davelepka

First off, you have to admit that Mike always get the shot. He never comes home without good footage in the can. Back to the topic, that's where the loss of control over your main comes into play. Cutting away removes any measure of control you had over your main canopy, and leaves it's actions up to 'chance'. In Mike's case, the PC-in-tow cleared, the main began to deploy and depart (as cutaway mains do), and the risers grabbed the reserve slider on the way by. other examples I've seen have had the risers grab the reserve canopy itself as the main tried to exit the situation. The point is that until you are flying forward under a fully inflated reserve, most of the relative wind is directed upwards, in the direction of your deploying last parachute, and that's the same direction anything you cutaway is also going to go. To those that argue that cutaway risers will release before the canopy leaves the bag because there's no anchor point for the bag to pull against, fine. In this case, it was the risers, not the canopy or PC, that caught the slider on the way by. Who knows, maybe the canopy was in the bag until the risers grabbed the reserve slider and used that as an anchor point to pull the bag off the canopy. Any way you slice it, you're better off retaining control over your main canopy. If it gives you a reason to cut it away, and you can do so without risk of fouling your last canopy, then by all means pull the handle, but until such time, leave it alone and keep your main securely attached to your rig.

Unless you're talking about Santa Clause and his big beard, you must mean Bill Booth. I was not aware that he has an interest in Vigil, but even if he did, he is one rig manufacturer of many who have banned the Argus. The last time I checked, rig manufacturers were not known for 'playing nice' together. By that I mean they are all independent, and fairly set in their ways. I can't see any of them banning anything without just casue. If anything, for the sake of all their customers who jump an Argus, and are now forced to either buy a new AAD, or jump without one. I can't see any rig manufacturer subjecting their customers to that without just cause. Case(s) in point would be VSE, Jumpshack, and Sunrise, all of whom have not banned the Argus as of yet. If a consiracy existed, and it ever came to light that 'some' manufacturers did indeed hang their Agrus jumping customers out to dry, can imagine the loss of future business for them, and the flood of business to the more 'ethical' manufacturers who refused to take part? Again, even if Booth does hold an interest in Vigil, engaging in such a conspiracy is far too much risk for far too little return. Only some Argus customers will be buying a new AAD, and of those, only some will buy a Vigil, and of those, Booth will only recieve some of the proceeds as I assume he is not the sole benefactor from Vigil sales. When you water it down that way, the reward in no way outweighs the risk of ruining the reputation of his rig manufacturing company. Beyond that, Booth is at the helm of the company producing the top tandem system in the world. These are the most expensive rigs on the DZ, that make the most money, and therefore use up replacement parts and themselves get replaced more often than any other rig. It's not the keys to Fort Knox, but in the skydiving world it may as well be. Factor in all that, plus that fact that he seems like a pretty good guy, and is busy jumping someplace cold, or high, or in some jungle, and you can rest assured he's not plotting against any AAD company.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PIA last month? How could the decision have been made to ban the Argus well before PIA if this last incident happened early this month? What he's suggesting here is a conspiracy, and for him to be correct, one of two things would have occurred - A) the conspirators, whoever they may be, would have been poised to ban the Argus and were simply awaiting something to go wrong so they had a reason. Lucky for them this Texas incident fit the bill. -OR - B) the conspirators faked the Texas incident in order to give themselves a reason to ban the Argus. As absurd as both of those may seem, you have to go one step further, and ask yourself, 'Why would anyone want to ban the Argus (aside, of course, from a ligitmate safety issue)?'. The reason I say this is because the people instituting the ban, rig manufacturers and parachute associations, don't stand to gain anything from the ban. The only ones with anything to gain would be other AAD manufacturers, but they have no control over the ban. Even then, his suggetion that this creates $3M business opportunity is making the assumption that every Vigil will be replaced with another AAD. I'd be willing to be that half of the Vigil owners out there won't be replacing their AAD with anything due to cost. Not everyone can afford to drop $1200 on a new AAD, used AADs will become even harder to find (and expect used Cypres to exceed the stated value on the website) and some people will either just go without, or not jump. I would guess that DZOs using them may only be able to afford to replace some of their student/tandem AADs, and just continue on with a reduced number of student/tandem rigs in service. Even if everyone could afford a new AAD, how many of them would be willing to buy 'off brand' again? I would expect Cypres to be the AAD of choice, and as far as I know, they already sell every one they make. What are they going to do, tool up for increased production to satisfy this very temporary boost in business? Once all the Argus are replaced, their sales and production will return to where it was before all the hub-bub, and that increased production will be a waste. My guess is that they will soldier on in their current capacity, and what they produce is what they produce. This does indeed look very bad for the company, and for Argus owners. I'm willing to admit that I bought a very expensive paper weight when I purchased a Cypres 15 years ago, but at least I got 12 years of functionality out of it.

Hell yeah. Hey, who's in charge of skydiving standardization/regulation/education around here anyway? Shouldn't they be the ones determining who and what should be featured in canopy control courses? Who ever they are, it would be a hoot if their only response to the problems with canopy control was to 'take a canopy control course'. Sound advice, but it leads me to ask, when, where, and who's teaching it? Good times, but seriously, who is in charge around here?

I'm not sure why they would be treated differently either. The standard I set for the Argus should stand for any AAD, or really any part of the reserve system. If it doesn't work reliably, and as designed, it should not be a part of the reserve system. Even if the failure mode is benign, it's just taking up space and subtracting from the KISS principal at that point. Remove it, solve the problem and go from there. In terms of the Vigil, I don't recall if there was ever a solid conclusion as to what happened. I know we had a variety of theories here on DZ.com, and some of them seemed to 'add up', but it was still guesswork. In this case, we have three instances where cutters only partiall cut the loop, with the factory confirming the problem, and supposedly 'solving' it with a recall. With the problem presisting beyond the recall, and keeping in mind the factory admitting the problem, and the published reports surrounding the incidents in question, the problem has become 'real' and 'official' enough to warrant action. I'm not sure where the attitude comes from, but any time you tout the Cypres, jumpers pop up and back the other brands, or call you a Cypres-snob. I'm not sire what Cypres has done to garner these negative feelings, but I know what it has done to garner my respect. The fact is that Cypres has established the standard that all AADs need to be judged by. I'm not saying that they are perfect, but what's the sense in marketing, buying, or jumping as AAD that cannot meet the standard set by the Cypres when you could just jump a Cypres. Could it be better? Sure. Should other manufacturers strive to surpass the standard set by the Cypres? Sure. In the meantime, Cypres undoubtedly has the best record for proper operation, or at the minimum, failing via complete inaction as opposed to improper operation. The fact that it has been on the market the longest, and the most widely distributed only makes the safety record even more impressive. It has had more opportunities by far to fail when compared to the other brands, but it remains the 'safest' AAD out there.

No, they really should be. They don't work the way they are supposed to, and even though you feel the failures are acceptable, they are not. If something doesn't work right, you don't keep jumping it because you don't 'think' the failure will be a problem, you stop jumping it until the problem has been resolved. You have to remember that this isn't an altimeter or audlible that doesn't work quite right, it's an intergal part of your reserve system, and litterally has a stranglehold over your reserve closing loop. It might cut it, it might partially cut it, it might even trap it and contain the reserve PC. The scope and severity of the trouble a malfunctioning AAD can cause makes it a no-brainer that you stop jumping them until normal, reliable operation can be restored. One of the reasons that AADs were not that popular pre-Cypres is that they were not 'set it and forget it'. As sad as it might be, that's the only way to 'idiot proof' an AAD, and the most reliable method for making sure they are used properly. Make it one step, and most of the time it will be done, and done correctly. Add steps, and you add in chances for the humans in the equation to fail. You can't allow someone to jump a malfunctioning AAD with the proviso that they check to see if had fired and failed to the cut the loop before every jump. There are too many opportunites for the check to be forgotten, or communication about a check to be mistaken. The result being a jumper in the plane and in freefall with a comprimised reserve closing loop, and an in-op AAD.

I'm pretty sure the value has already been lost. A month ago, you would have had something. As of right now, not so much.

While it sounds like a nice idea, buying custom built skydiving equipment for someone esle, without their knowledge, is generally not the best idea. Jumpsuits and harness/containers are so option heavy that you can never be sure that you're buying exactly what they want. You may come close, but whatever isn't exactly right, the guy still has to live with. You can't (usually) send things back to be reconfigured without significant cost, and you can't just return things like you buy at the mall. What you order is what you get and what you have to live with. Reserve or main canopies, helmets, altimeters, and AADs are all fair game. If you know which model of those he's interested in, the only options are the colors, and if you're willing to buy the guy any of the above, he can live with whatever colors you choose. How about this, finish your training, and spend the wingsuit money on a pile of jump tickets for the two of you to make a bunch of jumps together? That's a better gift for an anniversary because it involves the two of you, not just you buying him something he can't share with you until you have several hundred jumps.

That's your first mistake. The internet is a shitty place to learn about skydiving. It's an 'OK' place to discuss the in's and out's of skydiving, provided you have learned those in's and out's in the real world. If you want to be an 'internet skydiver' that's one thing. If you want to move into being a real skydiver, drop all the internet stuff you 'heard', and start from scratch. If you're paying attention, and trying hard enough, you'll learn what you need to know in real life. After all, you're posting about how to attach a PC to a canopy. It doesn't get any more basic than that, and if you had spent any time in the packing room looking over different rigs top to bottom, or working with a rigger to learn about gear, you wouldn't be having this 'problem'.

Get used to it. Once you do get a rig, give it about six months and you'll be fixated on getting another rig, or a different rig, or a newer rig, or something. As a general rule of thumb, you want your first rig to hold canopies that will put you at a 1 to 1 wingloading. So if you weigh 180, then you add 25lbs for the rig, helmet, clothes, shoes, etc, you're up to an exit weight of 205lbs. What that means is that you'll be in the area of a conservative 210, or a less conservative 190. In either case, it's a far way off from the 260 you're jumping now. What you do is use the remaining 15 jumps you have to work your way down through the different sized student rigs the DZ has to offer. Mention to your instructor that you'd like to start working in that direction, and then depending on how you perform under the 260, you'll either get some tips to improve your performance, or they'll hand you a 240 for your next jump. The idea with gear is that you never buy anything that you don't fit into, or can safely jump, at the time or purcahse. The size issue just means don't buy a jumpsuit or harness that is too small for you because you intend to lose a few pounds before you jump it. If the weight loss doesn't go as planned, all you're left with is gear that doesn't fit. More importantly is not buying something you can safely jump at the time of purchase. Per my comment above, if you went out and found a 'great deal' on a used rig with a 190 main and a 176 reserve with plans to not jump it until you're licensed, you may get to that point and find out that you're not that good at canopy control. Maybe you really should be jumping a 210, but you have the 190, so that's what you jump. You manage 'OK' on the 190, and then you have your first malfunction. The 176 reserve is waaay too small for you, and you break your leg trying to land it. If you had waited to buy the rig, you would have known that a 210 main/210 reserve was the right combination for you, and you would have had 34 extra sq ft of reserve canopy over your head. So sit back, relax, and enjoy jumping somebody else's gear (the DZ). When you get close to a license, get with your instructors and start talking about what size canopies would work for you. Base all your buying decisions around those sizes, any canopies smaller than those are not for you, and any rig built for anything smaller is not for you, no matter how much of a 'good deal' it might be. Shop used for your first rig, it will save you thousands of dollars. Be open to the idea of buying the main from one person, the reserve from another, the container somewhere esle. Looking for a rig that has the right size main, reserve, and harness, in your price range and for sale when you're ready to buy can be tough. Picking up the pieces one at a time is generally easier, and you make sure you get exactly what you want, not whatever some guy happened to have for sale. Before buying anything used, talk with a local rigger about the purchase, and have them inspect whatever you buy ASAP. Either have the seller ship it to your rigger before payment, or make sure they'll refund your money (minus shipping) if it doesn't meet your riggers expectations. One last thing - avoid reading DZ.com or manufacturers websites and calling that 'research'. It's not, it's just reading a bunch of stuff from unqualified or biased sources. Talk to local riggers in real life about what gera they like or don't like. They actually work with and repair the stuff, so they know the in's and out's. It's like buying a used car, you can ask your buddies or the salesman what they think of the car, but what you really want to do is talk to your mechanic. He knows the 'inside scoop' and he'll be working on it anyway, so he's the guy to ask.

That's a cop out. There's a legitimate safety issue at hand for a large number of jumpers. The guy could easily put his feelings aside and posted a statement, or simply use a proxy who isn't afraid to post. In any other case, he can come and go from here as he pleases. In this case, being the keeper of essential safety-related information, he has a duty to spread the word in any and every way possible. The issue goes beyond his personal feelings, and into the safety of others.

As much as I hate to use this term, EPIC FAIL on the part of all involved with this incident. For there to have been any delay in getting this info to 'the masses' is insane. Of the few times that DZ.com, or the USPA mailing list, or facebook could have been of some real value, this was surely one fo them. What we have now are potentially ineffective AADs that jumpers are using as we speak. I know it's a back up device, and I know you're not supposed to rely on it, but none of the Argus jumpers I know want to be the next Tommy Piras and be remembered as the reason that Argus went out of business. There is no excuse for keeping this info from the public for several weeks. The USPA blew it waiting for their next 'update' to release this. They could have at least sent it out to their database of instructors. Any jumpers with knowledge of this who didn't post anything, either here or on facebook, also dropped the ball. This isn't the kind of thing you keep to yourself, in fact it's the oppostie, even if you don't jump an Argus, or know anyone who does, or even care about the Argus one way or the other, the info still needs to be out there becasue there are people jumping them, and they need to know that their AAD might be as useless as the 15 year old Cypres I have in my desk drawer.

You read something wrong. I was stating that the cutter in this incident was not from the recalled batch of cutters. Therefore, either the recall was not extensive enough, or the problem wasn't fully understood, and whatever is causing it is still present in cutters previously believed to be good. The only upside to this is that the faulty cutters should essentailly 'do no harm' in that they will not cause an incident by doing something unexpected. The failure results in less action from the cutter, which is a bitch for the user if they are in need, but not a risk to others, like a mis-fire in the middle of a skydive.

In all fairness, the USPA newsletter also had a blurb about the Otter crash in GA last week, so it's possible that this AAD problem occurred very recently, and maybe it hasn't hit the forums yet. Either way, it sounds like the same problem they had with those other cutters. Either the cutter not cutting the loop and trapping it, or the loop moving off to the side and the cutter only partially cutting the loop. In either case, the cutter in question was well out of the DOM the manufacturer stated was the 'problem batch'. What this means to me is that they either didn't have the correct manufacturing info or didn't correctly identify the problem during the first recall. The long and short of it is that any Argus cutter is back on the table as being 'suspect'.

Not that it makes a difference, but most DZs well rent gear to any licensed jumper provided it is not needed for a student on the load in question. In fact, I know a couple of jumpers who will rent a student rig in order to make a back to back. They only own one rig, and if they can get a student rig with a 190 or 200 sq ft canopy, it's not all that different from their own rig. As for students, you are correct that DZs generally want to use their own gear for students. Student rigs are generally set-up differently than a sport rig, so unless a student went to the trouble to buy a dedicated student rig, whatever rig they showed up with wouldn't do the trick. Beyond that, you learn a TON of stuff in the first 20 jumps, and can easily go from jumping a 280 to jumping a 210 during that time. As a student, you're better off using the DZs selection of student gear to downsize your canopy to a point where you're at a size you want to stick with for 100 jumps. Then you can buy a rig be happy with it for a bit. If you did try to buy a rig before then, whatever you buy will be too big in another 20 jumps. As for the OP, I took his statement of 'I did AFF, and then a few more jumps here and there' to mean that he graduated AFF and went on to make some jumps on his own afterwards. Also, it wouldn't make sense for his buddy to suggest buying gear if he wasn't already licensed.

The confidentiality comes from the fact that the ASRS only has one function, and that is to get pilots to file honest, timely reports. If they were to break the confidentiality, pilots would lose their confidence in filing reports, and go back to trying to sweep things under the rug. In terms of skydivers using that system, I think that reporting every malfunction across the board is overkill. Every stuck brake, toggle fire, or uncocked PC doesn't need it's own report. I think there's some merit to the idea of reporting tandem malfucntions because tandem rigs are being jumped by 'professionals' in a commercial environment. I would expect the number of stupid malfunctions to be lower, and that there would be more to learn from the other malfunctions and that it would be worth sifting through all the tension knots to get to the 'good stuff'.

Confidentiality based on what? Who has a legally backed confidentiality agreement with the USPA or otherwise? Even if you did, what is the consequence to them for breaking it? Lawyers and doctors can be disbarred or lose their medical license for breaking confidentiality, what penalty would the USPA suffer that it would be worth holding on to confidential info if releasing that info would shake them free from a lawsuit? The penalty for breaking confidentiality would have to be greater than that of being named in a lawsuit, otherwise, the USPA would dodge the lawsuit bullet by releasing said info, and deal with the lesser problem of breaking confidentiality. Of course, that's all based on a non-existant confidentiality agreement. What we need is an uninterested party, immune to skydivign related lawsuits, to submit the reports to. Piltos have the ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System) where they can confidentaily file a report in the wake of an incident. ASRS will remove identifying factors in the report before putting in their database, and the FAA has agreed to waive fees or punishments for a pilot who files a report with ASRS in the wake of unintentional violations. Pilots are encouraged to file based on the confidentaility and the amnesty offered by the FAA, but more importantly, the ASRS is motivatred to adhere to it's confidentialty agreement based on the idea that as soon as they break it, pilots will be less forthcoming and likely to submit reports. Seeing as collecting and disseminating these reports are the sole purpose of the ASRS, losing the confidence of the flying community would be a death sentence for the ASRS. The USPA, in comparison, has other interests to protect, and those could come into conflict with maintaining confidentiality.

What you're telling me is that the place you jump charges so much for helmet and jumpsuit rental that owning your own will allow you to afford more jumps? I think what your friend meant is that if you own your own rig you won't have to pay for rig rental, and can save money that way. Rig rental can somtimes equal the price of a slot, so jumps are essentailly double the price if you don't have your own rig. Of course, you have to spend the money to buy a rig in the first place, so I don't know what that will do to your jump budget. If you're a long-term kind of guy, you can buy an inexpensive used rig, jump it for a year or two, and be able to sell it for most of your purchase price. In that case, you would be spending less to jump, provided you can tie money up in a rig, and wait to sell it to get the money back. However, there's always the cost of ownership when you have your own rig. You have to keep it in date to jump, so you'll need to pay for repacks, and any other maintenance that might come up. If you have an AAD, maintenance and batteries are another cost that you have even if you don't jump. In the end, depending on how infrequently you jump, it might be cheaper to just rent gear. A couple of reserve repacks will run you $150/year, and if you have an AAD, that might be another $75/year. So if nothing else goes wrong, it will cost you $200/$225 to have a rig ready to jump. If rig rental is $25/jump, you can make 10 jumps/year and be even money, without tying up a $2000/$2500 in a rig. Even if you made 20 jumps/year, you'll be out-of-pocket $200 on top of the cost to upkeep a rig. You could do that for 10 years, and be out the same money you would be if you bought a rig. You might not have anything to show for it, but you also would have been able to pay it out $20 at a time, and kept the bulk of your money in the bank, or spent on other things. There's almost no way to win. It just costs money to jump. You can pay now, or pay as you go, but you always end up paying.

Yeah, get over it. Let's face it, you're intending to jump out of the thing, freefall for 5000', then deploy a clever little fabric wing out of your backpack and land safely on the ground, and you're afraid for the climbout on a 182? Come on, there are much bigger things to be afraid of if you're going to be afraid of anything. Just get in, wait 30 min, and get out. Yes, it's windy out there, so buck-up and plant your foot on the step like you mean it. Grab on to the strut and muscle yourself into position, give the count, and make a skydive. There's no way around it. If you want to jump, you need to take that first step and leave the aircraft, plain and simple. Literally millions of jumps have been made from 182s, the climbout is possible, and not that hard once you 'just do it'. So before Nike sues me for copyright infringement, 'just do it'. I mean that literally by the way. Make a point to get back to the Cessna DZ and succeed. Don't hide at the turbine DZ and become a licensed jumper who is secretly afraid of 182s because that would be super lame.

Given that, why make the choice that is final compared to the choice that you can modify at a later time. Once you pull the cutaway, there is no way to put it back. If you do not pull the cutaway, you still have the option to do it later if the need should arise. With no load on the 3-ring, and nothing prompting you to cutaway, why do it? What you are you afraid of, an entanglement? If you pull the cutaway before the reserve, you lose control over the main entirely. If it deciedes to deploy, it will do so and depart of it's own accord, maybe at an opportune time, maybe not. If you leave the handle in place, and main deploys, you have the option to chop it or not, and if so, when to chop it. If you can achieve a stable side-by-side or bi-plane, then don't cutaway, just ride them both in. If they want to fight or downplane, get them seperated, and choose the ideal moment to cutaway when the risk of an entanglement is lowest. If you're concerned about the main entangling with the reserve during deployment, and a situation occurs where they could entagle, they will likely do so if the main is connected or not. The difference is that if the main is connected, you can either control when to cutaway, or if the entanglement cannot be cleared, you're securely attached to both canopies, and ready to take advantage of the 'more square footage at impact' scenario. It's just stupid to pull a handle that you have no reason to pull. You have a limited number of options available to you with regards to your handles, and to use one up for no reason just doesn't make sense. Stop the freefall, then see what happens. Stopping the freefall is job one. Dealing with whatever transpires comes after that.

That thread is a hoot, but what's not a hoot is the 1457 people who bought tandems through the deal. This is for a DZ that is flying a Cessna of some sort, and can expect to turn about 4 tandems an hour, so they'll need 365 hours of non-stop flying to service all those customers. Even if you generously give them 12 hours of jumping per day, that's 30 days of solid jumping to service all those customers. Factor in weather, and people who can only jump weekends, there is going to be a long, long, long waiting list for those tandems. On top of it all, to the best of our knowledge, Groupon sucks up close to half of the purchase price, and then add in what ever 'Sportations' is going to get, what does the DZ end up with? What they end up with is a months-long waiting list of pre-paid people wanting to jump at a price the DZ is going to either be losing money on, or best-case-scenario, just breaking even. What are the odds this DZ can survive the season? I guess they could limit the number of Groupon customers they'll schedule on any one day, leaving slots open for full price customers, but even if they only fill half of the slots with Groupon customers, that half will eat into the profits of the full price customers such that the DZ is working for half price at the end of the day. It's sad.

In that case, you don't need a girlfriend, you need a therapist. I don't mean that as a joke either. If you have some problem being alone, or being happy by yourself, the answer is not snag a girlfriend to fill the void, the answer is to confront the problem. Why would you want to burden a woman with the task of providing your happiness or security? How about doing them the favor making yourself a stable, complete person who will only add to their life, and not burden them with your problems. Beyond that, you have developed this criteria for a woman that is very hard for anyone to meet, so in essence you have made it hard for you to meet the woman you feel will secure your hapiness. Not a joke, and not a suggestion that you have a mental problem, but seek some therapy. The others are right that you need to be happy with yourself, alone, before you can enter into a healthy relationship with any sort of future.

I've used these guys before, and was happy with my stay. http://www.extendedstayamerica.com/

The only way to mitigate the problem is for the jumper to poses the skills to deal with the entire jump, and the eventualities that may transpire. Bill pointed out one area where following tandems is different than other jumps. There are many other situations one might encoutner while following a tandem where their performance could have an effect on the safety of the tandem pair. Once the drouge has been set, the TI has very little control over the fall rate or proximity of the tandem pair. They are, essentially, a sitting duck. The only sure way to make sure they don't get 'shot', is for the TI to properly screen the people they will allow in freefall with them. It's like a firing range. You can safely walk down range and change targets or record scores if you trust the shooters to stand down in the mean time. If you have shooters who you don't know, who may not be privy to the rules of the range, then you are taking a chance by walking down range. Of course, in the case of a tandem, the TI would be taking a chance for both themselves and the passenger. Just because you have seen something happen, or even done something yourself does not make it a good idea. Tandem instructors are not infallable, and sometimes they do things to please their own egos, even if it is not in the best interest of the passenger. If you have a wide-eyed newbie looking to you for validation, that they are good enough to jump with you, it's an ego trip. Of course, if you shoot them down, those wide-eyes go narrow with contempt and the once present respect is lost. If you allow them to jump with you, the ego-stroke goes on as you tell them how and when to exit, how to approach, and what to do (or not do), with the newbie hanging off your every word. Just like the saying on a windy day goes, if you want to know if it's safe to jump, look for the guys with 1000's of jumps, and see what they're doing. The same is true for TIs, but it's not just jumps you're looking for, it's tandem jumps. If a TI with 1000's of tandems thinks something is a good idea, it just might be. If a TI with 1000's of skydives, but only a couple 100 tandems, thinks something is a good idea, get a second opinion.

Maybe, but you run into the problem that it will be going off constantly in the pattern, especailly the closer you get to the ground. It's the same problem with the systems in planes. When you make them sensitive enough to avoid collisions in the air, they go off constanly when on the ground or on the runway. Any plane on or approaching the airport with a transponder on will set it off. In the air, it works because it gives you enough warning to avoid a collision, but on the ground, not so much. The upside to the system in airplanes is that the airport and pattern area are generally tightly controlled. Even on an uncontrolled field, there are radio procedures intended to keep everyone 'on the same page', so even if your TCAS is going off non-stop, you have the radio procedures to keep you in the clear. For parachutes, as soon as the pattern tightens up (near the ground) it will be going off all the time, with the jumper not knowing if it's due to canopies 'safely' near-by in the pattern, or one on a collision course. It's a neat idea, but on it's own a general audible warning has some short comings.