ianmdrennan

Look, I'm really not interested in going round and round with you on this. I recognize when I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Your 'counter-points' are grounded in your limited understanding of how things actually work. If you choose not to expand that horizon then there's not much I, or anyone else, can do for you. Right now, your attitude makes you a danger in the sky. Period. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Annie and I just got through watching this and found it very interesting (albeit graphic at times). Anyone else seen this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455980/ Some pretty interesting stuff out there. It did make me want to start my 2nd sleeve (and my first isn't even done yet ) Blues, Ian ps: Its on netflix for those who haven't and want to Performance Designs Factory Team

It's not. I wouldn't say no turns. All your setup in the canopy stack should happen PRIOR to entering the downwind phase of your pattern. If you need to make minor adjustments that's ok, but should limited in turn radius if safety permits. You should never rely on what people should be doing. Someone out there is trying to kill us on every skydive. Don't be 'that guy' and don't count on anyone doing the right thing. See my first point. You can be in someone elses pattern and not even know it. True. It starts much higher. Your landing pattern starts the time you deploy. Good, and I agree. I would HIGHLY recommend you get some quality canopy coaching though. Any quality course out there addresses much much more than simply landing. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

You're quite right, your attitude does. Downwinders and crosswinders, on the other hand, when done in planned, and safe fashion, don't. "Land into the wind at all costs" mentality has killed a number of people over the years. I really wish people would read through the last 10 years worth of incident reports. There's a lot to learn there. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

You've conveniently not addressed my post, so I'll restate. Since you don't spiral in the pattern, and a lot of peoples pattern starts at 2200 or higher (I know of some at 2600 feet), I'm assuming you stop spiraling at 3000 feet. No? Performance Designs Factory Team

I know plenty of people who start their pattern at 2600 (downwind leg). Glad to hear you'll be stopping your spiralling at 3000 feet. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

The closest call I've ever had was in a situation with this rule. Pilot was above me, spiralled down while I was landing (into the wind mind you) and 3 secs into my swoop came by me, blazingly fast, in the opposite direction. His explanation: "I thought I had beat you down so I set the landing direction" I understand that, in some places, this rule is a necessity, most of the time though it's not and just increases the landing 'clusterfuck'. I agree with Bill - the MOST important thing is EVERYONE landing in the SAME direction. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I think it's pretty important at SOME dropzones. Perris, Eloy, and Mile-Hi being the ones come to mind with their often shifting conditions. That said, in my experience, the majority of dropzones don't encounter these unusual wind shifts on a regular basis and would be better suited having a 'fixed' direction. While alternate areas are desirable, I believe that they have to have fixed direction too - otherwise it becomes a total mess when people are landing in different directions, in different areas, on the fly so to speak. Ideally, if you have 2 primary areas one in a North-South configuration (direction picked on take off) and the other in an East-West configuration (direction also picked prior to take off), you'll most likey face a crosswind/slight downwind at worst. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Honestly, I would steer clear of speculation at this point. Right now only the jumper in question, and the manufacturer know the actual details about the number of jumps in question. I also believe we'll see some sort of official response when the facts are gathered. So, until then, I'm going to lock this thread. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

"You prefer a magic trick, instead? Watch me make this pencil disappear. " Performance Designs Factory Team

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3271674;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread From the 2nd page of the Bonfire It's the best movie I've seen this year. Note, not saying the best Superhero movie, but the best movie. Every single member of the cast delivered solid performances. The script was good, and quite honestly I think Heath Ledger deserves the hype after seeing the Joker. Don't underestimate Aaron Eckard - the guy did a fantastic job too. blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

It's not boogies I'm avoiding, it's Paul

Yeah.....sorry about that. We've been meaning to apologize about him for a while now Performance Designs Factory Team

There go the damn military men, ruining my gripes with facts

Here's a very funny (I think) Dark Knight summary (no spoilers at all enclosed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs Performance Designs Factory Team

The device that I mentioned was the sonar stuff - it just didn't fit right in the movie (I thought) and was a little too unusual in a world where they spent a lot of time trying to make everything as 'real' as they could. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Just a reminder that being a good competitive pilot, and a good teacher, don't go hand in hand at all. There are plenty of great pilots, who're shitty teachers. Likewise there are plenty of pilots who don't place anywhere near the top 10 who are great at getting the theory across. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Love the reference

Well spoke. Performance Designs Factory Team

Caught the midnight screening of this last night. Holy CRAP! Amazing movie, way better than Batman Begins IMO. Honestly, its the best movie I've seen in the theater this year. Ledger's performance as The Joker was incredible, and Aaron Eckhart knocked Harvey Dent/Two Face out of the park. Besides a teeny little quibble with 1 Batman 'device' the movie was near perfect IMO. We're going to watch it again (on IMAX this time). Blues, Ian ps: Keep an eye out for the new Terminator movie (Christian Bale as John Connor) and the new Watchmen movie previews. Performance Designs Factory Team

Good find, and a good read Mike. Jim, thanks for putting that out there - it's very enlightening. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Ficus, First, while I have the utmost respect for Brian G, Scott M, etc, I want to point out that you cannot use the book as gospel. In fact, the book makes mention of a 2.1 loading being optimal and that's already proven false. Now, that doesn't mean that the book doesn't contain good info, it most definitely does, but what I'm trying to say is that ideas about canopy flight are still being formulated. No-one has it 100% just yet. So, with that in mind: Put enough speed into the canopy and it will. That doesn't mean it's the most efficient way to land it though (letting it totally recover), as that's another discussion altogether. Yes, although the 'benefits' won't be noticable since they really kick in at high loadings. It doesn't mean the wing isn't working as designed. You can go and buy a Ferrari and drive it at 10 mph - it probably won't be any fun, but you can't say the car isn't working as designed. Ask them? It's possible the recommendation is simply there to steer people away from a choice they would be unhappy with. In your above example with the small person under a velo 120 - it would 'feel' massive compared to a ST120. It wouldn't be any fun to fly. I didn't read it as such. He's trying to help. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Having encountered (and once upon a time used) the incorrect terminology you describe I can confidently say that the pilot misrepresented what he was trying to relay. First, we have to get away from describing using rears to shorten the recovery arc SLIGHTLY as in the corner - it's not the same thing at all. Shane, what that pilot meant was that, on the particular canopy they flew, that they set themselves up so that some minor input is required to level the wing out. This technique is totally dependent on what you fly. Think about it as intentionally shortening the last part of your recovery arc. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Not so - I happen to know Shane personally. That said, I also know Scott Roberts has spent a lot of time with Shane, and that he has access to some of the best pilots in the USA. I'm surprised at the question - I suspect it's a misunderstanding of something that has been explained to him. Shane, Stu has a good description of it, but I would suggest talking to Scott, face to face, about your question. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Rosa, Thanks for that well thought out perspective.