenty. Figure on $800/$900 each for the reserve, main, and container. Jump it to your hearts content, and provided you don't damage anything, you'll be able to sell it all for 90% of what you paid for it (except the Cypres2, just keep that and put it in your next rig). Some things to look for - PD reserve, they make a 193 that would be a good choice. PD main, any of the Sabre2, Spectre, Silhouette or Storm would be good. PD makes a great product with great customer service, and they hold their value well. When it comes to reserves, the less jumps the better. Maybe 2 or 3 tops, beyond that people tens to look at them funny. Main canopies are the opposite, look for something with over 500 jumps so it's easier to pack. If it's much more than 500 jumps, look for one with a newer line set on it, or factor in $250 for a new line set when you negotiate the price. Container wise - stick with the majors for the rist round, Mirage, Jav, Vector3, Infinity, and maybe Wings. It will just make it easier to sell when you want to sell.

I don't recall seeing this video previously here, and I have no idea who Phil is, but the video is a great illustration of what pulling at 2K is all about. The amount of time you have to indentify, cutaway, pull your reserve, and set up for landing are clearly illustrated, and illustrated as being 'not much'. For that, the video has great value in showing the real time events that follow pulling at 2k. However, I have to agree with the others, waiting to pull at 2k is rank amateur. After watching some nice moves on the AFF practice jump, I was very surprised to see you checking and re-checking your altimeter after break off, and then locking on to it waiting for 2k to arrive. By this time in your skydiving carrer, I would have thought that you would have figured out that you pull as soon as it's safe to do so. On a two way like the jump in question, that would have been 5-ish seconds after break off. I understand that you have thought about and rehearsed a low altitude malfunction (which is good), but that should be reserved for when you HAVE to pull at a low altitude, such as a big way or some sort of emergancy situation where need to hum it down. Short of eother of those, get sufficient seperation from others in your group, and open a parachute. Hindsight is always 20/20, but there's a pretty fair chance that if you had dumped at 3k on that same jump, you could have just kicked out of the line twists on your main, and avoided the cutaway all together.

It seems that some of the suggestions are more 'complex', but here's a couple of basic, more fundamental ideas. First, pay attention to the light. Keep it at your back, and that includes non-freefall footage. You can't move around too much in the plane, but you can wait until the plane turns if the sun is shining right in your eyes through the windshield or a window. On the ground, position yourself just like freefall, with the sun at your back to properly light your subject. You'll find that people will tend to turn to face you if get close to them and then move. So if they're facing the wrong way with regards to the sun, get in front of them, make eye contact, and then step around to the correctlty lit side. Nine times out of ten they'll just follow you around and face the way you want them to. Another guy mentioned you should never speak, even a post-jump interview because the audio is distorted due to the camera guy being closer to the mike. I think a post-jump interview is a big part of the video, but one thing you can do is pull the zoom all the way back so you can get close to the customer. Hold the camera helmet out at arms length, and keep it an equal distance from the customer. This way the mic will pick you up equally, and you can use a regluar voice to ask the questions.

A fisheye lens isn't a crutch to help make your videos better, it's a tool for you to use once you have developed the skill to implement it. Does it capture more in the frame? Yes it does, but it does so at the expense of detail. What I mean by that is that you have to be GLUED to the tandem in order to keep the studetns face recognizable. Even though you can see them clearly in the plane and in the door, which establishes that it's really them, a big part of the video is their genuine reaction to the event, in order to get that you need to be close enough to distinguish the reaction on the students face. A fisheye lens is terrible for this in that if you back off even slightly, you lose that level of detail. Even then, using a lens much wider than a .42x is going to distort the video to the point that it looks 'odd' To you it looks 'different' and adds soemthing, but that's because you've seen 1000's of skydiving videos, and like the unique perspective. As mentioned before, this is for the student and their friends and family, who are new to skydiving videos, and will appriciate a more 'true to life' perspective. On that subject, NONE of the .3, or .25 single element lenses are good choices for tandems. It's too wide, and most of them are not zoom-through lenses (in that they will not focus through the lens when you zoom in too much). They work great for hand-cam, where the camera is never more than 2 feet away from the student (including in the plane and on landing), but for outside video they are not the way to go. Look for a traditional wide angle lens, on the order of a .45x or .5x with mulitple elements so you can still use your zoom. Remember that the non-freefall parts of the video make up more than half of the footage, so having the zoom to use as a tool will help you produce better non-freefall footage. As a side benefit, if you intend to go with the 'standard' still set-up, the Canon Rebel XT-whatever with the kit 18-55 lens (which is a great camera and lens, affordable, lightweight, and sharp enough for your first 1000 camera jumps), a .45x or .5x winde angle will match up nicely with the kit lens set on 18mm. As mentioned by others, a ring site, or other frame reference are required, not optional. You don't have to jump a full ringsite if you're worried about the snag hazzard, a box drawn on your goggles will work. You have to make sure that the fit of your helmet and goggles are tight and consistant in that you put them on the same way every time, and you need to make sure that your placement of the box is dead-on. Use tape to make the box at first, and move it around until you think you have it lined up. Then, put on the helmet, and record yourself looking at various objects at different distances from 3ft to 100ft away. As you do thise, verbally call out what you're looking at, then watch the video and see if when you say 'green car', the green car is really in the middle. Once you have that done, remove the helmet and googles, and put them back on several times, filming objects each time to ensure that you can replicate the placement of the helmet and googles each time. Like others have said, you're not getting paid to guess. A final point, for this post, is that if you'll be editing your own video, or have nay influence over the editing, for the love of god let the freefall play all the way from exit to opening, in real speed, the first time through. I hate, hate, hate to sit through a gear up and ride to altitude, waiting for the jump itself, only to have it chopped up with slow-mo, and the worst of all, backwards video going back into the plane. The video is about the student making the jump, so let's that as realisticly as possible, and that's real speed, all the way through. If you want to do a 'disco edit', with slo-mo, stutter shots, and reverse video, that's your choice, but just stick it at the end of the presentation, not in the middle.

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It's possible for a person to hold real estate for other reasons than protecting ones 'territory', and to try opening a couple of DZ in Florida out of spite. In terms of the other airport FFX owns, you both may be correct. If Billy did indeed own the restaurant there, and house airplanes there (presumably owning a hanger or two), buying the airport might have made business sense, and one factor considered was that he would never allow a competing DZ to operate there. It might have been one factor on a long list that lead to the purchase. In terms of trying to open DZs in Deland and Z-Hills, that has to be revenge, pure and simple. There's no way it's a coincidence that the two airports where he wants to place DZs also happen to be home to the two DZs in the state where he lost major, long standing business contracts. As stated before, and so obvious is almost doesn't need to be stated, there are DOZENS of other ariports in Fla where you could open a great DZ provided you had some money and some airplanes. Who's got a couple of turbines down near Miami? How close can you get to Orlando International and run a couple Otters? What about on the beach near Jacksonville for Fla and Ga jumpers? The list goes on...

I think someone there has ethics, the problem would be getting in touch with the right person. Seeing as Groupon makes a cut of all these deals, I'm willing to bet that the majority of their employees are in a 'sales' position directly, or support the sales department and recieve a percentage or bonus based on their overall sales. Between the DC deal and the NYC deal, they sold something like 4500 of them for about $150 each, for a total revenue of $675,000-ish. Groupns cut of that has to be into the six figure range, so you have to find someone high enough up that they're willing to pass on a six figure deal is going to be tough. In the CO discussion, someone made a great point about how Groupon is marketed as local businesses giving deals to local customers, yet here they are in business with 'Sportations' (I still want to know what the hell a sportation is), an out-of-state booking agent who's doing nothing more than middle-manning the deal, and reducing the value for all the locals involved, but it the customer or the service provider.

Do the manufacturers even have the information you're alluding to? Is it even possible for every mfg to pack every concievable reserve that might fit into a certain size and test the deployments? Even if they could, what about the differences in pack jobs? Let's say you pack a rig with more bulk in the bottom, where the corners of the reserve container are built up, and after being packed in there and settling for months, those built-up corners might be able to hold the bag in with 'x' amount of force. Now take the same rig to another rigger who packs it top-heavy, where the reserve container side wall is shorter, and there are no constructed corners. The softer bottom portion of the pack job will be mroe likey to slip out of the container, and the heavier top end is unrestricted just due to the consturction of the container. Overall, the bag will be held in with less force. That's the fundamental problem of having a 'certified' reserve system that's made up of two components that were independantly certifed. While they each may have performed well under the test conditions, how does that guarantee their compatibility or performance when combined? Not to side track the thread, but this is where the idea of bumping the AAD activation altitude comes in. I understand the gear issue is seperate from the AAD activation altittude, but with the number of variables present in harness/containers, reserves, and pack jobs, it becomes very hard to mitigate the problem of inconsistant reserve deployment times. If you look at the one component that is tested, for all practical purposes, in a 'real world' environment, that being the reserve canopy, you can see that the testing allows for 300 ft of altitude to open. Considering that once the canopy hits the airstream, it's essentailly in the same conditions as the test, so we can use that as a reliable maximum altitude needed for inflation. If you subtract that 300ft from the 750ft activation altitude, it only leaves you with 450ft (or about 2.5 seconds) from firing to the freebag clearing the canopy at line stretch. If you take anymore than that, you're counting on the reserve to open faster than it's certified to, which it may, but that's not the prudent way to design a safety system. Between different combinations of containers and canopies, different riggers, and spring loaded PC hesitations on even the best configured/packed rigs, maybe 750ft just isn't enough time to 'ensure' a reserve deployment and inflation before impact. Even though the problem isn't the AAD, the solutuion may be. It's a given that the jumper has failed horribly when an AAD fires, so to push for jumper education and training makes no sense. These people made a mistake, and no amount of training is going to eliminate that. So if we focus on the gear, I don't think it's hard to see that things have changed. I recall years ago when I first saw a Mirage G3 in person, and I was amazed at how 'nice' it was. The construction, the padding, the layers of fabirc, it all added up to a reserve container that looked more like the inside of a luxury car. Compare that to the Racer I was jumping at the time, which was one layer of courdura between the world and my freebag. It was my wife's new rig, and I was jealous. The point is that in the days since the AAD protocol and the current min pull altitude were set, things have changed significantly in terms of the gear. Reserve containers are more built up, with more flaps, and more material shoved into a smaller space. Main canopies are taking loger to open, and they spin and malfunction faster if that should be the case. With these changes in mind, to not make other changes accordingly is stupid and short-sighted. It's not 1991 anymore. What worked then may not work now, and it seems like it's not. You can go on and on about jumper training, gear issues and the like, but in the end an AAD is really designed for an unconsious jumper. What it needs to do is reliably get a reserve out and inflated before impact with no input from anyone. If the gear of today needs more than 750ft to make that happen, then so be it.

Yes, it's very cold. However, keep in mind that as soon as you leave the plane, you gain 3 degrees for every 1000ft you fall, so by the time you open less than a minute later, it's 25 or 30 degrees warmer than when you exited. On top of that, opening a parachute takes the wind down from 100+ mph to something in the 20 or 30 mph range. So you actual exposure time to -100 wind chill is very brief, on the order of seconds. From there, the air temp will steadily increase and the wind chill gets cut considerably when you open. Even with that in mind, it's cold as shit.

It's business, but not typical. I've owned several Sabres, several Stilettos and several Velocites, and have been more than pleased with the performance and build quality of them all. I've owned a couple of PDRs as well, but haven't jumped them so I can't say anything about them. If you want a bulletproof canopy that will perform right every time, all the time, and is backed by the best in the business, then buy a PD. It those things aren't important to you, buy something else. Do you have to pay for those things? You sure as hell do, but it's worth it. There's no bullshit about the product, the performance or the service, and in this industry, you pay extra for that stuff because you don't always get it otherwise. I say this based on 16 years of buying and jumping their products, and for them to maintain the track record they have, for that long, with me and 20 other skydivers I know and respect, says something. Go ahead and buy the cheaper alternative. Don't be surprised when it eventually gets banned turns into a worthless piece of junk.

Just to pile on to the other thoughts, remember that the freefall is less than half of the video. It's certainly the star of the video, but it's surrounded by other footage, and that needs to be just as good as the freefall. In fact, the non-freefall footage should be your strong point in the beginning because it's way easier to control the situation in the plane and in the LZ than in freefall. If you really think about what you're doing, you should be able to put your non-freefall thoughts down on film within a couple tries. Shooting your best in freefall might take a little longer to achieve. Speaking of thinking about what you're doing, always go into everything (freefall, the plane, the LZ) with a plan, try your best to follow the plan, then honestly debrief yourself after the jump as to how you did. How close did you get to your original thought? In the areas where you didn't meet your expectations, was it your fault, or did the situation change making your plan less likely to work? If it was the latter, how well did you do adapting to the changes presented to you? Could you have reacted better, and if so, how? The debrief is key, and doing it right after the jump is too. You need the reality of it fresh in your mind, how it looked in real life, and then you see how that translates to film. There are things that work, and things that don't, and if you don't check the footage while the reality is fresh in your mind, you lose the ability to see how to translated to film. By doing this, you'll develop the 'eye' to see things the way your cameras do, and you'll begin to gravitate toward those shots naturally. A good rule of thumb is that every shot you take (as in video) needs to have a beginning, middle and end (besides freefall, that's just hit record and let it run). There should be some specific action your fliming, and before you hit record, you should know what you want, and how you want it to look. Things might not go the way you planned, so you may have to roll with the changes, but at least you have a starting point to work with, and some purpose every time you hit record. As other have stated, be professional on camera. Be that way all the time to some extent, but even the coolest, most laid-back customers does want to hear you say, 'Shit yeah!' on their video. Coming up with a routine is a good idea, because then you can work on your delivery and reactions each and every time. You'll get better at presenting the questions and guiding the interview, and better at acting like you're just as excited as they are (almost). Remember, you want to have a begining, middle and end to the interview, so have a plan, and try to stay with it. One last thing I'll add, the other suggested that you want to be able to sit with your customers and watch the video, and feel good about charging them $100 for it. I agree that you should feel like your work is worthwhile, but what you really want to do is make sure that you feel good about sitting with your fellow video guys and watching your work. John Q Public will be pleased and impressed with a pretty big range of quality because they have little to no frame of reference from which to judge. None the less, you act like a profressional give them the best you can, even if you're vastly exceeding their expectations. If the other guys on the video crew approve of your work, or better yet admire your work, then you really have something. Just keep trying to do better every jump, and try harder than everyone else, and you'll win in the end.

The letter in the size, in this case 'C', refers to the width of the yoke which is the measurement across your shoulders. The number, 17 or 18, refers to the length of the main lift web in inches. The main lift web runs down your torso, from the three ring area down to the hip junction of the harness. This measurement is usually dictated by your height, more specifically the length of your torso, but for the most part people of similar height have similar torso measurement. For being 5' 7", the 17" or 18" MLW seems long. I'm 5' 10", and would jump a 17" or 18". If you're trying to go with a longer MLW to make up for having a higher than average weight for your height, you might run into trouble. The measurement of the lateral, the part of the harness that goes from the hip junction back to the bottom corner of the rig, and the length of the legstraps become an issue for you. A C-17 built for a guy 5' 10" and 160lbs will have a very short lateral, and very shirt legstraps. While the MLW might indeed be 17", the lateral might only be 2" or 3" long. The legstraps, and legpads might be way too short to comfortably get around your legs. What you need to do is locate a rig jumped by a guy close to your height and weight. If that fails, and you're stuck looking at longer MLW to make up the difference, get the serial number from the seller, and contact Sunpath with your measurements to see if they think it will work. Avoid paying for any rigs, or shipping any rigs to yourself unless Sunpath seems to think it will fit. If they tell you no, then it's a no. Even if they say it would work, make sure you have the right to return any gear after a test fitting. What you really want is a C-16 with a roomy lateral and longer legpads.

I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think the FAA would protect you against a tresspassing charge if you land on private property. It's got something to do with an 'emergency' situation, and if that's where you have to land, then that's where you have to land. Of course, you could call any off landing an 'emergency' because you couldn't make it back to the DZ, but I do think the feds protect you from the local charge. How this is related to your canopy, I'm not sure. There's always the idea that you could try to follow your stuff down, and land with it and collect it at that time, but then you run into two problems. The first is that you don't always land after your cutaway canopy, and the other is that I don't think your DZO takes too kindly to off landings (that might be limited to wingsuiters). Anyway, maybe do some research into the FAA regs, and see if you can dig anythying up. I don't know if it would apply to your equipment as well, but a cutaway is certainly an emergency, so there might be a federal law on your side with regards to the return of your property. Of course, there is also a local law, but it seems the sheriff is unwilling to help you out.

Doesn't seem like it. Seems more like you're here to nit pick details and act like a bitch. I just caught on to ahy Popsjumper keeps calling you Peter, he knows you personally, and is an AFF instructor at your home DZ. With only 19 jumps to your name, I can only assume that you are a student of his, and the fact that you won't seem to accept what he's telling you is how I came to my conclusion above. There are very few certainties in skydiving. Every time you insert a new variable, there's a ripple effect that sends waves of change through many other areas of your jump. Make it a huge variable, like every jumper personally setting their own AAD firing altitude using their own logic and conclusions, and you greatly multiply the number of chances for those jumpers to be wrong, and for those choices to bite them, or others. There was an incident where a door popped open in a 182 as it was just clearing treetop height. It seems this caused a rapid change in the cabin air pressure and one (maybe two) Vigil AADs fired. So you have an aircraft at 50 or 100 ft, the door open, and reserve PC flying all over the place. The fact one of them did not get out of the door is just luck, but if it had, there's a fair chance there would have been several fatalities. This was not a scenario anyone envisioned, or even thought could happen, but it did. Now we know just a hitch more about the Vigil and how it works. Vigil might even create a software 'patch' to cure the problem, but even if they don't, at least we know. Once you have every jumper independentaly setting their AADs anyway they want, we lose much of what know because it's based on years of expereince working with the AADs as they were designed. They never intended for jumpers to set the firing altitude with respect to AGL to suit their own needs. The entire programming is designed around the default settting. Beyond all that, you really need to shut your pie hole, and open your ear holes a little more. Like I said above, there are very few certainties in skydiving, so there are very few 1000% correct answers. Anyone can dig and twist and manipulate a situation to prove they are right in some way, but that doesn't mean they are right in most ways, and in skydiving, you have to play the odds. The odds are that your instructor, and just about everyone on the DZ knows more than you.

On a larger F-111 main, it might take a little longer to slow down, so you might flare it higher like a student canopy. On a smaller or worn out F-111 main, you might only get one small window of opportunity to slow the thing down, so you use a strong, forceful flare closer to the ground so every bit of forward speed to translated into lift, and helps you to get a 'soft' landing. All of that aside, lose the PD170. They were the top of the line in their day, but that day was 20 years ago. Seriously, look at the date of manufacture, and ask yourself why the canopy only has 70 jumps on in all that time. Buy the Sabre 170, and learn to roll the nose when you pack. Have a rigger check the lines, and make sure the steering lines are adjusted properly, both when the brakes are set and the overall length. Sell the PD170, and you might get $200 out of it, enough for a reline on the Sabre.

More dangerous? Than going in without a fully inflated reserve? Not in my book it's not. As to your 'theory', most canopies will very quickly meet their 'trimmed' airspeed. If that trim dictates a turn of a certain speed, the canopy will meet that within the first revolution or so. So for your theory to be correct, the reserve would have to open just high enough to only allow one revolution at most before impact. Is that how close you want to cut your margins? One revolution of a seven cell reserve in brakes? All canopies are influenced by wind. Somtimes even those 'under control' cannot overcome the influence of wind, that's when people start backing up or landing off. That influence, however, has nothing to do with turns, just the distance the canopy can fly. In terms of an incapacitated jumper, the odds that the wind will improve or degrade their eventual touchdown point are even. Maybe the wind blows them into a pile of fresh-cut hay, and cushions their landing, maybe it blows them in to a vinyard, and they get impaled on one of those poles the vines grow on.

They are all very similar. Within 100ft and a couple mph of each other. Given that any change would have to be at least 300 ft to be of significance (Bill Both was saying 500ft), the less than 100ft of difference between brands is hardly significant, and they are all essentially the same (which is the definition of 'standard').

Let's be perfectly clear, there's no way you understand the risk. Consider the number of software revisions to the Vigil. Each one was based on the fact that scenarios the designers had not envisioned or planned for became realities, and units fired when they were not supposed to. In that case, people who were actually building an AAD, and eventaully did market it successfully (and still do), were not aware of ALL the risks. How about the Cypres? It was good as gold until canopies got fast enough to trick it into firing. Again, nobody ever thought that was a possibility in 1991, but sooner or later it became real enough that Cypres introduced it's first (and only) alternative expert model, the Speed Cypres. How do those examples relate? Much like the Vigil guys found out, you have to account for EVERY possible situation a jumper could put the AAD in, and make sure it only fires when they really need it. Now if you want to make the AAD firing altitude a regular thing that jumpers adjust for themselves, you cannot just look at what you might do, you have to consider the actions of every jumper who might undertake adjusting their firing altitude. When you think of it in those terms, you can see that what you might do is of no consequence, it's what all the other jumpers might do that you need to account for. How about the Cypres example? Well, you can't see the problem today, but what developments in skydiving are going to come along in the next 10 years? If you want to make jumper adjustable firing altitudes a regular thing on the DZ, what sort of new circumstances could a jumper devise to trick the AADs into firing at the worst possible moment? One thing we don't need is another variable in the AAD department. There should be a standard firing altitude, and it should probably be a little higher than it is now. You might have to bump the min pull altitude, but that's more a result of the longer snivels, higher canopy speeds, and tighter reserve containers. Even if you left the AAD firing altitude alone, the current min pull altitude, which was developed in a much different time in skydiving, has seen better days. If you are going to bump it up, you might as well do the same to the AAD firing altitude, and buy yourself a second or two for murphy to rear his ugly head, and still land under a fully inflated reserve.

I floated this idea in another thread, and I still think it's a good one that protects all involved. Have the customer pay a deposit of 75%, and have them make the payment directly to the manufacturer. This way, the dealer is protected as the gear is essentailly paid for. The 75% should cover the cost of the rig (or close), so if you never see the customer again, the manufacturer is not looking at you to pay for the gear (or they're just looking for the balance, which would be small and worth it to get the gear into your hands for resale). The customer is protected because the dealer never holds the bulk of the money, and their name is attached to the order. If the dealer disappears, the customer can complete the transaction with the manufacturer directly, without losing their deposit. Provided nobody disappears, and the sale moves forward without a problem, the balance is due upon delivery. At that time the customer has their gear in the their hands, and the dealer has the remaining balance of which they can pay off anything owed to the manufacturer, and then enjoy their profits. In this plan, the customer is involved enough to be protected, but not so much that they are privy to the dealers pricing and percentage of profits.

You already have the ability to change it, but the intention is for when you take off from one elevation and are jumping over another. You bastardize that feature when you use it for every Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks they know better and want to alter the AGL firing altitude. In these matters, you create a standard, and build the system around it. Products can be designed to work with that standard, and skydives can be planned around that standard, and everyone is on it.

It's also easy to adjust improperly. It's also easy to forget to tell your buddy it's been 'adjusted'. The better idea is to use the default setting, and have that be more appropriate. The need to bump the min pull altitude up does stem from the need for higher AAD activation altitudes, it stems from the openings and speed of modern canopies. When the AAD standard was set, 750ft at 78mph, Z-po canopies were just hitting the market. The average WL in those days was 1.1 or 1.2 at best. Things have changed, and the old standard doesn't apply anymore. To toss the idea of a standad aside, and let everyone choose their own thing is dumb. You don't who you're dealing with, what their line of thinking is, or from where they draw their conclusions. You end up with a hodge podge of SOPs, and the inability to train or design gear around them. The better thought is to modify the standard using the best and brightest minds we have in the sport. Move forward with training and gear designed to work within that standard.

Again, that's the key difference between the Cypres2 and Vigil problems, and the Argus problem. Maybe the Cypres2 and Vigil software didn't account for something, or maybe the jumpers invovled discovered a unique set of circumstacnes, but to the computer in their rig, the firing perameters were met, the AAD fired, cut the loop and so on. The implication is that if the perameters were met through conventional means (as-in smoking through 750ft at better than 78mph), the units would also fire, cut the loop, and yada, yada, yada. The Argus problem is that the potential for not cutting the loop exists, so if the jumpers gets the AAD to meet the firing perameters, either legitamely or through a low pull or aggressive car truck slamming, the AAD may fire, but the loop will not be cut. In the case of a low pull or trunk slam, I guess that's good (sort of), but in the case of legitmately meeting the firing perameters on a skydive, that's very, very bad. As previously discussed, the current AAD firing altitudes have little to no room for anything to go wrong if the jumper intends to land with a fully inflated reserve. If a PC hesitaion is enough to snivel you into the ground, and you fire your AAD and don't get a reserve PC launch, you are going to die because you cannot afford the delay of pulling your own handle at that point.

If the cutter is mounted above the PC, and it fails tp cut the loop, it can also pin the remaining loop in the cutter. In that case, manually pulling the reserve ripcord would do nothing, as the reserve container would still be held shut by the cutter hanging on to the loop. An AAD firing when it shouldn't is also a problem, but if it occurs after the main canopy deployment, it could just turn into a harmless two-out, or if it does downplane high enough, the main can be cutaway. The primary difference is that in the case of a misfire, the mechanical apsect of the AAD works, but it's the software that isn't 'performing'. This could be due to bad software, or to other presure related anomolies. Let's face it, skydiving is a dynamic environment, and it's tough to plan for every eventuality. I'm not surprised that from time to time jumpers find a way to thread through the software, and set up conditions where an AAD will fire when it's not needed. However, just because a jumper can find an odd circumstance where they can trick an AAD into firing does not preclude the unit from working properly when the firing conditions are met in an actual emergancy. In the case of the Argus, the situation is the opposite. The software seems to work as-designed. All fo the cases where the cutter failed appeared to be either actual emergencies or low deployments, in either case, the AAD trigged the cutter as it should. The problem is in the mechanical functioning of the cutter, and the reason that's different than 'imperfect software' is that a bad cutter will never allow the unit to work properly. See? Vigil or Cypres2, you may be able to trick the software into firing, but the unit will fire as-desgned when you do. It will also function properly if it encoutners the circumstances when it's supposed to fire. The Argus may know better when to (or not to) trigger the cutter, but the cutter itself is what fails. Even if the 'genius' software in the Argus knows your every move and holds back until you really do need it, the AAD will not function as-designed due to the faulty cutter. If the loop is not severed, the AAD fails 100%. Beyond that, the Cypres2 and Vigil misfires were not random shots in the middle of a skydive, they were all down low where they were supposed to be (or close). A mis-fire is never good, but if they're always down low, at least they don't endanger anyone besides the user. If the mis-fires were higher, above break off altitudes, then it might be more of a concern due to the possibility of a freefall collision, and the fact that the unit would be operating way outside it's perameters. As it sits, the unit were in the right neighborhood, and it likely that the conditions were met, and they did their job. If you don't want that risk, don't jump an AAD.

Be aware that more goes into a skydive that you might think. Things like the aircraft configuration come into play. Is this plane set up for jumping, and is the pilot an experienced jump pilot? Have you considered all the aspects of exiting this aircraft in flight? What congifuration is the pilot going to use on jumpun? What about the spot? What about winds aloft? What about wind indicators on the ground? What happens if you land off? Have a mal? Lose your gear? Get injured? Land off and get injured? All of these questions are answered for you when jumping on a DZ, there are systems in place to handle those issues. When making a solo jump off-DZ, you must be responsible for every aspect of the jump. It can be done, but there is more to it than you might think.