• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

21 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Oceanside, Perris
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Tunnel Hours
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Wing Suit Flying
  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • Tandem
  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You can stand by it, but it's still wrong. I don't disagree that most HUMANS (myself included) do not understand the intricacies of the physics involved...but the risks are well documented. My other comments regarding BASE stand. As you were.
  2. Pretty much everything about this post is incorrect: "People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved." best. "BASE jumpers pull low for two reasons. First, their fixed object may not be very high. Secondly, to experience ground-rush, they need to pull below 2,000 to see the horizon in their peripheral vision." Third: Separation from a solid object. Fourth: To improve heading performance (for example, on a sub-terminal slider-up jump). Etc., etc. etc. "BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings." This statement ignores entire subsets of BASE jumps (terminal, tracking, WS) as well as the aforementioned differences between sky and BASE canopy openings. It also ignores the opening characteristics of slider-down/off packing techniques. I'm not going to read 15 pages about (or add any value to) an FAA/legal conversation about BASE rigs and aircraft in the USA, but I do think you've got a lot of misconceptions about BASE jumping.
  3. It's a nice saying but reality is more complicated than that. "If you find a job you love, that doesn't pay enough income, you'll work your ass off until you don't love it like you used to. But if you find a job you love that pays enough income, you'll never work again." That might be more complete. It's up to you to determine what "enough income" means.
  4. Pay for passion, work for income. When you turn fun into work, fun just becomes work. I've done both. For me, it's a lot happier/healthier to separate work and play.
  5. They want increased net revenue (pun!), not necessarily "time sales." Margins on experienced flyers are low. First time flyers, birthday parties, etc. That's the time they want to book in order to maximize profit per operating hour. Coaches suck up bulk time and pay lower rates for it. Not saying I like it, but it is what it is.
  6. Bluhdow


    It's been out for a long time, just under the name "Onesie Power."
  7. I burned out on TI work way faster than that. Good on you for sticking with it so long. The logistics of working in this industry make burnout easy. Always having to be available, no (or low) pay when the weather is bad, no benefits or paid time off like a "real" job, zero hopes of building up a retirement fund, etc. The lifestyle is part of the "compensation," and I think it will always be that way. If the lifestyle isn't your jam anymore, go get a proper job with a proper wage and jump for fun again. I spent 3 years as a TI and loved it. I'm so glad I did it. That said, I'm back in the real world and if I never pickup another tandem rig it wouldn't bother me one bit. =)
  8. In related news: Pickup trucks absolutely suck. They are literately slow as balls. I can out race one in my sleep with something even as simple as a sedan. Anyone who recommends a pickup truck clearly has absolutely no experience with performance driving.
  9. Anyone who compares a Havok to a performance suit clearly has absolutely no experience with acro flying.
  10. I've owned about 12 wingsuits over the years. The original Havok is the only one I KNOW that I will never sell. People who bash Havoks are usually fanatics about speed being the only metric by which a WS should be measured. They are also usually choking on light blue Kool-Aide. You should be able to get it cheaper than $500. If you do, it will be the most fun-per-dollar WS you'll own.
  11. My first WS BASE jumps were on a Havok. If you're at the more mellow, "intro" exits the Havok is a great, forgiving choice to get your feet wet.
  12. One of you is saying "speed is important." The other is saying, "control is important." You are both correct. It's just that the underlying preferences are being highlighted. PF is known for precise, clean flying suits. Hence the tunnel and control focus. Sq is known for fast suits, hence the speed focus. For what it's worth, I've flown a ton of stuff and I'll never sell my original Havok. Pretty much everything else has been rotated through.
  13. I don't think anyone will argue that a couple/few are not doing it right. Marketing, that is.
  14. I think it is, at least in some cases. The point is less about the gear, and more about the misconception that exiting an aircraft to fly terrain is somehow less dangerous than WS BASE. Yes, you eliminate the exit risks...but you create new risks that are equally (if not more) problematic. I'm not sure what the motivations are for the OP to pursue a BASE style jump with sky gear, but if it has anything to do with the perceived safety increase of sky gear I think the whole plan is a bit misguided.
  15. It's probably safer to exit from the Eiger with proper gear.