lifewithoutanet

Whoops. And if I hadn't had to work, it would have been 'Collin'! Dammit! -C.

I'm sure Russel gets what you're saying without taking offense. I get what you're saying, too. I think a couple important things to remember about Russel's BD2005 jumps (especially the second one) is that they weren't typical deployments. We went for those because of the margins of error we were afforded by NRGB. The second one, in particular, sticks out. Here you have Tom off to one side, PCAing Russel, rather than directly behind/above him. Not to slight Tom's PCA skills (in freefall, albeit), but I think the nature of a catch and release waterfall like this puts Russel into good chances of off headings and/or line twists. I've already said how Tom was likely PCAing off to the side. On top of this, Russel was holding onto Mike w/ his right arm, Mike's PCA in his left hand. So there are two other factors which could lead to an unstable body position on deployment. -C.

Splatula. Represent. -C.

Happy b-day, Lesley! Don't kiss that guy again. We don't know where he's been. -C.

I'm very curious about this, as well. Anybody care to comment? Does the judge have a hard-on for us like the NPS? -C.

I can't be certain from the video, but it looks like a mix of dynamic and static lines. I imagine the static lines would only be used at the anchors (if static lines were used at all), with dynamic lines comprising most everything outside of the anchors. Is this correct? If so, what diameters and elongation? What's the lifespan of a system like this? Do you consider UIAA fall ratings or is the system designed to minimize the impact on each piece enough to significantly expand the life of each line? -C. PS I found my economics classes about as interesting as you find yours. Nice work.

So, I'm a Moron. Forgot an object. 300' and 980' -C.

I'd say that about covers it. Seriously, though...I think you'd be surprised to find that there are probably other jumpers within reasonable travelling distance and you'd benefit greatly by reaching out to them. You'll probably also find that even with a lack of jumpers in your area (which may only be your perception), a lot of 'your' objects have already been jumped. Rushing into it and going it on your own doesn't guarantee your death or injury, but I'd say it ups the chances a bit. An FJC is just the beginning. -C.

Highest: 876' Lowest: 300' -C.

Fabien, What's up, man? I know of at least one jumper who had his canopy stall on short final. This swung him up and he freefell 20 or so feet onto his back. He's convinced the armor saved his back. Perhaps he'll chime in with the full details. -C.

That's Mr. Spanky McSpanksalot to you. How do you find time to post online? Aren't you busy enough, mentoring legends in our sport? Nick, I have no problems with you using my name. And just wait til you see how Russel tries to kill me next year. -C.

That is correct. And even some go as far as 14'. There's a point in history where the standard changed, if I'm not mistaken. Your best bet is to definitely laser it to be sure* (and be sure the batteries aren't dying, as Faber pointed out once before). -C.

Here's an illustration. I have Russel's rig at my place, so I'll take pictures and post them this weekend. -C.

Oy. You're a lucky one. I got forced to consolidate my laptop and camer bags into one piece of carry-on, via my stashbag, on the way to BD2004. That left me w/ a BASE rig that says 'BOMBPROOF" down either side of the pins. When we landed at Wash Dulles, I was met by a Federal Air Marshall at the gate. He'd been on my flight and informed me that I was the cause of our 15 minute 'mechanical delay' in leaving Denver (while the airline and FAMS discussed the guy who just got on w/ a parachute) and I'd been under surveillance the entire flight. "Excuse me, Mr. Scott. Is that a parachute? Why did you bring it on board and how did you manage to get it through security?" I produced the TSA letter and explained everything, but the agent said as far as the FAMS was concerned, this was a first. Nice enough guy, though...I was never detained or harassed and they never even bothered me for personal information. Next time I flew was a week of flights (with rig) in which I was pulled aside every time I went through screening. Something like 6 cities. -C.

That's what this girl's looked like. It even looked like it had been made of hemp. -C.

This has turned into exactly what I was trying to avoid, and even what I was trying to prevent. Thread over, far as my participation is concerned. -C.

Because if they say nothing, people jump all over the thread and scream "cover up!" -C.

That's him. (Where did I come up w/ GS?) Anyway, glad I wasn't the only one. For a second, I was convinced it was some kind of prank. -C.

And by not telling any information you would be disrespecting the ones left behind. If you're going to quote me, at least grab the whole sentence, qualifying statements or more than just the content you want to skew in order to match the context of your post. What I said was: "...but the sense of entitlement to all the information, "right now", "immediately", "ariba" by those not connected, whenever something happens--as in this incident or any other--more often than not is inappropriate and lacks respect for the jumper and others involved;" Who on a jump or on an accident scene is capable of qualifying if an AAD has 'failed' or is 'defective'? Those results need to be determined by tests done by qualified technicians...normally the manufacturer. Otherwise, it's just speculation. Rule things out with investigations, don't just jump to all the possibilities of what it could have been. Speculating wildly about the causes without any of the facts is just as disrespectful to those who have left us. No one said that they wouldn't share the information. They simply stepped up and said "we will, but we're going to make sure the official investigation is completed first." They're accountable to the USPA, FAA, NTSB...not you, yet they're willing to share the information. It's just not on your timetable. -C.

In addition to a lot of scary shit I saw while doing gear checks, I also saw a couple of very interesting smuggler rigs. One girl walked up with what only looked like a bookbag and it totally caught me off guard. I'm serious...this thing was the perfect smuggler's rig. Another staff member was with her and checked her out, as it was actually a rig he made. I want to say his initials were GW or GS... Something along those lines. Anybody know who I'm talking about? Anyone have any other examples of smuggler rigs aside from the obvious 'no metal' rigs? I'd like to see what else is out there and what other people have come up with. -C.

That sucks, but they did right by it. That's a pretty sweet watch. I'd actually been looking at the Superocean and Superocean Chronograph. The chronograph was just huge, so I decided against it and came close to buying the other on my own a few times, but just couldn't part w/ the dough. Glad I didn't. -C.

The windows are more like portholes, and even if they opened (which they don't), I doubt a body could get through, even without a rig on. Prove me wrong, though...that'd be pretty cool if it did happen. -C.

You'll need to. Breitling (as most other watches in this class) has specific, qualified dealers and I've never seen them in anything other than high-end jewelers. I recently received a Breitling Superocean Chronometre as a gift. I took it back to the jeweler where it was purchased to get it sized and was amazed at the service I received and the knowledge the salesperson had about every watch they had. I haven't found this elsewhere. Beware of "I'm pretty sure you'll be okay with this one". -C.

This is a solid point... And as the Canon City incident thread has grown, we have learned that it was an experienced jumper. Yet, this wasn't the case when the thread began, and if it's current state is any indication (after Billvon's housekeeping...good on ya, Bill), it was 23 hours until we knew the identity of the jumper, at least by these forums. Still, while this incident prompted me to start this thread, I have seen countless others where the victim's experience has not played into the demand at all, at least initially. Dispicable and likely illegal. I agree with you...however, we're jumping to the conclusion that the jumpers involved are all part of some big cover-up before we've even given them the benefit of the doubt. When the report comes out, if it's incomplete or inconsequential, ask questions, demand answers. But grant them the benefit of the doubt and hold them to it later. My opinion is that the content of their posts was taken out of context. Saying that they were there adds credibility to their ability to give you the facts...albeit later. It qualifies them as someone who knows the facts, not as someone who's grandstanding. -C.

Goes back to the Two Bucket Theory. And we all know you can't quantify the luck bucket because none of us are allowed to look inside. -C.