TomAiello

Although Lodi, California is in the U.S., the dropzone that Bill owns there is most definitely not in the USPA. I wonder if this has something to do with Parachutist's oversight? Edit to add: I have something of a special place in my heart for Bill. He was the first skydiver I ever met, the first (static line) instructor I ever had, and the first DZO to throw me off his drop zone. Damn Rockhoppers! We don't BASE jump, we skydive! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The rest of this thread had moved onto the topic of secondary inlets, specifically on terminal canopies. I split it off into a separate thread here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't really see a whole lot of benefit to openings. As long as you have adequate separation, and don't have any cigars in the cellar, I wouldn't bother. Yep. That's pretty much been my experience. However, I think that the bottom skin inlet issue is radically oversimplified in many people's minds. The problem is especially relevant in this case. Here's the key point: Bottom skin inlets do not have identical effects on all canopies. The FOX has difficulties in steeply braked approaches, related to it's shallow angle of attack. For this reason, secondary inlets greatly improve the flight performance of the Vtec FOX in deep brakes. The secondary inlets allow air inflow through the bottom skin, maintaining the canopy's internal pressurization even in brakes deep enough to stall a standard FOX. The Mojo, on the other hand, has a relatively wider performance envelope. In very deep brakes, it tends to maintain pressurization far better than the FOX. I suspect that the effects of secondary inlets on the Mojo's flight profile would be far less pronounced than the effect on the FOX. The Ace has an an even wider flight envelope--and the effects of the secondary inlets are definitely less than they are on the FOX. In deep brake approaches, it's very difficult to tell the difference between the (unvented) Ace and the (vented) Blackjack. The Troll also has a very wide flight envelope, so I would suspect that the effect of the MDV's, while probably quite dramatic on opening, are relatively limited (as with the Ace/Blackjack) in flight. I don't know how this relates to the Flik. I suspect that it's flight profile is very similar to that of the FOX, since the airfoil is identical. However, the trim is different, as is the aspect ratio, so no one really knows for certain. I am uncertain whether BR actually built any non-Vtec Fliks for testing. The Fliks I have seen in the possession of their test jumpers all had secondary inlets, so I rather suspect that the non-Vtec Flik saw minimal (if any) testing. How does this all relate to your original query? Is it worth spending the money to get secondary inlets on a dedicated terminal canopy? I think the answer depends on (a) what type of canopy you are using, and (b) what kind of landing area you have. If you (a) are jumping a FOX (or maybe a Flik), and (b) have to sink in to tight landing areas, then the secondary inlets may be worth the extra money. But if you don't have to hit small landing areas, then the extra money (and harder openings) are probably not worth it. My personal preference in a "terminal only" canopy would be an unvented canopy with a wide flight envelope, and a good ability to sink. So, I'd either buy a Troll or an Ace. Since the Troll is cheaper than the Ace (by $100 in your size--and a total of $385 cheaper than that Vtec Flik), I'd probably go with the Troll. Remember, this is all for jumps on which opening characteristics are relatively irrelevant. Wow, that was a pretty long, rambling post, on a topic that you probably didn't really want that much depth on. Sorry. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If you've got a brake setting that works slider up, I'd stick with it. You are unlikely to experience problems with that setting moving from sub-terminal to terminal deployments. You might want to have a look at dialing in your brake settings, though. From your descriptions it sounds like your slider down setting may be too shallow for your body weight, which means that your shallow setting is probably way to shallow. If your tracking is good, though, that shouldn't be a very big problem on a terminal wall, where you should have plenty of horizontal separation at opening. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'd go with 32" ZP for terminal. I'd also go with vented PC's, if you are using ZP. Theoretically, a vented PC will inflate very slightly slower than an otherwise identical unvented PC. The only person I've seen regularly going low enough that this might matter is Karin's boyfriend. For the rest of us, I'd say if you're going with ZP, get vents, regardless of your basement smoking proclivities. I've used a 38" ZP PC at terminal, but I don't think it's a good idea. Bigger PC's will tend to cause more pack job deformation, leading to a greater incidence of malfunctions and off-headings. Edit: I meant boyfriend. Really I did. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm pretty sure Bill really does have that many jumps. He owns a DZ, runs back to back Otter loads all weekend, and is pretty much on every load. I actually counted his jumps one weekend at 43, and that was just kind of an average weekend. I think the last time he left the DZ was in the early 90's (the story I heard was that Cathy made him take a vacation--and he hated being away so much that he swore never to do it again). When he says he's there "every day", he really means every day. I've never seen someone with that much jumping energy, for that long, who has that much capability to do the jumps. I suppose he supposedly does. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How many of those jumps were at terminal? I think Dave was looking for feedback on high speed jumps, since he already has two vented canopies. If you are making a lot of terminal jumps with good landing areas and low strike potential (wingsuiting big cliffs, or repeated elevator loads, for example), I could see some real value to keeping an unvented canopy. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For terminal, I'd recommend: Slider: I'd go with a mesh slider. I generally use a large hole mesh slider at terminal. I've done plenty of jumps on this configuration, on a Mojo 260 (and various other canopies). Openings are brisk, but nowhere near damaging. I prefer the mesh slider because, in my opinion, it yields more consistent openings than a sail slider. My recommendation is, of course, opposite the manufacturers. If you have a good track (i.e. lots of separation), and will pull reasonably high (i.e. can afford a little snivel), a sail slider would probably be ok. However, I have seen a friend with a sail slider pull higher than me, and snivel past my (mesh slider) opening. The same friend later snivelled into the dirt (hit the ground as the slider hit the links) on a sail slider. He had, again, pulled higher than I had (both jumps were on FOX's, which do open a bit slower than Mojos) Fortunately, aside from a twisted ankle, he was uninjured. Using a mesh slider will damage neither you, nor your canopy. If you can tolerate some hard openings, I'd go with that. There are, of course, various compromise solutions (getting an illiterate Mexican boy to cut holes in your slider appears to work well, for example). Nose: I'd recommend rolling cells 1-3 and 5-7 tightly, then pulling cell 4 (the center) around the pack job. If this opens too hard for your taste, you can tuck cell 4 into the middle, but you will sacrifice some opening heading in this configuration. PC: I'd probably go with a 36 F-111, especially if you aren't going to pull too low. If you are smoking it into the basement, you might consider ZP, instead. The F-111 will oscillate less, and (because it inflates at bridle stretch above you, rather than to the side) orbit less. If you do go with ZP, get a vented (A-V) PC. (Please note that I'm only discussing terminal jumps, here.) Perigee 2: Be sure to have someone check your velcro just before exit. I've seen some scary old P-II's. The older ones were very tight, and the velcro could sometimes blow open prior to exit (obviously undesirable). If you have a newer one, this shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, don't try a wingsuit jump with a velcro rig. Hope this helps. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hmm, I just watched that first video. This one is probably better for seeing the altitude. Both videos are from this page. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If you are certain that you will win (i.e. your lawsuit isn't frivolous) then filing a countersuit to recover legal costs shouldn't be too hard, regardless of institutional tort rules. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, it's a historical night mare. When certain people are arbitrarily excluded from legal recourse, you invite illegal recourse. One of the major tools of Jim Crow was the denial of legal recourse--if you're not allowed to seek justice, your rights can be effectively ignored. As a potential compromise solution: Some European countries award the plaintiff the value of damages, but keep the punitive damages as a fine for the state treasury. This would eliminate the "get rich quick" lawsuits, but still allow the use of punitive damages to change organizational behavior. I'm not sure it's such a good solution (I can see several problems with it), but it does illustrate that simply barring access to legal recourse is not the only possible solution to the perceived problem. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not really. Look at it this way, either (a) the suit is groundless, or (b) there really was something wrong with the bagel. (A) Suit is groundless. Suit fails. If it's really groundless, the McDonald's recovers their court costs, and the only people who lose are the people who filed suit. (B) Bagel really had something wrong. Couple wins. McDonalds' all over America start exercising better quality control. I know that I've seen what I would consider to be "defective" fast food (some wag had stuck a plastic cap from a coke cup into a burger). If you bit into that and broke a tooth, I could see grounds for a suit. The media often hypes up the "sensational" part of those court cases. That means they take one product liability case out of 1000, and focus on the parts that could outrage you. (i.e. "Huge Award for Coffee Spill.") They usually leave out the parts that might lead you not to get excited (the media's job, after all is to excite you). (i.e. that same McDonalds has had ten previous cases, the court has fined them increasing amounts, and now the court is trying to get them to take their prankster employees seriously before someone gets really hurt.) Punitve damages may seem ridiculous on first inspection, but they do provide a much needed way to get the attention of large enterprises. Oh, the "marital consortium" thing is general legalese for an impact on their sex life. You might think that's no big deal, but what if your girlfriend couldn't give you blowjobs for a month? Would it seem a little more important to you then? While there are definitely things I don't like about the American legal system, this kind of suit isn't really indicative of them. And the fact that anyone is allowed to file suit for any reason, at any time, is one of the features I most prize. The right to legal recourse is a societal foundation of the rule of law. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I believe Bill Dause is over 30,000 by now. Anyone know his real number? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Towers vary widely in height. I have seen tower structures as low as 30 feet. FAA regulations prohibit building towers over 2000' in the USA. In general, towers outside the USA are lower than US towers. I've heard a rumor that back during the cold war, the Soviets built a monster tower (4000' or something) in Poland, but supposedly it has been demolished. Cliffs are definitely the tallest objects. Have a look at this movie, to see what I mean (it's big, so consider downloading, rather than streaming). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dude, did you just miss a key opportunity to revive the Tit-ee bar thread? What are you thinking?! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Stay tuned. I've got fairly detailed plans to do exactly that, with video (and laser height analysis) with Blackjack, Ace and Troll within the next two months (sort of depends on weather). I'll also try to get manufacturers involved, if possible. I don't have a Flik to try, though. I doubt I'll be able to lay my hands on one before then. If I can document the tests well enough, it should be only moderately challenging to reproduce them once I acquire a Flik, but there will still be some weather variables that will be difficult to reproduce (or determine the effects of). It'll take some manpower to do the "boring" parts, though (filming, shooting the lasers), so good tests may be relatively infrequent. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For those of you who don't know this, Doug and I are actually quite good friends. We've had this discussion several times, and in lots of interesting places, including, but not limited to, hotel rooms in Malaysia, rooftops of buildings, rental cars in Amsterdam, and glaciers in Switzerland. In order not to bore you all with another re-cap of this evergreen debate, I refer you to (in addition to Doug's post on the Aussie Board, referenced above): Our discussion of BASE Canopies, My Blackjack Review at BLiNC, And whatever exit point we are having this discussion on two weekends from now. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For cliffs and buildings especially, there are many things that are far more important than the overall altitude to impact. Without seeing a particular cliff that you are looking at, no one is going to be able to give you any real feedback on it. Further information that is really necessary to decide if a cliff is "reasonable" include: Distance to Landing Area. How far will you have to fly after opening? Size of Landing Area. Will you need to set up and sink in? Quality of Landing Area. A quick pound in is ok--if you are landing on a giant mattress (or in deep water). But if you are landing on a 45 degree talus slope, you'll need more time (i.e. altitude) to set up the landing. Obstructions. What is there to hit? How much altitude will you need to avoid it? Cliff Angle. Is the cliff underhung? Overhung? Wind. In zero wind, you may be able to jump lower cliffs. In higher wind you will need to achieve more horizontal separation (which will require more vertical distance--especially if you're a pudgy bastard like me). Other factors--there are lots. How secure is the launch? How hard is it to get there? How close is rescue in the event of an accident? Each object is very individual, and evaluating them is about a whole lot more than absolute altitude. In fact, it's one of the most important skills you learn in BASE. That said, the conventional wisdom is something like: Reasonable: 400 feet Too Low: Less than 300 feet Static Line: 200 feet The lowest cliff jumps I have personally witnessed over hard earth were freefalls from 173 feet. The lowest cliff freefall I have seen done over water was from 150 feet. These altitudes are pretty much absurd, though, and no one, ever, ought to attempt freefalls at such silly altitudes. If you are looking at a particular cliff, your best bet is to get an experienced BASE jumper (one who has opened cliffs before) to have a look at it with you. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The Flik is made by Basic Research. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Something else to ask would be "could you effectively use the WLO toggle on a reserve?" I know I had no problems using a hook knife to clear a steering line over on a BASE canopy. Hooknswoop tried to clear a similar (but intentional) malfunction on a skydiving reserve, and found it impossible. I'd be curious to replicate his tests with WLO toggles and see if they worked, or if there is some unforseen difficulty. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Thanks, I'll do it. I've had mine for several years, so it's got to have the old firmware. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Mine does that quite often. I had the problem quite a bit more with the Classic than with my Skyflyer. Not sure what causes it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'll trade you straight across. You can have California's all year jumping, if I can just have Norway's cliffs in summer... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I primarily use VPC in DOS. My big use is the GPS topo software, which is DOS based. I'm using a Windows XP copy of VPC, with which I created a second partition to install DOS. It works great. The only problems I've had are using browsers or other webby things, but since I was only trying it out of curiosity (no reason to do it, since I can use the Mac for that), that isn't really an issue. I have used a DOS copy of VPC, and installed my own versions of Windows 95, 2k, and XP. Seemed to work fine. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Inability to swap footage with your friends (while maintaining quality), and inability to edit are my two huge issues. I guess it depends on what kind of skydiving you're doing. If you are just shooting tandem video, dropping it out to an analog VCR for editing, and never getting any one else's footage, I guess it would work fine. On the other hand, if that's all you're doing, why not save a bunch of money and buy an old hi-8 camera? It'll do all that just as well, if not better, and be much cheaper to both purchase and maintain. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com