Reginald

Maybe but then they wouldn't know how to dock or do anything bigger than a 3 way. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Hmm, but that was in Spaceland so it barely counts... "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I’ve found the initial settings on my Sabre2’s to be about right. I’ve bought 3 new ones and 2 of the three were right at the “factory” settings. One I had to lengthen. EVERY one had to have the brake lines lengthened after about 200 jumps, for obvious reasons, though. As for a demo canopy I wouldn’t read anything into it, like a rental car you just don’t know where it’s been. That said the first thing you need to do on a new canopy is go do a jump finding the stall point, looking at the amount of slack in the brakes, how it responds to riser input, etc. and make adjustments to the brake length. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Hmm, so what you're saying is that me and 7 of my friends had the honor of being the last to do it until you guys pulled it off last year. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Yeah, i know the Morman mother of a skydiving student came to the DZ and was excited because "of course skydivers wouldn't drink and so it must be a wholesome enviroment." Fortunatly, she left before we had to explain what a "Beer Light" was. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Well if that's the case then you have my apologies. However, I have witnessed far too many people go the other rout. Your situation would be more the exception than the rule in the cases like this I’ve seen. It seems too many people tend to want to buy a container too small on the idea that they will downsize in the future. Although I would ask why you didn’t question anyone and say that the sizing charts appear to recommend another size container as the normal fit and why everyone was recommending a container that would be “full fitting” for both canopies. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never said not logging is superior. To each his own. If you want to log, go ahead. However, to be under the delusion that it's required to get ratings is exactly that - a delusion. Skills verification through a logbook is the worst way to do it, the book is easily faked, and I've gone through the procedure 4 times with 4 different course directors - none of which looked at my log book. They were smart enough to figure out more accurate ways to verify my credentials. For you to accuse them of anything but the highest ethical standards is pure ignorance. _Am I don’t have to put words in your mouth you’re the one saying that written documentation signed by a third party (a logbook) is inferior to another method. So I’ll cry uncle and admit I’m wrong and you’re right if you explain what this mysterious un-forgeable proof of experience is. It surely isn’t a third party’s verbal assurance, which is of course inferior to written assurance. It’s not a pro-track, it’s not a printout from a DZ which is easily forgeable. So what is this mysterious un-forgeable proof of experience? And I’m not questioning the Course Directors behavior; you clearly missed the point. I’m questioning the veracity of your statement that 4 separate course directors never asked to see your log book. I do find it likely they either asked to or you approached them in advance and said you didn’t have it. They were willing in lieu of a logbook to accept something else - possibly a printout from your home DZ of your jumps and a confirming call or conversation with the DZO or something such as that. That does not mean the alternate method is un-forgeable or superior. It means they accepted something other than the basic standard of proof of jumps used in the sport which is a written logbook signed by a third party. Sorry guy but your argument is not persuasive and frankly it’s not even lucid much less cogent. But again, I am willing to admit I’m wrong if you can explain to me what form of proof is not subject to forgery or dishonesty. In the mean time written documentation witnessed by a third party is still the gold standard in the sport and in most fields. BTW: I hate to log but I do it anyway. Why Because it eliminates ever having to ask someone to accept something in lieu of my logbook as proof of experience or currency. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Shame on you for being ignorant and judgmental. There are FAR better ways of verifying ratings than an easily faked, self-signed log book. Oddly, of all the 4 ratings I had, each one was from a different course director. Ignoring unreliable logbooks is far more common than you suspect. _Am Ignorant and judgmental? Please. Resorting to personal insults just shows the weakness of your position. While logbooks CAN be faked so can most anything. Signed logbooks ARE the basic standard of proving jump numbers. I applaud anyone that goes further like viewing the computer system of a DZ , or a looking at a ditter or talking to staff member at a DZ to help confirm jump numbers or experience... Oh those things can be faked or misrepresented too. Hmmm… EVERY rating I’ve received I had my logbook reviewed and my credential reviewed. Just because a log book can be fraudulently produced does not mean it has no value. Again, it is the basic and acceptable format for showing experience in the sport. Just because you choose not to log your jumps does not make it a superior position to logging them. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

They did. The V304 will fit the Velo 96 and OP 113 - it's just the 'full fitting" (IE, 'tight') option. If you didn't specify that you wanted a looser fit of the canopies, how is that UPT's fault? It's not like they can read your mind. I think there's a bit more info needed about your purchase - did you specify you wanted a small rig or the 'maximum capability to downsize'? If so, you got exactly what you asked for. Exactly, I can almost hear the conversation now. Buyer, "I want the smallest rig that I can fit these canopies into." Seller, "well you can go with X but it will be tight. Y is really made for them." Buyer, "but X will fit the canopies, right?" Seller, "yes, but it will be tight and as you can clearly see on our published charts Y is the better fit." Buyer, "But I want to be able to downsize in the future. So X will fit the canopies, right?" Seller, "yes, but it will be full fitting" Buyer three months later, "Hey this container is tight, the seller recommended to me that I get this size, it's his fault it's tight." I've seen dozens of people so this same thing. And it's always interesting that they put it back on the seller. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Why does it matter if it is in FF or under canopy. Everyone dies just the same. And my Dz probably has 100,000 jumps per year. So is just one colision of a jumper under canopy or in FF with an aircraft "acceptable" "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

So, someone with 5 years off and a low number of jumps comes to my DZ. Documentation of the jumps or not the person is going to sit through a FJC. They will also do at least one jump with an instructor. From there they will be evaluated to see if they need any other jumps with an instructor or not to confirm they have the basic skills needed to jump safely with other people. The problem here is not that the first DZ was going to provide you a structured program to safely get back into the sport; that is what they are supposed to do. The problem is that you didn’t have any proof you were ever a skydiver. It sounds like they took an appropriate and reasonable course of action. I actually disapprove of the actions of the second DZ. While you saved a few bucks they probably actually did you a disservice. Please don’t disparage the first DZ; they took a reasonable course of action given your lack of any evidence you were actually a skydiver at one time in the distant past. To everyone, logging jumps is an inconvenience. But it is also required by the USPA as documentation of experience. One needs it when they show up to a DZ, ask for licenses, ratings, etc. Some DZ’s have asked me for a logbook, some have not. But I am prepared when I show up. It is MY responsibility to prove I am who and what I say I am, and documentation is how that is done. I find it disappointing that people so lightly say they just forge a logbook. What if pilots did this (and then showed up at a DZ and wanted to fly) or CPA’s or EMT’s? "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Then the people handing your ratings to you failed in their most basic duty to confirm that you had tohe requirments to hld the rating. Shame on them. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

If you’ve ever looked out the door of an aircraft while spotting and saw an aircraft on an intercept course to overfly your landing area ask yourself what an “acceptable risk” is. I’ve seen GA traffic cross into the DZ’s airspace with canopies in the air or worse opening around it several times. Trust me it’s not something that anyone involved with wants to see again. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Well skydiving IS dangerous. People get crippled for life and die; I’ve known plenty of both, so her fears are not irrational. The sport has been a catalyst for many failed relationships. It has also been a very positive influence in many people’s lives (mine included). Only you can balance your family against the benefits and risks of skydiving. The one suggestion I have is to find a large reputable DZ near you and ask her to go out and watch for an afternoon. I’ve found many people change their perceptions after spending a day at a dropzone. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Well said. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I don’t get your point. You put a “full fitting” reserve AND a “full fitting” main in a container. It would likely pack fine with one or the other but common sense dictates that if you try and put both in it will be overstuffed. What is UPT supposed to figure out? I don’t think the issue is with UPT. The issue is that you ordered a 304 when a 306 is clearly marked as the proper size container to fit both your main and reserve. When will people learn to buy a rig that properly fits their equipment today? It’s like people buying clothes that are too small because they are “going to lose some weight” and then complain their clothes are too tight. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

1 and 2 (properly defined with peel, etc.) are both acceptable and the debates on the two are endless. # 3 is NEVER acceptable. At my DZ we teach #2. Actually we teach (look red, grab red, look silver, grab silver, peel, punch, arch, peel, punch arch) And personally, I emphasis the PEEL! I make it very clear the Velcro is stronger than they are unless they peel it. The advantage of #2 is that once they cut away and the reserve handle shifts they already have it under control and don’t have to spend valuable time looking for it. There are a number of fatalities where people cut away and never deployed a reserve, including some VERY experienced skydivers. Locating the silver handle after a cutaway is not a given. And it is never acceptable to rely on the RSL. The trade off with #1 is that a person must be able to pull the red handle with one hand (hence the emphasis on “peel”) and also avoid an out of sequence pull. These are manageable with proper training and in my personal opinion are lesser risks than not being able to find the silver handle after a cutaway. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Well two sizes below recommendation (M5 with a 150) is likely going to be very loose. The problem you run into is that while it “might be okay” - with the main that small you run the risk of your pin being too loose and it coming undone at the most inopportune time. One thing you might look into is getting Dacron lines on the 150. Honestly it’s never a bad idea anyway (Mr. Booth recommends them) and it takes up a substantial amount of pack volume. So the 150 with Dacron lines might fit quite nicely in the M5. In fact notice the sizing chart assumes micro line and says that Dacron will cause a material increase in pack volume, just what you want if you’re trying to fit too small a canopy into too large a container. Talk to a rigger that can see your gear and maybe try calling Mirage and asking how they think a 150 with Dacron would fit. And as a side note Dacron rocks. It may not be super cool but it rocks! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

If you're buying new it costs the same to get a canopy that matches as it does to get one that doesn’t. Get one that matches. And don't worry about people that hate you because you're beautiful! They’re just jealous. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

That’s precious. You do realize LA has more large drop zones in close proximity than most likely any other place in the world. You have an embarrassment of riches in your back yard. Most people would be thrilled to have as many choices as you do so close. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Clearly the problem here is your lack of understanding not the “shameful” behavior of any drop zone. And frankly, I’m being kind here out of respect for your being in the service. First, AFF is roughly half the cost of getting an “A” license. Skydiving training is broken out into two large sections, AFF and Coaching. Plus there are other activities you will be required to perform not in these two major groups. Make sure when you price shop you understand EVERYTHING you need to get a license. Second, Unless Raeford is giving a large military discount then your number for its costs are WAY off. I counted up over $1,650 just for AFF and there will be coaching, gear rental, etc IN ADDITION, thus bringing the total cost way up. Third, you clearly aren’t making any attempt to compare apples to apples, the program in Arizona includes repeat jumps, tunnel time, all coach jumps, at least NINE videos, lodging, etc! They aren’t charging more because it is popular they are charging more because they are quoting the entire cost of one of the world’s highest quality and most comprehensive programs. Do yourself a favor and call each DZ and talk to them about exactly what you are getting and what you need to complete an A license. And as a side note skydiving is NOT CHEAP, get used to the idea now or you’re going to be in for a lot of disappointment and debt. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I wish it would cost 180.00 I gotta fork out close to $400 for mine You missed the point go back and read it again. And as a hint it's not $180 It's $180,000 (one hundred eighty THOUSAND). "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

It's not losing a regular job; it's an opportunity to jump on weekdays! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

He cannot get an "A" license without learning to pack, which should include how to properly inspect the gear. He should be the one responsible for inspecting his gear with the main open and “closed” whether he packs it or someone else does. If he has any questions he should ask someone. It’s how we all learn. Don’t put off responsibility to a packer for what he should be able to do himself. The only thing he cannot properly inspect is the inner workings of the reserve, but that has an FAA certified riggers seal on it. A good solution would be for him to do his first 100 pack jobs himself. "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

I see you jump at Spaceland. It's a great DZ with great people. I believe they have load organizers pretty well every weekend specifically to bring people, like yourself, together and jump. Yes Spaceland has a lot of teams but that doesn’t mean you won't have anyone to jump with. You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist. Go to the DZ do your recurrency training and jump and ask the staff to introduce you to people you can jump with. It’s that simple. And BTW don’t tell anyone there I think it’s a great DZ I spend a lot of time giving those guys a hard time, I’d hate for them to figure out that I actually like them! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP