sandi

I missed Monday check-in but I'm down 2 lbs. since last Friday. Yay! 123/120/110/3

start 123 current 122 goal 110 I lost a pound! Off to a good start since it's only been two days.

I wanna play too! current: can't zip freefly suit (not even close) goal: fit comfortably into ff suit by summer This will require about 10-15 lbs. The "I just had a baby" excuse isn't working anymore since my baby is now a toddler and will be a year old next week. I'm going back on the weight watchers plan. It worked well for me in the past. I lost 20 lbs back in '98. I kept if off through eating healthy and running until a knee injury forced me to stop running. I gained about 10 lbs after that. Then after having my daughter I kept on an extra 5 lbs. So that puts me at 15 to lose. Just started doing yoga again so that should help too. Still haven't found an exercise to replace running that I enjoy as much. Congrats to all of you on your success so far!!

My goal for 2005 is to start jumping again! I haven't jumped in about a year and a half due to the fact that my daughter takes up most of my time and money. So this year the goal is to get back in the air. I'm hoping to take a trip out to Perris in the spring and start jumping in Chicago this summer (or whenever it gets warm).

Try and do at least a few jumps on each one before you decide. Personally, I love my Safire 2. Super soft openings and I've never had line twists on it. At least not so far.

Isn't landing within 10 meters a requirement for a B license?

Well, I bitched a lot about the Dutch system. So, I just want to say that I like the idea of using weight and jump numbers in addition to wingloading. This chart accommodates all sizes and allows for a reasonable progression for everyone. The downsizing for light people is very close to the progression that I did. Except that I did a whole lot of jumps on a 240 before going down to a 150. (and I wouldn't be allowed on the canopy I'm jumping now until I got to 500 jumps). But I do think this system allows for better progression for the lighter and heavier jumpers who get overlooked in the Dutch system.

Yes, I have read that and I've referred to it previously in the forums. I also mentioned earlier in this thread that lighter people will get more responsiveness from a canopy at a lower wing loading. Which is why I didn't say to disregard minimum canopy size requirement. I certainly wouldn't want a 100 lb person to have a 1.3 loading at 200 jumps. I'm saying why not let the smaller person go down to a 135 so they can be progressing with their canopy skills. I'm just going by what I've experienced as a lighter jumper. I have flown a 120 at 1.1 and yes I know it's turns faster than larger canopies at the same windloading but it's also not as fast or responsive as people here are implying. It's not like a 120 loaded at 1.5. Okay then, but don't just limit it to small jumpers. Make everyone have have a low wingloaing.

I guess I'm just tired of being part of the small minority that doesn't seem to matter to the people who make regulations like this. This may be a good guideline for 80% of skydivers. But you still need to think about the 10% that are very light and also the 10% that are very heavy. A heavy jumper may have to stay on a 210 until they get to 500 jumps. Why not take those people into consideration by adding a weight category. Lower the minimum canopy size slightly for people who are under a specified weight. Lower the max wingloading slightly for people over a specified weight. I would be a category 3 jumper, on a category 3 canopy at a category 3 wingloading. Sounds good until you throw in the min canopy 150.

Wow, so according to you, small people either don't exist or there is something physically wrong with them. I'll give you an example. My sister is 5'0" tall and weighs 90 lbs. She's not a skydiver but she certainly could be if she chose to and there is a good chance she will in the future. Considering the fact that she runs marathons I'd say she's in in better physical condition than most skydivers. There are very light people out there who are perfectly healthy, contrary to your belief.

I agree. And I'm usually the one staying on the ground in high winds. My concern is the 100-500 jump category. There is a big difference in canopy skill between 100 and 500 jumps. I only have 300 jumps but I know my skills are a lot better now than they were at 100 jumps (and I'm not saying I'm an expert now, far from it). But should someone with 300-500 jumps have to have a loading under 1.0? As far as the extra weights go. Yes, I have to wear weights if I'm belly flying (which is rare) and if I am wearing weights I jump my 120 instead of my 109. I don't wear weights freeflying and have no problem keeping up with larger people. As I said I don't have a problem with the regulations for people under 100 jumps. I didn't have a loading over 1.0 until about 150 jumps. Lighter people are going to have much more responsiveness from a canopy at a lower loading. But being forced to have a .8 or .9 loading at 400 jumps just doesn't seem necessary.

okay, okay, I do realize that I'm smaller that average. I'm just hoping that if by chance there is a 100 pound jumper there that you might make an exception for her after watching her go backwards under a 150 for a couple hundred jumps. I'm going to keep jumping my 109 and be damn happy that I'm allowed to do so!

I absolutely agree with this statement. I tell people that all the time when I hear smaller people wanting to get a 120 or 135 at 50 jumps just because someone told them to have a 1.1 loading. And I did jump a 150 until I had 100 jumps, then jumped a 135 and 120 for the next 200 jumps. I'm just saying that there are people who do have low exit weights and keeping them at under 1.0 loadings until 500 jumps isn't helping them learn. It's probably not as rare as you think. Actually I weigh 110 pounds and my gear weighs 22 lbs. Yes, that includes everything. Smaller people have smaller rigs, helmets, shoes etc. so it adds up to less. Of course if I had to jump a 150 I'd have a larger rig, so the loading would be a little higher. There are probably more lighter people than you think. I'm light because I'm short, I'm certainly not super skinny. Anyway, even if it is rare, what about those few rare people? I know a lot of people who weigh under 110 pounds. Shouldn't they be taken into consideration in the regulation. A good portion of women skydivers do have lower exit weights may be adversely affected by these regulations. Just looking out for the small people out there.

I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. I have 300 jumps, all in less than a year. The 109 I currently jump at 1.2 falls into the correct wingloading. But since the minimum canopy size for this category is 150, I'd be stuck with a .88 loading until 500 jumps!?! Umm, I don't think so! This puts lighter skydivers at a disadvantage as far as improving their canopy skills. Most smaller women can't turn with their risers at low wingloadings. So that limits how much they can learn, and can also be a safety issue because they can't quickly turn after opening. It's also safer/easier to land going forward than going backward or straight down. Lighter jumpers will be more limited by wind conditions. This could discourage people. If they go to the dz every weekend and never get to jump because it's too windy for such a low loading, they may just stop going to the dz. I'm not saying this guideline is bad, but it may be better used as just that, a guideline. It doesn't take into account that not everyone is the same size. Wingloading is only one consideration in choice of canopy size. A suggestion would be to categorize further by weight groups. I'm not an advocate of downsizing quickly, but keeping a segment of skydivers at basically a student wingloading for 500 jumps isn't beneficial either. I think the issue of downsizing involves many, many different factors and each case is very individual. I'm glad those of us in the US get to enjoy less regulation than some other countries!

I have an Australian D. I started skydiving in Australia and have never really had a need to switch to a USPA license. As I said, I'm just curious. The current SIM states, "Under extreme circumstances, such as physical handicaps, a USPA Restricted license may be issued to applicants who are unable to meet all of the specific license requirements." Just wondering if someone with a restricted license gets the same privileges as someone with a regular license.

I'm curious, what does it mean to have a restricted license? For example, if someone has impaired night vision, is unable to do night jumps and therefore gets a restricted D. Does this restricted license allow for all other privileges of a D such as competitions and instructor ratings?

I think this point tends to get neglected in the numerous wing loading discussions in these forums. A 1:1 loading on a larger canopy is not at all the same as a 1:1 loading on a smaller canopy. It just doesn't scale down that way. There's a great article on PD's website that clearly explains this. (I know this article has been referred to before in the forums, but I think it's worth mentioning again). It concerns me that new jumpers with low exit weights may read these discussions and think that they're supposed to have a 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 loading at a certain number of jumps. I've just recently downsized to a canopy which I load at 1.2 to 1. To larger skydivers this may sound like a lower wing loading. It's not low when the canopy is a 109 sq. ft. It's a small canopy no matter what the loading is. I love my new canopy now, but I'm certain I wouldn't have loved it at 100 jumps or at 200 jumps. I'm not advising anything, just giving you something to think about. A 135 is going to be a lot more resposive than a 160 or 170 at the same loading. Just to share my experience since my weight is just a little lower than yours I started on a 240 (that was the smallest rental gear they had at the dz where I started jumping so I was stuck with it for awhile), from there I went to a Sabre 150 and then down to a Sabre 135 at about 100 jumps. So, if you do choose to buy the gear, no it probably won't take you forever to get on the 135, but a J-1 holds a 150 so why not put one in there and set the 135 aside for a little while. Also, as far as the J-1 goes, it's designed to hold a 150, a 135 fits very nicely, and I actually had a 120 in mine at one point (not recommending that, just saying it's been done). So you could get a lot of use out of it, just think carefully about which size canopy you put in there to start out with.

I'm 5'0" about 115 lbs. now. I have an Odyssey that was made for me and I absolutely love it! It fits perfect and is really comfortable. Mine is an RS-1 which holds a 120 (just barely). You'd probably have to get a TJN if you want it to hold a 135. So, my recommendation as another 5'0" jumper is get an Odyssey!

Thanks for the advice. It sounds like my sabre may still have a lot of good jumps left in it! I'll get it relined.

I have a Sabre 120 that's 10 years old and has about 1000 jumps on it. I had it inspected last week when I got my reserve repacked. The master rigger that checked it out said it's seriously out of trim and I shouldn't even be jumping it until I get it relined. Basically it's flying in brakes because the brake lines are significantly shorter than they should be. (And I thought it was my fault that I wasn't getting a good flare out of it... still pretty sure it's me.) So, I'm wondering, on a canopy this old is it even worth it to get a new line set on it. Or is it time to retire it. I have another canopy, but I had planned on keeping this one in my second rig. If I get it relined can I expect it to last another 300-400 jumps?

Since they consider it a theft it's treated the same as if it were a theft from my home, or the dz, or wherever. I'm covered for the full value of whatever is stolen.

I've traveled extensively in the past year and have never been stopped or questioned at all. I like to put my rig in a standard wheeled carry-on so if I were ever required to check it at least it would be in a relatively hard case. (I've seen the way they throw luggage around, don't want my fabulous Odyssey to get battered). I'll be flying from O'Hare to Orlando in a couple weeks on Spirit so I'll see how it goes then. I've never flown Spirit before. Since I'll be bringing two rigs this trip I'll have to check one. I contacted my renter's insurance (Allstate) to see if they cover lost luggage. They said that they treat lost luggage as a theft and it's covered as any other theft would be. They also recommended making a video or taking pictures of all my gear. This documentation significantly speeds up the claim process. I'm little less nervous about checking it now. At least if my luggage does disappear I won't be out 4000 bucks. Good to know.

Thanks for the advice. I've already contacted the Freefly Training Center, so if I can scrape up enough money I'll be in the down there next month.

I've been thinking about making a trip to the tunnel but now I'm wondering if I would be better off spending the money on coached jumps. Those of you who've been to the tunnel for freefly training, did you find it beneficial? I'm a small person (110 lbs.) so I can go really slow in a baggy suit. What do you all think would be best for progressing in freeflying? Coaching or tunnel time?

192