NoShitThereIWas

Thanks Timme!!!!! I need someone to tell me what to try. Tell me about the Crossfire 2. I need something fun and with great openings! Oh and no one flame hookitt please, but if you constructive disagreements please post! I don't have much experience under them but I remember loving the ride. I don't want to make any mistakes though... I also don't want to spend a fortune demoing a bunch of canopies. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Yeah that is what I am worried about. Canopies are expensive and I don't know... I guess I can demo both but does anyone have any experience to speak about under Katana or Nitro or Crossfire or Vengeance? As far as sinking out of the sky, my Stiletto does have lots of jumps on it and the fabric is not like new zero p. I'm wondering if a relatively new Katana 15 square feet larger will give more lift. Wendy, good thought. I guess I am just kind of over having unpredictable openings. At one point in my skydiving career that was "exciting" which in my older age is what makes the Spectre so appealing. I really do miss the greatest opening in the world. But I will never advance under the Spectre unless I want to do accuracy. I am not looking to be a pro swooper but I would like to continue with my progression and come in HOT once in a while when the time is right... you know??? Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Just wanting to hear mainly from experienced canopy pilots familiar with Spectres and Katanas. I have around 1,500 jumps and quit the sport about 6 years ago. I jumped a Stiletto 120 at expert wingloading and had a solid 10 years in the sport before I quit. I was no pro swooper or anything close to it, but I was a very competent canopy pilot tagging along with Nick Batsch, Robert Cook and Brian Kurzawa, all very competent swoopers back in the day. I learned from Jay Moledski right alongside them at Lake Wales and began mastering the brake, front riser, rotational dive and plane out to swoop technique (which is probably old skool by now) but I was developing that skill proficiently when I quit. This summer I got back in the saddle again after a 6 year break first under a Stiletto 150 which I had no problems landing but then when I downsized back to my 120, I sank out of the sky like a brick. Then my landings were less than graceful some of them and I thought to myself, is my canopy ragged out or am I just that fat? After visiting PDs website and calculating the weight I did put on since my departure from the sport, I quickly realized I am over the max wingloading weight with gear on. My less than desirable canopy landings also put a little dent in my ego when comparing them to those I have watched on video from back in the day. Upsizing is a no brainer, I will be well within the limits on a 135 however, I am debating between the Katana and the Spectre. With my Stiletto I do miss my stable on heading openings with my old Spectre but I am afraid if I buy a Spectre, I will be happy at first and then bored with its flight characteristics. I have jumped the Katana a handful of times when a dear friend allowed me the chance to jump his. I believe it was a 120 back in the day and I remember loving it. I have read everything on PDs website about it being between the Stiletto and the Velo. Not sure whether to go safe stable and boring or to the Katana which is fully elliptical and higher performance than the Stiletto. Anyone have any input?

This may piss some people off but in my opinion, any woman who votes republican in the upcoming election should have their voting privileges taken away. I am sorry but when historically, women have given up their lives in pursuit of equality and freedom and fought for independence; voting republican means you are willing to give up that right to a governing body to decide what you can and will do with your body, that you are not entitled to health care and that you are also inferior as far as job wage is concerned. Why any woman would be stupid enough to vote for that, I have no idea. Why vote for someone who could care less about what women need and want? Why give power to someone who admittedly has no respect for our entitlement to make decisions for ourselves especially regarding abortion after rape? I think male republicans who uphold those beliefs should get raped and have to give birth to and raise the child of the person who raped them. If only the tables were turned. I hope women are on it in this election. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Go Obama! God Bless America and the rest of the world. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Wasn't 8 years of GWB payback enough for America? Please, let the dems have 4 more years to get this country back on track before giving it back to the Republicans to fuck it all up again. We need to recover and I want to enjoy this world for four more years before it comes to an end. Seriously... Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

That was an awesome video. JT lived Large. Such a shame to see such talented hotties go in too soon. Looks like he had a lot more life to live. Condolences to the PD Factory team and to JTs friends and family. What an amazing Dude. And the footage was absolutely captivating. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Well I am going to let this thread die because I think I have made my points but I do happen to know this rigger. Again, your assuming makes and ass out of you and me. Furthermore, with regard to you being ethical, I can assure you that I also know plenty of people who know you who have educated me of the opposite. But we wouldn't want to get into that here, that is not what this thread is about. But your behavior is far from ethical in my eyes. We'll just leave it at that. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Wow PopsJumper, that is a bummer that he chewed your ass when you were only trying to help. But this supports my argument completely. Just because Mr. Mark went to look at the packing card to see if he packed the reserve or to check on something because he was in a state of panic or shock or concern does not make him a criminal who was intentionally trying to cover up something as LOLterry tried to convince all of us. That would be like coming on to this public forum and stating: That PopsJumper, he is a criminal! Do you know what he did? He went out into that field and picked up that main canopy and I know what he was thinking... he was thinking that he would screw up the whole crime scene and try to conjure a way to cover up the guilty party's actions. Do you see what I mean? LolTerry has no business claiming what that rigger was thinking any more than I have any reason to come on here and conclude that by moving that canopy you were not trying to help out, you were actually committing a felony. As someone who studied forensic science in college and criminal justice, I understand how important it is to keep the crime scene clean (meaning untampered with). But I am also pointing out the fact that as a rigger, unless someone stopped me or explained that to me under those circumstances, my first action would be to look at that data card to make sure I packed it. Again, I am not saying it is the best thing to do but it also does not show that my intent is to change anything to cover my ass. Also with regard to the judge laughing, no, you are right this is not a laughing matter. But when you are submitting evidence, you cannot do so by saying that you knew what someone was thinking. That is unfounded and almost like a form of hearsay which is not allowed and yes, if she tried to tell the judge that, he or she would tell her to sit down and shut up. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

And that is a good point and completely acceptable. I agree with you there. But to place full blame and criminal charges on the rigger in my eyes is overkill. Just saying. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

It may have "looked fishy" and may not have been the "best" thing to do but it also does not mean he intentionally tampered with the evidence as LolTerry was trying to insinuate. I never said the rigger bears no responsibility in this. I just said that what SkyBeerGod mentioned about her axe to grind seems obvious at this point. Again just stating my opinion here. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

You obviously cannot read or are too closed minded to open your eyes to what I wrote. I explained more than once that the rigger should have his ticket pulled and does bear partial responsibility. Why don't you go read what I said before you start flapping your lips in response to what I didn't write. Next... Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

This is my point and my "Axe to Grind", Ms. O'Hara. Do you have ANY idea how much SSK has spent to defend themselves? They had NO liability whatsoever! The rigger, instead of taking responsibility, chose to "spread the wealth", which I see as cowardly. The cost to SSK, Airtec and any other manufacturer WILL get passed on to all of us. Do you not get that? And removing anything from the scene is tampering with evidence. He did not go out to help..I have seen the photos and believe me, there was no chance or any possible help for this student. He went out there because (in my opinion) he was worried about the rig being in date...at the very least. And I am appalled at your statement, "Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL'...first of all, he was out of control, spinning on his back and kicking all the way down, according to eyewitness reports and according to eyewitness reports he likely saw a flash of trees when he pulled. Nothing failed here except the rigger and you have got to be smarter than you post makes you appear to be. God, people like you make me despair. First off Ms. LOLpullTerry, your axe to grind shows more clearly every time you speak but I guess some people cannot wait to expose the misfortune of others. You apparently are one of those people. Moving on. I, like you agree that it is unfair that SSK/Airtech were brought into the lawsuit. I don't think they should have had to spend one penny defending themselves. However, if this upsets you, you should direct your anger in the proper direction, to your lawmakers. Instead of looking for another opportunity to spew out at Jason Mark, perhaps consider that attorneys are required to name any and all possible litigants until they have been released by virtue of evidence to show that they do not belong as named defendants. Regardless of what Mr. Mark did or did not do, Airtech was going to be sued as a matter of attorney protocol in order to cover their asses and cover all possibie liability bases. This approach saves them from being sued for malpractice and helps to narrow down the true defendant. Mr. Mark was not "spreading his wealth" as the cause for Airtech being sued. So in response to your comment directed towards me which states "you have got to be smarter than your post makes you appear to be" touche. Tampering with evidence infers modifying or changing something relating to the scene to cover up or benefit the "guilty party" or falsifying something in order to prove their innocence. Your stretch of the imagination and attempt to convince readers such as myself that Mr. Mark clearly attempted to do this simply by checking the data packing card is comical. He probably should have waited until the coroner arrived to check anything but if you are going to infer someone does a criminal act such as tampering with evidence, you better back it up with better proof than the fact that you "knew what he was thinking". Any judge would laugh at you. Show me how he modified or altered the data card or equipment in some way and you might actually gain some credibility. Otherwise you are just sharpening and grinding that axe more and more with your outlandish suspicions and opinions. You commented on what the rigger "was worried about". Are you his brain? Were you there? How could you possibly with such conviction persuade others to believe that you could possibly know what was going on in the rigger's mind or what he was thinking? Wow! On top of being a crime scene expert you are also a telepathic mindreader! As far as you being appalled at my statement about the student having a death wish, I have already addressed other posters who opened my mind to the possibility that there may have been other options. The only other options I could conceive of are loss of altitude awareness and I guess if he was spinning on his back and having other equipment issues, those would be contributing factors. Again, I was not there so I am just guessing. Your blanket statement "Nothing failed here except the rigger" clearly shows your bias against Jason Mark as you cannot acknowledge pr assess ANY fault to the jumper at all which I am sure most people would disagree with. And... as far as your comment "God people like you make me despair." It seems as though your desperation has been present and all encompassing before you ever met me. Just my opinion. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Yes, and the act of the process of deciding if you want to argue semantics is "To pull or not to pull". He unfortunately chose the latter. Himph. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

I don’t he made a decision and contributed to his death. There was a problem and he and failed to decide what if any action to take. QuoteSparky, I hate to break this to you and PopsJumper but here it is: When you fail to decide what if any action to take, you are making a decision. The decision to do nothing is still a decision. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

And again, I am in complete agreement with you except for the fact that I do not believe a lawsuit should be filed against anyone here. In my opinion, the students shared responsibility for his death is 100% and the rigger 15% max. The student is dead. Nothing can bring him back. I understand the family is probably devastated and wants to blame someone. That is generally what happens when people die and we are suffering in pain. However, when the jumper is still 100% responsible for saving his life, and in this case did not, 100%, that is equivocal to committing suicide. When a person commits suicide, you can try to lay blame on other people... So and so was mean to that person and made them want to commit suicide. Well, that may be the case but the person who committed suicide made the choice. In this case, neither Airtech nor Mr. Mark made the choice to kill this individual. He did it to himself. Why does that entitle the family to sue? Is that going to bring the person back? Is that going to solve the problem? Is it going to fix the problem? I don't think so. The only thing that could have fixed this problem was if the jumper pulled one of the two handles to save his life and the rigger had his ticket taken away. I am sorry but I just don't feel that litigation in any sense of the action is suitable here. No party named as a defendant is the cause of this death, that lies 100% with the jumper. If they want to sue someone, they should go after their deceased first. Since he is not here to defend his actions which were 100% the issue, no one else should be named period. Again, JMHO. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

if you had a car accident and were not saved by your seatbelt, because you had first bucled said belt and then sat on top of it (so the seatbelt sign was OFF, but misrouted), how much should the seatbelt manufacturer be sued ? In response to the seat belt analogy and I see where you two are going with this but here is my answer: If I knew that wearing my seatbelt would save my life by preventing me from being ejected from my car and I did not bother to put it on, I would not rely on my windshield to save my life nor would I sue the windshield manufacturer or the windshield installer for not saving my life when I chose not to put my seat belt on. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

You seem to understand that an AAD is a required component for a student jump, but why can't you understand that the rigger who mis-routed the loop is responsible sending a student up without the required equipment. By succeeding in installing the AAD and control unit, and then failing to properly install the cutter in the container, he created a rig that appeared to be properly equipped, but was functionally not able to meet the requirements of a student rig. Furthermore, when said rigger is also the DZO and well aware that the rig he's working on is a student rig intended for student use, the proper installation of the AAD becomes even more important. As mentioned several times, it's required for student jumps, not optional as when it's installed in a licensed jumpers rig. We tell students it's a back-up device, but we also have an AAD as required equipment for students becasue students are an unproven quantity. Nobody knows how they will react to given situations, or how well they will retain or execute their training. That's why they're students, that's why they have lower wind limits, higher pull altitudes, and increased requirements for the equipment (and supervision) they need to conduct a skydive. Very good. Again, no one is disputing anything you said. I have said that in my own words if you go back and read it. Why can't you read and see that I agree with you. My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE. If the jumper did what he was trained to do, he would have survived. Unless Mr. Mark did something to the reserve canopy which prevented the jumper from opening his reserve (meaning by pulling the handle) such as causing a hard pull on the reserve or leaving a molar strap on to prevent it's inflation, primary responsibility still lies with the jumper. Didn't this guy have like 20 some odd jumps? We are not talking about a Level 1 AFF. He was jumping solo so he obviously had gotten through his AFF training and was well aware that if you don't pull anything you are going to hit the ground hard and die. Because Mr. Mark allegedly misrouted the loop on a tertiary back up device (not primary or secondary), IN MY OPINION, makes his liability minimal compared to the jumper. You have not one, but 2 canopies and x amount of altitude and time before you hit the ground. All you need to do is pull one and you should live. Don't pull anything and you are leaving your fate up to chance and dumb luck. If your Cypres fires and saves your life because you did not pull anything, lucky you. Quit the sport and take up bowling or golf, Skydiving is NOT for you. If you die because there is something going on with the Cypres whether it was misrouted or failed for some other reason, unlucky you and shame on you for relying on a tertiary computerized back up device to save your life. And it is tertiary considering you have the Main first to save you, the Reserve as a secondary device to save you and the Cypres or AAD third. Condolences to the family. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

if you had a car accident and were not saved by your seatbelt, because you had first bucled said belt and then sat on top of it (so the seatbelt sign was OFF, but misrouted), how much should the seatbelt manufacturer be sued ? I see your point but again, I would revert back to saying that a Cypres is not analagous with a seat belt. Your reserve canopy is. Your seat belt is not only the primary way to save your life (like a main canopy) but it is also perhaps the only thing to save you from being ejected from the car and killed (reserve). When I put my seat belt on, I know that and make sure I am wearing it and my passengers are too. I see your point and it is notable but in my opinion, doesn't quite fit this situation. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

I liked that. I hope I have balls like that when I am 80. She is awesome! Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

These are both good points MJO Sparky and PopsJumper. Let me clarify. First, you both are right, I should not assume he had a death wish from not pulling higher. Maybe he could not find his handle, maybe he had a hard pull on both, I was not there so I should not assume anything. I just think it is odd to have waited so long and not pulled anything? The first thing that came to mind was that he maybe had a death wish and then realized he did not and changed his mind. Usually pulling something at a reasonable altitude would negate that but I am sure there is "some" reason. I did not mean to say that I thought Airtech is responsible. Whether the error was made by the rigger or something was wrong with the unit, the student still waited too long to pull and no one should rely on anything but pulling their handles in order at the proper altitude and airworthy gear to save their life. I believe the rigger is partially responsible because it was on his watch and he should have caught the problem if it was misrouted. With that being said, the student is still 100% responsible for saving his own life and neither Airtech nor Mr. Mark should need to be sued or have to close their business doors as a result. I think something should be done and as a rigger, if I misrouted something and it could have saved a fatality from occuring, those are the kinds of mistakes that cannot be overlooked. Take away the rigger's ticket which will solve the problem of it ever happening again and in this case, call it a day. I am sure the emotional burden and everything else surrounding an incident like this one is plenty, there is no need to drag someone through the mud, sue them upside down and backwards, put them out of business for a situation like this one. If the rigger caused the fatality and their actions were 100% the cause of the fatality like leaving a molar strap on the reserve, my feelings would be entirely different. My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts. This is one of those unlucky fatalities when there are multiple causes contributing and snowballing into an uncontrollable mess. If it is found that Mr. Mark did misroute the loop which caused the AAD to fail, Cypres it is not a necessary component to make a safe skydive. It may be required to be on and activated for every student jump, just like an RSL but RSLs can break or malfunction as well and if that happened and a fatality was the result because a student did not pull, I still think the student is 100% responsible and the rigger is partially responsible simultaneously. Unlike the main canopy with a well packed reserve canopy, AADs are not necessary for survival. The reserve is the only real back up device. Because I don't feel the rigger or the AAD "caused" the problem and played a small roil in the overall picture, I don't think it is necessary to prosecute and ask for monetary compensation or cause a business to close it's doors. I am not saying that the problem need not be addressed, just not in a Court of law that is money and punishment driven to determine blame, fault, negligence and having the supreme power to criminally prosecute, impose heavy punitive damages and determine the fate of someone's business. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

I honestly don't know what good points your last two posts show other than seeming like you really do have an axe to grind. You make it sound like there is some conspiracy theory to hide something by Mr. Mark. Personally, being a rigger, if someone died, the first thing I would do after calling EMS and trying to help the person if not killed on impact would be to check the reserve data packing card. Trust me, if you were a rigger and there was any question of equipment failure, so would you. I am not sure that is conclusive of "tampering with gear" as you suggest. Second, as someone completely objective in this matter, you do sound like you have a serious axe to grind with this DZ. You are a little too excited to divulge your "evidence" which doesn't amount to much. I do believe Mr. Mark's question about not allowing him to inspect the gear in the presence of Airtech SSK is a valid one especially when his reputation and business were at stake. I do see a conflict of interest there when having SSK inspect the alleged faulty CYPRES considering they are the manufacturer of the device. I am not stating in any way that they are or should be liable but if my ass was on the line, I would insist on a 3rd party evaluation. Third, my answer to this question in the poll is 100% the student's fault and partial responsibility of the rigger. I do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive but if the jumper waited until 800-1000 feet AGL to pull anything, that is no one's responsibility or fault but his own. That right there is a suicide wish no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, every single First Jump Course I have taught and that has been taught should emphasize the fact that the AADs are a BACK UP SAFETY DEVICE, not a life saving device. I hate to sound so cruel but if you skydive by waiting for your AAD to fire, then Skydiving is NOT for you! It is very sad and unfortunate that this happened but that is called survival of the fittest/natural selection. If you aren't fit to pull your handles, in order then you are not fit to skydive, plain and simple and that can result in mental, emotional or physical fitness. With respect to Mr. Mark, the rigger. Yes, he "allegedly" misrouted the loop. Yes, that is an issue. Yes, I am sure Mr. Mark has paid dearly for this mistake and no there is no excuse for it. It is his responsibility to insure that the loop goes through the cutter every single time. That is why I assess partial responsibility to him. However, the fact the jumper died was a result of his own actions or lack thereof. Every jumper knows not to rely on their AAD to save their life. I also do not believe Airtec is responsible unless it can be proven that their device failed and even if it did fail, I believe the manual of the AAD specifically states that it is a back up device. Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL or he was relying on his BACK UP device to save his life. Either way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life. Nothing can be done to bring him back. I don't think Mr. Mark or Archway should be sued. His reserve parachute which is not a back up device did not fail him, his CYPRES which is did. Therefore, I think the rigger should have his rating taken away and that should be it. No law suits, nothing else. JMHO Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Damn, I hate reading this for so many reasons... I didn't even know Brady but Nick is a good friend and he has now lost both of his dear teammates Emily and Brady. Geez, I guess it is all part of what they do but nonetheless, devastating to read and hear about. Brady was obviously a very talented wingman underneath his canopy. I have watched and seen the photographs and video. For once, I am really starting to worry about my friend Nick. Don't know what else to say except for Blue Skies to Brady, his dear friends and family and to Nick: You are in our thoughts. Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

I will let you guys know when I disassemble everything. Won't be until next week. You are absolutely right though. As attached as I am if I am not convinced it is airworthy I am not jumping it. Thanks! Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires." Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."