Divalent

IMO, your mount should attempt to make the camera snag resistant. Square One makes a GoPro mount that does that, *if* it conforms to the curvature of your helmet. (It didn't for my helmet, so I had to make my own snag deflector)

IMO, you are raising very rare complicating scenarios where an RSL could contribute to a fatality (like, less than 1 in several million on any given skydive; such as an RSL snag causing a premature reserve deployment: exactly how many fatalites have been due to that?) but ignoring the upside. As Diablo pilot stated in the thread Bigun linked to, the number of fatalities due to these failure modes over the last couple of decades is incredibly few relative to the several fataliies that occur every year that might have been helped by an RSL. Yes, your gear and your experience and your usual proceedures and techniques might make you less likely to need one. But I suspect some of the many who did die because they didn't have one also thought that as well.

No, I had it right. (but then so did you.) An AAD only senses pressure, and pressure is higher the closer you are to the ground. AAD firing altitude that the mfg states (e.g., 750 ft) assumes you are in a belly position (and so within the low pressure burble behind you), and thus the AAD is seeing a lower pressure than if you were on your back. So whatever air pressure that particular unit is programed to fire at, it will fire lower if you are on your belly than if your are on your back. And the same would apply to the air pressure that it is programmed to shut off at.

Photo?

IMO there are a couple of decision altitudes that it would be wise to have pre-decided what you will do. The altitude you go staight to your reserve in free fall probably is different than the one you would chop at under a deployed main mal. You want to pre-decide them because you don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about them after you've figured out what your issue is. Because every millisecond wasted weighing your options is just making the situation worse. And what you chose should depend somewhat on your particulars. For example, I have an AAD programed to fire at "750 ft", an RSL, and my main snivels a lot. I also jump where I might be directly above a 100+ ft hill. Based on that, and my own confort level and self assessment of my ability to react, here are my trigger altitudes for different situations: 1. In free fall (nothing out): (Choice would be either main or reserve) 1800 - straight to reserve (my main snivels a lot) 2. Main mal (but something out): (Choice would be either chop or just dump reserve) 1000 - above will chop; below just dump reserve 3. Another that I hope never to have to use, but which I have thought about, is if I have to make an emergency exit from a plane when low. Again, the purpose of predefining it is that you don't have to waste time weighing the pros and cons when time is prescious. For me, I've decided to use my main above 1500, and my reserve below that.

either method fails: if I right click on "copy shortcut" and select copy shortcut from the browser popup menu, I get this: "javascript: postShortcut(4482820)" when I paste. If I left click on it, the first time I get a popup notification asking me if I want to let the website copy to the clipboard (but nothing gets into it to paste), and then subsequent left clicks do nothing (except it seems to clear my clipboard: if there was something in my clipboard that I could have pasted, it is now gone and any paste action elsewhere yields nothing) Using IE 9.0. AH! but I many have disabled Java (it just occured to me, now that I look at what I got into my clipboard by right clicking). I dunno, maybe just my configuration is wierd. (the site otherwise seems to work fine. is Java used elsewhere?)

I tried to use the "Copy Shortcut" link so I could reference one thread in another, and at least with my browser in it's current format, it didn't work (nothing got copied to the clipboard, so there was nothing to paste out of it). I don't use it often, but have used it without a problem in the past.

Folks would like DB Cooper to get its own forum, freeing up the otherwise valuable Skydiving History and Trivia forum. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4482710 (Ignore the suggestion in the OP: read down) Can't this be done? (And make it "hidable" like one can do with the International forums). Win win for all: real skydivers interested in the History of the sport don't have to deal with that thread (which is always is the one that shows up on the front page as the most recent post in the forum) and the Cooper fans can then open new threads and maybe actually have conversations that other people can follow. (and maybe you can then target ads for that particular forum that would be of interest to those sorts of people.) Would it be so hard?

Funny you should ask that! I just today discovered that ability. Just below the blue menu bar you will see 4 links: "Search Settings Who's Online Rules " Click on "settings" and about halfway down the list there will be the "Forum Descriptions" option. You can do Full, Short, or None. Then click "Change Settings" button on the bottom right to activate.

IMO, I think they should move that thread out of the "Skydiving History" forum and give it it's own separate place (preferably one you can hide, like you can do with the non-english forums). The problem with it being where it is, is that it is almost always the most recent post in the forum, so when something interesting get posted on another topic, you rarely see it on the front page (the one with the list of all forums). The advantage for the DB people is that they could then open up as many threads as they want. I think it would be a win-win for all.

Well, to be precise, you will have your license at the moment your instructor signs off on a fully completed A card. The card itself is proof of that. However, you then have 60 days to send it to USPA (fax or scan/email is fine) to get your license card and license number. After 60 days, the card is no good as proof of a license. (Note: one of the items on the card is membership in USPA, so you might want to apply for that as soon as you hit the states to start your training.)

Well, I concede I may have mis-remembered how it used to work. But since the current method of displaying a post uses the current rules, looking at old posts won't tell you what the old rules were. (You'd need to look at screen captures for that). I'll note this link by to a post by a noted DB Cooper regular complaining about the same thing: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4481693#4481693 For me, perhaps it was just the prominent "In Reply to:" which usually I take to require the name of the person (not what they said: that's what "quote" suggests to me). So in any event, if I was wrong about how it used to work (not withstanding that others apparently think so too), then take my comment as a suggestion of how it might work better. (IMO, "Quote" would be appropriate where you are commenting on something said elsewhere, and/or it's not really relevant who actually said it. "In reply to:" is appropriate where it is important to ID who said it. In a thread with a discussion,, it can be hard to follow if the speaker of each "round" of an exchange is not ID (particularly so if the exchanged is edited).)

"In Reply to:" no longer says the name of the person quoted/replied to. Makes it hard to follow a nested discussion. Anyway to get the name of the person quoted automatically added (like it was before?). (And what is the difference between "Quote" and "Reply"? Right now there doesn't seem to be any. (Kind of like the flammable/inflammable thing: why are there two?)) Seems like this is a step back in functionality and utility and clarity. (Was that the intention? I do note that it seems to be driving some of the people in the DB Cooper thread crazy (crazier?), so maybe it is a good thing. )

So I'm familiar (conceptually) with the Skyhook method of attaching to the reserve bridle and how it operates when reserve is launched directly vs via an RSL after a cutaway. (A cantelevered hook attached about midway in the reserve bridle, and (in short) if the reserve PC pulls, it disengages the skyhook). How do the other methods do it? IOW, specifically what mechanism/device attaches the riser/RSL to the reserve bridle, and how does it disengage when the reserved is fired directly? Wings boost method? RAX method? Fradet method? TIA

Black magic marker (permanent ink version). Take you all of 2 min.

It would help if you provide more details: like, where? US? What state? What county/city? Do you want someone to fly their jump plane to you, loaded with tandem instructors and vidiots, and do jumps onto your private property? Or what? Where exactly are they to land? (size, obstructions, etc might mean you need people with PRO ratings). What's class air space above the LZ? There is no such thing as "Cost is not a Problem". What you are willing to pay? (at least hint at a ball park). Ferrying a jump plane and personel costs money, and the biggest part of that might be that you are taking a plane and people out of the rotation on a day when they could be making oodles of money where they are normally based. Would $5,000 be out of your price range? $10,000? $20,000?

I actually got a pretty good snail mail reply from my congress critter. It may have been a canned respone, but it dealt with the issue specific issue I wrote about, and gave some back ground info about with is in play here. For example: fuel tax and other fees right now only cover about 2/3rds of the cost of air traffic system, and the intent was always that the system be self supporting. The letter mentioned that fuel tax doesn't quite parcel the cost out in a way that matches utilization. So the "per flight" fee is one way to try to balance things out. Unfortunately, skydiving flights don't fit either model they are thinking about when proposing this fee (not big airliner with many paying passengers, not private plane going long distance): in terms of the tax burden, it hits the type of flights skydiving planes do quite hard, as they take off, ascend, pop into controlled space for a few minutes, then dive out of it. "Per flight" might be "fair" for every other type of operation, but seems to excessively tax skydiving operations well beyond their use of the system. (In that regard, I'd be interested in pilots and/or ATC folks weighting in on the issue of what sort of burden skydiving flights put on the ATC system relative to other types of flights; e.g, a private/corp jet flying 300 miles vs a major airliner vs an otter turning a load.)

18 yo. Did 10 jumps. Then took some time off. Came back 37 years later for AFF.

So just thinking randomly here: if one purpose of lubricating the cable is to ensure that it can slip by the loop with as little friction as possible (right?), then what about putting a drop of lubricant on the loop as well? I suppose part of the friction that is of concern is that between the cable mashed against the grommet, so a lubricated loop wouldn't directly help there, except perhaps by keeping the cable somewhat lubricated in that area (due to normal everyday movement of the cable up and down as the rig is worn and jumped). Any downside to putting lubricant on the loop?

Correct oil. If you have the cable out of the rig why not wipe it clean and apply a fresh coat of oil to the entire cable(s)? That is the military way and probably the best practice. A lite coat will do. I think of a lite coat of oil as I did in the Army when I cleaned my rifle. The loop is where the bad friction occurs and needs lubrication the most and it is usually located 6.5 inches from the end of the cable. However, it won't hurt to lube it all. John Thanks for the information you've provided in this thread. I've learned a lot. For example, it never occurred to me that the oil is mainly to reduce friction right at the loop. I suppose I always considered it to be friction in the hard housing that snakes up to this point. I hadn't even consider friction at the loop to be an issue. Now I know.

Where's the link? TIA

Here is a retro fit cutaway system for open face helmets by Parasport Italia: http://www.gravitygear.com/store/product166.html

You had to click on the work "link" and on "model letter" in the text of the email. I've copy pasta'd them here: Link to website allowing one to easily find their senators and representatives http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml USPA model letter: http://strongmail1.multiview.com/track?type=click&eas=1&mailingid=2055387&messageid=2055387&databaseid=Mailing.DS55387.2055387.40204&serial=16938471&emailid=divalent2007@gmail.com&userid=35818289&targetid=&fl=&extra=MultivariateId=&&&2003&&&http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/skydiverltr.doc (Remember, you got two senators and one representative. (sorry for insulting anyones intelligence by stating that

In the recent USPA email update from last week, they urged us to contact our congress critters urging them to oppose the proposed $100 per flight user fee. I did. If you haven't emailed your representative and senators yet, I'd like to urge US skydivers to take a moment and consider what such a tax/user fee would mean to you if it is implemented. You might be surprised. If you jump from a turbine plane (piston planes are exempt), the $100 fee would apply to you. Yes, the DZO would be paying, but you can be quite sure that they will (unless they are really stupid) increase jump ticket prices to cover it. How much will depend on the plane they have, and what average load capacity it. For example: for an Otter that averages ~20 jumpers per flight, it works out to $5 per jumper. A caravan or PAC averaging 13: ~$7.50. (Clearly, the bigger and fuller the plane, the lower “per jumper” cost). So work it out for yourself: what's average load size at your DZ, divide into $100 to get the per jump cost, then multiply by your yearly jump numbers. What do you get? BTW, include work jumps in there: even though you don't pay it yourself, it does come from the pool of money that pays you, meaning not as much left over for you. For example, you jump at a Otter DZ and make 100 jumps a year? $500. Caravan DZ and 200 jumps a year? $1,500 a year. I suspect if this does pass, total jumps will go down a lot. Few jumpers jump without keeping an eye on the budget. For most I suspect that a 30% increase in jump ticket prices will result in a substantial decline in number of jumps made; maybe not completely offsetting it, but enough that with will be noticeable. So maybe it would be good for everyone to write their congress critters. Only takes a couple of minutes. The USPA email has links to a website that lets you easily find your senators and congress critter, and with a direct link to their contact page. So prepare a brief letter (the USPA email even has a link to a model letter you can cut and paste) and paste it in and hit "send".

My letter did not have the words "job" or "employment" in it. (I framed it as the perspective of a fun jumper.) But yes, the response was a "canned" one, and purportedly from the senator himself: signed by him and used personally referencing phrases like "I appreciate your thoughts on the economy ...". Regardless, it is pretty clear that he thinks people who contact him are stupid.