Scrumpot

Same shit going on with several other "high profile spoofs" lately too. A very legitimate looking (for instance) request to update your e-bay profile, stating that your bidding privileges have been suspended is another one of them. They even copy DIRECTLY off the legitimate site, and provide the LEGITIMATE "privacy disclosure" links and graphics etc., but if you click on the "update my info now" link (in the e-mail) it instead BLIND REDIRECTS you to an off-shore based "mirror" site that is instead CULTIVATING YOUR PERSONAL (including credit card, ss# and bank) DATA, if you give it to 'em!! Simple rule.... ALWAYS be "heads-up" people, and VERIFY before your ever "volunteer" your personal financial data ...EVER! ---And almost NEVER, if YOU did not initiate the transaction. These SCUZ-BAGS are getting really, really "good" lately it seems. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The other thousands of times though (whaddaya got there sparky 3800?) he fell solidly upon his arse! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

It is precisely BECAUSE the reserve rip cord is still there (as a potential "anchor" now for the RSL) that you would want to do this. Because both canopies are out & you are suspended by your reserves risers, your body is no longer going to "fall away" from your main. Instead the primary "pull" force is going to be from your main leaving, which is, most likely going to be a lot less than what your body wieght (falling away under "normal" circumstances) would have been. This lowered "pull force" on the reserve ripcord can cause hesitation, or at worst case scenario, can even instead bind up, in effect now "anchoring" your (now trash) main to you! (can you now spell virtually assured entanglement?) At the very least, it will cause the RSL to have to come to some sort of "stretch" before it is capable of leaving (swinging loose as it remains *leaves with the main risers) ...giving just one more opportunity for something to potentially entangle either with your non-choppable reserve risers, or reserve lines. A bad scenario either way! If you disconnect your RSL first, it removes any of these (even if remote ...which differs from rig to rig) potential possibilities! Does this (apologies for being long-winded) explaination help answer this for you? Blue Skies, -Grant Edited for some really bone-head otherwise, spelling! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

It's called personal property coverage. And yes, it is available as a component to your "renters policy too". You do not necessarily have to (nor would I necessarily advise) directly mentioning that it is a skydiving CANOPY that you are looking at specifically insuring. I also know of someone who did this, only to later receive a little addendum/rider notice (2-sentence slip of paper in the mail) making an EXCLUSION as to any skydiving equipment from then on! Do I happen to work for an insurance company??? ---Oops, I just really can't say! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Actual mistake #1 maybe, in the chain / sequence of events?? Remember, skydiving is a voluntary activity. Sometimes it is best to "volunteer" to sit it out, and instead c'mon back & do it all on ANOTHER DAY! Glad this did not turn out potentially even worse. Let's see.... risk losing my main, or my life ...my main, or my life ...(??) ---Cha-ching! You did the right thing under the circumstances. But from what I've seen since "hinted at" throughout the thread as well otherwise (ie: more than just minor "wind issues") maybe the real right thing may have been NOT to have put yourself into exposure for those circumstances in the first place? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Is there a rate of "diminishing returns" (for lack of better terminology) as it relates to wing loading alone vs. sheer canopy size once you get down to a certain size level? Is .9 - 1.0/1 NOT the same on a 190 sq ft canopy with someone weighing (exit weight) 190 lbs as it is with someone say under conceptually a 120 at 120 lbs? What do we do then with our 80-100lb wafer-thin people out there then? How do they fit in to this equation? Or don't they? I remember when I was (way back when now ) on (and just off) student status at @200lbs exit weight, under a 310 being very afraid in winds getting even just barely over 5mph! Isn't a 90lb jumper under a 150+ going to suffer the same concerns/consequences? I would think that a 120 (non-eliptical of course) in their case would be fully appropriate, wouldn't it? Help me understand these components perhaps, just a litlle better then if you would please; because if I comprehend your position & what you are saying here correctly, you are saying that this would NOT be (and apparently wasn't for your jumper in example) appropriate at all either. Right? Unless the canopy planform (eliptical vs "square" for instance) were completely different, wouldn't the flight characteristics be basicaly identical based upon wing-loading (weight to wing size) ratio's? Also, where in here is planform addressed? Should it be a part of this? I would think that there is also a BIG DIFFERENCE (maybe even bigger than just wing loading alone too) between a 30-jump wonder being put under a 1.0/1 PD-190 vs a Stilletto or Heatwave 190 let's say too. ...Does anybody disagree with that? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I dunno Dave. At least as I "interperet" it. This seems to actually take into consideration, the one major resistance point I have always had with 'similar' previously proposed WL BSR's. And that is best illustrated by giving my own personal example. I am an "A" license holder only. I have however, also over 800 jumps. This has been to date, something that I have always just considered (percieved as) one of my "personal freedoms" (choices) in skydiving to do (not necessarily "opt for" any further "licenses"). The way I read this, I am actually "waiverable" quite easily. I actually see no infringements in my percieved personal freddoms relative to this at all. ...Correct me Hook, if I am wrong. I'm still not 100% "sold" yet, but this proposal comes as close, and is clearly more THOROUGHLY thought out than many before it that I have seen. I began reading this with the preconceived intent (based upon it's title) and fully looking for nothing more than to "pick it apart". I'm still reading it. ...and re-reading it. This obviously (again) took quite a bit of forthought and thorough consideration. It deserves a commensurate return courtesy of our more thorough consideration therefor as well. I will get back to you. Seriously. I respect the position (and obvious EFFORT) of offering at least (reasonably thought-out) PROPOSALS, vs some who merely spout instead nothing more than critisisms. You've got my attention. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Touché! ...Score one for the noob! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Instead of just completely DELETING (which is at first what I just came in here to do, and leaving the huge (????) -WTF for those that I know have ALREADY read this, I will instead simply retract it for now, until my brain kicks back in to a better gear. I've had a hard day at work, and I'll simply step aside and let those more coherent, instead carry on in my stead. I'm tired (and sick right now -literally). I think I'll go home & go to bed. You guys all "carry on" for a bit without me okay? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

And one of my favorites, from Monty Python Search for the Holy Grail: The knight defending the black forest I think it was... had just had BOTH his arms, then his legs chopped off... ..."C'mon back here & fight you coward ----I've only just begun here!" I can see that you & I are gonna make for some "trouble" here, if not kept in check, in these forums! Welcome, "Newbie" -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I can understand the basis of what you were saying, and in the context of trying to qualm a newbie/student who, as the title of his thread had indicated, was clearly "freaking out" over reading the incidents forum(s), I can almost understand the approach. However, skydiving, as I'm sure you will agree is indeed a "high risk" activity (just like driving is in certain circumstances ---how's that?), that should be approached with a level of appreciation of those risks and some respect. That anology completely takes away from that, and in my opinion is just plain WRONG is all. Add to the fact that you just semantically mixed "apples & oranges" in the making of your "statistical comparison" (as Bill Von so aptly picked up upon) and I was just "bustin' on ya" just a bit there too I'm afraid. LOL Now that was a good one! You were one of those that was graded in kindergarten as "playing well with others" weren't you? I don't want to share with you my marks in that category. But THANKS! ...You really made my day!

Not really, if you at least get your applicable numbers and their (exposure to the risk in question) relativity correct. Many people instead, simply use this "mythical analogy" in order to delude either themselves, or others into the (FALSE) belief that: "Skydiving is safer than driving" or that: "You're more likely to die/be injured on your ride to/from the dropzone than actually jumping there." Which I've said before, and I'll say again here, is just patently FALSE. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

BINGO! ...The length of time of relative EXPOSURE to each risk/activity vs. it's actual accident/fatality rate. ...It's not even close. The people who "skew" those statistics and then waive them around as such, WITHOUT having thought it through/correlate it's relativity, really irk me. Blue Skies, -Grant (edited to take out link to DELETED post in Gen'l discussions ...posts have already been apparently moved by the greenies here!) coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Agreed. I've set it up HERE Let's have at it! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Then you are deluding yourself. That "statistic" as you have stated it, is patently FALSE. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Maybe this is "picky", and anyone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but... Your canopies will "propel" you?? How can they do that?? They have neither propellers nor motors. Even if you have 2 canopies flying in tandem (on you) in a downplane configuration, doesn't it stand to reason that your max attainable vertical speed is still "only" going to attain that of terminal? Granted, that's fast enough (and clearly not survivable) ...But are you saying that your speeds are actually ENHANCED because of the down-plane and that your vertical speed really "accellerates" (beyond that it would be otherwise with no canopies out at all)? That does, to me, seem to be hard to imagine. In a true vertical decent (remember, the otherwise "forward speed" of your canopy is not generated via any method of propulsion), I would think that the material of the canopies, along with the mass of your body (and lines etc. etc. ....the entire surface area in other words) is still going to instead offer some coefficient of DRAG. Enlighten me as to where propulsion otherwise would come from? Seriously, ...I'm no physicist, and I would just like to better envision this, if appropriate, as you suggest. THANKS! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

These suits had NOTHING to do though, specifically with the issue (or any issue arising specifically out of) "licensing" (in of itself) any systems patents out though, as the patents to the best of my knowledge, were in fact never licensed out, correct? I just thought we should be clear about this, as to me, your earlier post impied that the suits were a direct result of licensing, which I don't see in any way, as the direct issue here. If you are referring to concerns that can arise by simply the greater exposure that would result from a wider proliferation of the technology (as a bi-product to it's getting licensed), then sadly, I'm afraid I have to agree. And this is too bad. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I've seen an excellent story before (which I wish were one an accessable electronic media for me to share) of a jumper who did the static line progression, almost exactly mirroring this! ...Not that it is "common", as most surely would have given up entirely by now. That jumper now has over 1,500 jumps & is every bit as compitent and capable as ANYONE in the sport. Sometimes it's just a matter of getting over whatever that otherwise seemingly insurmaountable hurdle or road block is, and then going from there. One thing for certain, if you QUIT, you never will! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What DID happen with the Reflex (and I'm assuming you further mean by association with Mick/Fliteline)? I was not aware of law suits relative to the licensing out of his patented (meaning the catapult) systems. Maybe you can enlighten me? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Here is about as clear a reply I have seen to this question before anywhere (it was posted by Billvon back in May of '02 for further reference HERE... See also: "Flare Turns" for making emergency direction corrections at under 50ft AGL. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

No you didn't. That's why you do now primarily CReW! ...You're STILL on only 3sec delays even now yourself ---Admit it! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I have jumped in MD, PA, VA generally all winters long now for going on 8 yrs. I have had "better luck" with some full faces over others, although ALL OF THEM can and HAVE iced up, depending on conditions & handling, and this is a valid concern. Just another country heard from for this thread for ya is all.... I'm intrigued by that link to the anti-fog/ice adhesive film. Has anyone actually ever used that who can perhaps comment more on it here? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Absolutely, and you seem to be dispensing some "advice" around here about it based upon yours. I would just like to better understand then (have you clarify I guess) more precisely what that is. Is that too much to ask? Actually, what you said was (AGAIN): I cut-n-pasted that from YOUR very own post. I did not paraphrase. If you are such an advocate of the RSL (as you apparently are), I am just trying to understand here why it is that you state you actually then DISCONNECT it, or excuse me.... "tend to" disconnect it after every canopy deployment? I'm just wondering if there is something operative further here that we all should perhaps be considering more in depth here then? Seriously. What is it that is making you "tend to" disconnect it after every canopy deployment?? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Huh? ...Aren't you the same guy who was saying before HERE that (and I quote): So tell us then, are you that same guy, or have you perhaps Marcus maybe learned something different since then? If RSL's are such a (again I quote): "HUGE BENEFIT", especially in the case if you may need to cut-away LOW, why is it that you also advocate instead (or practice yourself) DISCONNECTING them precisely when otherwise you also state it may be most needed? I don't see as you can have this BOTH ways. RSL's will not work, or do ANYTHING for you if they've been disconnected! Please help clarify this seemingly self-contradictory position for me you seem to hold if you would please. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I think he's referring to unreasonable detainment, search &/or seizure. Not the "Freedom to fly without hassle". ...DOH coitus non circum - Moab Stone