mdrejhon

Just to point out -- I've never said I disagreed with it being stupid. But there are already several people who want to try (even though it may not happen in some of their lifetimes), once a solution is devised and/or enough funding happens. The question is what is really the safest way to do it. I think there has been other, way more dangerous things done, than a hypothetical wing suit landing. Example: At some point, some daredevil (er, 'andrenaline enthusaist') is going to think it is safe enough, with a better than 75% chance of walking away from it, 20% chance of major injury, and 5% of death -- "safe enough" to some daredevil type people. Again, not advocating it, but I really do envision that the metrics will probably eventually be met within my lifetime (say, the next 50 years). I'm not going to do it at those metrics, though, but I know some who would do it, at such risk metrics. It may never happen, but of all options of landing a wingsuit I think the metrics are the cheapest/safest with a ski slope (whether it has ultragroomed snow or 2 mile waterslide, etc), even with combination of other technologies such as slower wingsuits, other improvements that reduce risk, etc.

Very interesting stuff! I took the time to quickly scan your posts. Even though it's just a demonstration prototype at this stage to illustrate a specific mechanism (and many have already commented), and I realize it is not final materials or strength or shape or length, I have a few comments relating specifically to skiis: -> In a theoretical test of such equipment in the future (if anybody adopted the mechanism), I assume wind tests and high speed trial runs over snow, would be warranted, to figure out behaviour and related side effects. -> The skis need to be designed for the surface it is on. If it's on snow, then consider the length of the 'skiis' on the final model be if one was ever made (far apart are front tip and the rearmost part?) You need a LOT length for stability at high speeds. Short skiis will tend to wipeout quickly at high speed, at least on snow, since the increased length adds stability, they lock into the grove better, resisting fishtailing/swerving/etc better. If your sled is designed to land on snow, make sure to take into factor of this particular design consideration. Length has its own risks too (it's harder to turn with longer skiis, they can injure in ways short skiis don't, etc) but short skiis at insane speeds on snow isn't stable -- unless it's on a different surface that benefits from shorter skiis rather than longer skiis, such as water. -> Also, the material of the ski is important -- wrong material and it'll have too much friction, you'll need the right material for the right amount of friction for the proper glide on the type of material you're planning to land on. Too much friction versus too slippery has stability implications. You probably already knew all of that, and the proper specialists will know way more, but I wanted to add those various comments out in the open...

That may very well be the showstopper but I still think more proving is needed as time and new technologies passes -- the question is whether familiarity with skijumping/racing and wingsuit, outweighs the safety risks of additional components (after some safing with a team of qualified riggers/specialists) -- or other techniques of landing a wingsuit which would appear to be riskier. After all, we've made skydiving safer to the point where even 200-jump-wonders are strapping on miniature film studios to their helmets and also doing skydives that skydiving gear of 30 years ago wasn't designed for, and then subsequently landing a parachute at highway speeds undreamed of, not too long ago. Who's to say that in the future -- say 50 years -- we haven't made gear safer to the point, where adding more components necessary for wingsuit landing, becomes pratical and acceptable from a risk-analysis perspective? Not advocating so, but isn't that the reality? That may be, I was delibrately conservative in my timelines (10 year to 50 year in future). But I think it would still involve a ski slope of some kind -- even if it doesn't involve skiis or in the type I am thinking of. I still think level ground will be too risky (it's a 'once chance or you die' scenario). With a slope, you've got several chances to escape, and a high-speed wipeout is proven survivable with the right prep. Even the Las Vegas slide idea is a form of a slope -- although I think that's too low altitude. Example: Why not groom a summertime unused ski slope (probably available for rent for cheap) instead into a 2 mile long and very wide waterslide? Then you get the benefits of both the skislope idea and the Las Vegas idea mentioned a few years ago. And probably cheaper than a few million dollars, because you don't need structural supports) So it's possible that even if the ski idea is eventually invalidated, I will be happy to eat my words -- but I might even still be right indirectly: that a ski slope will still be used.

For pratice flights and pull above 3000-5000 feet, it's a solvable technicalty. EXAMPLE - Higher than normal pulls (5000ft) with ultra-slow opening parachutes (2000 feet snivel). Example: Custom-made slower spectre with massive sliders, etc. - Ski cutaway mechanisms (also useful if slow opening snivels too long and you got to pull reserve) - AND/OR Ski stowage methods, tested incrementally. (any number of methods of safing the skiis to prevent injury or whiplash during deployment, using a future method that doesn't increase deployment risk too much) - Obviously, a faster opening canopy would be used for low-altitude practice after experience is gained, and also during actual attempts, once enough experience is gained about wearing skiis during deployment. - etc. The danger is obviously with the skiis itself during deployment -- such as their weight, whiplash effects, snag hazards, pilot chute entangulation, and the safety risks of whatever additional mechanisms are added. Skijumping binders are lighter weight than many shoes people are already jumping with -- so the ski jumping equipment, weigh less than downhill skiis. However, ski jumping skiis are much longer, which is another issue. Still, those are studyable and probably mitigatable, given sufficient money thrown at this problem. There can also be snag/entangulation/instability/side-effects/etc of various stowage or stabilization methods such as lanyards (such as attaching ski tips to forearms, to stabilize skiis, one of dozens of methods that might or might not be pratical, etc). However, the bottom line is that, these appear to be all solvable stuff by a hired paid rigger/testjumper/etc working with a proper team. Throw just a mere $100K at the problems with the industry, manufacturers, and the best test jumpers/riggers of the industry, and you might even get further along than other possible methods of landing a wingsuit. Even though people like me and you might not actually do such a jump, there are many people out there willing to help somebody else to do such a jump, and try to solve all the problems -- even related to the logistics of safely doing test flights, etc. Or other solutions. Of course, pretty dangerous stuff (especially today), but nontheless solvable technicalities by an extreme red-bull-league jumper in the future. It's not a showstopper, by all means, with additional layer of planning. Overkill? Maybe. But it would still appear to possibly be potentially still safer than other methods of landing a wingsuit, like slides, low altitude pulls, etc. Yes, all the stuff I wrote is stupidly risky. But for the whole chain of events of landing a wingsuit, I think it's the safest. You can linger above the slope longer. You don't need low-altitude waterslides. You don't have as many "one-chance" scenarios. Let's not forget there's more escape options for a skislope landing. PLUS even a failed landing moment still has at least *some* chance of survival, full stop. (high speed wipeouts are much more survivable than a freefall impact -- just look at the 300mph motorcycle wipeout with the human bumping along free of motorcycle at 300mph, and the 100-to-150mph ski racing wipeouts that have been survived. And people have actually hit 120-150mph in water ski racing. A wipeout at that speed involve a humans skipping on water (concrete) at incredible sppeds during a wipeout, although most water racing wipeouts go less than 50mph. For the daredevil type attempts with proper gear, the number of survival stories actually outnumber the number of death stories, for high speed horizontal wipeouts, apparently even at the same speeds of wingsuit flight over a slope. Nasty, but apparently, on average, usually less hospital carnage than a mere 30mph vertical impact... The science of high speed horizontal wipeouts in many sports, is already a well known science, and a big appealing factor of doing more research/study. Now, the science of making wingsuit test jumps with safe deployments with skiis is relatively simple science in comparision to the other options such as water bubble zones or Las Vegas structures (if someone HAD the unfailing desire to land a wingsuit and survive), especially if you got $100K to throw at a team of testjumpers/riggers to make it "safe enough" for your "red bull" league team. Even a shoestring $15K might be enough to make the sufficient customizations (such as custom ultraslow opening canopy and temporary custom-made ski jumping skiis for high altitude aerodynamic tests) necessary to do 10+ high-altitude test jumps by a skijumper-experienced wingsuiter to prove feasibilities, before approving of $100K of investments as a precursor, sensor equipment, trail training period, logistics, etc, to getting funding to practice and do the actual attempt. Yes, perhaps still fantasyland. Yes, perhaps some other showstopper will come up. But I don't think ski deployments is the showstopper, as I explained above. Full circle back to what I said: "More research is needed"

Perhaps true! Do tell about the learned experiences here - I'd like to see some scientific data. Or is it just a few datapoints from a few different people (who probably each tried just one-ski-model?) I'm sure many dozens of wingsuit jumpers have already worn regular skiis (including wingsuit BASE jumpers skiing off a cliff, etc, or paraskiing events that began with wingsuit flight), took some off-the-maket brand skiis, with heavy bindings that mess up wingsuit flight, and unsuitable-for-ski-jumping skiis, etc. But that's pretty unscientific. Do we have a scientific study showing a large number of ski models (say 30 different models) of skiis including multiple models of custom ski jumping models and tweaks, lightweight ones too, resulted in super-unstable wingsuit flight, or very bad wingsuit flight profiles, etc? Do not forget that ski jumping skiis are long and wide skis, with lightweight bindings attaching at the toe, for good control of ski angle. Understandably, losing control of skiis while going at high speed through the air, can be fatal. (i.e. wind pushing skiis around, etc). The higher speeds of wingsuit flight, makes the need for custom bindings (derived from ski jump technology) critical, and the wingsuiter needs to train to angle the skiis for maximum lift during normal flight (after exit) and during theoretical approaches to a theoretical ski slope. I could, imagine, that the use of a GPS-powered HUD speedometer and flightangle measurement will be a big help, in exercising/practicing leg/knee/toe angles, and control of the ski angle, during determination of practicalities wearing skiis while flying a wingsuit, and making further custom tweaks to bindings. It will, additionally, also be a necessary endeaviour to hire the same people who work with ski jumping skiis, though some of them will have to overcome the audacity of the idea of landing a wingsuit. They aren't bulky ski boots, some of them are even lighter-weight than cross-country ski boots (which are much lighter than downhill ski boots). Here's a picture of ski jumping bindings, from the Britannica Encyclopedia: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/32/21332-004-1CEAFF2F.gif ... However, even this may not be suitable for wingsuit flight, and a different kind of bindings invention is needed. The skiier needs to be able to control the angle of the skiis with their toes, so stiff bindings or stiff ski boots WONT WORK... (so I automatically invalidate scientific tests that don't include tests of flexible ski bindings) What kind of ski bindings (compact ones, bulky ones), type of skiis, and was it also designed for ski jumping, etc. Was there any custom stability enhancements added to it. (For the purposes of landing a wingsuit, we don't have to be 'legal' in terms of ski jump rules limiting modifications to skiis)? Don't forget the wingsuit pioneers -- and many who died -- many different wingsuits were very unstable before they became safe enough to be used by the average "career skydiver". If skiis have shown terrible flight stability or flight angle profiles today, then custom skiis, with lightweight auto-stabilizing ski binder technologies, might eventually be safe enough to be worn while wearing a wingsuit at full speeds without significantly hurting the aerodynamics. REMEMBER!... Look at how much lift that custom-designed skiis give to ski jumpers! There may be limitations to those binders due to the steeper leanforward angles needed during higher speed flight, but if skbinder technology improves, it may then become pratical... (Or maybe even the silly/ridiculous invention of lightweight motorized auto-stabilizing skibinders with ability to bend 90 degrees to parallel of your body) The ski jumpers are almost able to do this nowadays, thanks to technology innovation in ultralight flexible skijumping ski bindings. I imagine everyday skiis with heavy ski bindings, will be very terrible for wingsuit flight, but don't forget that lightweight skijumping skiis actually give lift to the properly trained persons. The bindings are really flexible. Ski jumping skiis are long and wide skis, with lightweight bindings attaching at the toe, for good control of ski angle. The skijumper can control the angle of the skiis much better than typical downhill skiing skis, or even racing skiis, which is important for stability while flying through the air during ski jump. Some custom enhancements may be needed to be able to get an even-further-forward leanforward than a normal ski jump, and keep it stable. Look at this image: http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/skijumping/story/2009/11/25/sp-essentials-skijumping.html The skiis are almost parallel to the his body. Ski jumpers use soft toe-adjustable bindings to adjust angle of skiis while flying through the air, there is enough control to make the skiis nearly parallel to his body. With minor enhancements to the ski bindings, it may make a wingsuit landing possible. You CANNOT do this with regular skiis, like most of the BASE jumpers skiing off a cliff, or during paraskiing. Very few skydivers have ever used these types of bindings during a wingsuit flight, and certainly insufficient data to make it a definitive 'no'... PLUS....It may take, say, 100, or 500, or even more, skii-equipped wingsuit test flights (with the same wingsuit and ski jumping equipment), with a HUD speedometer/fightanglemeter -- and becoming skilled at doing both and being able to fly the wingsuit angle stably while adjusting ski angle -- and compensating for each other's interference with each other -- before the question can be answered, "Let's land it." (NOTE! The best ski jumpers already compensate skii angles to help the skiis fly them, help lift them further, in midair) It may have to wait until a future invention, perhaps. Many of us skydivers are doing things that skydivers of 50 years ago thought were impossible. What fabric wingsuit and skijumping-skiis technology in the the next 50 years bring? There might eventually be enough convergence to solve the "3 seconds of terror" problem I just described. If impossible today (for a theoretical attempt in 10 years), eventually, I think the technologies will get slightly closer within 50 years to reduce the risk of the "3 seconds of terror" window I just described. (ski jumpers will become faster/farther, and wingsuits will become slower, etc), I think eventually it is possible that somebody is going to get the idea of experimenting mashing-up these two technologies and skills. Yes, it may, yes, very well be fantasyland today. However, I still think if it is ever done with a fabric wingsuit, it will be some form of landing on some descendant of skiis and wingsuit, on some sort of ski slope, more likely than other method.

There is, also, a lot of lean-forward in a ski-jumper, even more so at higher forward speeds -- in some cases see ski jumper bodies lean forward more than 45 degrees! The question, is whether these ski jumper body-lean-forward angles can safely overlap the angles of a wingsuit jumper. For theoretical ski slope landings, GPS measurements of diagonal velocity may end up becoming MORE important than pure horizontal data and pure vertical data. Has anyone tried analyzing horizontal velocity data of wingsuit flares and even wingsuit stalls? I think one possible important goal here is research and do test flights (GPS), to determine to at least be able to overlap the body angle extremes of a heavy-lean-forward body profile of a professional ski jump. Measurements of flight angles and diagonal flight speed during tests (scientific analysis), which may also include equipment that measures body angles (and how much a wingsuit tilts during flares, etc), either via gyroscope recorder, or other technique. And also, observe, as skiis touch down, the ski jumper gradually stands up (taking advantage of wind resistance to help slow him down). Presumably, the same technique would be used (over several seconds) during a wingsuit landing. Fantasyland? Maybe. Maybe not. See, it's only a window of a 3-seconds-of-terror (give or take a few seconds). Just 3 seconds of terror between wingsuit familiarity and pro skiier familiarity. Obviously, research is needed about wingsuit body angles and ski angles. Yes, the imaginary scenario probably has to be adjusted for different body angles and timeline after lots of research finding out what are the best. YouTube video examples -- Other readers who missed them originally, see these posts post #1, post #2 ... I still think the ski slope idea is most 'realistic' and least 'gimmicky'. It may be possible it may never happen, but if it happens, it would be via ski slope rather than with another method. Before eliminating the possibility of the slope method, more research is needed.

I once did a skydive while holding and (sorta) using a BlackBerry, for a contest video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cOaoHq1Xes This planned video, done with permission by the dropzone, and briefed the DZO and the videographer, going over the details of the safety aspects, the fact I was using an older disposable BlackBerry that was non-critical and that was securely reasonably duct-taped to the palm of my left hand (but not irreversibly, for dire need of emergency jettison into my jumpsuit or emergency flingaway) -- the left hand delibrately the hand I don't use for pulling my PC, an audible was in use as a backup alert, and planned a higher than normal pull altitude.

There's almost no difference between an American Liberal and a Canadian Conservative. Our Conservative government (which many of us hate) is more left-wing than Obama in many ways. How ironic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZizIbSpI-g Old link. I posted that exact YouTube video in my post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3665576#3665576 Here's another video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqW6O_dcF2M (Salomon; actual skydive from helicoptor, wingsuit flying only 6 feet above ski slope surface. This is actually an old video, and wingsuits have gotten better since) For jumping out of a plane and landing on a ski slope, I do agree that more study is needed (see my idea post) to see if it's pratical to land a wingsuit on skiis. Arguably safer. Large slope gives wide error margin, no fatally-precise targeting needed like for slides, ramps, cardboard boxes, landing pads, etc. More chances of abort (fly off the slope). You can linger several seconds above ground and decide to land or not. Etc. And even a failed landing is much more survivable because of zero velocity perpendicular to ground (See ski wipeout videos of incredible speed, also see survivable 300 mph motorcycle wipeout [YouTube].) For more info about discussions about this, see post #1 and post #2 ...

Isn't it supposed to be a 100-year interplanetary space habitat/station, rather than a starship? A generational ship, perchance? It would make kinda better sense, if it was worded like that. A massive habitat (like an artifical mini-planet, which could be typically envisioned to be the size of a large skyscraper or cruise ship with self-contained facilities), with so much momentum, that it takes 100 years for it to slowly thrust itself to Mars even on nuclear (at current technologies), but that the "spaceship" itself has the advantage of being a long term mini-city that can sustain itself even without a destination? At least, that's how I interpreted it.... "Starship" for such a thing would be a massive glorification of what is just a long-term interplanetary habitat. Personally, I'd rather see smaller and faster space transports to mars, but the self-thrusting habitat idea, does kind of make sense in different ways -- but we'd have to conquer the moon first with some colonies before we thought of something like that as being pratical. It would make sense in many ways, for a populated space station to be self-sustaining (and have secondary thrusters to slowly bring it to Mars) -- it would make sense from a human-species preservation perspective, having the spaceship itself be an insurance policy to the survival of human, not just the destination itself (Mars). Whether this approach, is more economically practical, than just shuttling humans, remains to be seen. Building a small city in earth orbit (of the size of a large cruise ship), may later ultimately (initially) be much easier than sending supplies to Mars to begin building such a city, if raw materials couldn't pratically be used at the destination to build the said 'city'. So, perhaps the school of thought of a 100-year "starship" (really a large space station with thrusters) makes sense, if we later find that sending people group by group, to a permanent mars outpost (and construction/supplies for the Mars outpost) becomes incredibly expensive relative to this, depending on what breakthrough technologies does/does not happen between now and then... Also, in theory, neither is completely exclusive of each other. The habitat slowly enroute to Mars could still in theory be visited by smaller spaceships and supply ships. Initial colonies might still be sent to Mars. Then 100 years from now, someone decides to build a generational ship that's as attractive as today's Caribbean mega-cruiseship, maybe even spinning for artifical gravity. And depending on thruster technologies that becomes practical by then, could be just 10 or 25 or 50 years for the space station/city to 'thrust' itself to Mars. And necessary shielding too (for solar flares, debris, etc). It might even be reused for return journies to Earth. Financially, in the future, a combination of technologies might find that it's economically cheaper or more comfortable for humans to take this route. Once someone thinks of things in these terms, the 100-year spaceship to Mars isn't 100% nonsensical, from a mathematical/scientific/economic perspective, although it does not seem to be the ideal/preferred option at this time.

Wow, I did hear from a lot of friends about that deadsticked Skyvan. Someone on Facebook suggested a fuel management thing. But I am glad to hear that it wasn't a fuel management error! I wasn't there at this event, there just was too many qualified people and I did get put on the waiting list like everyone else who's far enough along in skills/reputation/currency with the P3 team. Also my currency got hit by my injury (hard opening; injury since healed), which probably impacted my position in the waiting list, though I managed to do extremely well at the October Perris 100-way. However, I'll have to note that the fact they did three succesful 200-ways including one near-complete 2-point 200-way -- DESPITE the skyvan problem -- show huge promise in the competency of the P3 team to be able to handle the 500-way record. I'm most definitely looking forward to that! Meantime, I'll be at the Canadian Record. Anyone who's interested, should check up www.CanadaBigWays.com (ENGLISH) and www.CanadaGrandesFormations.com (FRANÇAIS) ... I have updated the websites!

You must mean this: http://www.bodyflight.net/terminal_velocity.html Which also links to a PDF document http://www.bodyflight.net/VWTforsale.pdf ... That page has had no changes for a few years, so it beats me. I heard about it when I visited Argentina more than 2 years ago, and the page has been unchanged since. No, I did not visit the site, but I would assume it is still languishing --

Alain Geurin, who founded Skyventure Montreal, owns both domain name registrations skyventuremontreal.com and skyventuretoronto.com as well as many other major territories in Canada. We'll all have to watch this closely.

Did you do it on the ground with a fully inflated parachute? Reportedly, it is more effective in the air than tests on the ground because of the 'spread' force of a parachute that is already open (or badly wants to open). By pushing risers together, you lower the position of the twists, and make it much more effective for the spread-force of an open parachute (above the twists) to untwist from above, because the twist becomes looser at the point nearer the canopy. The spread force is VERY powerful -- likely in the neighborhood one or two orders of magnitude more powerful than the human strength of pushing or pulling risers. The human pushing together risers below the twists, causes a corresponding major amplification of the spread force above the line twists. Let the parachute do the untwisting for you. Because of this, that means the bigger the parachute, the more effective. (though someone on dropzone.com reported successful recovery from spinning line twists with the push-risers-together technique ... but try at OWN RISK! It's useless anyway if the lintwists are now pinning your chin to chest. Chop...) Ground tests are good, but anecdotes report it being more effective in the air, because of this 'spread force'.

That's not always the case for all planes, though the result may be a "dive" rather than a "stall". The sources I've read says the passengers ran towards the COCKPIT: http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/10/21/15777131.html Maybe perhaps the plane didn't quite stall, but went into a sudden dive during a low approach. Shifting load towards cockpit can do that, just like pulling down on your front risers at flare time can be dangerous, especially on highly loaded wings. (wham) Regardless, the plane got unbalanced -- sudden center of gravity shift.

Hello, You know the plane crash in Democratic Republic of Congo last August that killed 20? It was now reported this was because the airplane stalled because of a smuggled crocodile. It escaped, and panicked passengers ran towards the cabin. The plane stalled, and the plane crashed. CBS News -- Airplane Crashes after Crocodile Causes Panic ---- This is also applicable to skydiving -- the moral of the story is be careful of stalling the plane during skydiving -- respect those line markers on Skyvan's and don't move around too much ESPECIALLY during takeoffs and landings. (Seatbuilts rule helps!)

I now use the "push risers together, kick out of linetwist" technique. For me, it now works much faster (I fly canopies 140 and bigger) on the last three times I tried. It might someday be the preferred student training technique. More study is needed in how universally this technique works, from big to small canopies. See this thread A better way out of line twist! Either way, once you're swooping small parachutes (i.e. 100 square feet and less) it seems to become almost impossible either way anyway: cutaway irregardless if it's accelerating spinning linetwists where you're already on your back with risers pinning your chin to chest... Germain did an interesting experiment from a high altitude, but not applicable to students -- the push technique is safer than Germain's method, which wouldn't be applicable to students anyway (he did it on a small canopy and lost a lot of altitude). Don't believe me or these guys? Bring your 3-year-old to the playground. While you're there, go on the swings. Twist up the swing into linetwists. Pull the chains apart. Twist up the swing again into the same number of linetwists. Push chains together. Notice how it gets out of linetwists MUCH faster if you push together the chains? Bingo!

Google or Youtube "parachute on tail" and violà! This is a Twin Otter, and it all ended well, with some minor damage to the plane. There was also a fatal incident where it brought down a Cessna. At my very original home dropzone, an instructor had to push someone out because of a loose pilot chute that went out of the door. It all ended well, he went under the tail harmlessly, and then later quit skydiving. Even my instructor taught me that if *any* fabric has left the plane, you're going out regardless, whether on your own or by someone else pushing you out. I agree with the decision to push someone out, if his pilot chute has already left the door. Just look at the ripped-fuselage-side photograph (because he didn't leave or get pushed out first) in Dan Poynter's book and you'll agree with me, too.

The people who owns Skyventure Montreal also owns the territory rights to Skyventure Toronto. I heard rumors they're shopping for land in Toronto now, near highway 401 somewhere, someplace. Whisper date is 2012 opening.

Based on the phrase "multi-year plan", my guess is they appear to be planning at least 3 or 4 events in Dubai, to build a rapport and experience. Along with the Square1 200-way invitational, they appear to have plenty of time to gain the necessary experience to conduct mega-sized big way events. Although it is not a 100-way, they did organize successful 181-way women's world record (JFTC) and the 121-way men's world record. I dislike politics, and what I am hearing seems unfortunate, but it does not deter me: I will and will always continue to play for any team I am invited on and can reasonably get to. (Mind you -- including BJ Worth events -- and if BJ Worth has a World Team, I'll try to go to that one too, if it is not in the same year.). If in the same year, budgetary issues will force me to choose one or the other, or whichever one I get invited to (if any)...

Electronics gadgets have a 50% revival success rate if the battery was dead or removed quickly, and you dry them out first before trying to test them out (turning them on). The bag-of-rice drying trick is a popular one. (leave waterlogged gadget in a bag of rice for 3 days, or alternatively leave on the top of a radiator or other warm spot for 3 days). Yes, such techniques also saved an iPod touch that went through laundry -- I saw a photograph. Some dried water spots behind the screen, but that's it. They have nonremovable batteries, so those are harder to save, but still possible, especially if battery was almost dead. Though, the dryer trip in addition, probably was a bit too much... Water exposure is mostly harmless compared to water+electricity (zap) which is the kicker, so battery removal is important. Google "saving a wet phone" -- success rates are impressive if you follow instructions right. (I personally have good experience myself, too.)

I am still on a Sabre 170 for more than 400 jumps, even after demoing Pilot 140, Pilot 150, Sabre2 150, PD143R, and a few others. Though, soon, I'll finally I'll switch to one of those other wings, I'm more concerned in a softer opening now -- so probably a Pilot or similiar.

robinheid's got some good suggestions too. Once you settle down somewhere, you can then get your license, get good at one dropzone, then you can feel much safer about being an international travelling skydiver...

Japan is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to fly to Los Angles, San Francisco or Seattle, get your A license in a two week period, and fly back. (Do your research on dropzones that provide good quality training). In fact, it may not be safe until you got enough jumps to safely land in unexpected landing areas (surrounded by fences, trees, power lines, and hazards) in a variety of countries.... meaning, several dozens of good accuracy-practice jumps are needed. You may on the other hand, stick to Tandems, since there's a big capital cost of around 50 or more jumps before it becomes easy to jump at any FAI dropzone, then again the jumps become only one-tenth the cost of a tandem if you own your own gear and license. (B or better preferably, if you become a travelling jumper) ... Now if you're going to do bandit jumps by having a non-jump-pilot drop you at a non-dropzone (illegal in my country...but if that's apparently legal in your country), you're going to need to learn additional safety considerations over additional jumps, as well as become familiar with the dangers such as snag hazards that can bring down airplanes, etc.

I am not sure what the Greek "culture" is about Western Union (it might be a common business payment method there between some Europeans) but to most American business people, Western Union has a bad reputation as being frequently used by scammers. It is normal for a North American business to refuse Western Union, and is considered bad form to insist on this form of payment.