TomAiello

Yesterday we had a big group from SLC (maybe 8 or so), 2 from Arizona, a couple locals, 3 from Australia and 1 from Canada. I'm sure there were a few others I can't recall. At any rate, there were plenty of people here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The correct name for this maneuver is the "McJJ." It was first done by JJ at the Go Fast Games (unintentionally, or so he claims) in 2003 (?), and has been repeated multiple times in Twin Falls. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm guessing it's a conversion error between Mahle's german language keyboard and DZ.com's english language posting interface. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Here's what happened: 1) Nick started an argument with a general attack. 2) Several people responded. Two of them (Ian and Maretus) included attacks on Nick. 3) I split the thread, and edited out the attacks in those three posts. 4) I posted a general warning to the three of them (and anyone else who was considering it) to cut it out. 5) Ian posted again, re-introducing the name calling that I'd edited out. 6) I posted a response to Ian (and Ray) explaining what I'd done, and asking him to stop it. Seeing as Ian was the only person who obviously wanted to re-introduce the attacks (because he did, in his post after my split and general warning), I think it was pretty fair of me to say that he wanted to do that. If I really thought that this was a big deal, or really wanted to "slap" someone, wouldn't I have banned them in some way? We're still in the realm of warnings here. One warning for Nick and Maretus, and two for Ian (one for the original offense, and one for re-posting the attacks). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Please carefully re-read the thread. My first post in it was a response to Nick in which I said: This was intended as a general warning to everyone who had posted attacks that I had edited out of the thread. Please note that this group includes Nick, whose post I was responding to. You can determine which post I was responding to by the header, which in this case reads " Re: [NickDG]" indicating that I had responded to a post by NickDG. I did not continue discussion in the thread with any of the original people whose posts I had edited (Maretus, NickDG, Sabre210), aside from Sabre210. The reason for that is because he was the only one of those three who posted a response asking for clarification. I responded to RayLosli and Sabre210 in my second post because they were the posters who had asked questions, in this thread, about my moderation decision. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

On-line comments submission form. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're so old school... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I apologized to Nick for moving his post. That's unrelated to the personal attacks. What was it that made you think I was apologizing to Nick for editing out his attack? Was it the part where I said nothing about that? Or perhaps the part where I edited his post? Let me be absolutely clear: I do not apologize for removing the attacks from this thread. Anyone's attacks, in any posts. Why did I respond to Ian, by name, about my moderation? If you carefully read that post, you will note that I responded to Ian and Ray, who were, actually, the two people who had voiced complaints. Nick did not voice a complaint--hence I did not respond to him. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Apologies. I had overlooked that. I've gone back and edited it out. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'd add: "...with some kind of objective measurement system." I had a friend who used to like to do a gainer on wingsuit BASE exits. He was convinced that it made him fly "faster" and "sooner" because he felt more speed pulling out of the rotation than he did on a flat wingsuit exit. While he did base this opinion on experience, he didn't use any objective measurements to form it (or investigate or support it), and was likely incorrect in his assumption, because he based it solely on subjective data, with no objective measurements. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Here's my reasoning: The original X-Days thread already had a significant discussion about an unrelated topic (the premature closure of the event). Nick's post was likely to only sidetrack the discussion into a separate topic. As a separate topic, it deserved it's own thread (and discussion would be better served to remove the subjects from each other). I decided to separate the two threads so that each of them could continue without interfering with the other. I do feel a little bad about doing that, because it does put Nick on the spot, and to an extent forces him to defend a position that he had "buried" in a thread, rather than "headlining" as it's own thread. Nick, I apologize for doing that to you, and I hope you can understand my reasoning. The discussion springing from Nick's post contained several personal attacks. Leaving those attacks in simply encourages continued personal attacks on all sides, inflames the posters, and detracts from reasonable discussion of the underlying point Nick is trying to make. I refuse to let this thread degenerate into juvenile name calling ("you're an asshole..." "oh, yeah, well you're an assholio, so there..."). That means I am either going to lock it entirely (and kill the discussion), or remove the PA's so that they don't spin people up into more attacks, and then allow the discussion to continue. I decided to remove the attacks and let the discussion continue. Ray, every post in this thread above my notice of the split was made (in the other thread) before I split this stuff off. I hardly think I was forcing people to post those things, and I don't think I made it any more likely, given the immediate and forceful responses that were side tracking that other thread. Ian, I understand that you want to be able to call people names. Unfortunately, that really doesn't work very well once a forum reaches a certain critical mass. I am unwilling to allow this forum to degenerate to the place BLiNC was before the "vote purge" incident, where the top threads are all ongoing flame fests, and any useful discussion is immediately buried by angry shouting matches. If you want to call people names, there are many other forums (in fact, virtually all other forums) where you can do so. I understand that it is sometimes important for people to vent their anger in this fashion, and that forums allowing such venting are equally important. Please respect that this forum is not such a place. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

With the V2 he ought to be able to fly there from a regular exit altitude in the UK. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I have split off the discussion regarding this event as marketing and publicity for the corporate sponsor. That discussion can be found here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Obviously this is a discussion with some contention. I'm sure that, even so, we are all capable of discussing this topic like adults, without slinging petty insults around. Please stop the name calling. Thanks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How much line is needed? I've got some unused static line that's been sitting around for a couple weeks (I tried rigging a pendulator with it and decided I liked dynamic better for that). I think I've got around 80 or 100 feet. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm confused. When you say "lots of glide" isn't that the same thing as "lots of distance"? Or when you say "lots of glide" do you mean "lots of time"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Camping under the bridge is illegal, so if you're going to do it, please be very, very stealthy, and don't get caught. If you are caught, I'm sure everyone would appreciate if you didn't mention being jumpers, too. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Butters, Autoset, Andy_Copland, I just removed the bicker-fest from the end of this thread. Could you guys cut that out, please? Saying that someone is illiterate _is_ a personal attack. It's also fairly silly when the bottom line is that you disagree, not that they aren't reading what you wrote. Posting links to other threads people have posted in other forums, on unrelated topics, is a ludicrously silly debating tactic. Why not just state your opinion on the issues in _this_ thread? If you can't formulate opinions about them, or you don't have any, why poke a stick in to stir things up by trying to revive another, unrelated debate? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, but is it a more important survival skill than an effective track, or good object avoidance canopy skills? I certainly don't think so. Remember that we're talking about someone just starting skydiving, with an eye to BASE, here. Do you really think that encouraging them to emphasize throwing aerials as their primary skill set is such a good idea? Wouldn't they be better served to work on survival skills, such as creating object separation and canopy control? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the aerobatics after you've mastered the basics that are necessary for survival? Why should it matter for a beginner? What is the most important skill or skills for them to focus on? Do you really think that it's aerobatics? Wouldn't they be better served to focus on skills that transfer more directly to the survival skills of BASE? In my opinion, the priorities for a new BASE jumper are survival skills like stable exits, object avoidance under canopy, and object separation prior to deployment. I believe the skydiving skill sets most likely to transfer best to fundamental survival skills are CRW, Accuracy, and Max Tracking. I do not believe that aerials are a fundamental survival skill that new jumpers ought to practice before mastering other skills. I do not believe that freeflying has as high a skill transfer for fundamental survival skills. I am not saying that freeflying develops no transferable skills for BASE jumping. Nor am I saying that mastery of aerials does not increase your chances of survival on any given BASE jump. Just that those things are less important than many other areas, and that beginners ought to be steered toward the skill areas with the maximum return in terms of their survival chances. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wasn't there a very large discussion about this one, back when it happened? edit to add: Found the original thread. It's here. Let's keep the discussion in that (original) thread for this. Thanks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

uh, why? Mostly laziness, I think. 99% of the people I see doing it are just doing it because they can't be bothered to re-route the control lines. In terms of real technical reasons? Here's some I've heard (note that none of them are things I agree with, just what I've heard other people say--personally I'm still doing the boring, old fashioned line re-routing). 1) Long canopy flights after slider off jumps. One of the first people doing this was JFH, who told me he like to be able to release his toggles during the long canopy flight on one of his regular slider off jumps. 2) Minimize rigging errors: I've heard people say that they felt that not re-routing the lines reduced the chances of a rigging error by reducing the amount of rigging. 3) Make the canopy fly the same all the time. I'm sure there are others, too. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I've used my cutaway on numerous occasions. It's really handy for getting out of trees (used it twice for that), for evading police pursuit (used it once for that), and for preventing drowning in the event of a water landing (used it 10 or 12 times for that). It's also very handy when switching canopies between rigs (used it for that more times than I can count). edit to add: I've also retired risers before retiring the container they originally came attached to. If those were sewn in risers, I'd be stuck throwing away the entire container, which wouldn't be my first preference. A new set of risers is much cheaper than a whole new container. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

While I realize the practice of routing the control lines inside the rings is growing in popularity, I believe it is a bad practice. I've seen two tailgated line overs, and have heard about several more. I'd hate to be the guy who had the bad luck to be the 1 in 10000 (or whatever it is), come up with a line over with the control lines in the rings, and be unable to clear it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I remember asking Loic about it after I saw it in the Soul Flyers 2 video. At that point, he wasn't sure they were ever going to sell them. I'm glad to see they are. I really like the pin cover flap system on the rig I saw on the SF2 video, which I'm assuming is the same on this rig. Regarding the toggle system, I think it's going to be very good for those people who prefer toggles to avoid objects at close range, and I know I've seen CRW rigs built like that. I'm not so sure they're going to be great for wingsuits, because of aerodynamic issues. Does anyone know if it's possible to change the configuration (i.e. just cut away the "chest toggle" risers and put in standard risers)? Wow, did you notice the prices is 900 Euros? That's US $1200, which makes this around 50% more expensive than everything else on the market in the USA, and that's before shipping. Perigees are priced at $810 for the complete system, and so are DPs, with Gargoyles even cheaper ($750). Even the specialized Razor and Helium are listing at $860 for complete systems. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Consider the difference between where you live and where he lives. My guess is that his initial BASE experiences were off a terminal cliff in Norway, where you are likely to get some relative wind to work with, eventually. Maretus, remember that many people are learning from much lower objects, where they never reach terminal (or anything close to it). Standard instructional technique here is to begin with a PCA jump (where there is virtually no freefall). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com