mdrejhon

Yep. Gotta live with that. Swoopers take risks, bigway jumpers take a different kind of risk. We do the delayed breakoff technique for the final jumps of all 100+ way attempts, events, etc. Sometimes it's breakoff timing is even choreographed using radio headsets between the videographers and the center organizer, as was I believe done in the World Record attempts, the 400-way formation holding for 4.2 seconds to meet the minimum 3 second requirement (at the time) for it to be a record. Other jumps are ordered to go by the audible (often Guy Wright sequential big ways, 40-ways) -- he is strict about you breaking off at exactly the announced breakoff altitude (there is no breakoff harddeck on those jumps by that specific organizer), however, the World Record goals are different. During one of the Perris 100-way camps, I have been part of 99-way that actually completed AFTER the first person broke off because they listened to their audible rather than the signal from center (occuring 2 seconds later). Because that *specific* dive was ordered to resist listening to audible and to follow center signal, it would have beena complete 100-way, had the outer jumper stayed docked. That person undocked too early one second before the last person docked. Another perspective to view it: The real breakoff altitude is "really" 6000 feet, but is announced at 6500 feet. They only "use" the real, lowered breakoff altitude during the final jumps. I just call it the planned breakoff altitude and the breakoff harddeck. Nothing /too/ unsafe about that. Or it's called a "breakoff altitude range", all signalled by the center -- same thing as a "breakoff" (high) and "breakoff hard deck" (low). The high breakoff is used on (1) first days of the jumps (2) whenever the formation funnels, (3) whenever it's not appropriate to bring it lower -- such as the organizer thinks the formation is unstable, wavy, dicey, or incomplete, or that previous jumps some people needed to dial-in their tracking, etc. Semantics, semantics. That said, it is very clear that when everyone is doing identical slots on identical record attempts, often as many as 20 attempts over a few-day period. It has become my experience that first-day breakoffs at higher altitude are more scary and chaotic, than the final-day breakoff at 500 feet lower altitude, and we all have much more airspace on that final day. As a result, I argue that the final day jump is much safer than the first day or two. I argue there is /already/ a safety margin in the breakoffs, it's simply adaptive as the jumpers get used to the formation. Also, once the breakoff signal start, the subsequent brekoffs (2nd wave, 3rd wave, etc) are signalled by the center in succession by the center, sometimes in an ever-slightly-more rapid succession, such as every 800 feet rather than 1000 feet between the final waves, if the first breakoff wave was signalled slightly lower. For more info about the existence of delayed breakoffs, see the break-off "Hard Deck" instructions at Jump For The Cause http://www.jumpforthecause.com/formation_info.html In the third diagram, observe that the high break off and the low break off (the break off hard deck listed in the very far-right column) is a 1000 foot delta. P.S. I docked on cpoxon during the 122-way Men's World Record.

Some big way attempts have the concept of a "breakoff altitude" and a "breakoff harddeck", usually set 500 or 1000 feet lower. This mainly happens with big ways 100+ in size. For example, in later jumps of Men's World Record, I later reconfigured it to the breakoff harddeck rather than breakoff altitude. That way, I pay attention to other breakoff signals from the centre that should occur by breakoff harddeck (the point where I'm allowed to breakoff independently and race for my life out of the formation) Slightly delayed breakoff signals are normal for the last few attempts of a record or major big way (including World Team), when everyone is very orderly, non-chaotic, and breaking off in very reliable break-off teams -- a stable formation at 6000 feet is safer than a massive mess at 7000 feet. For example, on a jump where outer-wave breakoff was say, 7000 or 6500 feet, I reconfigured it to 6000 feet or 5500 feet for those jumps. Which meant I'd theoretically race for my life out of the formation if no breakoff signal occurs and my whacker neighbours aren't breaking off yet. (Never has happened, fortunately). In some cases, oganizers may intentionally signal up to about 3 or 4 seconds late, but before breakoff hard deck, if they think it's safe delay the breakoff slightly, on the neat, orderly, final attempts, in order to give time for the last two or three people to dock successfully and declare a record. In fact, there's more airspace separation from final-day lowered-breakoff jumps, than the separation on first-day higher-breakoff jumps, because the jumpers have dialed-in their tracking over the few days of record attempts...

Clicky: www.mtkg.cn/readnewsnew.asp?ArticleID=366 and http://www.wingchina.com/cn/vertical%20wind%20tunnel.htm?jdfwkey=cztin Very interesting that there is now an alreadly operating recreational/entertainment wind tunnel there already in China, complete with photos and video. It actually looks like it can fly skydivers too, as those aren't very balloon jumpsuits at all, just very baggy regular jumpsuits. Looks approximately 10 feet, so a different tunnel than the military one discussed. How fast is the wind? Can it run at freefly speeds?

Succeeding a 181-way after only 6 attempts, is incredible. We all (MWR) took 13 attempts to do merely a 122-way. My sector (BJ Worth's) was complete all day long on the final two days while we waited for that magic moment that all sectors were complete simultaneously. That said, you all did sector practice jumps on the days before the 180-way attempts, a luxury that that MWR team didn't have. Then again diving straight into a 120+ way attempt on the first jump of the first day, while exciting, more things simply were just bound to go wrong :-) If 500 to 800 jump big way rookies with really good currency (especially bigway and tunnel too) can work well with the multi-thousand-jump skywonders, and can do it in just a few attempts, I think 500-way in 2011 is looking very realistic! Meantime, I'm doing my best to eliminate the usual Canadian winter layover. And trying to keep my biggest and stupidest mess-ups in the tunnel and 4-way fun, and NOT in the current/upcoming planned biggies such as MWR, Texas Premier Invitational, Z-Team March 2010, etc...

There were four known "gay skydivers" at the event, including 3 who were on Men's World Record.

Cloud talk is generally controversial since it is illegal in many cases so be mindful of that... That said, there are some non-FAA dropzones in various foreign countries that have this legal (That said, I don't know if it was in your specific case) ... Regardless of arguments made about cloud risks (which are legitimate), deploying solo through the clouds, from modern GPS-guided spotting, outside of known air traffic routes, with healthy exit separation, isn't as inherently dangerous relitively-speaking as suddenly deciding to pull lower in an unplanned way, as that is more unsafe for many reasons... I'd suggest pulling at the designated altitude regardless of cloud situation. Also, if you're doing a special flex-pull-altitude jump (i.e. dropzone and pilot gave you authorization to pull at ANY ALTITUDE between 3000 and 13500 feet -- used for special kinds of jumps once the airspace has been cleared exclusively for you) and you simply overreacted and pulled early, then yes, if you're wellabove the bottom pull altitude range, there's a little bit of flexibility -- if this was indeed the case, then you are correct about getting stable first before overracting and pulling early. That said, if the bottom end of the pull altitude range is inappropriate for an unstable pull, train towards clear rules such as "If unstable, try to get stable by 5000 feet" if you are doing an authorized flex-pull-altitude jump. (When you hit this pre-designated altitude limit, automatically go to "pull--pull at correct altitude--pull while stable" mode, peregrinerose is correct about this) Talk to your instructors about that, to build some reasonable safeguards for your special-needs jump, and to clarify pull priorities. Keep it up what you're learning though :-) But work it out extensively with your instructors, so you can be safer...

Hey Jan... I was at Men's World Record, and they did a succesful 122-way Men's world record on the load right after the 181-way Women's world record. I'm the one who docks on cpoxon on the outer whacker at 6'o clock. My personal feeling was that the 'permission to dock' system actually worked wonderfully on both the 181-way and the 122-way. (I did hear, however, from the horse's mouth, the 'permission to dock' system is a little less enforced for the final people in outer whackers in the last seconds of final skydives on final days -- when everyone was calmer, more trained, and that the final seconds of a skydive is a little more critical for the last people docking) The 'permission to dock' system was a little bit annoying on the first or second jumps, but it forces people to avoid reaching for grips. They are using this new system for World Team 2010 and 2011. Old big way grip-chasing system for whackers: 1. Grab the hand. 2. You destabilize the skydiver if they're not fully stabilized and you're not fully stabilized. The new big way system for whackers is as follows: 1. Person who's flying to dock, presents fist below arm of docked person. 2. They grab you if you are stable and they are stable. Why is this system used: 1. Person you are docking onto, gives thumbs up once they're already docked and stable. (forces already-docked skydiver to be stable first, and also signals the docking skydiver that it's okay to dock) 2. Docking person presents fist below the arm of the person whos alredy docked. (forces skydiver to fly to the grip, rather than reach for grip) 3. Docked person will grip you if they're flying stable and your fist is sufficiently steady. 4. They are allowed to let you go if you suddenly destabilize them (gives already-docked skydiver control; immediate automatic reprimand for skydiver who's docked) Maybe to some perspective, it might be kind of a dumbing down, but it seemed effective in quickly training the grip-chasers. Bad progress? Good progress? I think it's good progress... Also... I used my slowfaller jumpsuit with 3.5 pounds of lead in my slot. I did, however, force myself to use my fastfaller last-out on the practice 20-ways, because I wanted to challenge my fallrate range (I docked successfully on all Roger Ponce 20-way jumps). I judged that I needed to use my slowfaller for Men's World Record, however. I jumped from the last trail plane (slot F-16 of Men's World Record), and it was easy to fly to my slot in MWR 122-way in my slow faller without diving too steep that I might need to do so to compensate for the slowfallness of the jumpsuit - and the extra fallrate range allow me to lock into my slot better. First skydives, I used no weight with my slowfaller, and it was perfect. But as the 122-way started falling faster on the 3rd and 4th days I observed my slight floatiness, so I added a small amount of lead to reset myself back to the center of my fallrate range with the ability to adjust fallrate quickly, better being able to be firmer in my slot both vertically and horizontally. BJ Worth (sector leader!) happily agreed it was a great idea. Adding weight to be safer gear adjustment than switching jumpsuits mid-record-attempt. My standard for late-diving in big way outers is to default to my slowfaller for bigway outers. So far, I use my fastfaller about 70% of the time and slowfaller 30% of the time (though for MWR, I used it 100% of the time due to my outer slot on a far trail). I kept the wings collapsed though, to avoid floatiness when arms stretched, but know they are there when I do occasionally need them. For the upcoming 50-way sequentials during Halloween at Skydive San Marcos, I'll probably be using my fastfaller with weights the vast majority of time (except for complex slow-falling formations like large diamonds, etc) since I find the sequential invitationals to fall quite fast. And fastfaller with no weights in 4-way tunnel practice (several hours tunnel time booked in October and November) I will definitely be applying to Perris 100-way again, but this time I'm going to request an inner slot (20 to 40th docking) to heavily challenge my red zone flying abilities. I've done it before in the heavy red zone clutter of a 50 through 70 way, but for 100 ways organizers love to assign me outer slots (I guess they've noticed I've been a very good outer flyer, also a large part thanks to your help too) I informed the organizers I would be happy to be on the bench team of World Team 2010 if other people cancel their slot for financial reasons, but at only 515 jumps today, I clearly know I am a longshot... (2011 remains my primary goal, just the 2010 bench is a nice-to-have) Congrats to all the girls -- and I contributed quite a bit to JFTC (directly and indirectly) -- congrats for the best-ever JFTC and it was my first experience watching a nearly 200-way in the sky!

Welcome aboard.. :-)

I miss seeing one of that rigger too, he was a great guy when he was a regular in '05 thru '07, and helped organize some of the first big ways I was on.

No jumpsuit is too tattered for Bev to "reboot". She did a good job rebootieing, but it may cost more than the $40 or thereabouts I paid. Still cheaper than a new jumpsuit. Not sure about adding zippers, but she did add extra pockets and extra inside grippers when I sent the jumpsuit back. So bootie replacement, add extra grippers, and add new pocket -- Bev did it for a reasonable price.

Wow. I recognize that photo. That's uncanny it's not the suit it should be advertising. Personally, I am armed with two Bev's and am happy with them :-) One does need new booties, though, after lots more early-bootieing up before bigway dirt dives on pavement, concrete, gravel, mudflats, stone, deckboards, and pebbles. Otherwise I forget to bootie up in the rush to load the plane. To bootie up, or not to bootie up...

To the best of my knowledge, nearly all dropzones in Ontario and Quebec require full payment up front. Some do have refund polcies if you change your mind, or that the cash can be transferred over to tandems, or to someone else, depending on the dropzone. That's funny; I actually find them quite comfortable -- although I got a fairly big one and I tend to slightly underinflate it, ever slightly, so that it feels soft while lying on my side or back, with no noticeable pressure points, slipped inside a sleeping bag. Can experiment with firmer/softer inflation by letting air out, etc.

I have to come to a little bit of a defense, because it is the same dropzone that I learned at, and got my A, B and C licenses at. I have to clarify what packerboy said, as he described it a little too extreme. He is right about the whole PFF course being paid up front, as this is also the case at nearly all dropzones in this particular country too. However, you don't necessarily do 3 jumps a day; you just have to ready to *commit* to 8am Sat/Sun for consecutive weekends. The dropzone wants to make sure you stay current from start-to-finish, and the dropzone prefers to assign the same instructor to the same student for all progression jumps, which is easiest if it's a consecutive progression. The dropzone wants to accurately schedule the student without being bumped by tandems. It is a small dropzone with between one and three Cessna's, with the occasional Twin Otter boogie weekend, and it's difficult to schedule students and tandems if they all call spontaneously at the last minute, and the student waits on the ground all weekend long. The dropzone is simply trying to make sure the student is safe. There is definitely flexibility in there, if the weather is super-bad (major tropical storm forecast, etc), you can call the dropzone to confirm, or that you need to spend one weekend a month at a job, etc, having only two or three consecutive weekends at the peril of weather, or every other weekend. While somewhat stricter than some drozones, it's definitely not military-strict. It won't mean the automatic loss of the program if one weekend in a month is unavailable, as long as advance notice is given. Obviously, they want to make sure you feel, in principle, that you can be commited to the sport of skydiving safely enough to stay current, and that the instructor can teach you safely and consistently in a proper progression.

Not necessarily. The sudden move of the twists to the bottom, will cause a rapid deceleration of the spin-up, because the sudden addition of the anti-spin force outweigh the force you're describing. Try it at a playground swing, squeeze together while it's still spinning up. You'll see what I mean. It's still beneficial to squeeze together while it's spinning up. That said, it's a complex interaction between the tension of the twist, the number of twists, the angle of lines going into the twist both at the top and bottom, the amount of spin momentum you already have in whichever direction, etc. So given some specific variables at specific values, you might be right. But for the vast majority of situations, I think you'd be wrong, based on swing-set observations, there's enough massive margin of beneficial untwist force massively "outweighing" the danger you describe. I'd wager to say the same would apply under a parachute, too. That said, I disclaim all responsibility for any mistakes in this post -- try it at your absollute peril if you're under spinning linetwists under harddeck.

Good points, and as a wingsuit manufacturer, your word gets a lot of attention. Some record ski long distance jumps are already at insane speeds. It appears to be, maybe, a matter of bodyflight training - the trick is, how does one train for the landing - the transition from wingsuit flight to ski landing? The angles of the skiis and the angle of the wingsuit, might be a limiting factor. Has any wingsuit user researched, or done math calculations, or done some virtual-slope tests, or extensive ski-jump-with-a-wingsuit tests have been done? - Has any ski jumper tested with a wingsuit (as in one video) and made observations it's easier or harder to land with a wingsuit? If they confirm easier, then wouldn't that theoretically allow a higher-speed ski jump to be done safely? - Has anyone tried doing virtual slope tests in the air using GPS data, to see if angle of wingsuit flight + angle of attack + angle of skiis outstretched in front, is of a profile compatible with landing on skiis from wingsuit flight? - Has anyone brainstormed a possible lheoretical training progression that might show and/or disprove that it's possible to train for? (Wingsuit ski jumps, wingsuit braking tests after accelerating to maximum speed down a steep hill, other training techniques that might be possible to brainstorm for?) - how luxuriously well-groomed can a a long single consistent ski slope become, for about say $200,000, still cheaper than many other options? Is ultra-luxurious grooming possible for cheaper than other options? Would it be enough to "help make it possible"? - Ground effect issues. Will it help/hurt ability to do attempt on skiis, and/or help lower landing speed any? (Computer simulation needed?) - Can the skiis help lift while wearing wingsuit? Ski jumpers already angle skiis to help give them lift. At sufficient speed, the lift created by the skiis can actually overcome the added weight of skiis! Did someone also research this factor? - Is it possible to simulate impact scenarios using dummies, computer simulations, etc - A one-time flight a few foot above a slope may scare many people, but what if the wingsuit BASE person is also simultaneously top-class ski racer or jumper too, that's more conditioned to the speed - we may need to experience more people flying over a slope first to collect more data on psychology and impressions. It would seem slower is best, but other risk factors come into play: The precise window of needing to flare a wingsuit to land on level ground, is probably more dangerous than the longer window you have over a slope, even at higher speeds. Plus, it's also abortable by flying off the edge of the slope, much like in the slope-flying video. Or maybe the other methods are better after all, such as the slide method. It is true you could definitely be proven right that the speeds are too high, but has enough answers been collected regarding this method? Perhaps a lot has already been done behind the scenes. Naïve here maybe - but a good fresh brainstorm I hope. Or it is what might ultimately be a stupid stunt that might really not ultimately help the sport...

I have to agree that a human WILL land a wingsuit, at least onto a slope. I'd imagine that the skislope method might actually be safer than landing on level ground. Why? Four reasons: (1) This video #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZizIbSpI-g (Wingsuit while wearing skis; shows it's possible to wear both wingsuit and skiis safely) (2) This video #2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqW6O_dcF2M (Salomon; wingsuit flying only 6 feet above ski slope surface) (3) World Records for fastest downhill skiiers (Some of these speeds exceed wingsuit speed, including one at 150mph.) (4) Snow landing potentially more survivable than this non-fatal 300 mph motorcycle wipeout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShtunugNVBs Therefore, I'd up your bet to at least $500 or $1000. (Readers, don't believe me? Click the YouTube links and research the World Records. People have hit 89mph on downhill skiis as early as YEAR 1932, and there's Phillippe's 150mph downhill ski speed in Vars, France) Once, I have also hit nearly 60mph on downhill skiis (the thin kind of racing skiis that are taller than me, not the hourglass types popular today) skiing straight down a quiet day on a very steep/very flat double-black-diamond slope. On a steep straight hill stretch, my personal experience is that it isn't that difficult to stay stable at nearly half wingsuit speed on skiis, if the hill is well-groomed in advance. (Note -- the first time was downright scary for a bit, but I loved doing it on this specific hill during quiet secluded moments) Given proper surface grooming, and a long stretch, a 120mph ski landing is probably feasible as you'll decelerate very quickly, using your winsuit as an airbrake, once you touched down very carefully. Then you won't need the scary experienced of sustained world-record ski-speeds, as you will decelerate to mere-ordinary-ski-speeds in a mad hurry with a wingsuit as an airbrake after touching down. At the beginning you'd have an extreme lean forward and need to carefully rebalance to upright position as you slowed down, using wingsuit as an airbrake and to help you get upright as you slowed down, without falling forward or backwards. (This balancing skill of leaning into the wind in fast skiing, even without wingsuit, is practiced in advance with ski racing and ski jumps -- and could be practiced while wearing wingsuits to get familiar with its quicker braking than just your human body, although only up to a certain speed before you're required to exit from an airplane) A wipeout in a 150mph landing would be bad, but more survivable than the non-fatal 300mph motorcycle wipeout ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShtunugNVBs ) -- the world's fastest non-fatal motorcycle wipeout during a motorcycle world record speed attempt -- 300 miles per hour scrape on level dirt ground -- SURVIVED. A miscalculated wingsuit landing at 150mph on snow, is probably far more survivable, especially if wearing a protection suit under the wingsuit. More survivable, anyway, than the other approaches. Technically, as having been a fast downhill skiier (but not wingsuiter), my perspective is that I supect I think it's all cheaper and easier than trying styrofoam and custom-built-ramp approaches, but would definitely need lots of practice runs on virtual hills in the sky / GPS data / trial skims / taking ski racing courses / etc. I'd say, let the reporter do his job and write an article. But I think the ski landing method is probably the safest, provided you take ski-racing courses and ease it into it using a well planned staged approach, and abort if it looks unachievable (but the proof out there all appear to indicate otherwise). Now, that said, I don't wingsuit, yet (I plan to). And I don't plan to land a wingsuit in my lifetime. But aren't any of you wingsuiters also ski racers? You'll understand where I am coming from, if you take a ski racing course, a ski jumping course, and also see the YouTube videos above. Then take a small break from BASE jumping and wingsuiting to aggressively learn to ski race/ski jump, then later combine those skills for a wingsuit landing attempt. Alas, most wingsuiters aren't interested in learning ski jumping/racing, so therein lies the rub -- will take a specially talented or driven individual! Perhaps I will be wrong. But the proof seem to indicate it should be possible and feasible to land a wingsuit safely without a parachute, at least using the ski slope method. Possibly with a similiar 'riskfactor' than a dangerous Evil Knieval style attempt. Maybe not, but I don't think anyone can really say it's not possible, given the prevailing video evidence that suggest there's risk-mitigated approach ideas that exists of doing it.... Perhaps it may take a professional wingsuiter with professional ski racing/jumping experience (or willing to learn aggressively), who also happens to be a BASE jumper, to start doing some virtial-slope GPS-measurement research, then gradually lower altitudes, with and without skiis. Plus also practice landing wingsuit on ski-jumps (which has already been practiced before), at faster-and-faster speeds at higher-and-higher heights, until it's finally done from the airplane, utilizing carefully planing. A sort of a staged approach, in a manner of speaking. Done incrementally, it might actually be much safer than land-based speed record attempts. Then again, a death in this skydiving sport, does our sport bad, and that's why a lot of us are reluctant to entertain THIS idea. Some of us HATE this idea solely for this reason. And hate all reporters regardless. (It does not mean it's impossible or more unsafe than various world record attempts)

Very good effort, especially if you're paying for them all yourself during a tough economy. I've been mostly between jobs but now have a new job that should allow me to keep up extra tunnel time and more jumps. My trailing 12 month total exceeds 200 jumps now, which is much higher than when I started, and four times as many as I did in all of 2007. My big new incentive is that I am aiming to be in World Team 2011 (not 2010), and I've got plenty of jumping left to do. This year, I did a lot of firsts. First hot air ballon jump, first tandem docks, first multi-plane sequential bigways, first time being the load organizer for an entire Skyvan load (and first time getting slots paid by the dropzone for load organizing), first 90 degree swoop, first line-over, first Skyventure built in Canada, first underwear jump, a very successful Rainbow Boogie 2009, and the Gay Way World Record. (Oh, and an embarassing first -- first dangling reserve pilot chute in the plane via snag hazard on way to altitude) One friggin amazing year for me too. Time to buy shares in a beer factory?

Where in the plane is he sitting, in both jumps? Same plane, same seat? I had my reserve PC go pop while sitting in the cargo compartment of a Twin Otter (a few DZ's have open cargo compartments for 2 additional jumpers). It was a snag, an edge that pushed the pin upwards out, when I sat against it. Would the container pin check show if a reserve pin was more than halfway out? (Some seem to not make this obvious in a pin check). The jumper's specific physique in a specific seating position might be somehow causing the reserve pin to slide even 80% of the way out? Or is the closing loop loose while this heavy guy wears the rig? (Although I am no rigger, check closing loop tension while the guy wears the rig?). Regardless, when pulling the main, a loose reserve pin may be sliding out when a heavy guy pulls, it flexes the whole container to the point where a sub-optimal situation of closing loop tension and pin position, allows the pin to suddenly release when faced with the simultaneous snatch force and release of packtray tension, combined with a heavy guy... This MAY be wrong speculation and a wild herring, but a chime-in based on my one-time personal experience in an unusual/unfamiliar seating position. Worth verification? (Please take me with a grain of salt. I'm giving a fresh mind's perspective)

This makes scientific sense. The force of the parachute above the top twist spreading the risers apart is more effective than hands trying to spread risers apart below the bottom twist. By pressing risers together, the whole series of twists move downwards, and makes the parachute's untwisting job much easier - and can more quickly 'accelerate' the parachute's ability to do the untwisting for you. If you play with a playground swing and twist the swing while sitting in it, the phenomenon still works (pressing together rather than pulling apart) although it's not quite apples to apples, it demonstrates the physics involved. This solution isn't universal, it would stop working if the twists are all the way to your neck, so you don't have any room to press risers together, but by then, the twists are probably making you spin and you're already reaching for the chop. (But be noted of this limitation during severe line twists, the super-severe type that are the culprit in certain skydiving deaths in the past) Yes, doing this, simply accelerates your body in the opposite direction, helping your body spin in the "untwist" direction much faster. (By the time you're restrained by your main lift webbing in your attempt to untwist, you've already helped give the momentary surge of acceleration in the untwist direction, speeding up the self-resolution of the linetwist) The technique appears scientifically sound, based on university physics and on research and positive word-of-mouth from multiple sources, and I'll be tempted to try this new line-untwist technique on a future jump, but I'll continue to be mindful of my cutaway handle - like I nearly reached for on my line-over event. There may be unforseen limitations of the techniques, especially as it very much depends on the angle of lines leading into the twist. Excess linetwists give too-steep angles (disallows gravity to help untwist) and too few linetwists might give too-shallow angle which may give less untwisting force (less twist tension to help untwist, although there's still enormous "spreading" force of the parachute). I'm not sure what the ideal variable values (untwist angle) is, but I think it is a semi-complex mathematical function involving the force of gravity acting on the twist, and the separation of the two lines apart from each other and/or the angle of lines leading into the twist, and the amount of twist tension. My university/high school memory is foggy, but I wonder if there's a "critical angle" somewhere in there - obviously pushing the risers together in most linetwist situations would help bring the angles of the lines above, to more favourable values for these variables.... I see no reason to dismiss this new line-untwist technique, at least based on common-sense Physics knowledge. It does need to be tested more in the real world, but we need time to familiarize ourselves with the limitations and unforseen dangers of this 'new' technique. That said, it's easier to memorize and train on just #1 than both (#2 is probably marginal at best, in theory)

Have you tried posting in the CSPA Discussion Forums at: http://www.cspa.ca/forum/

The ground becomes a backup altimeter at a familiar dropzone after I've broken off a big formation, and know what 2500 feet looks like. I usually never need to glance at my altimeter before I waveoff and pull, and I try to beat my audible flatline (LED flashing model). So far I've been reliable, my deployment-completed altitudes fluctuate only 15% according to my Altitrack's automatically-recorded deployment altitudes. As good as glancing an altimeter now. Except for those are the times I intentionally burn it down lower (2200 pull) to clear airspace reasons, but only rarely as it appears I've now become good at tracking - when I breakoff on the outer, I can see the inner waves and base breaking off below me just glancing downwards without bending my neck much downwards anymore!

Jump tickets and tunnel if you want to maximum progress. Or a flight trip to an event such as canopy course, to a boogie appropriate for your level, a big way camp (Though you need 250 jumps for Perris P3, to do your first 50-way with the provisional invite to do the 100-way subsequent weekend) I'd highly suggest some freefall computer, such as audible and/or hybrid Altitrack (digital with an analog face, screen on bottom), so you can be more lazy logging exit altitude, deployment altitude, and freefall length as that is automatically saved by the freefall computer for you. If you don't want to become dependent on audibles, set it below your pull altitude, so it simply becomes an emergency alarm for you instead. You'll need an audible as a backup more badly when you're jumping helmet camera, and you're sitflying videoing a formation that's becoming a little late at breakoff and you don't see the big ball of Earth coming up below... (Late videographer pulls have happened)

Use sandals, and have preventative foot spray in your toilettries bag

Good job and watch your altitude. I never had any mals I chopped from yet but I had a lineover earlier this summer..... After a breakoff as a bigway outer. That's one of them jumps you have to pull low to the BSR limit. I pulled slightly under 2500. By the time it was fixed, I was a bit under 1500 feet. I was already thinking of chopping and instantly pulling silver a fraction of a second after. However, one aggressive flare solved the problem. It all lasted less than 5 seconds for me, so I knew I didn't have much time. It was almost fully open, so I gave it one chance to fix. Still, watch the altitude, when you start pulling lower for any reason under a smaller parachute.

I think that it varies on the orange. I've held very lightweight, airy, bubbly oranges that would very likely fall much slower than pennies. Likewise, the compact, dense oranges would probably fall more than twice as fast. There are so many varieties of oranges and orange-like fruits, with different densities due to membranes and air bubbles. The highly buoyant, water-floating, pulpy ones that don't taste juicy, are the lightweight ones. Still will make a good juicy splat, though.