zipplewrath

For the record, I advocated 1). God knows it woulda been faster. Kinda put other DZ owners on notice too. Kinda like Skyride. They believe, and they're right, that you can run any kind of crappy DZ and you can always get staff. Can't imagine what makes you think I would advocate 3). Like I said, some of us were amazed he could keep staff at all. Second of all, I never posted to DZ.com once during that whole fiasco (IIRC). Third, the website still says: "AAD's are required for everyone with fewer than 1000 skydives. Cypres or Vigil only, please. " I guess 1000 jumps is what is considered "experienced" these days. Like I say, staff will work for anyone. When you want to see where Skyride comes from just look who works for these folks.

Yeah, it reminds me of how some folks felt when Buzz started his whole "mandatory CYPRES" schtick. We were amazed he could keep any staff at all. And the staff he did keep constantly suggested they didn't really have anything to do with enabling the whole fiasco.

Yeah, every lawyer I ever talked to said there is no such thing as "bullet proof". Most didn't feel a waiver was particularly useful, for either side. You need a friendly judge, or a friendly jury and the other guy has to look like a bigger idiot than you. This case in particular seemed to hinge to some extent on the fact that the guy knew the situation he was now complaining about exsited. Despite that, he chose to sign the waiver, went out on the course, then seeing that these conditions existed, WENT OUT AGAIN! Who's the bigger fool, the fool, or the guy that follows the fool? Booth supposedly hired a lawyer to research the subject and the guy came back with the conclusion that the best defense that DZ's have is merely asking the question "did you willingly decide to jump out of a perfectly good airplane?" Apparently the jury stops listening after that.

Um, when I got my 318ti, it cost less than an Accord. And I got 4 years of total maintenance protection with it as well. It didn't cost as little as a Saturn, but those things had awful performance. There is such a thing as minimally acceptable performance. (Plus it was the only rear wheel drive I could find in a non-truck. And I wasn't ponying up for the Audi Quatro. And no, I wasn't going to get the Cadillac either. "Land Yacht").

I found Jarno Cordia's article Being COOL on the Dropzone on the home page to be an interesting read. I jumped back and forth between agreeing and laughing a bit. I guess mostly because it all sounded so familar. I was trained on T-10's. We were suppose to do X (20?) number of jumps on a T-10 before moving on the a "church window" PC. In there somewhere I did a jump on a piglet. You couldn't make a jump on one of the "hot squares" until you had 100 jumps. You can imagine the reaction from many of us when they started putting first jump students out on 9 cells, much less having "square" reserves as well. My first jumps, up to and including 10 second delays were done without an altimeter. You weren't suppose to use one right away. You were suppose to learn to judge altitude without one. They were back up devices. "What if it broke? What would you do?" Do they even allow students to make jumps without altimeters these days, much less an audible? In the early days of sport skydiving, there was a strong military influence and they developed "licenses" with written skill tests and demonstrations including water landings, night jumps, spotting requirements, accuracy requirements, etc. Over time arguments ensued about why one should have to do a night jump prior to being able to have a C or D license. Many complained about licenses at all as "merely a way for USPA to make some money". Others swore by it and encouraged USPA to develop a whole series of "awards" for various skills called eagle and double eagle etc. Jokes abounded about "double turkeys" and "double pigeons" because the thought was it was just another money making enterprise for USPA. Others advocated the SCR and SCS as measures for advancement. There have been arguments for years about the progression or lack thereof of students. It used to be common for the progression to go from student, through the 4 licenses, then various jumpmaster levels and ultimately many folks became riggers. In there somewhere, as the various skills became professional, many skipped them. I never became a JM, nor coach or TM or anything else. Didn't try to become a rigger either. But I packed my own main long after the tradition of the packer came around. There were arguments about that too. Low jumps, VRW, CRW, night jumps, swooping, spotting, packing, huge formations, etc. Each generation seems to have to get lectured from the previous about how they aren't progressing "correctly". God knows I've given a few of those lectures myself. Probably if I differ with the article in any significant way, it is that I don't think the previous generation has any special skill at judging when you're ready to try something new. The license process was intended to make you prove you were ready. But predominately we took the "Your butt, your decision" approach. The flip side is that it is valuable to break down whatever it is that you want to do into specific skills and make sure you have SOME fundamentals prior to taking a dive off the deep end.

Key West This was mid '80s, some guy knew a guy that knew a guy and arranged for a couple dozen of us to do some jumps from a twin beach on an island just up the road from Key West. The beach owner/driver was friendly enough, and took to dumping jumpers quite well. We had beautiful vistas over the clear water. And it made for some interesting flights back to the airport. The landing area was small, and not always well coordinated with the prevailing winds. Plus, you frequently opened over water, flew back over water, and only really saw land under you when you turned on final. A bit strange and really kept your attention on spotting and flight patterns after opening. Then, about 4:30, when there was easily a couple of hours of day light left, and we were all dreaming of a sunset load, the pilot up and leaves. He has to "get ready for sunset". I wasn't familar at the time with the whole "sunset pier/mallory square" tradition of Key West. I about came unhinged. But what can ya do? So we went into Key West for the night. And then I got to learn, and suddenly I found roughly the second best thing to do with such a sunset. It still woulda been better under canopy though.

Wow, after the X-games and all the moutain dew commercials, I'd figure that's just about as deep into popular culture as one could hope to burrow.

"And the things you mention there has been done by intelligent and experienced people like you and me..." Ummmm, speak for yourself. I never buried a toggle (unitentionally or inappropriately), I never dumped a reserve into a main, and I never ground locked. And if you've done these things, and are still alive, you need to have a very serious discussion with yourself about continuing. "There are many people who will be able to understand the risk to a sufficient degree, and who will still want to do it, but who don't do it right now because they don't know about skydiving. They don't know that it's a sport, and that we do it because it's fun." I'm curious about the basis for this statement. I don't think I've ever met anyone that doesn't know it's a sport and that one can do it recreationally.

"So who do you think should skydive?" People who understand this very simple expression, and choose to do it anyway: You could die having this much fun. You have to be able to understand the risks, and then when (not if) one of those situations occur where the problems are happening to you, you have to be able to stay focused on the procedures that need to be followed. Not just react emotionally and bury a toggle, or dump a reserve into a main, or stare at the ground until impact.

Oh, technically I haven't trained anyone. I mean, I've worked with the newbies and all. I've probably got as many jumps with folks with less than 200 jumps as I do the upper end. 23 years of jumping, I've seen alot of folks, watched my share die too. Someone used to make reference to "craters waiting for a grid reference". Folks who had managed to get through AFF, but just didn't really seem to get it. Ones a friend of mine who only walks with canes a braces now. There was a girl that bounced between several of the local DZ's here, washing out of one program after another, before she found some AFF instructor to work with her for weeks. Finally managed to graduate, and before 50 jumps, had busted both legs. I've seen alot of folks die in this sport. Some were big surprises, some were of the type where you shook your head and muttered "took longer than I thought". It's not a sport for everyone. Sometimes you see them self select themselves out of the sport, usually after someone dies. They suddenly understand that you REALLY CAN DIE, and that's all it takes, their gone. It doesn't take courage, or bravery, or brilliance. It's just something we used to call "air aware" and some folks have it and some folks don't, just like any other sport or skill set.

The discussion seems to be focused to some extent on merely the distribution. Most/many/vast majority is being compared to less than half/a few/some. I'm not sure how one sorts that out, but when you realize that roughly half of the golfers in the world can't break 100, it would suggest that "most" folks can't/don't master the basics (100 isn't all that great a score). Such a poor mastery of skydiving would kill you. Someone could probably present similar statistics on bowling. Considering the absolutely lousy driving I see go on everyday, I'm just not of the mind that "anyone" can do it and in fact I think just about any basic skill set will only be available to a minority of the population, whether it's music, math, or sports. It's not that we are "better" or smarter, more courageous, ot anything else. It's just another skill set that one has to have and like anything else, not everyone is going to have it.

However, the principal being discussed postulates that increasing demand (with in fixed supply) will cause an increase in price.

There is little evidence to suggest that larger DZ's are "cheaper" DZ's. Furthermore, I'm not sure you understand supply and demand. Increasing the number of jumpers at a DZ increases the demand. What happens to prices when demand increases? Furthermore, there is the market principal of "what the market will bear". I suspect you probably are more interested in having a large pool of people with which to jump, which is an admirable goal. Be careful, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

I think I would agree that the population is larger than you are thinking. Majority may be arguable. We aren't so much "special and above average" as we are "different and unique". Just as with any other sport, many (potentially most) folks won't demonstrate a particular flair for it. In skydiving, beyond just the FJC, that can be fatal. Our students tend to self select. As such, we generally get the kinds of students who are very likely to be able to handle the demands of the sport. Between that, and some training and evaluation, we manage identify the people with the applicable skill set necessary.

I'm curious why you would come to such a conclusion? Virtually every sport has folks who accel at it, and those that cannot achieve any level of competency. I'm not sure why you would think skydiving was any different. Fear alone would paralyze many people in skydiving. And unlike many sports, if you fail to master the basics, even once, it may be your only chance. We may not be able to predetermine who will be successful or not. And there may be more folks with the capability than ever try. But again, that's almost assuredly true for any sport. That doesn't change the fact that there will be people for whom the demands of the sport are unacceptably excessive. We are left with the only choice to allow people to "preselect" themselves in some sense, and then judge as best we can during training.

The metaphysicists in the crowd would suggest that you "stumbled across" skydiving when you were ready for it. I have to admit, in my own case, my exposure was serendipitous in the sense that a classmate suggested it to me. The reality is that I was more than ready and his mere momentary suggestion "got the ball rolling" and the rest was definite, deliberate, effort on my part.

I suspect Brian sees it much as you do, and so do alot of folks trying to make a living in skydiving. It is that intersection where the sport and business cross in which this choice between enticing and tempting can face a professional. Mr. Balch would seem to be trying to redirect someone already onboard to make a skydive. Mr. Germain seemed to be addressing those who have not yet come to the community. That is where my "fear" lies. Is my enticement to "spread the word" to potential members of the community, or to make money off the next guy that comes along.

I found Brian's article at DZ.com on the recession and skydiving interesting, but probably not for the reasons that Brain wanted. Although I understand his framing the subject in terms of fear, at least fear of social rejection, he based it upon an assumption which I haven't shared for some time. Of course it is possible to reframe this point of view as grounded in fear, although at least in my case it would be a "well founded" fear. The presumption upon which he operates is that we should all be some sort of "ambassador for skydiving" and be out stumping and advocating for the sport so as to attract business to the sport in these tough economic times. He couches it in the form of helping other people get past their fears, and helping them overcome the excuse of the economic times as a reason for succumbing to their fears. I see it vastly different. This sport is not for everyone. Quite the opposite, it is for a minority of people. Oh, yeah, tandem has a potential to serve a much larger audience. But the sport, the folks who will actually choose to join our community, is a small slice of the population. And it is not for me to "tempt" folks into joining us. If someone has the interest, that insatiable curiosity to experience this, then yeah, I'll share all day long. I'll go to the DZ with them, show them gear, let them watch some video. But there is a danger in attempting to convince someone. It is a fine line between enticing and tempting. Tempting is more about encouraging someone to do something they might not otherwise choose. Any "fear" I might have about advocating for the sport is grounded in this impression. It's not fear of social rejection (quite the opposite, I like that look that say's "yer nuts dude".) It is the fear that neither the sport, nor the person is served by me trying to paint a picture of skydiving that they can understand. If they don't understand it on their own, far be it from me to try to "paint the picture". First off, I'm probably a lousy artist, but furthermore art is rarely understood by anyone BUT the artist. People will bring their own attitudes to skydiving, and the only people I want joining us, are those who understand what they see, not those who will try to make it conform to something they can understand. Skydiving; you could die having this much fun. And unless you understand what that means, I don't think I should try to tempt you to join.

Absolutely, the piglet was bad many times over. Hard opening, hard landing, and terrible control. It was a good thing I was young then.

Skydiving: You could die having this much fun!

Basically I would tend to agree with your larger sentiment. There is a knee jerk reaction that suggests that any and all incidents result in some tangible form of problem for the sport at large. The vast majority of incidents, other than being fodder for You Tube or the like, are a zero sum game. As many folks, maybe more, will be made aware that one can make a tandem, or a jump in general, and in many cases it spurs them into action to find their local DZ. Demos are the reverse of that. There is little evidence that demos result in increased tandems unless there is a concerted effort at the demo to advertise the local DZ. DZ's around the country don't benefit. A demo that goes bad though makes nation wide (world wide sometime) news and can prevent other demos from happening. It can also be problematic for the DZ currently struggling with their local politicos. This is especially true for "bandit" jumps into otherwise public places. The end result is what many of us frequently explain. The business and the sport have several points of collision in which their interests diverge and this is a obvious case. The sport in many ways benefits from bandit jumps and guys who push the edge. The business is frequently impeded by those same folks. I would argue with the folks that try to claim that somehow the loss of tandem, or demos, or even AFF would somehow spell the end of skydiving. Big planes, big boogies, and skydiving all existed before any of these things came on the scene. Skydiving grew during a period when bandit jumps were practically part of the D license form. Jump planes had a casual relationship with the shipment of other goods, mostly during the week, at night. The first twin otters put into service were bought by some well to do skydivers who wanted faster planes to higher altitudes for their fun jumps. They made money with them by flying them to other DZ's for boogies which attracted fun jumpers. The sport doesn't need tandem. So back to your basic point. The black eye of which you refer is predominately to the business side of skydiving. The sport rarely suffers from these incidents, and in many ways offers the more experienced jumpers opportunities to explain the finer points of safety to the up and comers. But if jumping for wuffos, or for a buck, are important to you, these incidents can be a constant problem.

To be honest, without discussing things like rigid wings and such, there's only so much aerodynamics to bring to bear on this problem. Wing suiting is really nothing more than an assisted track. The vast majority of what is going on is the generation of thrust by redirecting the airflow and a resistence to falling (drag). I've no hard data but I'd be surprised if there is any laminar "lift" going on with the "wings". Their shape is imporant to minimizing resistence to horizontal motion (drag) and to efficiently diverting the air to generate maximum "thrust". But I'd be surprised if the airflow over the top of the wings was anything but turbulent. IF I were to explore anything in this regard it would almost assuredly be "vortex generators" on my arms to try to "reattach" the flow on the top of the wings. That generates drag however and I'm not sure if it is worth it.

I think thats only partialy true, some of the bigger suits get lesser glide ratios then slighly smaller ones. Quote Well, all you are saying is that fabric can be added inefficiently. But you can't deny a canopy gets better glide ratios than you do. You guys haven't reached 7 to 1 or anything have you? In my mind you guys are going to have a decision to make in the future with respect to rigid, and semi-rigid features. There will almost assuredly be stiffeners and shapers which will enhance performance that don't bend or fold much.

Well for distance, mostly you're talking alot of fabric. Basically trying to "wear" a canopy. Glide slope on the other hand is going to be a bit more about "enhancing" a really good track. You'll probably keep a fair amount of speed. One thing to consider is that everything from birds to fighter jets, and many planes inbetween, use wings which can have their shape "modified". Simple planes use flaps, the F-14 and the B-1B used swing wings. Birds can change the length, angle, and curvature of their wings. Right now, with in reason, wingsuits are relatively "fixed". You can change your "span" but the "length" of the surface says the same. Some bungies or "swoop cords" are in your future. (I'm sure there have already been some experiments with them). The other thing is the dragon fly. They gain extreme lift by interacting with their forward and aft wings. They improve performance by taking the disturbed air off of their front wing and "working" it with their aft wing. There was an forward swept experimental plane that had "vanes" which created "turbulent" air for the wings to leverage for greater maneuverability. The old "stagger wing" biplane did something of this nature, of staggering the wings so that the "forward" wing "fed" the trailing one for greater efficiency. It would seem that there is a potential for interaction between your "wing" and "tail". I suspect this would be especially true for greater "thrust". The wing is currently "turning" the air towards the aft and generating thrust. Having the wing "feed" the tail so that this was a two step process could improve the thrust efficiency of the whole shape.

It's a "we don't know what we want yet" phase. The wingsuit wars of the old RW days was because there was a perception that slower fall rates and larger control authority was needed. This was probably true for folks who hadn't quite gotten the hang of approaches and matching fall rates. They needed large variations in fall rates. They also felt that they needed large control authority to do turns. As time went by, they figured out that faster speeds gave you all the control authority you needed if you flew efficiently (don't go low, smooth docks, etc.) So the question becomes what are the wingsuit folks looking for? Faster speeds? slower fall rates? Greater control authority? If you look at square canopy development, you're gonna see much of the same thing. Started out at moderate to almost small sizes. Pursued larger and larger canopies to slow down fall rates and achieve more controlled accuracy. Then the "need for speed" came in. People sacrificed landing accuracy and low speed performance (as well as some opening "forgiveness") for higher speeds. They also discovered that at higher speeds, you got better control authority in unstable wind conditions. Finally, more "efficient" flight was found at higher speeds (better glide ratios even though descent rate was higher). But if you're shooting accuracy, or doing CRW you'll probably choose a different canopy than if you're swooping a pond. What you wanna do with a wingsuit? Longer times aloft? You probably want about as much fabric as you can put out there (a canopy you wear as oppose to hang under). You want speed? You want only as much fabric as you can "work". Efficiency is going to be the key here. Think of a good "track" position and fill it in with fabric. You want total distance regardless of time aloft? You'll probably want a combination. Efficiency with associated speed. Grab as much air as you can but keep your drag low. You have a finite amount of energy to "spend" and you want to spend as little on drag and as much on propulsion as possible. Look at sail planes. There are speed demons meant more for aerobatics, there are the distance models meant for efficiency, and there are the "time aloft" models that fly slower than a feather, but hardly descend at all.