dsiegel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    7

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by dsiegel

  1. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the best repacker I've come across in the New York area is Kam at The Ranch Pro Shop. I don't know if he's a rigger or not. But I'm hoping to find someone good who lives in or near Manhattan, which would make getting/staying in date much easier.

  2. Hi everyone. I enjoy skydiving at the ranch, and I love getting my rig repacked there, but sometimes it's just too inconvenient. I'm wondering if there's a good rigger who lives in New York City somewhere. If you know of one, please email me: [email protected]

    Also, anyone who lives in NYC and wants to go jumping on weekends, get in touch!

    Thanks,

    David

  3. Hi. I'm getting a 50" plasma monitor and I'm going to throw a party to invite all my friends. I want to show the best-quality skydiving/BASE footage I can on my new 9:16 aspect-ratio screen. Does anyone know what this would be? Perhaps someone has shot on film and then converted the material and burned it onto a DVD at 480p or 1080i? I'm happy to pay, i just don't want to show an NTSC signal on my new screen unless I have to.

    Answer here or email me at [email protected]

    Thanks,

    David

  4. They're not that hard to pack. I have over 50 jumps on the things and a brand new Lotus and it's the same as packing a Sabre II. There's no noticeable incerase in pack volume. There's a BIG increase in lift on landing, and that's what it's all about. I'm sold on airlocks and won't go back. I have TWO lotuses and love them!

  5. I've been thinking a lot about the skills people need as they go from beginner to intermediate to advanced in this sport. Whether you're learning to do 4-way or head-down or swoop the pond, the single most influential factor in your learning curve is currency.
    But currency is hard to measure. You can have 10,000 jumps but only 50 of them in the last five years. You can have 500 jumps, but if they're spread out evenly over the last 8 years you're MUCH less current than someone with 100 jumps in the last 4 months. In general, you learn most when you're jumping more, because your first couple of jumps only help you regain what you've lost since your last jump, and only if you put 8 or more jumps together in a weekend can you make real progress. Then, the longer you wait to jump again, the more you lose and have to regain.
    Everyone asks how many jumps you have. That seems to be the measure of ability. But it's wildly inaccurate. On the other hand, having just one number is much easier to use than reviewing someone's log book. Because there are so many factors that go into communicating your current abilities, we tend just to judge people by how many jumps they have. And that's wrong.
    So I have an idea for a better number. One number people can use to explain where they are in their skills AND currency.
    This number is the answer to the question: How recent are your last 100 jumps? The answer is in months. If the answer is two months, you're probably a pretty capable skydiver, especially if it's April and you live in Chicago. If the answer is 15 months and it's the end of August, you may be comfortable getting out the door but your skills may not get you into a decent 4-way and freefliers may decline your offer to join them. If you have fewer than 100 jumps, then say you're a beginner and your most recent 50 jumps have been in the past X months.
    This method is flawed, of course. Consider someone whose number is 18 (months). If she made 99 jumps in the last 3 weeks, she's in much better shape than if she'd made 99 jumps a year and a half ago. But A) that's unlikely and B) the method is still MUCH better than asking how many jumps someone has made.
    This method has something else against it: you can't rest on your laurels. People who have 500 jumps but aren't very current would like to think they know a lot more and can outperform anyone with fewer jumps. Total number of jumps is a measuring stick that continues to grow with you as you get older and more out of practice. And for that reason it's a bad measure. So even though people might resist it, they must also see the advantage to them when learning about the skills of others. If it's what you'd want to know about someone else, it's what someone else would want to know about you.
    Sure, at the beginning of the season, everyone has higher numbers. But that only reflects reality: at the beginning of the season, few people are as current as they were last September.
    The number 100 is a question. Should it be 100? 200? 300? I'd argue that the right number is somewhere right around 100. We're trying to judge currency, not lifetime achievement.
    This measure is relative, not absolute. In practice, people will use it ALONG WITH the total number of jumps, and that's fine. For example, if someone says his currency factor is two months and wants to fly a wing suit or a board, he might say he's got 100 jumps in 11 weeks, then you can ask him how many jumps he has. Or you can do something better -- just ask how recent are his last 500 jumps. If he doesn't have 500 jumps, his answer to your question should be pretty low, around 12 - 14, before you'd consider advising that he jump a wingsuit or a board.
    The other factor now is tunnel time. Tunnel time counts, but only for flying skills, not for safety. So for safety's sake I would leave tunnel time out of this number and let people discuss it separately.
    Now the question of what to call it. I'll take a shot and call it your "MR100," which stands for your "most recent 100 jumps." If someone says "Hey, what's your MR100?", you simply say "Three months," or "About a year," or "Actually, I'm at seven weeks right now" -- something like that. If someone wants more information, rather than reverting to lifetime number of jumps, he can ask "okay, how about your last 200?" -- this really gives much better information than combining your last 100 with your total lifetime number. In context, people will probably say "last 200" rather than "MR200", and that's fine. If I could come up with a catchier name, maybe people would use that instead.
    I know this is less studly, but it's more accurate. People will continue to want to assess your skills -- and you theirs -- by asking a simple question and getting a simple answer. This doesn't do everything, but it seems a lot better than the answer we give now.
    So, what does anyone think?

  7. My take on it from looking at the web site is that this line of canopies is designed to mirror the Icarus line but be rated to open at higher speeds for freefliers. Imagine throwing out with your head down! That may be what they have in mind. Just a guess.