JackC1

I'm not convinced that restricting wing loading on its own will solve this kind of problem. Yes, a high wing loading makes for faster crashes but if Sangi has lowered his wing loading by 0.2 or whatever, would he still have hooked in? I reckon he would have and that's because the root cause of his accident wasn't too high a wing loading but rather too much of a rotation done at far too low an altitude. The thing is Sangi deliberately set up his pattern that way. He got away with it a fair few times (and many people fall into the same trap) until one day he didn't. Restricting wing loadings may reduce the severity of the injuries or it may not but I'm not convinced it tackles the root cause of the problem, which was essentially just plain old crap flying. Maybe it would be better to try and restrict the severity of the stupid shit people can do instead of just trying to make stupid shit slightly less deadly. Just a thought.

Pots and kettles everywhere are saying "who, me?" Another thought crosses my mind. If the topic of conversation were changed from canopies to guns, how many people here would be on the other side of the fence?

Very low tail, I wouldn't fancy it much. http://www.aerocompinc.com/airplanes/CA8/images/ca8.jpg

I think the USPA A licence includes basic FS skills whereas the BPA A licence doesn't. All this talk of free flying is a bit redundant under the UK system as you need to show proficiency on your belly before moving onto free flying. For all practical purposes, that means getting an FS1.

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/index.php?/topic/13852-proposed-new-grade-bf1-new-cat-9/page__st__80__p__171745__hl__clarification__fromsearch__1#entry171745

Tell me about it. I don't honestly know where it is with the council but there has been a lot of very vocal criticism of it. As it stands, I think the ultimate decision is still with individual CCI's.

You must have missed the BPA's official "clarification" which basically says that no you can't unless the other guys are coaches. so the Bpa ops manual is out of date or been failed to be updated as per NB1 in section 6.4 thats a bit lax on their part Correct. Although the BPA insist the ops manual has only been "misinterpreted" and therefore doesn't need updating.

You must have missed the BPA's official "clarification" which basically says that no you can't unless the other guys are coaches.

The successfully part I agree with, but if you're regularly getting yourself into shitty situations, you have bigger problems than premature downsizing. There is an old saying that a superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgement so as not to have to use his superior skill.

I like full face helmets because I'm lazy and find a flip down visor easier than goggles, especially under canopy where I like to take the goggles off. The extra protection is good too. Getting kicked in the nose is no fun at break off. Oh, and the noise reduction. The down side can be fogging which can be dealt with, restricted vision which depends on the helmet and believe it or not, not having the wind in your face. If you happen to find yourself unstable in cloud without the usual visual orientation indicators of planet or sky, you need all the help you can get, and a 120 mph wind up your nose is a surprisingly useful one.

You might have known that mentioning the word swoop without a 4 digit jump number in your profile will anger the skygods who will come and beat you repeatedly over the head with wing loading charts and thermonuclear egos. It's dz.com way. Pffft. Noobs.

Or this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9194881818135049107

As you apply a brake on one side, you swing out and start to turn. If you release that brake and apply the other, the canopy tries to turn left while you're still turning right. The result can be lost line tension, line twists, a collapsed canopy and if you're unlucky a reserve ride. Sometimes known as cock turns because if you do them and have to chop, you're a cock. Let your canopy recover from one turn before you change direction and keep that line tension, it's the only thing keeping you in control of your canopy.

Just in case you're worried about causing line twists by having a poor exit, don't be. It's almost a prerequisite of SL jumps to get line twists. The SL often drags the deployment bag over your back which spins it up. Very common regardless of exit quality. Annoying for sure but not a major problem, just kick em out and carry on.

I'd go for an ordinary barometric alti like the Altimaster Galaxy. Maybe get an audible later on.

By mutual consent, they don't ask and I don't tell.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=723

Slight flaw in that plan. Many instructors/coaches are self-employed and have little to do with the DZ's business. They often have other paying customers and don't sit around waiting for someone to coach for free. Other coaches do it simply for the love of it and also have their own commitments with teams etc. How will voting with your wallet affect the coach or get you an FS1 when the coach more than likely gets no money out of it anyway?

In that case a Super-Moto style bike (essentially a trail bike with road tyres) would be great for the city .... KTM do some great bikes as do Husky (Husqvarna) ^^ this. Sports bikes in a city are a pain in the neck, and back and wrists and arse and...

Certainly not. And yet 97% of the people responding to the poll say they would jump anyway. So apparently having an AAD is not a make-or-break deciding factor in jumping. Did you honestly think it was? Virtually all the whuffos who first decide to take up skydiving do so without knowing that things called AADs even exist, let alone what they do. It only when they find out that AADs stack the odds a bit more in favour of surviving your next jump that they decide using one might be a good idea. Which for most people, they are. And no safety-concious, responsible parachuting organisation would knowingly ban a device which is proven to save lives. It just wouldn't happen. If it did, there would be a new parachuting association spring up to take it's place that didn't ban AADs. I'd even do it myself if no one else would. In fact the exact opposite is happening. DZs and some parachuting governing bodies are insisting on AADs for some or even all of the skydivers in their jurisdiction. That leaves law suits and they could be a problem. It's a shame that some people think that suing an AAD manufacturer is a good idea. In this case, suing all the AAD manufacturers out of business could well cost lives. That said, if law suits do get out of hand, I bet we see AAD manufacturers becoming 'uninsured' AAD manufacturers with huge disclaimers willing to close the doors permanently at the first sign of a lawyer. Or simply not selling to countries that have a history of bringing lawsuits. It would be a shame for safety and the good of skydiving in general if that were allowed to happen.

Not exactly a new idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut‘ah

So basically you're bitching because the British weather doesn't meet your personal approval. Other people deal with it, what's so special about you? Whatever dude.

One of the DZ's you were talking about does about 200 loads a month on average. If you want to get on more than 2 of them, maybe you should make more of an effort.

Porsche Boxster? The perfect choice for the slightly more upmarket hairdresser.

As you may have guessed, skydivers do seem to come in for an awful lot of surveying, usually by students studying the psychology of risk for some research project. So if you do go down this route, expect quite a few replies that show a certain amount of angst towards the questioner. Which suggests the question what it is about students that makes them keep picking the same group of people (risk takers) over and over and over again whenever there's a research project to be done? Maybe there's a research project in polling the pollsters. It's got to be a damn sight more original than yet another survey of risk takers. Another angle would be just how many surveys does it take before the lab rats start deliberately munging the answers and can you tell by looking at previous surveys? It definitely happens when one specific group of people gets researched to distraction.