pms07

Few here are likely to remember but a good friend, Desley Schultz, died 34 years ago. Desley died one a skydive near Kimball, MN, on 12 October, 1975. Rest in peace Des. pms

Thanks Scotty. I had forgotten about you catching me under canopy after one of the wingsuit bigways. Nice! Pat

Cowboy had the Caravan at Xenia a few weeks prior to this for a 4 and 8 way meet. Fuel contamination shut the plane down for several hours on the first day of the meet. Same problem apparently. They also ran the Caravan out of fuel on an 8 way competition load and the early exit put some of us off the airport by several miles. Weight and balance issues and the way the aircraft was loaded seemed "interesting" as well. With that and other incidents, you can probably find some that jumped from the airplane that were not real surprised by the crash. Sad because many of us lost good friends in the crash...

Cool pictures! A couple of old friends included I think; I recognize Ted of course, looks like Shorty, Doug Gipe and Larry Bartlett also. I got to meet and party with Joe Smith a couple of times; truly a pioneer spirit in skydiving. pms

Sled, think 5 cell...

According to the poll, you appear to have 9 people "interested". Not to piss on your parade or anything but I'm curious what you really expect to accomplish? Specifically, what would you actually do that would support 1.a.-g.? And perhaps more importantly, what resources do you have to start a national organization and move toward those goals? Any real organization would take significant $$$ to get off the ground. How would this organization get started financially? As an aside, skydiving is a fairly small community. Want to learn what people really think and will support? Put your name on your ideas, identify yourself and stand-up for what you are trying to do. Anyway, for me the organization does not appear to have been well thought out so far.... pms Poll: Are you interested in a Professional Skydiver Organization? Very interested 4 / 6% Yeah 5 / 7% Mabee, depends on how its managed 19 / 27% No 27 / 39% That's just stupid 15 / 21%

That option has made it to the experienced gear market; I've seen several rigs configured that way over the years. I agree it's not needed and many would not want the option regardless...because it looks kind of, well, like student gear...

If you are the type that wants a pin check on each and every jump, okay. Just don’t assume this applies to everyone. Personally, I’ve never understood the obsession with “pin checks” for experienced jumpers on modern skydiving gear. The best analogy I can come up with that helps demonstrate this is being a pilot. When I fly an airplane, I preflight it myself. I don’t ask someone else to check that the fuel covers are secure or that I removed the control locks. I do this myself. In fact if someone else refueled the airplane, I personally check the gas caps/covers again. Flying something with retractable gear? I don’t ask someone else to confirm the gear is down. Rather I use a methodological approach and checklists. The same concept works in skydiving and the gear is much less complex. Here’s a summary for anyone not following along; -Lots of experienced jumpers do not want anyone touching their gear, especially without permission. -If you “pin check” a fellow jumper’s gear without asking, you may not get a favorable reaction. - The concept of a “visual” pin check should be interpreted very literally. In others words you may LOOK at my gear but keep your hands off. Please let me know if something looks incorrect. -Lots of people don't know much about their own gear, much less the gear others may be wearing. Assuming someone knows about your gear because they are on a 35-way is foolish. -A "pin check" done improperly can cause problems that many would like to avoid. Simple shit like closing a main pin cover flap seems easy but some will get it wrong. -“Preflighting” your own gear is easy and recommended….before every jump. Doing this with modern gear will likely eliminate the need for a pin check in most circumstances. Unusual circumstances or you aren’t sure? Ask for assistance.

Yeah, will do Spot. Might take a day or two... pms

I assembled and started jumping a new Talon FX a couple of weeks ago. So, thought I would post my initial impressions and compare to my previous rig, a Talon FS. All the jumps I’ve done on the FX so far have been with a wingsuit. Appearance and quality on the FX are outstanding. Truthfully, that could be said about several popular rigs on the market. For me however the Talon FX stands out in comfort and performance. This rig fits me better and stays in place, without moving around on my back, regardless of what I’m doing in freefall. The legstrap design on the RI harness seems to move less than some articulated harnesses also. I don’t know why some articulated harness designs perform better than others but the Talon harness stays in place better and is more comfortable than other rig I’ve jumped. The Talon FX feels much different on your back when compared to the FS. The most noticeable change is the fit of the yoke/backpad. The yoke on the FX is narrower and seems a bit stiffer over the shoulders than the FS...but very comfortable. The new yoke design seems to keep the rig from shifting around the shoulders. The backstrap/laterals are wider than on the FS also and this is a big improvement over the FS. The FX is the first rig I’ve owned with space foam lining the backpad and legstraps. Very nice and an option I would recommend on any rig. There are lots of changes from the Talon FS (mine was made in 2002) to the Talon FX. Most noticeable is a redesign of the main side flaps/riser covers into a single piece design. That makes FX look better with less wrinkles and seams. The FX top reserve flap is new also and makes a reserve pincheck easier. I like! Nice job on the RSL redesign as well, very clean and secure. The main toggle keepers on the FX are webbing versus the elastic on my FS. Seems more secure and should wear better than elastic. My Talon FX is the FX2 size container, with a Sabre 2-135 main and PD-126 reserve in it currently. Both fit well. Packing the reserve: PD-126R fits very nicely in the FX2 container and the 5.25" recommended loop length seemed correct. I need to fill/smooth the bottom corners of the reserve just a little better but it looks very good, especially for a hack rigger like me. The little internal covers (not sure what they are called) that you tuck into the bottom of the reserve container with a packing fid over the top/front of the freebag, really seem to help shaping/smoothing the pack job. RI seems to have the rigger in mind when designing a rig. I ordered the FX with wingsuit modifications; 96” main bridle, 30” main pilot chute and “cut corners”. All work well and are a typical wingsuit setup (do a search on cut corners if you aren’t familiar with the advantages/disadvantages of this, it’s been discussed a lot in the wingsuit forum…). I do have a minor issue with cut corners though; packing. It takes a bit more effort to make the bottom of the main container look nice with cut corners, though it’s a minor inconvenience at most. Bottomline, the Talon FX is a very nice rig! Check it out if you are in the market for a new harness/container. pms

That's because it was only on the 190 and larger size Sabres...

Really? Way off topic but you raised the issue so I can't help but wonder; how much time have you spent in combat and what your combat experience is with taekwondo? What rank do you hold and issued by what sanctioning authority? Care to elaborate?

I'm not convinced drinking beer around the bonfire adds to your qualifications for "advanced" disciplines...

Yes, the wind tunnel at Wright-Patterson AFB was used by some prior to 83...

Nick, Your premise (okay, it’s really a rant…) is kind of interesting but AFF is not a failure, that’s just your opinion. In fact, AFF seems to work pretty well at many drops zones around the world. Is it perfect? No, but you can't argue that several generations of very talented and skilled skydivers were trained in AFF. The training is only as good as the instruction given however, just like any other instructional method. The ramen noodle, slinging static line and trailer park story was, I suppose, meant to be inspiring but I’m not getting it. Are you saying you were a successful static line instructor because your roof leaked and you cooked noodles in the pot that filled with the water? You also didn’t have enough income to buy a car and to ensure a secure future. Tell me again how that made you a better instructor and static line a better program than AFF? I’m not following the logic here.

Craig OB has some great shots. Check here: http://www.printroom.com/ViewGallery.asp?evgroupid=0&userid=craigob&gallery_id=1696891 Can I get an assist on making this a clicky? Okay, looks like Baxter99 took care of that...

Fixed it for you Sandy...

Well, to be accurate many civilian individual competitors and teams have won or placed in numerous events at collegiates over the years. Some (okay, maybe a few) of those had at least limited sponsorship in one form or another, even some world class coaches on occassion, etc. Not to the level the military academies have of course and the deck is clearly stacked in favor of AFA or USMA. I was a poor college student (and high school) skydiver that didn't go to collegiates because of the cost so understand the challenge. I think the USPA needs to examine who they they want to attract as competitors, then figure out how best to do that. Add to that making the events as similar to the Nationals as possible within the limits of experience and safety. Rolling the collegiates into Nationals is no answer. We might as well just eliminate the meet as we would get few competitors and they'll be lost in an environment that focuses more on the open class events and experienced folks. Feedback on separate categories has been mixed in the past but maybe that is the way to go. If that''s what the civilian competitors clearly want, give it to them. Given the typical size of the meet, you might end up with lots of classes/events, many having very few competitors. The year I was meet director I think we had 4 classes in 2 individual events plus overall in each, 2 classes RW and one in CRW. Trophies or medals to 3rd place in each for a total, I think, of 66 medals. I know it's public math but all that with just over 100 competitors. Further break that out into military and civilan classes and you probably have more awards than competitors... Still, maybe worth trying to see if there are enough competitors to support the events. Or you could break it up like Nationals RW; intermediate, advanced, open, where competitors gets to pick their class and compete against all, or not. Exclude "sponsored" teams from certain classes if you ccan figurre out how to do that. Anyway, I might try to attend the collegiate meet this year and get some feedback. I’m confident Bill Wenger will already be doing that however. And for those that don’t know Bill, he was a collegiate competitor, coach and meet director many years before he was affiliated with AFA. He competed against AFA and USMA back in those days so understands the issue…perhaps much better than a few that have posted here…

airtwardo said: ...I believe there should be separate categories at the collegiate nationals for both military and civilian schools... Now THAT would more fairly represent the skills and accomplishments of these collegiate athletes in regard to the respective 'playing fields' they train on. Interestingly, those separate civilian awards did exist back in the late 80s/early 90s...for just a few years (not sure when the awards were actually eliminated). I was chair of the the collegiate committee at the time and we put forth the motion at the request of several civilian competitors. I purchased the plaques and arranged with Bill Ottley for USPA to maintain them. Bill Wenger actually found the money to pay for the civilian awards. I recall the new awards were eliminated, again at the request of civilian competitors, because they were not happy with the way it worked. The civilians still had to beat the military competitor's performance to be eligible for the "overall collegiate champion award" (and the scholarship $...). Anyway, it's been tried though maybe the problem was in execution rather than the idea itself...

I don't know why such a motion might have been presented or passed by USPA but am curious. Bill Wenger may be visiting this week and, if that happens, I will ask him. I don't expect there is any great conspiracy however. In fact, at the dozen or so USPA collegiate meets I've been at, the total number of graduate students competing is not zero but pretty close. Still, I remember Jan there in 86 and a few others. I coached many collegiate teams, was chairman of the collegiate committee for USPA for several years, and was also the collegiate championships meet director (Eloy) as well. I never viewed the graduate student clause as an issue back then but I guess things could have changed.

Now there is a thought....

Yes, pay attention to what Rehmwa said up thread. Many in your height/weight range wear a skin tight nylon/spandex RW suit usually. You will also find some people in your range that wear weights for team or other events. Too few people go out and work on range of fall rate. It ought to be learned up front; we skydive in 3 dimensions you know...

Scott, It's well thought out and written proposal. Here's a question I'm curious about though (okay, maybe more than one question...). Why does the the future of the FFC have to fit within this concept: "One that fits into existing USPA instructional structure"? Seems like there are other options including something like developing a comprehensive educational guide/lesson plan for beginner wingsuit flyers and experienced wingsuit flyers/coaches. The SIM is obviously inadequate... And isn't that instructional structure designed to deal with unlicensed/not yet "A" qualified students? I'm not sure this new direction is good precedence for USPA. Thoughts? I also want to understand how very experienced skydivers (zero wingsuit jumps...) fit into this model. Does it work the same for a guy with 4000 jumps, vice the guy with the minimum 200, for a FFC? Any thoughts on what this will potentially do for those of us at smaller drop zones out in the midwest? What kind of access to a FFC do you think this will give us? I can tell you that where I normally jump and at the nearest 3 or 4 drop zones, there is no market currently to keep such a rating current. That might result in the only option for a FFC is to go to Florida or wherever (same for someone very experienced that wants to seek a WSI rating...). Is this the proposal the one the S&T committee has in hand? I've seen another that is similar, though not as lengthy and complete. If so, why the late public viewing just about a week prior to the BoD meeting? Or was this proposal meant to be considered at a later time or BoD meeting? I appreciate the hard work and thought you and others have put into this proposal. I want to better understand it and all the ramifications so appreciate any insight you have. Thanks! Pat