dorbie

Nothing. USPA is a club, with voluntary membership. Its rules are club rules for club members. What non-members do is none if their damned business, as they so eagerly insisted when they banned Pastrana. USHPA does have a bit of a monopoly on skydiving in the USA though, that's a mixed blessing because it has people running around thinking their rules are things that should be enforcable rather than voluntarily subscribed to by willing members, and skydivers citing tort liability when discussing the ediffice USHPA has constructed around jumping out of a plane. Every generation of new jumpers wants to augment these rules to make an inherently dangerous sport "safe". It doesn't matter how thick the SIM gets, there will always be someone who wants to add a new rule or even a new chapter. Thank fuck these people aren't legislating.

I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT UPT, MAKING INSINUATIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT UPT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT UPT. This happens all the time in industry. The reason, of course, is money, which is to say, profit. The reduction of production costs with a fixed product price results in increased profits. Whether through using less expensive materials, cheaper labour, design changes, etc., the increase in profits is the desired outcome, benefitting the owner or shareholders. I think designing testing and introducing a new product like this is actually expensive, especially on TSO'd gear. Moreover you're subjected to marketing FUD from the competition. Is ripstop & a different pattern really that much cheaper than mesh?! I think that's a stretch. IMHO Bill Booth has a passion for innovation and incremental safety improvements and has worked a range of problems over decades for this reason. Some of those save costs (ripcord). More likely this augments UPT's leadership in innovation & safety and in that regard it's slightly redundant given their current reputation. Maybe one day they'll recoup the R&D costs.

Ummm...you might want to re-think that, There are much more effective ways to slow fall rate than that. This too. There are other schools of thought. The key is in the planning. See reply #1 Well offer a school of thought, that's the one I've been given, but I'm open to hear another one. On fall rate, I tried many methods including chest cup, inverse arch etc, took tunnel coaching, advice from RW coaches. None of it was as effective as setting the right initial fallrate with the right gear. The whole spread wide with an inverse arch is IMHO the most effective way, opinions may differ, fine. Tunnel coaches disagreed with RW L.O.s and RW L.O.s had some contempt for tunnel advice. I didn't care I would have tried anything. Bottom line is don't believe the bullshit about fixing your fallrate with the wrong gear. There's only so much you can do and once your fallrate is right you still need range above and below it, everything is harder without that range and when you have to work hard to maintain level it's a real buzz kill. You get a bad rep on loads etc. It will hold you back. I blew so many skydives trying to "fix my fallrate", but when I fixed the range I was in with my suit things were just fine. Jumping became fun again. I have a lot of range up & down & can use it. I don't have a lot of respect anymore for advice that doesn't start with getting in the right range (albeit after trying coaching on body position etc). I went from utterly shit to a decent flyer. RW went from unenjoyable to fun and easy. "fix your fallrate with body position", without consideration of base fall rate w.r.t. others is poor advice.

My jumping in the USA will not repair this dangerous decision in Poland. Sometimes the only thing that saves people from the insipid will of beaurocracy is the moribund processes of the same entities. I expect you have an answer to my question but chose not to reveal it. Loved one + Argus + nopull + firing altitude. On or off? This highlights the problem with this decision for many jumpers in Poland who's next skydive will cost them $2000 v. $20 depending on the decision that has been thrust upon them. They won't be able to sell their ARGUS locally and will probably hold out for some correction of the problem so it's a safe bet many who stay active will opt for the $20 jump.

Not on my rig, and I don't need some pencil pusher making that decision for me. You do make a good point but it ignores probability in pursuit of that point. Someone you love is burning through their AAD firing altitude wearing an Argus equipped rig with nothing out. You have no other information. Would you want that Argus turned on or not? I think that's an easy decision.

And just how would it be in his company's self interest to design and release a new product that was inferior to the one he was already shipping when he already has an unchallenged reputation for industry innovations? You don't design a product like this based on a single jump, but capturing all that data and evidence in a single video + post would be impossible. It's not proof, but it is illustrative along with the explanation. Full points for cynicism through. The purchasing decision still rests with you.

How can you strength test the webbing & stitching or ensure the stiffer flaps will not impede the designed deployment?

Well in that case this has to be the dumbest decision I've seen in a while. It could lead to more fatalities in the short term. There's no question an ARGUS is better than nothing, you could ban the sale or installation in new rigs, and allow existing use to be grandfathered in for some period or until the issue is addressed. Just another example of idiots and their "safety" pantomime.

Y'know what? They really don't. They used to, but these days they've gone so crazy with the add-ons and surcharges that several competitors with much higher headline prices, better service and better reliability are also as cheap or cheaper when everything gets added up and put on the CC. the costs of administering all of the add on fees can quickly add up, resulting in a more expensive, as well as annoying, service. No, it's the beds and blowjobs Ryan instituted.

I thought they'd already gotten off scott free. Apparently not, good. It was a cold blooded murder + coverup. From memory the killers walked and some other assholes who helped cover it up with a planted weapon & testimony got prosecuted. Chickens comming home to roost for murderers with badges is a good thing It must be tough for murdering scum to discover that the courts are almost as malleable as they are when you're guilty as all hell and everyone knows it. I doubt anyone is going to give a rats ass over nuanced procedural evidence generation issues in Louisiana once they're sent away, except the guilty.

Some of these comments are laughable. Swinging your dick around at customs is a good way to get your rig opened and you delayed, perhaps searched in ways that will re-educate you on the real nature of the traveller - border agent relationship. I wonder if this is real or if the bavado would evaporate without the keyboard. You have no right to take any closed container across any border unless you're a diplomat. Showing the slightest concern over a search will get you searched. Demanding to be present may be the best way to ensure you're not. If you don't want to run the risk don't take your "life saving equipment" across a border, or be prepared to have a rigger check it out afterwards. TSA (for example) had guidelines the last I checked, but that's not going to grant anyone immunity from a thorough search.

Can't avoid this IMHO, you can complain but parachutes cannot be the no-go area for customs, and there will never be an operating procedure that says don't look inside for obvious reasons. Probably best not to mention your rig at all, the way they think it's just going to raise their interest and wonder why you mentioned it.

Stay with the formation, spread yourself as much as possible and look to the side to keep sight of them. At breakoff at break off alt. If there's that much difference then you shouldn't be jumping with them until you've fixed your fall rate. Get a slower jumpsuit, don't necessarily believe the bollocks about learning to fly slower slow, there's only so much you can do with body position and you want range up and down in addition to enjoying your jumping.

It's just as well we have deep thinkers like this guy looking out for us. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=be9_1270097830

In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Indeed, that's another important point. Patents allow you to stand on the shoulders of giants and claim ownership of a technological development that your contemporaries must then license from you, even if they have developed it in parallel, which these days is more often the case than not. Patents don't grant rights, they ONLY remove rights. They remove the right of non patent holders to use technology and inventions (even their own technology and inventions) without paying a royalty to the patent holder. Some companies are now set up purely to acquire or author patents and license them to companies who step on their minefield. Nathan Myhrvold's compant Intellectual Ventures is a good example, they plan to invent stuff and license it without making anything. In some instances this might be useful if they proactively invent and license wholesale a new useful device to another interested company. Unfortunately the reality is that Intellectual Ventures' plan is to have industrious companies in the business of producing goods encroach on the minefield Intellectual Ventures is laying and then have to pay royalties to a company that has no intention of making anything. There is no legal distinction that might protect industrious companies from patent trolls like this. So companies like Intellectual Ventures can set up road blocks and toll booths all over the intellectual landscape and use legal threats to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from each company they target, without ever making anything except profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures

Patents use the power of government to grant a temporary artificial monopoly to encourage investment in R&D. There is no natural right to monopolize any invention in any form. You might assume that there is some sense of fairness in patents but that's not how the system works. If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. Case in point, the telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone Today this scenario is more often than not what happens. Most inventions would have happened anyway, in another location or a maybe a month or year later. In many cases they've already happened but never widely published. Patents are a tool used by large corporations to seek commercial advantage, obstruct competition and extract royalty payments. People have forgotten the original intent, and the artificial and potentially unjust nature of these laws. The government granted monopoly on an invention is bestowed in the PUBLIC interest, not for the self-interest of the company. When patent law stops encouraging investment in R&D and starts hindering development then the law is no longer delivering as intended.

It has little direct bearing on that case IMHO. This was about patenting an unmodified gene, in this instance the genetic indicators for a predisposition for developing breast cancer. Drug companies could not look at or use this gene in any way. Right there in the science literature these 2 genetic traits massively increased the chances of a woman getting cancer, yet NOBODY could test for this known gene without paying the company holding the patent a load of cash. It was a damned disgrace. So this is also a great day for womens health and JFTC if you want to look at it like that. Many more women will get tested and for a lot less $, those women with a genetic predisposition will be more likely to get the screening they need and lives will be saved. The judge mentioned that to make a gene patentable you have to modify it, and I think GM would probably be covered in that.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive.

Looks like he saw you, didn't want to call off his hook and decided to cut it close by turning in front of you. (if he didn't see you it's worse). He wouldn't have known who you were or your ability, it was extremely selfish for him to do this and he needs spoken to. Even if he did it's still too close (that's a wide angle lense I assume and it felt a lot closer at the time) and he's risking a judgement error and/or hitting you with wake turbulence at a low altitude. If you're going to plan a landing like this you have to be prepared to call it off if you have to. If you're this committed to making your hook turn then you're a danger to yourself and others.

Can't deny pre-exsisting and my lifetime 300k cap will be gone. The rest I'm not to happy w/. And who will pay for those "good parts"? Edited to add: C'mon..what'd we just get? Alot of folks here were damned sure they wanted it. Now what? You're not really sure are you... 'I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help.' Well everyone insured will pay, it's the point of insurance. If you're insured NOW and someone gets sick, who pays? The collective insured pay, that's the friking point, if you're LUCKY you actually get a bum deal with insurance because you stay healthy and you only ever pay for others. Health insurance that boots you out when you get ill isn't insurance, it's a racket. So I'm also of the opinion that these are the best parts. Covering preexisting conditions needs safeguards, but by rendering people uninsurable (and unemployable) the insurance industry in this country invited this. The biggest issue with this whole thing is the cost, I think people who believe claims that it will save on premiums and save the country money are extreme optimists (even if backed by the GAO as they claim). This is a massive dynamic system and costs may still balloon as they do with everything the government touches and as they did in states that tried similar strategies. And it won't stop here, the nose is under the tent now, every election cycle will tweak this and spend more. Still there is something repugnant about such massive discrepancies in the healthcare system. People with money today didn't invent modern medicine they inherited it collectively from great pioneers in the past many of them funded by the public purse. There is no good workable solution to this that neatly matches anyone's ideology.

I did the same thing once. My first thought was, "I hope it doesn't kill anybody, the helmet has my name in it." After the jump, I was at the display case, pricing another helmet when a friend walked in wearing the helmet I lost in freefall ! It had fallen in front of him under canopy and he followed it to the ground. The helmet and the Dytter inside both survived. I hope he bought beer for his first helmet recovery.

The same could be said of Tandem jumps at the North Pole.

What is the legal exposure for the USPA as a club, for members w.r.t. insurance permiums and for tandem rig makers who I think have their own limits? My understanding is that the age limit is there because until someone reaches the age of majority the waiver cannot be signed with informed consent. So if they get hurt they can sue you later & the waiver carries no weight. That's a BIG difference when it comes to age, but I'm not a lawyer and neither are you so I cannot be sure. My input on this as a member is don't do it without taking expert legal advice and LISTENING to it.

Here is this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyt-sIMym0&fmt=18 Accident report: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/pdf/aair200101903_001.pdf

The old days when sex was safe and skydiving was dangerous. Wow... a jumpmaster with 50 jumps. I mean sure, it was the 60's when the sport was still relatively new for fun jumpers, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad I started when I did. And experienced with the aircraft and students at 50 jumps :-). On Bill Booth's first jump his jump master had just learned the previous week (or close to it).