davelepka

I never said it was all wrong. What I said was that jumper perception and actual change/improvement are two different things. When you consider that fact that all the 'cool kids' insist on loosening their chest straps, and the big swooping pics show the guys leaning way out forward, you're going to have the general population thinking that a loose chest strap is the thing to do. Once you loosened your chest strap, you change the jumper/canopy interface. Everything you do with your canopy will now feel different to you, even if the canopy is doing the same thing. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, and maybe it's just a little different, but when combines with the different feel through the looser harness, the jumper perception is of a greater actual change to the canopy. How about this for an example - we've all seen the tools driving around in sports (or sometimes just sporty) cars wearing driving gloves. Now professional race car drivers wear gloves for a variety of reasons. Wrestling with a steering wheel in constant high-g turns is one reason, to reduce calouses and help improve your grip on the wheel over the course of a long race without tiring out your fore-arms. Another reason is crash protection and fire protection. So we can see the professional drivers have valid reasons for using gloves, but the tool in the Miata is wearing gloves because the pros do, and I'm sure he feels like he can 'feel the steering' better with his bullshit gloves. He's not doign 200 miles at speed with no power steering, and has little risk of a crash or fire, but he wears the gloves and thinks it makes him 'faster'. There's no way to argue that loosening the chest strap (with the slider down) effects a change to the canopy, and the way it operates. What I'm saying is that most jumpers could take it or leave it based on the performance of their canopies, and the performance of the jumper themselves. Even if they tell you they 'have to' loosen the chest strap to really 'get the most' out of their canopy, doesn't mean it's true. They might feel like they're really doing something, but I would suggest that the actual degree of real change vs. percieved change is probably pretty low. In short, for most jumpers it's not a big deal. If it feels good to you, or like something you want to do, then go for it. If it doesn't strike you as a good idea, or something you've never bothered with before, keep on keeping on, you'll be fine without it.

Nope, no reason. If you're happy with the performance of your canopy as it is, don't bother adding another step to your skydive. One argument is that the canopy can spread out more 'as it was designed', but that's bullshit. Yes, the canopy can spread out more, but it's not a design feature. The length of the risers, length of the harness, and the width of the yoke will all effect how much the canopy can spread out given the same length chest strap. Which one is 'right'? Where does PD list the ideal harness dimensions for a given canopy model or size? The other is that people say they like the way it flies better. I'm willing to bet that a big hunk of that is just the way it feels through the harness, and not due to flight characteristics of the canopy. If you could design a rig that would produce the same canpopy configuration with a loose and a tight chest strap, these jumpers would insist the canopy is flying differently. When everyone tells you the loose chest strap is better, and it provides you with a different feeling in your harness, that immediately becomes the 'better' flight characteristics. I'm not saying that it doesn't make a difference, because it does, what I'm saying is that the actual degree of real difference it makes is debatable for the majority of jumpers, even if they insist it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It by no means is neccesary, and if you don't already pull your slider down behind your head, it's all for nothing anyway. Your risers will remain the width of your slider at the links not matter what you do with your chest strap. Higher performance canopy pilots, and swoopers can benefit from greater mobility in the harness, both in flight and while landing. Most other jumpers could take it or leave it with little to no penalty.

So you just added trying to get the canopy open two feet out of the door, traffic under canopy, and trying to coordinate the cutaway with the video guy. Direct bag just means that the canopy is opening right now, like it or not. Stable exit or no, canopy is coming out. At least with a real cutaway rig, you could get out, get stable, take a deep breath and deploy. Traffic and video concerns are easy to understand. If you're going to get good video, the needs to be close (I have filmed several intentional cutaways), and in order to get close, he needs your cooperation. Even if you don't have to fly to him, you do have to 'relax' at some point to let him close in on you. He can't get into his slot while you're still 'trying out' the canopy. All kidding aside, maybe think twice about some of the advice the 'experts' at your DZ are steering you towards. Not everyone with jumps or time in the sport has good judgement, or is able to make good recomendations for other jumpers. Sometimes an enthusuastic new guy is all takes to get them exicted about things, and sometimes if you hang out at the DZ all the time, people forget your actual jump numbers or general experience.

Yes, it does. An intentional cutaway is a project in itself. Just doing one where the first canopy is not reall a 'part' of the jump takes an amount of worlk, pre-planning, focus, and generally will soak up most of your attention to do it right and make sure everything is taken care of. In truth, the first canopy usually plays very little role in these jumps because it's usually a junk canopy that nobody minds if it should get lost, stuck high in a tree, or burned up on the power lines. Now picture a jumper trying to manage the intentional cutaway while looking forward to flying a tiny Velo for the first time. What are the chances that the cutaway portion of the jump is going to get the attention it deserves? Beyond that, and as others have mentioned, this would be a very short ride for the OP. Figure that he needs to cutaway by 3000ft, so if he does a clear and pull from 13k, that's 10k ft of playtime. Let's forget that he needs to watch the spot, and assume that he can play with the canopy and spot himself for his cutaway at the same time. More or less, he's looking at less than two mintues of working time with the Velo. Get open, get your stuff all set, 3 or 4 big turns, start setting up for the cutaway, end of the Velo ride. It's not even worth the trouble/risk. Like I said above, if he wanted to do a number of jumps with that exact cutaway rig, and get some experience with the rig and those type of jumps, then maybe you could add in the new factor of testnig out a high-performance canopy. I suggested a dozen jumps, but that would be the bare minimum. In the end, it's really only 12 jumps, and that hardly makes you an expert at anything, but when you consider the time and work that goes into an intentional cutaway, it does represent a good deal of time working with the system and working on the jumps in general. In the end, it's just a dumb idea. If you're intending to jump a canopy that cannot be landed, then the intentional cutaway is the way to go. If you're jumping a canopy that people everywhere are jumping and landing everyday, and the limitation is only your skills, just get the skills together, and don't get intentional cutaways involved. It's similar to another 'idea' I've bumped into a couple times, and that's the up-and-coming jumper who gets the genius idea to wear weights for no other reason than to boost their WL. They don't need them in freefall, they plan to wear too much to even be useful in freefall, but since they're too new for downsize, they figure they can sling on 15 or 20 lbs, and pick up a point on the WL. Again, when the option of simply getting your skills together exists, take it.

It is a lot like the motorcycle gear debate, but in skydiving you'll find that 'most' jumpers go with a helmet, jumpsuit, and sturdy footwear, with a small majority choosing to pass on these items. I think you'll find the high percentage of pro-safety gear jumpers in skydiving because jumping in itself is probably more risky than a great deal of motorcycling. Even though my mom likes to tell me it's not me she's worried about when I ride, it's the other drivers, I'm a firm believer that they type of rider you are makes a big difference. I know riders (cruiser guys) who don't ride at night, or in the rain, or in heavy traffic, and rarely go on the freeway. These guys, I suppose, could get away with riding in jeans, tennis shoes and a t-shirt. The contrast being guys who ride full time, or sport bike/stunt guys who have a much greater exposure to more dangerous situations, and those guys should be in protective gear full time. In skydiving, there are no cruisers. Every jump is a sport bike ride down the freeway at 100mph, on the back wheel. Choose your gear accordingly. I thought of a good metric for you to use in choosing your skydiving gear for the first couple dozen jumps. Wear whatever you would want to wear if you had to run through a dense forest at top speed, or fall out of a tree. You may end up doing either one (more or less) at the end of a jump, so be ready. Once you have more control over your fate, and can be reliably get yourself safely on the ground, then you can look into relaxing some of the 'armor', but until then, suit up and be safe.

What kind of rig is this? Every true 'intentional cutaway' rig I have seen, where it's set up for two mains + a reserve, was designed for canopies in the 200 sq ft range, so fairly low performance. Keep in mind that a highly loaded X-braced canopy is pushing the limits of a standard rig in terms of possible cutaway performance, and harness input. Jumping a rig not designed for such a high wingloading, or with a mis-matched sized harness (which will effect your ability to control things with the harness) isn't a great idea. Jumping a Velo isn't voodoo or magic, but like anything else in jumping, it's something you work your way up to. By the time you're ready to jump and land a Velo, you're ready to open and fly a Velo. Using a cutaway rig as a shortcut isn't the solution you think is it. Doing an intentional cutaway in itself is a much more complicated jump than the average skydive. With no experience with intentional cutaways or the rig you'll be using, adding the way-too high performance canopy to that is just asking for trouble. Maybe if you did a dozen intentional cutaways with the rig, and had some time working with the system, you could think about a stunt like this. To walk in off the street and make your first intentional cutaway, your first jump with that rig, and your first jump with an X-brace at that loading all on the same jump is just plain dumb. Talk about the chain of events leading up to the incident, there's the first three links right there.

Get rid of this idea. Your feet are your first point of contact with the ground (even in a PLF), so you are guranteed to have an impact to that area of your body. Protect your feet with a sturdy pair of closed-toe shoes with sufficient cushoining. Your head is way more important than your feet, but much less likely to suffer an impact. Despite this, you'll be required to wear a helmet until after student status. Your feet may be less important than your head, but they are guarnateed to suffer an impact. Either way, the euqation adds up to the same thing as the helmet deal, wear something protective. Some jumpers wear gloves on every jump to protect their hands, regardless of the weather. 100 degrees and humid, with very little chance of landing on their hands, and they still wear gloves. Skydiving, even at it's best, is a tough, physical endeavour. You'll take a variety of hits and bumps in the course of making your average jump, and you should be prepared for them. Your feet may be way out at the end of your legs, but hurting one, even just a little, will have your whole body sitting out watching everyone else jump.

At least 10 years ago. Maybe 12. We had one at the Parkman DZ in Ohio, just like the video. It was fun for a few 'jumps', and we had the occasional 'virtual accuracy meet' on a rainy/windy day. All and all a pretty cool deal, but surprisingly similar to the new ones. I would have guesses the tech would be leaps and bounds ahead, but whatever.

Yeah, let's get back to serious. Here's a couple of thoughts on how not to get hurt on landing - first off, untill you can string together 10 well-timed flares in a row, plan on a PLF for every landing. Thw worst thing that will happen is that you PLF a perfect landing, and it ends up looking like a PLF in slow motion. The best thing that happens is that things go to shit close to the ground, and amid all that, you PLF because it's what you planned to do right from the start. Once you can display some consistancy with your landings, you can move the PLF to the back burner, but always have there to use when needed. Next, and somewhat related to the first point, and this applies to all of you skydiving, never stop trying. Not matter how bad or scary things get, you need to keep trying to do it right, whatever it is. In the case of landing, that means you always hit the ground with both toggles in the full flare position and PLF whenever you are in the slightest bit of doubt that it will be a smooth landing. The idea is that sometimes when people get scared or something unexpected happens, they tend to freeze up. If you happen to botch a flare, and see the ground rushing up to you, freezing up will not help. Keep your brain working, and make sure you flare completely and knock out a killer PLF. It also applies to the rest of your jump. If you should tumble on an exit, freezing up and panicing will not help. Breathe out, relax, and punch out an arch, and within seconds you'll be fat, dumb and happy (a.k.a. stable). Whatever the situation is, just keep trying and keep following the plan until you stop moving. Once you leave the plane, you're commited to dealing with the situation until you are on the ground and stationary, and until that time comes, you need to keep trying. All of that aside, a bit of more specific advice (to be verified by your instructors). As mentioned above, you always want to hit the ground with your toggles all the way down. No matter how bad things seem, fully flaring before touchdown will always be an asset to your situation. This applies to late flares, or anytime you are apporaching the ground with your toggles aywhere but in the full flare position. Whatever happens, finish the flare before you hit the ground. That said, let's talk about early flares. With a student canopy, you need to be in the full flare position before your feet are about to touch down. The bigger canopies will take a second or so to fully slow down following a flare, so if you finish the flare just as your feet hit the ground, you might not be at the min descent rate. if you finish the flare when you feet are still a couple feet off the ground, the canopy will have a chance to fully slow down before touchdown. Keeping that in mind, you want to plan your flare so you finish the toggle stroke a couple feet up, and that toggle stroke should be smooth and even, and should take 2 or 3 seconds to complete. With that in mind, I tend to look at the toggle stroke as a one-way streeet, and what that means is that you can pull the toggles down, you can stop anytime you want, but you can never go back up. So if you begin your smooth toggle stroke, and realize once you begin to slow dow that you are too high, you can always stop and hold that toggle position until it looks like you are at the right height, at which point you can finish the flare. The reason for this is that when you put the toggles back up, the canopy does not regain it's speed in a linear fashion, even if you raise the toggle that way. The canopy will surge forward and dive, to a degree that it is going faster than full flight, and then it will return to full flight. For various technical reasons, the flare is ineffective during the surge, and you will hit the ground very hard. Beyond that, if you can get the flare to work, you'll be landing at a much higher speed (like a swoop) and as cool as it looks, that's not what you want. Some have suggested that you can raise the toggles slightly, but then the problem is the definition of 'slightly'. If it turns out that your slightly is too much, you're stuck in the middle of a surge and trying to land it. The solution is to not raise the toggles at all, simply hold the position, finish the flare before touchdown, and prepare for a PLF. Note that this does not apply to a stall. If you stall your canopy at any time, you need to raise the toggles enough to get the canopy out of the stall. You never want to hit the ground in a stall.

Let me guess, sitting at the back of the plane facing forward, leaning up against the rear bulkhead? There is a protruding rail that runs horizontally across the rear bulkhead, about 12 or 15 inches off the floor. It end up being right about reserve-flap height for a jumper sitting on the floor leaning back. Additionally, if you're leaning back wihile facing forward, the deck angle of the plane increaes the backward angle you're leaning, putting more weight on whatever is behind you. When facing the rear, the deck angle reduces the amount of backward angle and force you put on what's behind you. Of course, this may not have applied to you, but it's what I thought of and worth mentioning. Also, and this subject has been covered before, but not every in-plane pin check includes the reserve pin. Some people prefer not to have their reserve flap opened as not everyone knows how to properly close them, and that they may feel that the reserve pin is more secure being higher up, and if they checked it on the ground, it should be fine. Either way, you need to be specific about what you want when you say, 'Can I get a pin check', or you may just get a main-pin lookover, and nothing more.

Let's say that's true, does that decrease the value of the information? Let's assume I just want to one-up the guy, and prove that I have the better way to skin the cat. The thing is, there are 10 guys (at least) just waiting for me to mis-step, and jump all over my shit for posting something that isn't exactly right, so I have to be extra careful with what I say, how I say it, and from where I draw my conclusions. Of course, if a guys tries to give me the business, and what he says isn't 100% infalable, I'll turn the tables right back on him and set his shit straight. Anyway you cut it, in the end, the information is correct. It would be different if a group of us were working together to push one agenda or another. If we were to gang up on a guy and get down on his idea in sufficient numbers, he might lose interest in fighting it, and just let it go, with the 'group' agenda left standing in the end, correct or not. But that's not the case. We are all independent of each other, so when an idea is agreed upon by the vast majority, or in some cases, not contested, it's generally because it's the right idea. Let's face it, there are guys out there that would love to prove me wrong any chance they get, and sometimes they do. I don't mind it, I welcome it, becuase it's what keeps me honest and making sure I get shit rigth the first time. It forces me to really think through what I'm saying before I say it, and sometimes I learn things that way, and sometimes other people learn things once I do get something posted.

Common sense would state that if you have a non-traditional view of a safety related topic in this sport, and a number of people who don't know you or jump with you take the time to point out that you have figured incorrectly, that you would heed that adivce and realize that they have no dog in this fight other than helping you to get your shit together. Nobody is agreeing with you. Many people are dis-agreeing with you. If your version of common sense doesn't come to the conclusion that you are incorrect, then I would advise you not to subscribe to that brand of common sense in the future (which, of course, is a waste of time, because you won't listen to that either).

I had this same thought after my last post in this thread. It wouldn't be a bad idea for anyone dealing with a non-local gear dealer (aside from Square 1 or the Sunshine Factory caliber dealers) to use a 'secure' payment plan. Maybe if you agree to pay 50% (or whatever % the dealer requires) of the purchase price for each component directly to the manufacturer at the time of the order. Mark the check/money order/payment with both your name, and the name of the dealer. The remaining balance is paid directly to the dealer upon delivery. This way, the majority of the money is paid directly to the manufacturer and your name is attached to the order and payment if the dealer should 'disappear'. The dealer accpets the remainder of the payment upon delivery, at which point the customer has their gear, and the dealer can subtract his cut pay the balance with the manufacturer. It's a plan that gives the small dealers a chance at getting some business that otherwise they might miss out on. If a small dealer wanted to offer me a good price or exceptional service, my concern would be the security of my money and my order. The above payment plan allows for the customer to feel secure in the deal, and still allows for the dealer to make their profit and keep the amount of that profit to themselves. More or less it prevents what we have here. The dealer never gets their hands on the lions share of the money, rightfully so because they're not entitled to it anyway. The only time they get their hands on someone elses money is after you have your gear, at which point they have the balance of the manufacturers money, which is in their best interest to pay to the manufacturer to maintain the business relationship, but even if they want to stiff the manufacturer and skip town with their cash, the customer has their gear in-hand, and is no longer invovled.

Bingo, that's the one. There was a link to a South American message board for jumpers that had more details about what happened, and the pilot did get out of the CompAir at 2k-ish, and had only minor injuries on landing. It also confirms that the plane was just finished that month, so pretty damn new. The link to the other accident, I think from Australia, that pilot got out as well, and I think he was the one who just barely made it out.

Hmmm, I might be. I know I have seen both videos, and I know there was a thread discussing the crash in Chile (I remember dissecting the continuity of the jumpers different video angles), but you may be right on the mix up with regards to the outcome of the pilot. The guy in Chile may have gotten out as well, but I'm not sure now.

Instead of trying to weave yourself a reality where your odd choices make sense, take a look at this reality where your odd choices would have you dead all of the time you were not 'ADDless' - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4068945;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread There's a chance, and a pretty good one at that, that if you get several people telling you you're coming at this thing the wrong way, that you are. Compare that to the number of people who agree with your backwards logic, and see what you end up with. Edit - Kelly beat me to the link, but my statement still stands. Point goes to kellyO

The very first rerserve I ever packed unassisted (but supervised) had the loop break as I was attempting to insert the pin in the loop after the last flap. I was literally hours into this pack job, with the end in sight, and 'snap'. Lucky for me I was low and off to the side trying to get the pin through the loop, so I didn't get a reserve PC in the face, but for no other reason than possibly avoiding another broken loop, I always start with a fresh one. I did eventually get that rig closed. Two months later, we stuffed a PD Lightning in that, and three other rigs, and went up to learn some CRW from an old CRW-dog. In my first four stack, the old CRW-dog was jumping the rig I had packed, and I was docked in his risers. Another jumper trying to dock on the stack took it out, and the CRW-dogs Lightning wrapped around me like a sleeping bag. I looked down between my legs only to see him looking at me, he shrugged and said 'sorry' before cutting away and dumping my first reserve repack right below me. First repack, first save, first 4-stack, first wrap, first (and only) time taking off with two canopies and landing with three.

From what I recall from the original thread, it was very new at the time of the accident. Maybe not first-load-of-jumpers new, but something around a couple or six months old.

If the DZ is on a public airport, there should be an automated weather report available by phone that will tell you the 'official' wind speed/direction and ceiling. It's a computerized deal, so you don't have to talk to anyone, and it's free to use. If the DZ is on a private airport, find out the nearest pucblic airport, and get the number for their weather report (if there are several public airports nearby, find out which one the DZ uses when they need to know the exact situation). Either way, that will give you a better idea of whats happening at the DZ. That has nothing to to do with how busy they are, if they have instructors available, or a million other things, but it's something. Whatever you do on weather days at the DZ, be careful. If you get enough jumpers sitting around with no jumping, sooner or later the real dangerous stuff will start happening. Nothing good can follow the phrase, 'Go fill this bucket up with Jet A....'

It was posted somewhere, I'm 99% sure the pilot escaped at the last minute with a bailout rig.

Everyone gets paid in some way. Most are regular cash deals, making 'x' dollars per jump. Some people just have money put on account at the DZ, that they then use for fun jumps, gear, or rigging. It's really just a matter of whatever you and the DZO can agree on, but nobody does it for 'free'. Just getting the rating is $1000 or $1200. If you have to travel somewhere for a ratings course, that just adds to the cost. If you have to do a ton of practice jumps to prep for the course, that's even more. There has to be a return on those costs. Beyond that, most people do it for the enjoyment and the challenge of working with students. You can make a 'living' being an instructor, but a really good job as an AFF I (in the US) is going to get you $30k per year before taxes and that's with zero benefits. I would guess the majority are 'weekend warriors', and have a during-the-week job, or some other form of income to supplement their AFF money. You could do a little better if you also did tandems, video, and rigging, but that another thread.

When you don't pay for product, and you don't deliver that product to pre-paid customers, everything is profitable. I wonder who that brand new V3 actually belonged to? A pre-paid customer? UPT?

This guy's working both ends of the deal. Not unheard of, but then to come online and try to defend yourself to boot, that's messed up. What a fucktard.

How about offering to send it to some of these customers who keep posting that they're high and dry with nothing to show for their money? I guess I feel sorry for the kid that got his rig stolen too, but no more or less sorry then for the above mentioned jumpers who had thei rmoney stolen. At least the kid got to see/jump his rig to some extent, it sounds like that's more than some people got out of the deal. It just adds insult to injury the way this is turning out. Last week the guy was posting that I didn't know about cash flow or running a business, when I just suggested that if someone pays you for a rig, the cash that you need to pay the manufacturer is not your cash to spend. You can do whatever you want with the profits, those are yours, but the principal to pay for the gear needs to sit in escrow and wait for the invoice to come due. He went on to explain that he was 'in talks' with investors who were going to set this whole thing straight, and everyone would be taken care of in the end. Cash flow? Investors? Who does this guy think he is, Lehman Brothers? You order a rig for someone, write them a bill and get paid, chip off your chunk of the deal, and send the rest on to the manufacturer, it's not that hard. I would suggest that anyone this guy left in the lurch contact any manufacturers he was suppoed to order from for you, and see if they have any info on your order or any payments made on your behalf. Beyond that, has anyone seen this fleet of demo rigs he put together a year or two ago? He had a whole pile of Vector 3s, with brand new canopies he bought to loan out or for demo use. Where are those now? I know if I was out many thousands of dollars, I'd take one of those as opposed to nothing. They could jump that, or sell it and maybe buy a more suitable used rig.

It's a guy with 46 jumps jumping a Falcon with holes in it from a smoke canister, and he thinks that because he opens at 4k and 'practices' with his canopy, he's ready to downsize. Let's recap, 20-ish jumps on a various student rigs, with the first ten being a haze of adrenaline and information overload. So at best he has 20-ish jumps on a ragged out F-111 Falcon, and he thinks that his 'practice' and good intentions will get him something in the world of canopy control. It's not that hard to understand, and sadly, not that unique.