LloydDobbler

Was very sad to hear this last week. Brought back lots of memories of a part of my life when I spent a lot more time on this board. Jarno was a positive force for wingsuiting, and (to me) just an all-around fun dude to be around. We only met at a couple of Flock and Dock events and perhaps a couple of record attempts, but had the same dynamic in person as we did on this board. He'll be sorely missed.

Fly free, Jarno. Thanks for all the great jumps (and a couple of really ill-advised ones that are fun to read about in the old logbook...). BSBD.

7 hours ago, 20kN said:

I dont think he plans to proxy fly out of an airplane. He said in his post that he wants to stay a few thousand feet up. I was the one talking about terrain flights and I am aware that a terrain flight should be treated as a WS BASE jump regardless of the vehicle used to get there.

Yep - I do think the OP is planning on keeping their distance.

And glad to hear you say that - thanks for clarifying. I've lost 3 friends to jumps from a helicopter over mountain terrain in Europe. Which is probably why @mccordia & @Bluhdow jumped in with their warnings - it seems like every few years more people reach the point where they have enough skills to do these things...and many aren't aware of the lessons (and dangers) exposed by some exceptional (top of the game) pilots who've paid the ultimate price.

Hope you get in some great jumps when you get out there, and fly safe! 

BSBD, Gary. I always appreciated your transparency and willingness to help. Your insights on this board were phenomenal - you'll be sorely missed.

On 5/17/2019 at 5:38 PM, kat00 said:

They have taxied it around the DZ before during the fall.  It's probably just one of those things where they need to fire it up every so often now.  Jump tickets are supposed to be 100+  bucks. 

For years, they've demurred on the subject of the jet. However, over the past few months they've been teasing it a lot on social media - which to me is a good sign. Maybe they're planning something. (That being said, the jet is a red tape magnet. So who knows? Anything could happen, in spite of any plans.)

And IMO the $100+ price tag is certainly worth it, for a once in a lifetime-kinda jump. Plus you get a bag of peanuts on the way up (such a deal!).

Quote

Plus, I have a feeling they won't allow us to wingsuit from it.   

They used to. Talk to Scott Smith about it - he's made a few wingsuit jumps from that jet.

(I never did, as I wasn't yet into wingsuiting at the time. But would love to take a small wingsuit formation out of it - unlike a belly formation, a wingsuit group would have lots of extra working time to get back together after the wind blew us 50 yards apart).  

Just an end-user perspective -

I had the privilege of jumping this bird at the Cal City reunion a few months back. It was LIGHTNING fast to altitude. I can't speak to the dollars and cents of it, but just in cutting down turn times, I'm pretty sure a small DZ could do well with one of these.

Thanks again for coming out and flying, Van. It was awesome to finally meet you - couldn't have been in a better place.

sedsquare

A P3 that fits perfectly is the way to go in my opinion, rather than spend the extra money on something new. P3s are great first wingsuits and are fun to fly. Save the money and spend it on jump tickets.

Agreed. Your first suit is a lot like your first rig - you need something that's not obsolete, but that can be a stepping stone to get you where you ultimately wind up. A P3 is a great suit - particularly if it fits you well.

Spend the extra money on jump tickets, and really learn to fly it. You'll be glad you did.

At some point, you'll get the itch to buy another suit (or 7). And you may even decide you don't like PF as much as you do Squirrel or Tony Suits. Or you may decide you really like it, and just want an updated model (I still fly my first suit, a PF Shadow, regularly, and am now finally itching for an upgraded model almost 10 years later).

Regardless, nothing wrong with a Phantom 3. Get it, and start putting in the reps to learn how to fly it. Once you're ready, you can move up to an Edge (or whatever their latest model is at that point) or move to another suit. Or you might just keep flying it forever... :)

skiNEwhere

Bump.

What's the fate of this jet?

She's supposedly returning to the skies no later than September.

(But for how long remains to be seen.)

ryoder

******

She might finally realise the true meaning of the old adage:

"When you are in a hole, first thing to do, is stop digging".

No... Gibbs has no clue how foolish she is. She doesn't understand what a complete idiot she has shown herself to be. She will find a new avenue for her fight, regardless what the court says. In fact, my guess is she rushes out to buy a bigger shovel!!


$100 says she is already asking her attorneys about how to appeal to SCOTUS.
There are times I feel sorry for Weiner & Osofsky;
It must be a PITA having a fruitloop for a client.

...but fairly profitable (so long as they get the money up front).

unclecharlie95

Do you still stair step to give the rows further back site lines on the base? Just wondering if the techniques have changed..

No more stair stepping in all the recent records I've been a part of. The rationale is that adding levels tends to lead to looser flying. You want to encourage participants to look for the chest strap of the person in front of them to keep things on level.

As for sighting the base, it's more important to localize your references (even in a 'teenager-way').
(All stuff you've probably encountered before. Again, the more recent move has been to simplify what each participant is worried about. As formations get bigger, everyone should be focused on flying relative to their immediate surroundings, and only occasionally look further out. As they say in big way FS, from the perspective of each individual participant, it's not a 200-way - it's a 6-way. From the perspective of the camera flyer, it's a big way.)

Good luck with the record, James!

stemartin72

Read me more carefully and you will understand this: I am not saying that money drives everyone. I am just saying that extreme sports athletes may sometimes be in a position where they have to push their limits to get the sponsors which will allow them to finance gear, research & development of new equipement etc. Yes. Jumping is a great and addictive experience. But dont' be naive. We live in a very material world.

They may sometimes be in that position, yes. And they may be not in that position.

But if they find themselves in that position, rest assured, it's a choice they make of their own free will.

Regardless, here's the thing: speaking as a very close friend of one of the deceased (and an acquaintance of the other two), I can tell you for a fact: these guys were not doing this because "we live in a very material world."

They were pushing limits, yes - but pushing them because they wanted to. And when a sponsor went and titled a video "the lowest a wingsuit flyer has ever flown - you have to see this to believe it," I can also guarantee you they weren't the ones who wrote that title - nor did they feel responsibility to go do something else similar as a result of that title. (I had that exact conversation with them - did you?)

In my discussions with them, these three jumpers wanted to use their skills to do things that we never before thought possible. That's why they were in this sport. They loved pushing the boundaries - just like Chuck Yeager loved flying the X-1A. And they would have continued to do it without sponsors - again, just like Yeager did, when he saw that Slick Goodlin had demanded $150k to break the sound barrier.

Now, from your lack of a profile, obviously none of us know who you are. And if you are an acquaintance or relative of one of the jumpers in this incident - from what you're posting, I imagine you didn't have much discussion with them about why they were proximity flyers. Or at the very least, you never came to an understanding of it.

So I wish you peace in trying to cope with this loss. Those of us who knew them can all understand your grief, as we're going through it, too. It sucks. It sucks bad.

But I can tell you that once you're done looking for someone to blame, once you've barked up all the trees out there, you're still going to have to deal with the loss. No amount of misguided regulation you manage to pass is going to bring them back. So I wish you peace in your search - the sooner you realize that the only people to blame in this are the jumpers themselves, the easier your mourning will be.

The three jumpers made a mistake. A big mistake. They could have mitigated it by pulling when they found they were on the wrong route. Or not getting in that helicopter. Or not moving to Europe. Or not getting into BASE. Or not flying wingsuits. Or never starting skydiving to begin with.

But they didn't. They knew the risks, and they accepted them. And based on my knowledge of them, they would be extraordinarily disappointed that someone was trying to use their deaths as a platform to advance some sort of agenda.

airtwardo

******I'm more afraid of all the hatred I see appearing towards Simon. Yes he made a mistake and he did endanger people. While I do think some kind of measures should be taken by the appropriate people I also think more people should think about the reason that drove him to it.

There's a difference between hatred for a person and disdain for a person's actions. The mistake Bones made wasn't flying head up on a delicate, fast head down jump. His mistake was having the extremely poor judgment and the complete lack of respect for the safety and success of his fellow jumpers to do it in the first place.

That's what drove him and THAT'S the problem.

I've seen things like this happen a few times in the sport...

NOW is when the true character come out.

Some guys hang, work hard & regain trust, some head for the hills and are never heard from again.

Some ignore the lashing and just keep keepin' on, never addressing the situation...often they're still a pariah in some circles.

Heck one guy I know did a dime in the Fed-Pen & half the sport was horrified at how 'bad' he made us all look - did his time, came out a better man and changed the sport for the better forever!

Simon has given a lot to the sport, now he 'boned' some people in a big way...time will tell, but I'd bet he can make it right...I hope he's 'that' kind of guy.

^^This. Well-said, Twardo. I think most of us are hoping that.

(& at the same time, I couldn't blame anyone for not inviting him on a jump - much less a record attempt - again. Were I on that jump, it would take a loooong time for me to come to terms with it. Forgiveness for something like this is more likely to be earned than it is to be given blindly.)

Sad. Time will tell how it pans out, on all sides - but it starts with Simon first.

Oooh, I missed the Thursday-Friday part. Yeah, that might slow some people down.

But if there's the option of a 'once weekend a month' thing, I bet there would be a turnout.

Quote

Cal City was my "home away from home". But certainly not because of its location. Rather, because of its FULL TIME vibrant culture and "atmosphere" - which I think would probably be virtually impossible to recreate, as a single day or two of the month "event" type, merely destination.

While I agree with this...there are a lot of 'Cal City Refugees' still around those parts. (I was one myself, for a bit.)
We've had reunions over the years, from meeting up at Elsinore to do big ways with Bob Celaya to smaller Peckerhead Meats out at Taft.

If given the opportunity to go out once a month, I think those same people who created the vibrant culture and atmosphere would jump at the opportunity. Would it be the same? Definitely not. But I think it might be close enough...

Quote

Skygod willing it will be a mild winter.
And maybe those of us here in the north east may get some mid winter jumps.

When jumping in the winter what should a new jumper watch out for with respect to both equipment as well as body?

Thanks in advance!

So the thing is, it's a lot like packing. Everyone has their own preferences. The things we can all agree on:

1) Layer up. Make sure your core is protected...as well as your extremities.

2) Gloves.

3) If you're wearing a full-face, watch out for fogging.

On the 'things everyone has their own feeling about' bit...

1) Layering up. Keep your core warm. A neck warmer is also a good thing to have. You never realize how cold the wind is on your neck until you've jumped when it's freezing on the ground.

2) Gloves. Some people recommend using summer skydiving gloves with a surgical glove underneath. This technique has never worked for me.

The best I've found are Square One's winter gloves. Fleece-lined, very tactile, tacky fingers, and literally "fit like a glove." Worth every penny.

3) Full-face helmet. If you're wearing a full-face, your face will definitely feel better in freefall...but you need to be wary of visor fogging. The best stuff I've found are wipes made by Fog-Tech. They come in little individually-wrapped packets, and you can find them online at REI.

Seriously - don't scrimp on this one. If your visor is known to fog on occasion, add some anti-fog every day. Finding yourself unable to see your altimeter at 9k kinda sucks.

Good luck!

Quote

Glad they are still offering this rare experience. We are a huge hazard to those planes, so let's keep it careful up there, everyone.

^^ Well-said.

Quote

I've been in the sport since July 7, and I spot. They drill that into you. I think it was on an AFF jump, my instructor told me he wanted me to look out the door and tell him when we got on the ground where we were relative to the swoop pond when we got out (We had just passed it heading northwest.)

I look for the runway, swoop pond, the running track to the south, other planes and, if I'm not first, the person who jumped just before me. Gives me something to do while waiting for separation or the light to turn green.

So far I've always liked what I've seen. If I didn't, I wouldn't jump. I was supposed to do a "Long spot" during a hop and pop for my canopy course, but I really didn't feel that comfortable going beyond the road at the end of the runway, so I probably jumped that one sooner than I was supposed to. I think I got more done with sight picture on my 11K high pull than on that long spot anyway. That was really a long time to look at the scenery and play with the canopy

Glad to hear we're doing it right.
(But seriously - you should give the long spot a try sometime. Talk to Stu & Justin first - they've been doing this a while, & won't steer you wrong.)

Quote

The experienced FS skydivers are the ones most likely to wait until they get a good spot for themselves while screwing the people at the front of the plane.
Most days the GPS/pilot are better at spotting for the whole load than the cunt at the door. If this is consistantly not true the pilot needs retraining. The GPS on the other hand never makes mistakes.

Agreed with the other poster that the bit about the GPS never making mistakes is a bit laughable. I'm guessing your eyes aren't the best altimeter, either?

That's a pretty broad generalization. It also sounds like you're almost never one of the experienced FS skydivers at the door. Otherwise, you'd know how it goes. (Or maybe it's different in Canada).

Almost all of the experienced FS skydivers I know screw themselves over more than others - the freeflyers always make it back, seeing as how they get out right over the landing area, while the first FS jumpers out often find themselves hanging on the rears to get back. Those who know how to spot know that you spot for the entire load, not for yourself.

(And more importantly, if your spot is screwed by the "cunt at the door," who said you have to get out of the plane? Go-arounds happen (they shouldn't happen regularly, but they happen). Goes back to trusting your eyes, rather than the green light.)

Quote

so i'm curios as to how many people still spot to make sure they are getting out at a proper location from the plane. when the green light comes on people are in such a rush for the groups to jump out the plane without spotting. several times i have spotted and told myself and who ever i am jumping with that this is too far and let people behind me go and more then once those same pushy people; landed out and were not even close to landing back at dz. does anyone else notice poor spotting a lot from newer skydivers and experienced ones alike?

IMO, GPS is one of the best and the worst things that's happened to skydivers.

Like AggieDave said, there does always seem to be someone nowhere near the door screaming at you to 'GO!!' as soon as the light comes on.

As an AFF-I who's done a lot of 4-way FS (as well as a lot of freefly and wingsuit), I've seen the perspective of all parties on the plane...and my general rule is that people should STFU unless they're looking out the door. There's nothing like sticking your head out the door to spot a 4-way FS jump and realizing you're a mile from the DZ, and the green light just came on early.

At the same time, I do also see a lot of what you're talking about - usually amongst newer skydivers. When they land off, I generally try and meet them back at the DZ to talk about "What have we learned here?", and re-iterate that green does not mean GO. When you leave the plane is *your* responsibility. Don't get out unless you can make it back to the airport safely.

The experienced FS skydivers, on the other hand, tend to not go until they can get back safely. I'd vote them "Most likely to take off their helmet in the door and cup an ear at the folks yelling from the front." The experienced freeflyers and wingsuiters are usually the ones doing the hollering. They should know better...but most of the loud ones probably went straight from A-license to freeflying, and then to wingsuiting, thus never having to sit next to the door when the pilot turns on the green light a long ways out.

Long story short - trust your eyes. Don't screw the spot...but don't screw yourself either. (But sounds like you already get that.)

Quote

Quote

Fourteen on board and we couldn't fill the bomb bay! Some of the guys actually DIDN'T WANT to go out the bomb bay.

Now thats just messed up. Didnt want to exit the bomb bay? It was tricky getting down in there cuz it was so dark but I cant imagine wanting exit any other way. it was a total blast.

Clouds came in but they were above 5500, so we got about 5200 ft.

Two passes, I was on second pass and got video of the whole last 15 minutes.

Most fun I've had in a LONG time :) and its $450 now but was worth every penny!

Some of its kinda boring, some of its kinda dark (in the bomb bay before the doors open) but here it is..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LgjR_NSSv4

Congrats, dude...you've just made 100% of Dropzone.com (including those who've done it before) jealous.

Freakin' awesome. Still on my to-do list. Like @peregrinerose said, looks like it would be worth every penny just to fly in that beauty! Love me some radial engines...

Quote

The faa doesn't require a cfi's endorsements come from an examiner in order to give other pilots and CFIs the endorsement. They can get it from anyone who has both a CFI rating and the endorsements.

I for one would be a lot less resistant to a system like this than the idea of handing control of all wingsuiting instruction to just 7 people.

Would a similar system be enough to satisfy the regulationists?

This is a very interesting thought - I'm interested to hear more discussion on the matter.

@billvon, @skyjumpenfool, @normiss, @twardo, others - thoughts?

Again, I point out -

Twardo (the OP) -

Quote

I stand by MY statement~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

You -

Quote

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.
Based on the number of tail strikes, I'd say that process is broken.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.
based on the number of tail strikes, it couldn't have hurt.

It really just isn't that hard.
Based on the number of tail strikes, .... well, this is getting easy?

If this has little to do with tailstrikes (and as has been pointed out SO many times, a huge number of the reported tailstrikes were from those who are no longer considered 'novice wingsuiters'), then why keep banging the drum about it?

Evidence seems to dictate there are better ways of preventing tailstrikes than requiring someone to have gone through a single first flight course 500 to 1000 wingsuit jumps ago.

If this proposal isn't here to prevent tailstrikes, let's do what Twardo suggested and talk about it on its merits.

Quote

>Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website.

It is and it's a great section. But even experienced instructors don't know it's there; newbies have almost no chance of finding it.

>Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat
>every other discipline.

We've tried that; didn't work.

>Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and
>drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the
>same requirement.

>Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the
>users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a
>special class for that. Must be more dangerous).

This has been argued for dozens of items in the past. "If you restrict swooping in the pattern you'll open DZ's up for liability! DZ's that don't do that will be sued! DZ's that DO do that and have fatalities will be sued because USPA didn't approve it. Skydiving will cease to exist as we know it!" It has never happened.

However, we do know of one liability issue that WILL cause a problem because it already has - wingsuiters damaging aircraft.

>Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every
>conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline.

"We can't fix anything unless we fix every conceivable thing" means we would never do anything. Why teach a first jump course unless we have graduate courses in CRW? Why teach canopy safety to people under big canopies unless we can teach how to safely swoop 39 square foot canopies? Why teach specific skills (night jumps, water jumps, spotting) unless you teach every conceivable skill?

Fortunately most people do not take such an extreme view, and are willing to work on the problems.

I know I'm a little late to the party here, Bill (just reading through the thread)...but it seems interesting to me that, in a post where Twardo is saying "This instructional rating isn't solely about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes," you appear to be arguing once again that it's all about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes.

...and people are wondering why some of us keep on pointing out that it's not the lack of proper training for new wingsuiters (of which there is a great deal), but rather complacency amongst experienced wingsuiters that led to the vast majority of tailstrikes (which now seem to have dried up, thanks to increased awareness).

Quote

Quote

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.

-Outside of that, public details are:
-What kind of aircraft
-Suit model
-Experience level of wingsuiter
-Injury type (where known)
-Cost/damage (where known) to aircraft

A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit."
This is not accurate.
A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer."
It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred.
Repair cost was nearly 100K$.

While I understand your reasoning behind confidentiality agreements, Spot...I'm sure you can understand that it opens the door to the perception that the information you're relaying is hearsay. (Not suggesting that it is...but as I'm sure you know - and as anyone with a scientific of legal background knows - it's important to be able to verify the facts of claims.)

Again, not saying you're doing this, but I could easily come up with a list of false incidents where a deployment in the door nearly took down a plane, put them in a spreadsheet with non-identifying details, and talk about the rise of closing loop-related incidents over the past year.

While I know you and don't think that you're doing that, I'm sure you can understand why some people would question why you're not forthcoming with this information, if it's so important. If you need to maintain that confidentiality for the sake of protecting DZO's, or protecting your ability to jump at certain DZ's, I understand...but you should probably accept that doing so means not everyone is going to take you at your word, without some hard facts to back it up.

---

That being said, I think where the misconception about the "foot hitting the door on exit" comes from this Wingsuit Tailstrikes list that you posted previously. Line 8 lists an incident in which someone exited a Caravan flying a Stealth2: "Bad Exit opened full in doorframe. Hit back of doorframe with ankle." The injury was a broken ankle. There was no damage to the aircraft.

At first glance, that reads to me (and obviously, a lot of other people) like someone hit the doorframe and broke their ankle.

---

Back to my previous point, directly above that entry, there's also an incident that was from a "Dornier or Caravan," for which the injuries are uncertain, which reads a lot less like a verified incident and more like a story told by someone who watched a video on Youtube. If it was verified, wouldn't the type of aircraft and the injuries be known? What does "verified" mean, anyway?

I know it sounds like I may be drawing conclusions here - I'm not. But I am questioning (it's what I do - I've been burned by rumor mills and the telephone game before). And I think if you're leading this charge, you would do well to try and look at it from the other perspective, and question it as well. It will help you make a more compelling argument, without leaving things like this open to interpretation.

Because until I have something to back it up, all I can do is question it. I can't draw a conclusion either way (as much as I'd like to).

---

tl;dr - Human communication is flawed. And when only one person has access to the primary sources, we all potentially set ourselves up to be the victims of omission...or of flawed communication.

We're all, in essence, playing the telephone game.

Edited for grammar.

Quote

>New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're
>supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....

?? The SIM is free to download. Do you suggest that by making it cost $$ and then requiring new students to buy it, it will be read more often?

Not sure, but I think he was just suggesting that it be made a requirement for students to have, instead of just a 'suggestion' that they purchase it or download it. As it is, it's similar to going to class at school, and being able to buy or download the book "if you want to."

Agree with what Bruce said. Your best bet is to get to the DZ however you can, then post something on the bulletin board next to manifest.

Also, talk it up with some other jumpers there. There are a ton of people who live in Boulder who come to the DZ every weekend.

(I don't remember who all is a Boulder person right offhand...but there are plenty of them. Trust me.)

Good luck!