Nullified

Other than this statement, I like your post. I just can't understand why a Tandem would be considered to be "Unpure." It's simply another method. I'm sure that there are people out there who consider AFF to be "Impure" compared to S/L progression, or that radio assist and AADs on student rigs are "Impure". How would you respond to them? My first jump was a Tandem, and I don't feel that there was anything impure about it. In fact, I don't find any purity or redeeming value in belittling another's chosen method of instruction or learning. Quite the contrary. And if a TM has the attitude that Tandems are somehow less, or impure or whatever, then that TM should reconsider why he or she is a Tandem Master. Again though, I do agree with the rest of what you wrote. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I don't agree with you. If someone wants to participate in this sport, following their Tandem they will go through the student program, same as everyone else. And how can you say that doing a Tandem doesn't carry responsibility and consequence? Can you die or be maimed doing a Tandem? Who keeps the student stable during their first AFF dive? The two instructors. Who deploys if the student forgets or is unable to? One of the two AFF instructors. If you and both AFF instructors fail to, then what? The AAD will probably do it. Flying and landing the canopy is up to you, yes, but most DZs are also giving radio support to AFF students to assist them. I guess teaching students on ram airs is also cheating because spotting is less of a problem. I guess I cheated. I guess thousands of other skydivers cheated as well. I guess we're not really the 'right' type of individuals for this sport. Sorry, didn't mean to pollute your sport. I'll quit. There is a lot of cheapening going on here, but not by Tandems. Think about what you might be cheapening with your words. Stay safe and pure, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I don't know about that. I can't say for sure, but I may not have bothered with it either. I made my first jump because I was curious and had just always wanted to try it. Tandems are the equivalent of sleeping together before buying a ring Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

How exactly? It bothers me when I hear people describe tandems as a carnival ride. Regardless of the specifics, there's nothing trivial about tossing yourself out of an airplane. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

As I understand Scott's courses, if this is a single two-day course, it's probably a skills course for more experienced jumpers. If I'm wrong about this, please post so that people know what type of skills course it is. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

My mains are a Lightning 143 and a Sabre2 170. My reserve is a 181, which I've had the pleasure of flying twice. I could see myself eventually getting down to a 135 main, but I like my 181 reserve, and I don't think I'll ever go smaller than 160. I just don't see any good reason to. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Ari, you bum. Couldn't you have made #1000 four weeks earlier?? Congratulations Bro, and get your ass back up to The Ranch!! Love ya', Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Nathan, this isn't directed towards you, but to anyone and everyone in general. Bill's checklist is a beautiful thing, but it's important to remember that it should be approached as more than just a simple, "Done this, done that" checklist. Just because you've performed all of those tasks one or several times intentionally under good conditions doesn't necessarily mean that the skills have been "Learned". I think a better indication would be, how many times the shit has hit the fan and you've successfully pulled off the tasks on Bill's "Checklist". I know that it's unrealistic to sit around waiting for the shit to hit the fan over and over, but I think you understand the point I'm trying to make. Plenty of people have performed those tasks, and still, when they're faced with a surprise situation which requires them to utilize those skills to save their ass, they brainfart. Flying a canopy is such a beautiful and dynamic experience, and just when you think a particular canopy's performance range has been exhausted, you'll find some other way to challenge and enjoy yourself with it. Don't rush through the experiences, you'll miss out on more than you realize, and you'll be cheating yourself. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Imagine your foot catching a divet or snagging on some overgrown grass or cereal bowls, and the rest of your body wanting to keep going...which it will. Ouch. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I was talking about normal full flight with no input. Cold weather sucks, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Glad you enjoyed that In the Lightning's defense, I've never had any trouble getting nice landings under mine (Sequential trim). OK, 2 or 3 on my face, but that's about it. Well, I'm out the door and on to a flight to FL. Scooter, thanks for the rig and we'll miss you this time. We'll stack a few beers for ya'. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I've never jumped a Stiletto. About 16 months ago when I demo'd my first Lightning, it was a 160. I found it to have very little forward drive, and an incredibly short recovery arc compared to my SA 170. I also found it to respond more quickly to my input. I think that for someone who isn't really well tuned in to canopy flight in general yet, these characteristics can be deceptively dangerous. The very noticeable shorter recovery arc can tend to give the pilot an unrealistic sense of security..."OK, it recovers much more quickly from a turn / dive, so I'm less likely to make a 'Too low' turn"..."OK, I'm not moving as fast over the ground as I'm used to, so less speed means less danger." These are dangerous thoughts, and while most of you may have never thought this way, a lot of newer pilots might think this way, whether they realize it or not. While the Lightning recovers from a turn / dive more quickly, it will also put you in to a turn / dive more quickly. **again, I'm only speaking in comparison to my Sabre2 and a couple other similar canopies that I've flown** As wayne pointed out also, the Lightning will have a greater descent Vs. glide ratio than most other canopies, and it's the vertical speed that usually does the most damage. Also, while the Lightning will land just fine, it has much less flare to work with and the timing is much more critical than on any other canopy, as far as I'm aware. If needed, during the landing flare I can tweak my Sabre2 with a much more dynamic range available to me than I can with my Lightning. When I land my Sabre2, I feel like I'm 'flying' it to a stop, whereas when I land my Lightning, I feel more like I'm avoiding a high speed collision with the Earth. What I always tell people is, you can land a Lightning just fine, but you only get one shot! The Lightning is much less forgiving with an imperfect flare. Probably babbled a bit more than needed, but I'm very tired. Anyway, I think that the combination of a shorter recover arc, less forward penetration, twitchier response, greater descent rate and a much shorter flare range can be quite deceptive to some people. Just some things for newer jumpers to consider and keep in mind. Peace and very good coffee to all, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Yeah, I don't think anyone should land alone. Regardless of the type of jump I'm doing, if someone is landing off and I can safely make it to where that person is landing, I will try to land with them...mal or not. I always have my cell with me, and you never know whether the person is hurt or not. Stay safe, Mike Edited to add; Jim, sorry I couldn't land in that tree with you last weekend If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Bubbles, CHTG, Welcome back to the north east. That's one more case of beer you owe now Love ya', Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Bob, This line of discussion isn't getting anyone anywhere. PM sent. Be well, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hi Grant. I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results. To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF. Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made. Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea. Grant, this isn't directed towards you, but I'm finding it really sad that most people seem to be more concerned with the way the e-mail was written than about the topic of the e-mail. Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hi Grant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wingloading wasn't an issue on this accident. I could have been under a gigantic canopy, and the same results would have still occured. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I think it is admirable that this jumper is accepting culpability for him/(her?)self, I do still find myself somewhat disagreeing, and now asking again of you Mike, for further opinion on this statement. *** I don't disagree with Bubbles in that she made the mistake that put her in the hospital, but I do disagree with her regarding the results. To say that under a gigantic canopy the sane results would've occured is like saying that under a smaller canopy the resluts wouldn't have been worse. If this were the case, then downsizing would never be an issue. We could all just buy tiny canopies fresh out of AFF. Every canopy is dangerous, but a larger canopy is going to do less damage than a smaller canopy if the same mistake is made. Bubbles almost died. If she had been flying a 113, the damage would've been greater. If she had been under a VX46, well, that's the idea. Grant, this isn't directed towards you, but I'm finding it really sad that most people seem to be more concerned with the way the e-mail was written than about the topic of the e-mail. Some people have gone past the heated tone of the words and addressed the issue, but most haven't. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Bob, No, I still don't understand. Unless this e-mail describes Genn, which it does not, then why would she be insulted? Again, why? If this e-mail doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Same for every other CReW Dog who you've spoken to. To get people to consider the added risk of lower time jumpers under more highly loaded canopies. I'd like the names of the CReW Dogs who he torched. As far as I remember, "...Some of them..." was as specific as he got. In spite of Scott's e-mail? Regarding my statement, I didn't mean to imply that CReW Dogs care less. That was poorly worded on my part, and I'm sorry about that. So, and I ask this with no sarcasm, what is it that CRW will, "Learn from this incident", and how will CRW, "Work to make things even safer"? What is it that's lacking, or needs to be addressed or changed? Would you recomend a reserve loaded at 1.3 - 1.4 to a low time jumper? Well, then the e-mail doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of CReW Dogs, and they shouldn't feel insulted. It doesn't apply to me, and that's why I wasn't insulted by it. I posted Scott's e-mail because I was hoping to begin a discussion. I didn't realize that I was then responsible for distributing everyones replies on every forum, to every forum. Kirk's post was an excellent explanation of Lightning wing loadings, and I sincerely thanked him for the information, and for taking the time. But, and I don't mean any criticism by saying this, explanations don't change the risk factor of a higher wing loading. Explain, yes. Alter, no. I won't say that I'm concerned about CRW wingloads. I'll say that I'm concerned about wing loads, period. I have commented on CRW wingloads in other posts. In the other forums, there was much more discussion, so that's where most of my comments were made. Again, I'm not going to crosspost every reply to every forum. My posts are there, go find them. I wrote them once, I'm not going to go digging them because someone missed or chose to not read them. Chosen not to reply for what reason? Is safety not a worthy issue? If you don't like the way the e-mail was written, say that, and get past it. Beyond that, you're attacking someone for questioning the practice of suggesting higher wing loadings to newer jumpers. Don't let a valid issue become lost over dissagreement of words. To that end, I offer an apology for my misinterpreted statements and poorly chosen words, and ask that you and everyone else share your thoughts on the issue. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hi Genn. Why would I have cross posted every reply from everyone to every forum? Your point of view was very clear. I never said that you agreed with what he claims. I only suggested that you seem to agree that newbies don't need to be under a highly loaded canopy to begin learning CReW. You stated that Vinny and Scooter et cetera worked around your light wing loading rather than suggest a higher loading than you were ready for at that time. That's the point of the e-mail, that it can be done. Here's his comment that you responded to; You responded with; to which I responded, There was no confusion or manipulation. I'm writing what I really think. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Hi Genn. I'm not sure why you feel insulted. Many of the statements that you made actually support what Scott was trying to say in his e-mail. Most interesting was your comment about Vinny, Scooter, Jon and Alan... Genn, that's the point that Scott was trying to make. You may not like the way he said it, but your above quote sums it up pretty well. Scott no longer works for PD, and was not involved in their demo program. The records that he makes mention of are from his independent canopy skills camps. Concerning your statement about low turn injuries and freefallers, the online forums and pages of Parachutist are filled with discussions about wingloadings. And that is another point of Scott's e-mail...that outside of CReW, there seems to be a more public concern when a low timer chooses an aggressive / less forgiving wing loading or planform. Maybe more people should take an approach more like Scooter, Vinny, Jon and Alan did with you. Some do, and more can. See you soon, Mike Edited for spelling If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

A friend of mine had one of those helmets. I'm pretty sure it was the Havok...definitely one of the Bonehead helmets. He had the same problem. Got rid of it and bought something else. If I remember correctly, there were also a few interesting snag points that he was concerned about. I haven't used many different helmets, but I think that was the worst and possibly most potentially dangerous helmet design I've seen so far. Not being able to see your handles is very dangerous. OK, he may be able to find his handles in an emergency without being able to see them, but then again he may not. Also, consider the very real possibility that a handle becomes partially or completely dislodged during the skydive. He'll have no way of knowing. Tell him to get rid of that helmet and buy one that isn't going to creat an added level of danger. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

I think that going through AFF in a short period of time is better than spreading it over a month or longer, but that doesn't mean that it's best to cram it all into a few days either. Muscle memory is a big issue, but sometimes giving yourself time to let things sink in is also an advantage. I noticed this most after I had hurt my shoulder at around Jump #240ish. I was on the ground for about six weeks, and when I got back up, I was flying better than I had been before my injury. I know this isn't just my imagination, because people told me this as well. It's been well documented in other sports and activities that training in your mind is a very powerful tool, and I believe that. All that time on the ground, going through dives in my mind did have a positive effect on my skill when I got back up in the air. Of course everyone's different, but it might be helpful to complete part of the course, take a week off, let it all sink in and then come back and complete the course. Having some video shot is also very helpful. Often, what you think you're doing with your body isn't really the case, and it can be difficult to translate between what you think you did, what you've been told you did, and what you're going to try next. Seeing yourself in the act is a powerful tool for adjusting what you 'feel' your doing to what is really happening. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Icarus Boy, I like that idea, and I considered it for a moment. Truth is, I can never sell that canopy. I don't think I could ever sell a canopy again. I know it's corny, but I fall in love with them. I'm even considering re-purchasing my first PD F111 canopy which I traded for a pilot chute two years ago, and is still sitting on the shelf in the Pro Shop. It's breaking my heart seeing it there. All that being said, I just bought another Lightning and I'm going to end up replacing my reserve soon...don't have the cash for yet another canopy. Thanks for making me smile Perhaps one day, if I try very hard, I can become cool. Stay safe, Johnny. Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Everyting's helpful, just a matter of degree! I think Indyz has made the best point...I don't want holes being ripped in my topskin! I know we're talking basic classification here, but I don't fly my Sabre2 as a HP canopy. I hardly fly it at all, in fact. I'm just thinking about those rare times when a little CReW on the bottom half of the occasional RW jump 'happens', and I'd be much more comfortable without a trailing bridle. For instance, right now my Lightning is at the bottom of a swamp near ZHills, and my new Lightning is still over a month away. I don't mind Sabre CReW, but I'd feel better if I could make it a little safer. I'm not sure why the retraction would cause the canopy to collapse. I'd like to hear more about that if anyone has more to offer. Thanks, everyone, and stay safe. Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.

Howdy. Have any of you ever done a 3-ring bridle retraction mod, like is used on Lightning's, to another main? I'm wondering if there would be any negative side effects to performing this mod on say, a Sabre2 or similar canopy. Of course the appropriate bridle and non collapsable pilot chute would need to be used. Thanks, and stay safe. Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid.