daveb

Well, since you asked.... ;-) Both are high quality units, and both perform their basic functions superbly. The Neptune is a more recent design, has addressed some perceived limitations of the ProTrack, and really is a sexy unit. However, I still prefer my ProTrack. It has not once failed me, does everything I need, and has become a trusted friend (not to the exclusion of eyeballs and common sense). The company's support of their product is exemplary. Yes, my team is sponsored by L&B, but I purchased my ProTrack some time ago at full retail with my own funds, and I would do it again: the quality and reliability of the ProTrack, and the L&B customer support have created in me a highly satisfied customer.

I haven't looked at the dive pool for a while, so I was a bit surprised by the picture on omniskore. But that one doesn't show slots, and my team's standard adder (like most teams') is the mirror image of this, with P taking OC cat grips, IC sidebody on P, much like the second picture Bill posted (zAdder.jpg). The "C" shape is due to OC cheating inwards. Our "Z" adder is built more like the dive pool picture, with P outfacing. However, P angles away from the center of the formation, lending it a "Z"-ish shape. Another common build is the usual "C" shape, but OC taking cat grips on T, T sidebodies IC, IC takes P cat grips. The differing builds accommodate the points before and after. For instance, the sequence "sidebody-adder-hammer" lends itself to a Z adder with minimal movement, whereas "yuan-adder-buddies" has smaller moves with a "standard" adder. The tradeoff is memory -- the less frequently used builds require more mental effort, and tend to build slightly slower for most teams. The question to ask yourself is if the unfamiliar build really saves you more time than a longer move to a "standard" build, recognizing that a brain lock in competition can be worth many points (busts @ -2, precious seconds spent un-locking and correcting your move).

It's a nice combination of a sidebody and adder: Sadder! The more we build this, the sadder our score . Okay, weak... The formation is flying nicely, and there is good eye contact. It appears point (blue) is grippy, and outside center (green) has presented sidebody in error. I say point is grippy because he has incorrect grips and is already looking back to center. It is difficult to tell from a snapshot the order of events. BTW, white gloves would show the grips much more clearly.

Agreed. We perhaps attach different degrees of competence to 'handle' and 'proficient'. I've met so many self-proclaimed experts (in skydiving, driving, computers, etc) with so obviously little experience (300 jumps, 2 years, 3 years, etc) that I'm loathe to attach higher levels of competence to all but a few, myself included. I'll come back to this in a moment. The hoped 'positive example' was the lengthy time spent under comparatively larger canopies/wing-loading, with demonstrated landing abilities, and still the idea that there is so much left to learn and more performance left on the table -- pretty much the antithesis of the swooper who got busted up, and the many jumpers I've met in a great hurry to downsize to get better swoops/more performance well in advance of their experience. In reference to being able to 'handle it', I mean that I believe I can fly it in all anticipated conditions (winds, heat, humidity, constrained altitudes, obstacles, line twists, etc). I would not grant proficiency until I demonstrated ability to fly it in those conditions; competence upon demonstrating the ability to finesse the thing through a course or able to repeatedly land in a controlled manner in pre-determined spot; and expertise only upon repeated, highly trained, near-perfect success in high-performance, all-condition flight. By these (ambiguous) criteria, I'm only competent in my main, and can 'handle' my reserve. Relevance to the topic? I agree with those that say most jumpers are downsizing far too early relative to their demonstrated abilities. I am likely too far on the conservative side (but I am currently intact). I hope that my related progression and thoughts will at least give pause to those inclined to Go Big that there is plenty of time to practice under more forgiving canopies while still doing Way Cool Things. Oh, and about my reserve wing-loading: it is a PD reserve! ;-)

There is a difference between being able to handle a smaller canopy* vs continually jumping it. Besides, I won't actually switch to the PD113R for another couple of weeks, so as of today, I'm still following my own advice. ;-) * I have flown a smaller canopy a few times; when the time comes, I can land it safely.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've a pretty healthy ego, but I also enjoy the use of my legs, and enough sense that if I push too hard, one or both will get pasted. In the hope that perhaps a positive example is worthwhile, I'll outline my choices. I have over 2000 jumps, and fly a Stiletto 120 loaded 1.6. I have about 1000 jumps on this canopy size, flying in almost every condition except high-altitude DZs (e.g. Denver), including the 672-way in Bangkok (congested, tiny, no outs), numerous 100+ big ways, and 4-ways in most meteorological conditions, and can safely fly the canopy to where I want to land. I am not getting all the performance from my canopy that it is capable of, and I believe I lack to the experience to downsize. I have set myself a restriction that I will not downsize again until I at least take a canopy control course, with the intention of really learning to fly what I have. Why downsize to force better performance when learning the ins-and-outs of my canopy will allow me to fly better, in more control, and with a margin for error? Perhaps when I discover how to fly my canopy better, I will no longer feel a need to downsize. I have had to put aside my ego often with my choice. I am frequently, albeit good-naturedly teased by my teammates and friends about flying a 'boat', and have had numerous offers to fly and/or buy a smaller, more aggressive canopy. The reality is that nobody you care about will think less of you for NOT pushing too hard, that recognizing what is too hard requires more than a few hundred jumps, and there is plenty of wisdom on the net and at your DZ to be had for the asking.

I train intensely, Visualize my skydives; 4-way rocks my world! Blue skies are calling Below, the ground is distant; I know why birds sing! This one just seems appropriate to our year, thus far. No bad vibes intended. Thunder is our name; Why did we select that one? It's raining again.

Anatidaeophobia. My favorite fear is Luposlipaphobia -- the fear of being pursued by timber wolves around a kitchen table while wearing socks on a newly waxed floor.

Much more time is spent on the flat than the hill. There are only ~7 seconds on the hill, but ~28 on the flat in competition, or ~53 from altitude. If you want to pick up alot of points, work on your flat technique. Until you have started to get really consistent on the flat, the hill work can wait. If you cannot wait, break the first point immediately upon launch, and fly the formation no-contact, without turning points. Look at your cross partners eyes, not the ground or horizon or aircraft or Elvis. Progress slowly by incorporating easy 90 degree turns for one or two, all no contact. Add difficulty as your team gets better in the basics.

Wrong. You'll have 2 out and 2 in. Front is inside facing outside the door with a left hand grip on the left leg of the center while having his upper body out the door. Or your shoulder outside works well. On the occasions I've had to exit a Caravan, I'm almost always outside, and always on a meeker: outside aircraft, facing out, right arm behind and hanging on, left arm gripping OC leg. I've my doubts I'd be able to successfully launch a meeker as point from inside. I don't find Caravan exits to be similar to Otter exits. I have to change my mindset and technique, and some exits just do not work/fit without major alteration. Sigh. Perhaps if I had a better attitude about Caravan exits, I could be more successful at them. I'm not strongly motivated. Bulletproof exits don't exist. A meeker is rather solid, and can take alot of abuse. A stairstep is relatively easy, also. I think the easiest, most consistent exit is a star, three out, one in: the inside (IC) gives the count, holds chest straps of middle (OC) and rear (T). Front (P) holds on to aircraft with right arm, already presented, OC grips P arm, T grips OC arm. On exit, P and T get IC grips, and IC releases chest straps.

We have all had that wonderful experience when a jump is going so well, we celebrate when we get on the ground. ``Great jump!'' ``Awesome!'' ``Did you see everyone's grins?!'' We were training a block drill, and the block was turning superbly, repeatedly -- the best any of us has ever done. All our coaches' inputs were realized in the technique we applied, and the dang thing was almost magical. It was so much fun that we broke concentration at the bottom of the dive to geek each other and our camera flyer, who had come down on level. If you've ever seen a small child just burst out in glee when he figures something out, that's a measure of we felt. It feels good. I don't mean to gloat. Really. I just wanted to share that there is a feeling you can obtain that vastly transcends the great fun jump. It requires alot of time and effort to get there, but it's worth every second and every penny. Those that think team training is too much work may be right, but they are also missing a reward otherwise unobtainable. I hope everyone here gets a chance to feel this way. Your hard work can pay off richly!

We got some more reps in this weekend, finally; Dallas area weather has been anything but jumper friendly since December 2003 -- I heard a Seattle native joking that he was going to return home just to get some good weather!. But I digress. ;-) Most of the times when I attempted the small hop over IC legs, I would also slide away from the formation. We do the block at a pretty good clip, so I'm turning as I'm hopping, and usually end up slanted on the vert. This doesn't keep me close. So I tried using no vertical at all: I key, turn left 90, wait for IC legs, finish turn into grips. The only issue now is I have to watch my spacing so I'm not too crunchy on the close. I have great vision of the center, excellent proximity, and a relatively leisurely pace to ensure a smooth move. It may not equal the technique of the top teams, but for our current level, it is quick and consistent, on the hill and on the flat.

On block 4 (mono-mono), point should be a bit more than one foot below, at least on my team. Failure to acheive the requisite vertical separation resulted in my seeing my IC's knee up close and personal. I've always gone under on 4: good visuals, less vertical needed, more grip surface available to OC on close without reaching up/down, and less chance of back-packing someone. I've not hit OC on block 20 yet, shear or cog. Crashed the close, many times, but the shear has cleaned that up a bunch.

Nope - Bu (IC). I was attempting to cut down the vertical a bit too much. Lesson: when doing vertical moves, it is helpful to have some vertical separation.

I got my black eye from block 4, and had my bell rung on 3, but I've not come close on block 20. My technique on cogging piver/viper was dock on IC, eyes with T, key and turn right 90, and as soon as IC legs cleared my legs, follow with my legs immediately behind IC legs, finishing another 360-400 degrees of turn, watching my legs into OC grips, looking over my left shoulder in a healthy cheat. There was only a small moment when I did not have good visuals with the center -- the secret here is to delay the head switch on the turn as long as possible. I suspect the pause before you start your move is what is causing your problems. Try the above technique, and see if that works better.

Inferno used the cog with IC turning OC. I tried the shear technique last year with OC spinning IC, but was spectacularly unsuccessful. Since our cog times were relatively good, and very consistent up front, we kept the cog. This year, Thunder is using the shear with IC turning OC. I'm now closing it quite well for the most part. The big realization was that I should not translate in the vertical, and that the vertical over the IC legs is quite small. The resulting 360 feels two-stagey - barely over IC feet and face the formation, then finish targeting legs into OC grip from the side. The block is closing very well, and mostly consistently. We don't exactly have a lot of practice on this block yet, but the shear feels better than the cog of last year. Best advice I can give here is stick with what is working for you right now, and spend your training on those blocks giving you some grief. If you've some tunnel time, you might try a 3-way with the shear just to feel the difference, but otherwise, it's pretty late in the year to change unless it's a real problem area.

100% spot-on. I rather like the hard-core aspect of training. I do not believe I could enjoy long-term tandem-master or AFFI, but coaching and competition are a siren song. I derive an immense amount of pleasure from working hard at getting better, and passing along what little I know to hungry jumpers. I'm currently blessed with teammates that share these desires. Perhaps someday my obsession will turn into vocation, but since it doesn't pay squat, it will certainly have to be a labor of love. To address the original question: I think the ability to excel in RW is a gift; becoming good can be learned with a modicum of effort. The more effort applied, the better your skydiving can become, until you reach your personal effort/reward saturation point. Note that reaching this point means only you have found your 'happy place', and may change over time. -- Dave

Click here, scroll down a bit for an abbreviated version.

I remember one of my teammates learning to walk around in the tunnel a couple or three years ago. Gary Beyer was teaching him, and they were walking around like gorillas, half crouched, arms up, hands out to the sides, swaying back-n-forth. Occasionally, they'd scratch themselves. I was doubled up with laughter. In the tunnel, there is no pride, and no shame.

Seaweed? Would that be like standing in the tunnel and allowing your arms to flail over your head? I've not heard that term before.

If you're like most of us, you'll repeat this over and over and over and over and.... And the only time it's bad is if you beat yourself up over it. But, you're alive and well, so you did recover. You've done it once, so you know you can do it. The only unrecoverable exit is the one you give up on. Probably the most difficult thing in this sport is to keep your cool on when something funky happens, and correct it as needed. You did this! And that is a very good thing.

(Perhaps this belongs in the 'Relative Work' forum?) The only real problem here is providing unwanted, unsolicited information. If someone asks, even if they have the potential to outscore my team, I'll provide the best answer I can. If they do not ask, it depends on a variety of factors: do I know them, are they having obvious trouble, are they doing something way off the mark? Engineering is not some secret thing (we all prep in public), and what works for one team may be wholly inappropriate for another. Engineering a dive has to play to the team's strengths and account for their weaknesses. Nobody likes a knowitall; popping in with unsolicited advice can be received in the wrong way. And I agree with Bill, in most cases, engineering is a team's own business. But if I see something way out of whack, I'll at least ask if they are open to a suggestion.

Absolutely the right thing to do, and congratulations on your win. But your qualifications beg the question: Would you have helped them if everybody had competed before? If they were either outscoring you or were likely to? I'm sure your answer would be yes, Conway, because you're that kind of guy. I would hope others would do the same, no matter the circumstances. I prefer: "I saw a team prepping a bust. I told them."

Correct, but the first jump course is not allowed of a USPA coach. I don't want to get into a reg-quoting contest. I provided the link to the free portion of the IRM so you would have USPA sanctioned answers to your questions about requirements. Your S&TA will be more than happy to help you out with any specifics that apply to your unique situation and abilities. Not true, except for 'helping' student jumpers. It has been my observation that the people most needing coaching and help are those who are no longer students, myself included.

See USPA IRM, especially page (16 of 27), section A.4. This is highly commendable, and is in large part what this sport is about. However, you do not need a rating of any type to do this. See the url above, especially page (6 of 27). Respectfully, you have quite a ways to go before you are really qualified to coach any discipline. Your enthusiasm is great; keep at it for a couple of years then look at picking up a rating. In the meantime, infect as many people as possible with your love of the sport.