Westerly

Members
  • Content

    982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by Westerly

  1. Perris, CA is the best fun jumper drop zone on the west coast if not the entire USA so obviously that should make the list.
  2. Does anyone get employed as an actual employee or is it always some 1099 baloney?
  3. Collapse resistance in places where rotors are an issue is a big one. Too many of my lighter (mostly female) friends have suffered broken backs. My bit of advise is to ask experienced jumpers (i.e. S&TA?) at your DZ if there are practical reasons to downsize, and demo canopies when the opportunity presents itself (i.e. at a boogie). That is the one advantage I have heard. Winds and rotors are a concern at my DZ and I have had issues with both in the past. However, that's also why I bought an airlocked canopy on my last downsize and so I am presuming I am safer in winds on an airlocked 170 than I am on a non-airlocked 150. I am kind of under the assumption that an airlocked canopy cannot collapse from turbulence unless said turbulence is so extreme that even the most experienced shouldent be jumping. I still sit it out if the winds are too high (about 17 MPH with turbulence is my limit), but feel confident that if I get caught in something nasty that the airlocks will prevent the canopy from collapsing regardless of whether I am at my current WL of 1.05 or I downsize. As such, it seems that downsizing to a non-airlocked canopy will make things worse, not better and the only wind advantage I would get if if I downsized to another, smaller airlocked canopy.
  4. Yes, they are unsure as they have never packed the Nano. They werent even completely sure about the Optimum.
  5. I have about 160 jumps with a WL of about 1.06 (1.1 if wearing weights for RW). At my DZ downsizing seems to be a major focal point for a lot of jumpers. Most of my friends spend a good portion of the day talking about training to downsize. I fly a square 170 and I have been fine with it so far but on occasion I get a bit of friendly grief about not trying to downsize further to a 150. So am I correct in my assumption that downsizing my case would mostly be risk without much reward or am I just not in the know and I am really missing out not flying a 150? I dont have much interest in swooping and I dont attempt HP landings of any type.
  6. Anyone know if it will fit? I have an Icarus Nano 193 in a Mirage G6 and I am looking to put it into an Aerodyne NexGen Icon A series I5 along with a 170 main. I called the loft and they have never packed a Nano and could not fully advise if it will fit or not. The pack volume charts I've seen seem like BS. Mirage says their M6 tray is 363 cubic inches but Icarus says the Nano packs to 424 cubic inches so something is off. I am told the Nano packs very similar to the Optimum so if the Optimum 193 fits in an I5 NexGen Icon A series then it should fit.
  7. Yea, Mirage worked with you because they wanted your money. They worked with me too. Until after I bought my rig. Then all a sudden things went from no problem answering my questions to not even bothering to reply. I sent Mirage a few emails asking them a few questions about the rig I bought. They dident even bother to respond. A friend at the DZ also shared a similar experience. He had no problem getting Mirage to talk to him as he was ordering his rig, but after that the line went dark. Both of us have decided to take our business elsewhere in the future. I want a company that supports their customers after they buy their product, not just before.
  8. So does anyone make a snag free option for a GoPro?
  9. Sure, except it's pretty easy to just reach up and rip a go pro off. You cant rip a DSLR off very easy. That's the argument I hear anyway as to why people dont put cutaways on a GoPro. It's just a sticker holding the camera on so it would not be hard to rip it off with your hand (supposedly).
  10. An individual that needs medical attention, but isn’t receiving treatment and ends up going postal with either a pressure cooker, firearm, van, or other instrument? Derek V Possibly, although there was no definate indication that the Las Vegas shooter was mentally ill. I hope your kidding. In what realm would you not be considered mentally ill if you thought it was acceptable to randomly murder dozens of people you have never met before and know nothing about? If you find that acceptable, you're mentally ill. It's an automatic. Pretty much anyone that goes on a mass killing spree of people they dont know is mentally ill. There is no scenario where something like that could be justified even in the slightest.
  11. What did you end up paying?
  12. That will only work for emergency care. The legal limit of any hospital is to get you medically stable so you dont die. That's it. So you will get a ride to the ER and they will perform any surgeries needed to make you medically stable. But in any serious injury, that's not going to be enough. If you want to actually fully recover you're going to need lots of follow-on treatment which the hospital will not provide without cash or insurance up front. In the case of something like a back injury, this follow-up treatment could easily make the difference between a full recovery and being confined to a wheel chair with chronic pain for life. Injury is not the only thing to be concerned with either. Even seemingly healthy, young adults can develop medical conditions which if left untreated can result in life threatening conditions (e.g. tumors, a wide range of cancers, ect. ect). When that happens to you (eventually everyone gets something), being able to treat it early could easily save your life. i fully get that insurance is a rip-off and affordable without employer co-payments. I too have seen the $500-a-month price tags for crappy plans despite my otherwise good health. Even if you have 'good' health insurance, often it's not nearly as good as you think it is. However, in the end it is rather important to have access to health care and if that means finding a new job/ career that provides better benefits, it may be worth it.
  13. Yea, well when the student decides to sue the DZ for deliberately, knowingly and intentionally violating USPA regulations, both from the SIM and ISM, then I bet the attitude of the AFFI and the DZ will change. Here is a news flash for those who dont know. Those paper waivers you sign dont mean much of anything in court. They protect against inherent risks involved in skydiving. They do not protect against misconduct and negligence on behalf of the DZ (even if they say they do). Negligence cannot be excused by a waiver. Considering many DZs 1099 their employees, the AFFIs will be thrilled when the student sues and the DZ throws them under the bus using the whole "they are independent contractors not affiliated with the DZ" thing that is guaranteed to come once the paperwork starts flying.
  14. We hear all the time that you want to jump as often as possible to keep as current as possible with the hopes that being current means you can react quickly and correctly to any situation. Without question being current increases your ability to react quickly and correctly. However, there has to be a limit to this. While jumping all the time means you're current, it also means you're taking risks all the time too. Consider two jumpers. One who jumps as a camera and does 1,000 jumps a year and one who jumps for fun and does 100 jumps a year. Well statistically speaking, the camerman over his life should have 10x the number of cutaways as our weekend warrior. The risk there is pretty obvious. So the question is where is the line drawn from being current enough that you reap the benefits of currency, but not so current that jumping more only adds to the risk while providing little additional currency benefits? I suspect the threshold is fairly low. Like a few jumps a month or something like that. Ideas?
  15. Well nice to see you did well in AFF, but that statement is 100% false. You absolutely do not have a higher chance of getting killed driving to the DZ than you do jumping at the DZ, not unless you drove there drunk doing double the speed limit while falling asleep. I see statements like this and it excessively minimizes the risk of skydiving and gives the impression that it's really not that dangerous of a sport. The USPA also likes to minimize the risk and imply it's a safe sport. That's complete bullcrap. Skydiving is a dangerous sport and people suffer serious injuries all the time. I have literally seen the ambulance drive up to the DZ and pick someone up off the floor, drive to the ER, turn around and come back to the DZ to get someone else who was injured in a different unrelated accident, go back to the ER and then come back YET AGAIN to pick up a 3rd person who was also injured in yet another unrelated skydiving accident. I have landed at the DZ on a normal calm day, looked over my shoulder to pick up my main and see some guy just 20' away from me pound into the deck so hard I saw his leg break apart right before he did two front flips before finally stopping on the ground. These are just stories I have from the last two months. I have other stories too and mind you I am still new to skydiving. Hell, I've been injured twice myself. I injured myself on my AFF1 jump! Point being, it's a dangerous sport. The USPA and everyone else likes to try to minimize the implied risk but the facts are that people are injured literally all the time. Go up to any instructor and ask them to give you a list of people they know who have spent time in the ER from skydiving. You'll be there all day. Anyway, congrats on your AFF.
  16. This question is in regards to RW on an aircraft with a side door (e.g. grand caravan, twin otter, ect). When a formation is going to do a partly linked exit, say with 2 or 3 people, and send 1, 2 or 3 divers out after the linked exit, is it better to dive out toward the tail or face forward toward the nose of the aircraft? A very experienced LO with 15k RW jumps once told me diving exits are always best done toward the nose of the aircraft as opposed to the tail. He said despite the thought that a tail facing exit might get you to the formation faster, it wont. He dident give me any reasoning, but I presume it's because you have less chance of getting flipped over if you're facing the relative wind as opposed to having it face your back. he mentioned all divers should exit facing the nose and then turn 180 on the hill and race down to the formation. Thoughts? Should divers stack up facing the nose or the tail? Can you do a combination of both? Say put two divers in the door facing the nose and one diver behind the two facing the tail?
  17. A friend had one on a load last weekend. I am not sure what it was like in freefall, but on the ride up it was way too overcomplicated. It showed the altitude, but then also vertical speed, GPS coordinates and several other things. Then random messages popped up saying to take your seatbelt off, check someone's gear, ect, ect. I would hope you can change the settings to remove some of that stuff because I found the screen to be way too complicated with all that stuff. Also, I suspect the battery life is not great. It basically uses a lighted screen like a phone and so the power draw is probably high. I would suspect you would need to charge it after every weekend.
  18. I cant believe a TI would be okay with 1099. That is absolutely absurd. For one, that means they have no liability protection unless they are listed as an additional insured (unlikely) which means if the student gets hurt and sues, they are 100% on their own to pay $350 an hour for an attorney to represent them. It also means no workman's compensation coverage and no health insurance coverage which I presume means many TIs dont even have health coverage. For a job as dangerous as a TI's that's so absurd it should be outright illegal (and it probably is). 1099s are intended for legitimate contractors who operate real businesses with a real business presence, not for employers to skirt all the employment laws.
  19. Shouldent that be covered under workmans compensation? If he got hurt doing his job, then his employer has to cover it. Or let me guess, they 1099ed the guy to screw him out of benefits they would otherwise be legally required to provide?
  20. Well I cant speak to the Atlas but I believe the Viso is accurate. I've compared my Viso to several other Visos on the same load and every unit read the same within 10 feet. In freefall I've looked over at other jumper's Visos and they read the exact same as mine. Further, my Viso consistently reads the same deployment altitude as my AAD in every jump within 30 feet or so. For the most part my Viso reads the same as my audible. On the way up, it's within 20 feet or so. On the way down on occasion I have noticed the beeps did not coincide with the Viso accurately, but generaly speaking it's accurate. There is one key point here. My Viso reads the same deployment altitude as my AAD and the AAD MUST be accurate. An AAD absolutely must be accurate or else the entire premise behind how an AAD works would be invalid. What does your AAD say you deploy at and how does that compare to your Atlas?
  21. The market for skydiving equipment is extraordinarily small by comparison, and the equipment is highly customized. If you flake out or get injured and can't complete your purchase, the small companies relying on the revenue (some of those companies are truly tiny: you could count their employees on the fingers on a single hand) are still responsible for your turquoise/orange/brown monstrosity with custom monograms and left-side throw-out, built for a guy who's 5'2" and 250 pounds, jumping a VK79. See the difference? There's just no reasonable comparison. You speak like skydiving is the only sport that involves customized gear. There are dozens of industries that are easily just as custom and specific as skydiving gear, if not even more specialized, yet it doesn't take those manufacturers a half year to make something that can realistically be made in three days. I'm not buying it. But in the end manufacturers will get away with what they can get away with. If you dont like it, dont buy from them. That's what I did. I was about to put down an order for a new Vector until I saw the wait was basically until the end of time. So they lost my business and I'll be buying from someone who can turn over a rig faster.
  22. That is interesting and would explain things. I noticed that when looking sample-by-sample in my Viso, my Viso is showing me going terminal velocity all the way through 3300' even though I am pulling at 4k. This never really made sense to me as video shows the parachute out of the bag 1 second after deployment and so there is no way I could be in freefall for 750' after I pulled.
  23. I jump a Lotus 170. It has a smaller-than-OEM slider on it and it does not open that soft. Not sure, but certainly not 1400'. I checked the log on my Viso. It is saying that my canopy slows me form 120 MPH to 20 MPH in about 400'. As such, the rest of that 1200 - 1400' that I am supposedly falling should be freefall, but I also know that to be incorrect since I filmed my deployments. In the video my canopy was out of the bag in less than 1 second after pitching my PC. As such, I am really at wits end trying to figure out why it takes so long for the canopy to stop me dispite the fact that I am not really running a soft opening canopy. It actually opens hard sometimes. Here is what I know: - In my tests I consistently pulled at 4k. I mean I am watching the altimeter and pull the PC when it says 4k, not I wave off and then pull at 4k. - Film shows that my canopy is out of the bag in less than a second after pulling. - Despite pulling right at 4k, I am usually not under canopy with the slider down until about 2.75k. - Even though I pull at 4k, my Visio and AAD are not registering deployments until around 3k and there is no way they are off by that much because if they were then AADs wouldent work in the first place. An AAD that is off by 1000' would not be a functional product for skydiving. So it's rather strange. All the instrumentation is saying that I am in freefall for nearly 1000' after pulling my PC, but a video of my deployment clearly says otherwise.
  24. I dont think it is an issue of the burble. Both my AAD and my Viso read the same altitude even though they are in two completely different places. Also, the altimeter is not on the back of my hand, it's above my head when I am pulling and it's in clean air (you compensate with your left hand when reaching back with your right. Basic AFF stuff). I added a 3rd altimeter to my chest today. It read the same as the other two. Further, even AAD manufacturers say that the effect of the burble is minimal and always less than 250' difference between registered and actual. This has to be the case otherwise AADs would not work. AADs are in the burble as they are right on your back. I had someone film my deployment today. From the time my PC was out of the BOC to the time the parachute was completely out of the bag was about 0.86 seconds. From the time I threw the PC handle to the point that I was orientated vertically with my feet toward the ground was about 1.36 seconds. Granted I only filmed one of my deployments, but it felt the same as any of the other previous ones. So I just dont get it. Three different devices are all telling me that it is taking 1000' just for me to start slowing down but the video clearly shows the canopy out of the bag in about 1 second after throwing the PC. Also another fact in support of the altimeters not being incorrect is the fact that I look at my altimeter after the canopy is open. It is in fact 1200'+ between when I see 4k on my altimeter and I pull to what I see on the screen once under canopy.
  25. I have a rather strange corundum that I cant figure out. I have my audible set to 5.2k to track and 4k to deploy. I typically track for about 5 seconds and deploy on time. Well for the last 40 jumps or so my Visio2+ has constantly registered deployment altitudes in the 2.8k – 3.2k range, which is really low for a 5.2k track start. So for the last dozen jumps I decided to watch my altimeter through the whole deployment sequence to see what is going on. All the jumps are similar and here is what I got for the last one: Physically threw PC handle: 4k Noticeable tension on the risers, feet under me, starting to slow: 3.6k Canopy fully open, slider down: 2.75k. Well for that jump my Visio2+ registered a deployment altitude of 2.92k and my AAD registered 2979’. So I decided to go in the second-by-second playback menu where I can see my airspeed and elevation for any given second within the jump. The Visio shows me going 120 MPH all the way through 3k. It doesent register me as deployed until there is a major change in airspeed from one sample to the next (probably 30 MPH+). So looking at the log, it does in fact show me as going terminal all the way down through 3k. Also, I know for a fact that the sensors in my AAD and Visio are very accurate and if they say a specific elevation, it’s right. So that leaves the corundum. I KNOW my Visio read 4k when I threw my handle, I watched it count down as I had my hand on the handle 4.20, 4.15, 4.10, 4.05 (okay, throw!). I have watched the Visio count down to 4k right as I pitched for the last dozen jumps or so. I KNOW that I had something overhead starting to slow me down by the time I was passing through 3.5k on most jumps. I couldent see the main because I was staring at my Visio, but I sure as heck could feel something overhead and my feet were under me. Yet, I also know that the sensors on my AAD and the Visio are very accurate and reliable. I also know both the Visio and AAD considers "deployed" as the canopy is starting to snivel enough to slow you down, and NOT the canopy is fully open and you're not descending fast anymore. Thus we have two things that conflict each other, yet both seem to be correct.