base736

Berkana? (NSFW?)

Taking this in another direction, A's need to be registered with the appropriate government authority. Information on the lot of 'em (including location and height) is therefore available over the internet if you know where to look... Edit to add: for North America, anyway...

I second the statement by my fellow Canuck. If you can imagine the sport of "swooping in moderately turbulent conditions", I think that would better approximate the objective risks that are important in BASE, but largely absent in Ben-and-Jerry's (that one's for you, Jaap) swooping. You can't honestly believe that. A general fear of death is nearly universal. Certainly they've got their fair share of wailing funeral-goers in Europe, too. I'd call that a big deal.

This topic seems to come up a lot. The problem, in my opinion, boils down to this... For one thing to be greater than another, both must be numbers. To say that the "risk" for BASE is greater or less than that for swooping implies that somehow you have a way of turning "risk" into a number. In that spirit... Are we talking number of deaths, or number of injuries? If the latter, what kinds of injuries? Incidents per capita? Per jump? Per second of participation? Per year for all participants? In the U.S., or in the world? For BASE, from what sort of object? For swooping, under what sort of canopy? Or from all objects / all types of canopy? Very specifically, what do you mean by "inexperienced" for each? My general impression is that, once one has answered these questions (and the others that will come up), one would find two things. First, the result would be so specific that only a few people would really agree that you'd nailed down "risk". And second, the numbers would be so low that you'd be well outside of statistical significance for both activities. Why the interest in comparing the two sports? Edit to add: In the interest of not repeating previous discussions, you might be interested in this thread.

More importantly... Congratulations on your first jump. Be careful out there. BASE was something I was strictly forbidden from doing by my step-father, who skydived back when BASE was all skydiving gear and black death. So, when I headed out for a jump from a span while visiting back home, I opted not to invite him. Called home and told them about the jump after the fact, and he was upset that I hadn't invited him. "Yeah, I think it's a stupid thing to do," he said, "but if you're going to do it anyway I want to watch!"

This anecdote goes to show (if number of skydives is a singularly important variable in readiness for skysurfing) that a person should wait until they've got more than seven thousand skydives before doing that first skysurf jump. You must be looking forward to your first skysurf in (if your profile is up to date) 6,400 skydives...

My understanding (from FAA stuff, which I expect you've already read) is that tissue heating of the type experienced by tower workers is hazardous only to the eyes and nuts. The effect on both (but certainly the second) was, as I recall, temporary. A lot of people (not necessarily reliable) seem to make noise about this stuff causing cancer, but frankly I'm skeptical about mechanism. Covalent bond breaking (which tends to be the mechanism by which radiation causes cancer, as I understand it) just doesn't happen with RF/MW -- at least not without generating a plasma. Can anybody shed some light on this?

Not certain. From the other pics, it's 7-cell. If I recall correctly, they make reference to "Parafoil" at one point a lot of people seem to use that as a generic term from ram-air canopies.

I have this habit of assuming that a reply is in the context of the message it replies to. I'm wierd like that.

No, the center A lines take the most impact that's why on some reserves the center A and B lines are non-cascaded. On the other hand, brake lines are usually made with a heavier-guage line. I expect Poynter has something to say about it (and that the truth of the matter sides with you, since I'm just making this stuff up). Anyway, with respect to bringing the slider down, I wouldn't expect the center A lines to be particularly relevant, since they're in the center. Parachute Lab does some really cool simulations, including some on ram-air canopies. Here's the tension along the warp direction on the bottom skin, slider-reefed. It's might be hard to make out -- the nose is to the left, and we're looking at a cutaway view of the right side of the canopy. Note that the forces are generally strongest near the tail. The parent page is a lot of fun for those with any inclination toward simulations. [Cue "think less, jump more" in 3... 2... 1...]

Cool! The sources I've seen quoted millimeters, and a quick calculation confirmed that; clearly I've missed something.

Due to the skin effect, high-frequency radiation (ie, anything over, say, a kilohertz -- definitely including AM) doesn't penetrate more than a millimeter or so. Only your epidermis knows you're on the antenna, as long as you're not grounded (which is the real danger on an AM antenna). Heat can spread from there, causing tissue heating as you noted. If you're getting x-rays, though, then what you're climbing is definitely not an AM antenna. Or a communications tower of any kind. Maybe a death ray or something?

I have personally tested Jaap on this one. The guy's got mad skillz when it comes to not jumping. ... But he still squeals like a little girl.

Interesting idea. When the Multi first came out, I gather a lot of people were worried about a "triangle of death", which (such is my understanding) related to fabric (or someting else vital) getting trapped in the closed loops between the various multi attachments. Now, closed loops in the lines aren't anthing new above the cascades. It might be worth considering whether closed loops below the cascades would be any more problematic.

I'm quite certain that's not it at all. My point is that it doesn't matter at all who "us" and "them" are, or for what reasons one plays the game. This sort of division of the world has always, in my experience, ultimately been a mistake. Still, nobody is proposing anything I would describe as unethical. So, my (now excessively restated) reservations aside, best of luck to everybody involved. As I said above, if this goes it'll certainly be spectacular.

Nah, on second thought I guess this isn't at all divisive.

No worries -- wasn't referring to your earlier post.

It's divisive because it draws hard lines (for instance, "You're allowed in" or "You're not") between one group and another. Over here, we have BASE jumpers. Over there, rangers and anybody who might tell them something-or-other. It acts to build those boundaries beyond their usual significance. I'm not sure there's room to debate whether or not it's divisive -- just whether or not that's a problem. For my part, I'm not sure divisive is ever a good thing. I think that sucks about this endeavor -- certainly it makes the whole thing seem a little childish. On the other hand, 150 people off of one object would be pretty spectacular. So whatever.

That's not what I'm arguing at all. Though, depending on what you mean by "managing risk", I might like to

... Which changes nothing. Suppose you and I have two identical, hypothetical accidents off of a legal object. Your insurance company distributes the cost of your rescue/treatment over its policy holders. My universal healthcare distributes the cost of my rescue/treatment over its policy holders. Either way, it is ultimately a large number of non-jumpers who foot the bill. I'm not saying that makes it wrong to jump. Half of all policy holders put a higher-than-average burden on their insurance/healthcare. I'm just saying that you haven't really managed to sidestep Jaap's original point regarding one's duties to minimize impact on others.

Beautifully said.

I ran right up the chain of command at Transport Canada (equivalent to the FAA) until I hit an inspector in Winnipeg. Nobody in TC feels they have any jurisdiction over fixed-object jumps. Same went for the local bylaw folks (who just wanted to know when/where this was going to happen, so they could watch) and the city police (who offered up their services in closing down the largest street downtown if we wanted that). It seems that permission from the building owner is about all that's required. Marketing folks are all over this kind of thing. The two biggest hurdles were insurance (which never panned out, though I certainly haven't been exhaustive in my search) and reluctance on the part of management. ()

Signs say otherwise... Around these parts, our bears don't put up with any of that hippy crap.

Gotta love the practice of including giant spires in a building's official height. Personally, I think the height of the laser beam should be included, too.

No problems with losing focus on openings on the HVR-Z1U ? I'd have figured a high-end Sony camera would have optical stabilization... I'm curious about the colours. Can you post a frame grab?