ernokaikkonen

>This is what i thought a point should look like. >http://www.bevsuit.com/gallery/formula4.jpg Yes. That's what a "Meeker(E)" should look like. That formation was not on this jump. See the attachment for the formations of the jump. >but please post up the pic to help me understand. Here you go! I don't know how much you know about FS, but a few things: In order to score points, the following things must happen: -All the grips of the first formation must be there simultaneously. -All the grips have to be released simultaneously. Meaning they have to "be in a released state", not that the letting go needs to happen on the same nanosecond -All the grips of the second formation must be there simultaneously. Also, the formations rarely look like the ones on paper, take "Caterpillar"(as seen on Block 15), for example. On paper it looks like it should be a straight line, but few teams build it that way. More often it's built curved. Only the grips matter!. It doesn't matter even if one of the jumpers is flying on his back, as long as the grips are correct, and they can be seen on the video. Hope this helps. Erno (edited for grammar)

>Ehhh... we use a pull up cord thru the loop and pull it it back and >forth.Works every time Ok. No doubt. The thing is that this might wear out the loop... Erno

> The BOD apparently has directed HQ to pursue the extension >of the reserve repack cycle from 120 days to 180 days. The BOD >suggested that you should work with PIA on this matter. (...) >I have heard that $40,000 was set aside for the study. Save the money... We've had a six-month repack-cycle in use in Finland for over a year now, and the reserves work just the same as ever. The only difference is that the packjobs need to be a bit tighter now, as the reserves have more time to settle in in the container, meaning that the closing loops of some of the reserves near the end of the repack cycle seem a bit loose. Erno

>Also, it's my understanding that Reeves wouldn't have been > able to hold on to Swayzee after Swayzee pulled (if people will > remember Reeves jump out of the airplane without a Rig). The > forces from the canopy opening would have been too much. Not necessarily. It's called a "Mr. Bill"-jump(but preferrably both skydivers have rigs on...) I've done it once, deployed from sub-terminal, and was jumping a "peacefully" opening Maverick... That's the only time I've heard Dacron-lines make the same noise as the Vectran on some HP-approaches...The only big glitch I saw was that the jumpers weren't waving > off before they pulled. Is this because the movie makers > didn't want to confuse the public with hand signals? Or do some > jumpers out there not wave off? Not all teams wave-off. It's really not that necessary. Once you see someone turn away and track, it's pretty safe to assume that it's time to break off. And if everyone on the jump has an audible, it's even less necessary: Audible beeps, turn and track. Of course the real reason of a wave-off is to tell the cameraman when to pull... Welcome to DZcom! Erno (and the spelling is "whuffo")

www.engrish.com Erno

>Did you guys catch the part about me being a cashier? Ok... I can see how that could be a problem. Working in a boring government office has it's "bright" sides... I've had days when I have done absolutely nothing that would even remotely resemble work.

>well shit i got found out. There are a few things to do to avoid this...

>Since I've never done a tandem, but heard of chicken handles- How >about someone tells me what they are supposed to do??? They are cut-away and reserve handles for the tandem-passenger, and are only attached to the harness when the passenger is also an experienced skydiver. We don't want a customer cutting away the main during drogue-fall now do we? I did a tandem(recurrency jump for the TM) some time ago, and it wasn't really that scary, but I definitely didn't like the feeling of not being in control. I might do another one. Maybe. Erno

1(the number of times I made my team jump the formations of round 6 on round 5 during the Nationals...) :11:1(for the first stupid royal screw-up) Erno Ah... And so I shoot myself on the foot with my sig-line...

> It looks like a squished boob. Well it can't be all bad then, now can it?

>If I remember correctly, the balloon needs to be in a descent >when the jumper(s) exit - when you leave it's like a bunch of >ballast being thrown out; if the balloon isn't descending when >you leave it will pop way up. Yeah, but not all pilots seem to mind... You did read the article about the mass balloon jump, didn't you? It was at a site called "dropzone.com" Erno

>but isn't there a theory floating round that you can get less than absolute zero? See this:http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/neg_temperature.html I didn't bother to read it, and even if i had, I probably wouldn't have understood it... So I did another search, which yielded an answer marginally more understandable: http://www.ph.bham.ac.uk/text/physics/admissions/puzzles/temperature.html The next question: What's beyond the border of the universe, and how can I get there?

Ahh yes. And good morning to me too. Thanks. Erno

>I like your signature...it reminds me of work Then you'd probably appreciate the work of Scott Adams, the creator of "Dilbert". I just started reading his book "The Dilbert principle" again, and it does remind me of some the places i've worked at...

>Pardon my ignorance but how is this mod performed? When jumping a wingsuit, the bag leaves the container more towards the feet of the jumper than on a regular skydive, due to the higher forward speed. This can cause problems, as the container was designed for the bag to leave straight up. The bag tries to leave the container "through" the bottom flap, which it can't, so the bag flips over it, sometimes causing line twists. The mod: Basically, you just open the bottom corner seams of the main container for some length. This allows the bag to come out of the container more cleanly. Erno

Nope. One can get infinitely close to absolute zero, but can never reach it. The third law of thermodynamics forbids reaching it. Erno

>Now what could i use that would stay on the helmet but be able to wash >off my feet. You guys got any ideas? Hmm. Things that stick have a tendency to, well, stick... An idea though: 1. Dip your feet into something that comes off easily(like water-soluble paint) 2. Step on some adhesive paper, thus printing your feet on the paper 3. Cut out the marks left on the paper(after it's dried, preferrably) 4. Stick the the "mold"(I know there is a word in english for this, what was it?) you just made on your helmet 5. Spray paint. Erno

>Hmmm...I have Win 98 at home and it works pretty good..... Same here. I'm not going to touch the newer M$-OS's with a ten foot pole... I'm going to switch to Linux when Win98 doesn't do the job anymore... Erno

Have you tried shutting down the browser(but keeping the connection up) and then restarting the browser? Erno

>#1 : you do not have to be a master rigger to disconnect a reserve. I stand corrected. Things are of course a bit different in the USA than in Finland... Here, our closest thing to a Senior Rigger("kalustomestari", translates as "gear master", LOL) gets to do anything with the main and the parts of the container concerning the main. To work on the reserve, parts of the container concerning the reserve, or the harness you have to be a "laskuvarjotarkastaja" (translates as "parachute inspector"), which is pretty much the same as the US master rigger. Erno

See the thread "world rcord at Pujaut(south of France)" Erno

Oh dear. Not again. The canopy does not understand whether it's going upwind or downwind. The reason why people tend to think "upwind landings have more lift than nowind/downwind landings" is this (IMO, phycisists please chime in): Regardless of the direction of the wind, the airspeed of the canopy is always the same. The difference is only in the groundspeed. Landing upwind, the canopy has no lift left(little airspeed) when the groundspeed is near zero(groundspeed=canopy airspeed-wind velocity). Landing downwind, the canopy has no lift left at the same airspeed, but the groundspeed is much faster(groundspeed=canopy airspeed+wind velocity) than that of an upwind landing. So you think "Man, the canopy had no lift left, I had to put my feet down and I was going forward really fast!" A FAQ about "canopies and wind" wouldn't be a bad idea... Erno

>So whats up with the variations? See this: http://www.pia.com/piapubs/TS%20Documents/ts-104.htm Poynter's manual has also a chapter concerning canopy volumes. In short, measuring the volume of a bunch of fabric and lines isn't really an exact science. The method is explained at the document in the above mentioned URL. Erno

Absolutely brilliant. But shouldn't it have a blue screen at that stage? Erno

You have the biggest thunderstorm raging around you, your house has been hit twice by lightning and your computer is still plugged in??