davelepka

The reserve is a good, functional piece of gear. You could jump that in a rig for years and be happy with it. The container is in need of mods to be useful by today's standards, and even then it would not be a good freefly rig. The main will have a limited useful life due to being F-111, so if the jump numbers are lower and your WL would be 1 to 1 or less, it would be useful for you up to a point. Eventually the jump numbers will suck the life out of it and it will have zero value. All of that aside, never ever never never never buy used parachute gear unless it has been inspected and approved by a rigger you know, or a rigger someone close to you knows and trusts. A repack 4 months ago is not applicable as anything could have happened in the last four months, and the inspection at the time of a reserve repack varies from rigger to rigger, and most do not include the main. What you need is a complete pre-purchase inspection of all components with zero jump since the inspection, so you know you're getting what the rigger saw. How you work that ouy between you, the seller, and e-bay is anyone's guess.

Many DZs use the 'pile' technique, where the packing mat is full of rigs actually being packed, and everything else goes in the 'pile'. A rig only gets stretched out when the packer is ready to pack. Most jumpers I know do not check their rubber bands when using a packer. They do, or should, set their brakes, sliders, and cock their PCs, but otherwise just dump it in the pile. Student rigs and tandem rigs would be an expcetion, many (most) of them hit the mat with brakes unstowed, and PCs uncocked. Student rigs also tend to come back not exactly 'straight', so that's another problem. If a packer can jump from closing one rig right to running up the lines of another rig that's ready to flake and throw down, it saves them a ton of time and trouble. An extra pair of hands on the packing mat is well worth $10/$15/$20 from each packer at the end of a busy day. Especailly if you can get in there on a team training day, or big way event when the packers are jamming, you might even make more than that.

Notice where I cut off your quote above, just after the 'but', and just before your explanation. I did read the entire passage, but I'll save you the trouble of adding the 'but' in the future because is unneccesary. You have however many jumps you have. No amount of 'pratice', 'interest', or 'desire' is going to change that. It might put you ahead of another jumper with your jump numbers who made half of them hung-over and with one eye closed, but you yourself still only have 'x' number of jumps. Any reccomendations, guidelines or suggestions based on your jump numbers are aimed directly at you, regardless of how much you think you get out of every jump. One only equals one, there's no way to change it. A properly sized Hornet is a great example of a canopy you could pick up on the cheap that will get you up in the air, and be 100% appropriate for you. It's a few generations old, so themarket value is low, but it's a good wing that will keep you jumping.

According to his earlier post, this dealer was willing to play the game with customs and declared values, so one angle would be that international customers could save a ton of dough on the various import taxes their countries charge. Aside from that, who knows? Unless you have a dealer in your town, you'll always be dealing via phone/e-mail, but at least if you limit it to dealers in your state or country, you might have some legal recourse in case things don't go as planned.

This is your choice, you'll be much happier that way. Loading any canopy at 1.3 with your experience is not the best idea, let alone one not designed for that type of loading. Add in that you don't even know the condition of the PD170, and you might be making a bigger mistake than previously thought. Keep in mind that even a 1500 jump ZP 190 will out perform your Falcon hands down any day of the week. There are some ways to get your hands on an inexpensive canopy if you're short on cash. Provided you have $200 as a 'down payment' ask around Elsinore and Perris if anyone has an old 190 or 200 sitting in a closet they might want to sell. See if they'll take $200 down and $50 or $100 a month for a couple months, bumping your budget up to $400 total. Also, ask around the packing mat if you can help out for a few weekends stretching out rigs, setting brakes, changing rubber bands, etc. You could probably make $50/day helping out, and if you explain that you're not looking to take anyones job, just looking for some temp work to get a few buck together for a canopy, you're more likely to be welcomed on the mat. Two weekends of that will double your budget, and teach you a lot about gear in general.

Before you can comment on the long run, you need to be in it for the long run to start with. Even better, be in it long enough to see others start off and make it for the 'long run' so you can draw your conclusions for both your own experience, and what you observe from others. The 'fly your body' comments are notoriously from those of an average sized body. If you have ever worked with, trained, filmed, or mentored a jumper who was either above or below average, you realize that 'fly your body' is extremely short sighted, and not the path to success. There's a reason that camera guys and AFF Is say 'dress for success', and not 'fly your body'.

What statistics? That's the thing, there are no statistics. There is no reliable method for recording injuries in skydiving, only fatalities. Many, many injuries go unreported, and therefore would never appear in any statictics you might be using, calling into question the validity of those statistics. Beyond that, what about minor injuries? Even if you assume that word 'gets around' about major injures, is it OK to allow things that could incur a minor inury? None of this is even mentioning the close calls. Ever heard the phrase, 'No shit, there I was...'? What that means is that jumper had a close call, but by virtue of being there to tell the story, survived the incident. Should we allow something that might contribute to close calls? A close call goes from being close to a jumper ending up with a closed head injury and being a lightly functioning retard for the rest of their lives very quickly. We don't have statistics, or formulas, or even hard facts to go on, what we have is the collective wisdom of those that have come before us, and those that are currently knee-deep in the trenches. I'm amazed by the volumes of information newbies take as the law of the land and never question once, and then the issues that they do take umbridge with, while all of it came from the same source. Good enough to teach you to skydive, and get you this far, but not good enough to recognize that what this jackass thinks is safe should just be left alone because that's what he wants. Sure pal, whatever you say. What else can you teach me? Can I learn to dance with a video game too?

Get ready to be offended again. What are you, stupid? The amount of fabric the guy will need is based on the ratio of his height to weight, not the current trends in freeflying. Sure, the top VRW teams all wear the same, slim fitting suits. So do all the top RW teams, and what do all of those top athletes have in common, they're all althletes, and in top physical shape. If any one of those guys was to pack on 15 or 20lbs, their slim fitting suit would be hing up in favor of a more baggy option (or the guys would wear weights). The point is that what this guy should wear is anyones guess without knowing his size, and the size of the people he jumps with. If he makes 90% of his jumps with his 100lb girlfriend, and he's a more averave sized male, your 'honest opinion' that less baggy is better would be wrong. All of that aside, he should also be looking to balance the drag between his upper and lower body. If his pants are extra baggy, and he wears a T-shirt, it's going to make learning to fly head-up tough, or vice-versa for a tighter pair of pants.

For a smart guy, you sure act like a dumbass. How about you stop worrying about chicks and relationships and all that crap and just live your life? No offence, but you're like a woman the way you worry about all that shit, and you just need to get over it. It's not rocket science dude, you want to get laid, find a woman who will sleep with you. If you want a relationship, find a woman who wants the same things out of life that you do, and commit. Either way, it's not shopping for a car. You can't just pick out the model you want with the options you want and take her home. It's a process, and you have to just accept that and go with it. Ditch all thses expectaions and worries and just live your life for gods sake. How about you just do whatever makes you happy, and whoever comes along and manages to mesh that will come along? You really need to stop warning the women about these threads, and start warning the guys that you're about to start acting like a pansy again. From the title I thought this thread was going to be about not ending up in the 'friend zone', meaning you're trying to figure out how to part a girl from her pants, not what I came to find out what the thread was really about. This is life, not engineering. Engineer things and work, and leave the engineering there. Live your life like a person, and stop trying to figure out the formula for everything, some thing just don't have a formula or a solution, they just are what they are.

That's really the best way to get it done. If you set it up right, a video/stills set up will have matching lenses, so both cameras will 'see' the same thing. First learn how to get the shot with the video camera, and once you can do that without too much thought, add in the job of triggering the still camera. Of course, you have the added benefit of not having to worry about setting, checking, carrying or protecting the still camera. More distractions, more weight, more hassle in general for not much advantage. You'll get better stills sooner using a progressive approach, adding complexity to your jumps one step at a time. The lens thing is another area where it depends on what you want to to do. The 'old standard' used to be a .5x wide angle, and that's not a bad place to start. If you do any freeflying or inside video, you might want to look for a .45x, but I wouldn't go any wider than that. Try to avoid spending big $$$ on a wide angle lens at first. Once you get a still camera, you may need to switch lenses to get the video and still lenses to match, so your first lens might get put on the shelf. There are a ton of cheapo lenses on Ebay for $30 or $40 that will work fine in the beginning. All of the ultra wide .4x or wider (which means a smaller number, .3 is wider than .4, and .25 is wider than .3x and so on) are more for hand cam, or specialized video jumps. Avoid those until your skills are further along and you know you can fly the way those lenses need to be flown.

The CX7 looks to be about the same thing as the cx100. In terms of technology, really just go with whatever the DZ requires. As long as the guy signing your checks is happy, then your stuff is good enough for what you're doing. There are a couple of good point-and-shoot type cameras that are small and light, about the size of a Go-Pro that you can hotwire a bite-switch into. The quality of the pics is good, one guy I think even shot a magazine cover with one. It's the smallest, lightest, and cheapest way to do stills. Do a search, but again it's more about what the DZ wants you to have. The basic idea is that you don't get paid extra for fancy gear. Your skills as a camera flyer are really the limiting factor for the first few hundred camera jumps, so spend the least amount of money on the gear. By the time your skills are exceeding your gear, you'll know way more about what you want/need, and yes, there may be new technology that we haven't thought of yet.

Again, I said nothing of the sort. In regards to the tandem application of the handcam, I don't see it as being that much of hazzard in terms of performing EPs. All other things being equal, the wearing of a handcam shouldn't prohibit one from pulling the handles, and I would be surpirsed to find out that the first guy to jump one didn't put it on beforehand, and pull a bunch of handles on the ground to check it out. That said, I never voiced concerns over your ability to handle a malfunction while wearing your handcam. Sure, it does add something to the EP party, but it has been proven 100's or 1000's of times that handles can be pulled with a glove on. The problem with AFF handcam is the additional situations you might be presetned with above and beyond what you could expect on a tandem. For example, a tandem student could not throw a PC udner their arm, and an AFF student could. Of course, in this case, everything turned out fine. What I'm saying is that for you to continue on thinking things will always be fine is a mistake. As an AFF instructor, you're called upon to do different things with your hands than a TI, things that will make the video of a much lower quality than a TI, and things that might make the handcam a serious snag hazzard between you and your AFF student. Let's face it, when you have to reach into the pack tray, or start grabbing on to lines, things have already gone very, very wrong. For you to count on things 'just working out' at that point in terms of your glove and whatever you're reaching into is just dumb. None of this is mentioning the fact that the glove has got to make your hand signals less-clear. Some students have trouble getting them through their thick skulls with a naked human hand (as they would have seen all day during the training), and now they are have several 'devices' waived in their face. I have also not mentioned the eventuality where you end up losing your student and re-docking on the oppostie side. I know you said you don't wear the glove on main side, but sometimes main side is where you end up, handcam or not. Ever had a student grab your left hand or altimeter on a practice touch or the actual pull? I'm sure a bigger target is not going to help. You're fighting a losing battle here. There's no good reason for what you're doing. Why not put it up on your lid? It would shoot the student then, and for the whole skydive. How about chest mount, like an altimeter? It might also shoot up your nose, but it would give an angle of the students body position, and be a good training tool. Mabye a mudflap mount, again, pointing upwards which translates to toward-the-student while you are belly to earth. The point is that a TI only has one choice, they cannot mount the camera on their body as it wouldn't get the student in frame. They don't want to use a permanent outrigger for safety reasons, so they use their arm, which in the 'controlled' environment of a tandem (compared to AFF) has proven to be workable. You as an AFF I, on the other hand, have other, much safer and more benign options, and you should pick one of them and go with it.

Go with one of the CX100 type camera to start, and mount in on top of a Bonehead Optic type helmet. Maybe toss a box over it while you're at it. That will be the lightest, snag resistant, riser-slap proof set up you can get. Odds are a tapeless HD cam like that will be viable for a few years for shooting tandem video. Even if something newer and better comes along, most DZs will be a few years before they make that new thing mandatory. As far as still cameras goes, I'd wait and see what's what when you're actaully ready to start getting paid. Maybe the DZ will go for a Go-Pro set up to take a pic every 2 seconds, maybe they'll be cool with one of the point and shoot deals with a wired-in trigger, or they might want a full-on DSLR set up. Either way, I'd start off with the least expensive option, and work your way up from there. Once you start getting paid for your jumps, and learn more about stills, you can upgrade then. Exactly what you want for a 'full' camera helmet will have a lot to do with what sort of still camera you end up getting. If you get a quick release for your video camera (or the box) when you mount it on your Optic-type helmet, you can use the same type of release to mount it to your flat-top type helmet (if you end up with one of those). This way you can have a full video lid, and a smaller, lighter video-only set up to use when you don't need the full deal and it will be a snap to switch back and forth. You might end up with a still set up that works on the Optic type helmet, at which point you make sure the still is on a quick release, so you pop it off or on to switch between video/stills or just video.

I didn't mention anything about a malfunction one way or another. I limited my discussion to items relevant to AFF handcam, as that was the topic of discussion. I stated my problems with the idea, and why I didn't feel those ideas applied to tandem handcam. Just to play along though, you are right that an AFF handcam does have the benefit of not adding any risk to the student if the wearer should have a malfunction.

Don't forget about the downforcce. You don't get any of that unless you can go fast, and those cars don't look the way the do for fun, those aerodynamics make a big difference. It's like anything at the top echelon of performance, every component has to be operating at 100% to get 100% out of everything else, driver/pilot/operator included.

The primary differences between tandem and AFF with regards to handcam is that the tandem is a single entity, and any entanglements are confined to within that single entity. In an AFF jump, the instructor and student are two seperate entities, and an entanglement between the two of them is a much different story. In terms of the rig, in a tandem environment, the TI is the primary operator of the rig, and very little happens without his say so. It's true the student can pull the drouge release, if provided one, but that only produces an unwanted or unplanned event if the drouge is already out, in which case the result is generally a clean deployment. In an AFF jump, the student has a much greater command of their rig, and much greater range of troubles they can create (as the basis of this thread, the horseshoe, is evidence).

FYI - the RV-8 is far from an ultralight. It's a 200+mph aircraft that's actually fairly sophisticated. The 'experimental' catagory just means that it's not a certified airplane, and can't be flown commercially for hire. Some in the catagory may actaully be 'experimental', but most, like the RV-8, are proven designs that have been around for years. http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8int.htm

Exactly. I do fly a small canopy because I like the spped and performance. I have also spent a decade and half and 5000+ jumps building up to the point where I can jump that type of canopy. Furhtermore, what I jump is nowhere near the smallest canopy I could safely jump, it's the size I prefer to jump on a day to day basis. The trick is to convey that to the newbies. The trick is to point out to them when they're pushing too hard, in no uncertain terms. Don't hold back, and don't subscribe to the 'you get more flies with honey' routine, tell them they're being an asshole, and on their way to being a stain on the LZ and ruining your day, or quite possibly your season by going in at your DZ. After that, stick to your guns. Don't give in and jump with them next week even though they didn't change. Don't have a beer with them after jumping, or offer up advice on other things. Make them persona-non-grata, and people will get the message. The problem is that people tolerate the bullshit. They let is slide, or say, 'He's a great guy, but he needs to slow down'. The thing is, he's not a great guy, he's the problem, and if left unchecked, he becomes the axample for the next crop of problems comnig up next year. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, all of these things that plauge our sport, like aggressive downsizing and over-eager swoopers simply need to be looked at as outcasts. Nobody has a problem looking a low-puller straight in the eye and telling them they're dangerous, and avoiding jumping with them, but not for a guy who's pushing the limits with WL or swooping. The fun jumpers, the staff, the management, the S&TAs are all guilty of it. If a guy makes a habit of dumping at 1600', all hell breaks loose and everyone has an opinion, but when a guy is jumping an eliptical at 1.5 with 200 jumps, people sit quitely and discuss it amongst themselves. How about telling the guy he's an asshole, and sticking to your guns until he proves otherwise? I jumped with a guy like that once, he was out of control to the point that we nick-named him 'Danger', and most of us stopped jumping with him all together. He spent a season in Eloy, got his shit together, and went on to become a great jumper that we all looked forward to jumping with. If skydivers would start acting like skydivers, instead of members of a quilting clatch, we wouldn't have these problems. We wouldn't tolerate the assholes, and it would be very uncomfortable for them to keep coming back to the DZ until they cut the shit out.

No. A reserve pin check before every jump is a must. The process of making a skydive, the deployment, landing, and subsequent pack job creates too many opportunities for the reserve pin or ripcord to be effected in some ways that you cannot let it go unchecked before the next jump. If your concern is wear on the pin cover flap, the solution is an improved pin cover flap or system for checking the pin, not to avoid the check itself. In your example of the student reserve out on the step, I would look to the actions of the student as a contributor to the incident. It's more likely that a student would not be aware of their rig, and dragging it against things in and around the aircraft during the climbout. Given that the pins were checked (I'm assuming) before boarding and again before exit, it leaves the climbout as the only time the pins were 'unsupervised'. Short of a Racer, there is no pin cover that is 100% 'jumper proof'. They can all be opened given enough force applied in the right direction, even when brand new and packed correctly. I'm not suggesting that I have a solution for the problem, just that reducing the number of pin checks is not it. I would suggest that better jumper education in terms of being mindful of where your rig is and what you are doing with it would be a far better solution. A saw a recent video of an RW jumper who was attempting to 'head jam' himself in the door of an Otter, but instead of pressing the back of his neck against the floater bar, he pressed the reserve flap of his rig against the bar, resulting in a reserve launch on the hill. If that jumper had been thinking about his rig, that wouldn't have happened. There's a chance that if the student in your example (or the instructors) had been more mindful of the rig, that example might not have happened.

Good read, however I was surprised to find an important point was overlooked in the discussion of being faced with a headwind when heading back to the DZ. The article states the following - The omission, is that when faced with a headwind when heading back the DZ, if you are finding that your options for a safe LZ are slim, and the accuracy trick isn't helping tp improve your odds, simply turn around. Doing a 180 will take you from beng downwind of a small selection of LZs to being upwind of a much larger selection of LZs. If the wind is considerable enough to hold you back from making it the DZ, it's also strong enough to push you out to a geographical area 10x bigger behind you than what you can reach if you hold your heading and insist on trying to get closer to the DZ. Of course, there is always the possibility that there are no alternate LZs behind you, and even if you can reach a much larger geographical area, it's all for naught because it's all water/trees/etc, and in those cases you do need to just motor towards the DZ and take what you can get. However, in those cases, spotting before you leave the aircraft becomes much more important, and DZs with those type of features around them tend to err on the side of safety and lean the spots closer to the DZ than the water/trees/etc, even if it means the last out will be long. If there are more alternates on the other side of the DZ, then the spot should be more in that direction, wind speed not withstanding.

That's the key right there. You can be safe, and jump infrequently, as long as you act like a guy who jumps infrequently. Right now you're fresh off your break, and the currency and low-time thing is fresh in your mind. The trick is to keep it fresh in your mind, and not let it slip. Sometimes, the guys who show up once a month will get a little 'big for their britches' after a year or so. They get up to 100-ish jumps, and start to feel like they've been around for 'awhile', so they stop acting like a low-timer, and start to think of themselves as something more, which they're not. Being a pilot, you should be familiar with the basics, review the weather before each flight(jump), a good pre-flight on your plane (rig), a review of airport (DZ) procedures, use your checklist, etc, and keep the jumps small and simple. Remember that people with zerp jumps make safe skydives everyday, it just takes hours of prep time to make it happen. Dial that back to the appropriate prep time for your experience level and currency, and you should be fine.

Atair, in the US at least, is out of the sport canopy business. I recently head that there was a Deland based company who farms their relines out to private riggers. You ship your canopy to the factory, and then they ship it to the rigger of their choice. It wasn't PD. Or Jumpshack.

Even before I saw the pic, I 'know' it's a hazzard because every camera is a snag hazzard, as are most altimeters. Altimeters are hard to get around. You need them, and because of that, the risk is accepted. Even then, some guys use a wrist mount as opposed to hand mount, and some guys even push a wrist mount up onto their forearm. Cameras, sometimes, also cannot be avoided, such as when you're doing a video jump. In those cases, you need a camera to complete the jump, so you accept the risk of carrying one (or more) and most tend to make special considerations when they are wearing them. Fast forward to my impressions after seeing your set-up, and my opinion hasn't changed, and is actaully more opposed to the idea now that I have seen the actual glove. For you to suggest that those items strapped to your hand, arranged in that fashion, allow you the freedom of movement and ability to function to the fullest extent is rediculous. These are AFF jumps, where you may be called upon to do perform any number of tasks, with either of your hands, in any circumstance you can imagine and some that you cannot. Get your head out of your ass and take an honest look at what you're doing. Who are you trying to impress with that monstrosity?

A lot of that has to do with the terms of the lease. Is this a weekend lease, where the plane returns to it's home base duing the week? Is maintenance included in this lease, or are you responsible for the maintenance? Who is providing the pilot? The fuel? Is there a minimum number of hours per week? Per month? For the whole season? All of the above factors will effect the lease rate. Leasing an airplane is not like leasing a car in that operating an airplane is more involved than operating a car and there are more factors to consider. Much like leasing a car, the type of airplane will effect the lease rate, however. I know you said 182, but there are widebody, and narrowbody 182s, with the widebody being the more desireable. Is it powered by the standard 230hp engine, or has that been upgraded? Wing extentions? STOL kit? Jump door and step already installed? I think the best thing for you to do is to see what's available first, then ask these questions second. If you only find one plane that might work, then it's just a matter of seeing if the deal is fair. If you can find more than one, then you can make some comparisons between your different prospects, and see what fits your bill better. It sounds like you might be in-experienced in the area of aricraft operations, and if that's the case, I would avoid any provider who doesn't have general lease terms already in place. You may find an aircraft owner looking to make some money off their plane, but if they have never leased to a DZ, and you have never leased from an owner, you're bound to run into problems when things neither of you thought of occur mid-season. What happens if you cook a cylinder one weekend? Is the owner going to be preparred to have a new jug installed during the week to have you back online for the nest weekend? Will he have the cash reserves set aside that type of service? It's not going to be much help, but you could spend anywhere from $120 to $180 US per hour for a 182, depending on the extent of the lease.

I never mentioned one word about your partner. Additional food for thought, if you are hesitant to post your actions for fear of other finding fault, you might want to take another look at what you're doing. If it cannot (or might not) meet with the approval of the community at-large, you might not be doing the right thing. For as many people who are on here who would be willing to post critically against what you might be doing, there are an equal number waiting the wings to shoot those people down and defend a defendable position. You get both sides of the argument if both sides exist. If you see something that meets with universal (or even just a majority) approval or disapproval, that should mean something. Swooping doesn't impact the safety of the student. It is an additional risk, but only to the jumper who chooses to take it. The student has no choice nor understanding of the additional risk you have chosen on their behalf. You even said yourself that 140-some photos were un-usable. With that type of failure rate, why even take the risk?