LloydDobbler

Yup. Best full face skydiving helmet I've ever tried on or jumped. Then again, the other full face helmets don't fit well, since I wear a 7 3/4 hat. They fit small headed people better. The mamba fits larger heads much better. +1 (as another 7 5/8 - 7 3/4 hat wearer) +2 (except I've got one of those 'unusually-small' heads. I wear a size S in the Mamba, and a size M in a Z1. Gotta love the different variances in sizing.) Regardless, love the Mamba. Lightweight, good visibility, and the visor stays closed. (Though I know a lot of people who've never had a problem with their Z1, I also know at least 2 who have resorted to gaff tape to keep their latch from coming undone in freefall). Signatures are the new black.

Now THAT is a great mental image. Thanks for that. To the OP, yep, a freefly suit will be more versatile overall. But if you want to fly on your belly, you'll really want a suit with booties and grippers. They help TREMENDOUSLY. You can make it work the other way - I personally have been freeflying in jeans and a t-shirt for the last 2 years. My belly suit gets a lot of time in the sky, too. But now that I've moved to a colder climate, I've finally gotten a freefly suit. Still, if you're looking to save cash and do a bit of everything, I'd recommend the freefly suit. But start putting some cash away for an RW suit - if you decide you like belly-flying, you'll want it sooner than later. Signatures are the new black.

+1 To the OP, can't remember if it's been said, but some student programs may not let you wear a full-face helmet to begin with. Just an FYI. For now, as some have said, the student program will provide all necessary gear. You won't need to show up with anything, to start. So you might want to just save your money and wait until you know a little more about what sort of equipment YOU want than listening to what us crazy folks on the internet SAY you need. Good luck! Signatures are the new black.

And do a search - you'll find a lot more info on the matter (this has been discussed many times before). You'll find that in this sport, it makes more sense to know a little more about the gear and what it does before purchasing it blindly. Good luck.

Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Spot - I've been watching this from the sidelines, and don't have a horse in this race, so forgive me for playing a little 'devil's advocate': You say "There is no value in screwing thousands (if not millions) of potential viewers out of seeing "THE SHOT" and promoting wingsuiting for the benefit of everyone..." - do you think those millions of non-jumpers are going to want to pore over the image to make sure everyone is in their slot? The way I see it, it's kind-of like a demo, where people are more happy seeing a stand-up landing than they are seeing a wicked swoop into the stadium. Those who want to analyze the slot-specific formation with the grid overlay? I hazard to guess they're all skydivers. And *mostly* wingsuiters. Also, not discounting all that you have done - I know it's a monumental task - but looking at your 'producing a show' analogy, part of producing a show is making sure it seems like it's easy. It has to seem like all the pyrotechnics, choreographed numbers, and critical moments 'just happened.' I know there's a lot of images, and I know there's a lot of thankless, unpaid work left to do. But news happens fast, and two weeks later, there's still no story. From all that I've heard from friends who were on this record, it was a monumental achievement. From all I can tell, the organization must have been ridiculously complicated, and those in charge deserve tremendous props. But for the next one, perhaps as much attention needs to be given to the post-game as does the actual event. Maybe you all need to agree in advance as to what will constitute 'good enough' to present to the public. Otherwise, you all sit sorting through photos, other skydivers begin to wonder if you're hiding something...and the public never hears about it, because the press wants to report on news that happened today, not 3 weeks ago. Otherwise, the stagehands pulling Peter Pan's cables may as well be standing in plain view of the audience. Again, not discounting the tremendous work you all have done. Just wondering if you all are seriously planning to dig through all 20,000 or so stills one-by-one before you actually decide that you have 'THE SHOT.' That seems like a really bad PR move. (Forgive the long post. Just wanted to be sure and qualify everything enough to show that, even if the perfect image doesn't show up, I think this is an incredible achievement. Congrats to you all.) Signatures are the new black.

I've only taken one canopy course. What saddens me is how often the canopy skills progression on the A-license proficiency card is just skipped over. I sometimes wonder if I would have completed all the tasks, if I wasn't such a meticulous bastard who likes to check off things on my 'to-do' list. Point is, it's already there. The question is, how do we convince instructors to focus on it more? Fixed that for ya. Seriously, though, look at the coach program. Supply and demand leads to more and more coaches, sure. But I wouldn't say that the coach program has done much to put quality coaches in the air...quite the opposite, actually. Not saying it's a bad idea...just saying, X+Y doesn't necessarily equal Z in this case. Signatures are the new black.

Yep. [DISCLAIMER: I'm talking about experienced jumpers attempting this stunt, NEVER with a student.] As for laws, if we're talking about U.S. manufacturers, as far as I'm concerned, their word is final. Doesn't matter if you think it would be really cool. If they license you with a tandem rating, you should obey their rules...or lose that rating. As for attitude...back to a jury seeing it as an issue that the passenger has no control over their fate...I'll admit, I see it as a huge issue, too. When you get the required amount of jumps (C license or equivalent in the U.S.), go ride as a tandem passenger for someone who's working on their ratings. It's one of the scariest jumps you can make. Reason being, you're completely dependent on the TI. You don't realize how helpless you are until you've got a couple hundred jumps of self-reliance, then are forced to rely on another person strapped to your back. That's why I find the whole idea of this stunt to be ridiculous. Especially in the example you originally posted, where it *was*, in fact, an unknowing student. But even with experienced jumpers, the idea of liability gets tricky, since one jumper is at the mercy of the other one. Do a couple of tandem passenger rides and you'll see that. It's eye-opening. Signatures are the new black.

Prices at my DZ haven't gone up, still $13 to 13K (I forgot to insert a note about the obligatory Lodi post that would have to be coming soon...). Signatures are the new black.

Part of the reason we can do what we do is the 'Hey - it's your life' argument. The majority thinks we're crazy. But at least we're only taking our lives into our hands when we hurl ourselves out of a so-called 'perfectly good airplane.' It's different when 2 people are strapped together. In the eyes of most people (non-skydivers - the ones who would make up a jury), the person with the rig IS calling the shots. Because ultimately, when it comes time to prevent the person from meeting up with the earth, the TI has much more control over the situation than the passenger in front. Put it this way - if the TI is incapacitated, and no AAD is present, the passenger is strapped to the front of a meat missile. If the passenger's family brings a lawsuit, I think whuffos on a jury wouldn't like the idea of that lack of control - no matter how much you try to explain otherwise. They can't relate to the situation. Yep, that's the theory. I agree, it's crazy. It would be laughable if it didn't happen so often. In the U.S., manufacturers are usually lumped into lawsuits by default, because they tend to have more money to dole out than that drunk driver. Sad, but true. Maybe not so much with your Volvo example, because whuffos can relate more to a car accident - but in aviation, they can't. Cessna almost went out of business back in the 70's because pople would get in their 172, forget to fill up the gas tank (or some other operator error), and crash into a mountain. Then the family would sue everyone from the airport to the company that made the tires on the plane. It was only after legislative protection was enacted in the U.S. that Cessna started making planes again. Now, my family are very rational people - risk-takers themselves. But who's to say that if I tried something like this and got killed strapped to the front of someone because something went wrong - and it was on video - that they wouldn't be hysterical and sue everyone remotely related? (The answer is: I am, based on instructions in my last will & testament. I would venture to say that most skydivers don't have a non-sue clause inserted in theirs, though). But as I said before, this argument is self-defeating. Because in this case (where ratings are involved), a rule is meaningless unless enforced. If a manufacturer didn't pull the TI's rating every time something like this happened, they *could* be held liable. And if they do pull ratings when this happens, then they're 'preventing the progress of the sport'. People work hard to get those ratings, and rely on them for income. Most don't want them pulled for a stupid stunt. In a country of run-away tort law, that's just the way it has to be. Again, tandems are a special thing. Because in a Mr. Bill, each participant has a parachute, and the responsibility to save him/herself falls to him/her. Not necessarily so with a tandem. Perhaps it is B.S...in Finland. I assure you it's anything but that in the U.S. (where most of the largest tandem manufacturers are located). Signatures are the new black.

I see it from a different angle. My reasoning is simple: the manufacturer says 'Don't do it, or we'll pull your ratings', and they have every right to. Even if only experienced jumpers are involved. Here's why: When you swoop, or freefly, or climb onto the roof of the Otter to jump, or dive to make a plane-to-plane transfer into a Porter with a drogue out the back, you're in control of your own destiny. When you jump out of an airplane strapped to the front of someone, fully aware of the fact that they intend to attempt a dangerous stunt, you're still not in control of your own destiny. You're still reliant on that person. And even if something goes wrong, or if you change your mind at the last minute, you can't very well turn and track away. So there's a liability issue for the person wearing the tandem rig, merely because they're the one in control, and you (the passenger) have no say past a certain point. And because they can be held liable, there's a liability issue for the manufacturer as well. And that's why it shouldn't be done. It's a sad reality of the U.S. legal system. I don't condone it, nor do I support it. It makes me downright angry. But having been on the ass-end of an unjustified lawsuit before, I will certainly respect it...and respect the tandem manufacturers not wanting rigs they made to be used in a way that the courts could consider 'above and beyond' the normal safety procedures. Now, perhaps Basik doesn't have that sort of liability issue to deal with in France, which may be why they're all gung-ho on it. But personally, I still think Basik's promotion of freeflying with tandems is irresponsible. Only based on the notion that, as an instructor of any sort, your first responsibility is to your student - not to going out and having a great time 'working on skills' that in no way enhance the student's jump. Regardless, liability is a crappy thing in the U.S. right now...but because a manufacturer is based in the U.S., they're going off of the laws they know. And if they say their gear shouldn't be used that way, and reserve the right to pull your rating, I say more power to them. Signatures are the new black.

Personally, I'm finally going for that camera helmet I've been talking about for so long. (It'll likely wind up being my annual 'Christmas present to me'.)

Mile-Hi had gone up to $27, and even had a little DZ 'pow-wow' for the DZO to tell us why the cost of jumps were going up. About a month ago, they lowered them back down to $26. Last week, it went back down to $25. I, for one, definitely didn't expect that. But am definitely appreciative of the gesture, since it would be easy for the mgmt to just consider the excess as 'extra profit' now (especially with as little competition as Mile-Hi has). Signatures are the new black.

Haha, saw that today myself. I personally prefer duct tape. Why mess with what works, eh? Signatures are the new black.

THIS to me is the real question, re: the "barrel-roll-to-see-if-someone's-above-you" mentality. So you're already at deployment altitude, you see someone above you - what do you do? Say you veer to the right...what happens if they veer to the right? Should you do another barrel roll to double-check again? Or should you go ahead and flare out and wait a second? Again, what are they (& the other people on the dive) doing? How do you know? No matter what your course of action, you're really powerless in this situation, because that big hunk of granite is coming up faster for you than it is the other guy. If you don't have a planned procedure for when you see someone above you, you can spend the rest of your life trying to decide what to do. And as far as I can tell, there are just too many different scenarios to keep track of to be sure that your standard procedure will work. No matter what you do, you'll be relying on the person above to see you. Unless you hit the ground or have a Cypres fire first. Signatures are the new black.

Well, there *was* a guy on the plane with her and her dad...but of course, he has no profile and only one post on DZ.com. Of course, then there's the fact that 1) AFAIK, Colorado Skysports does tandems only...and then occasionally will take up an AFF student. But no static line, to my knowledge. 2) As far as non-tandems go, I've heard a lot of people say "they're not really set up for fun jumpers." Of course, that info is a year or so old, and they supposedly now have a King Air, so that may have changed. 3) According to their website, "Due to local laws we cannot accommodate those under 18." Make of all that what you will. Signatures are the new black.

These say they're only visible for 1 mile, but are better than many I've seen. You can get them online, or at most military surplus stores. For me, I carried a little maglite on a chain around my neck/tucked into my jumpsuit. Turns out, I didn't need it - never turned it on. It likely won't be *pitch black* up there, so you should be able to have a good enough view to be sure of 'there/square/steerable.' But if it makes you feel better, keep on with you, just in case, & don't turn it on unless you have to. Signatures are the new black.

Depends on what ya think yer life is worth. Touché, sir. Signatures are the new black.

Yeah, that seems like you're getting the full-on retail balloon ride rate. I'd follow the advice of others and see if you can hitch a ride with some people paying full price. In fact, funny story - I know one person who had a friend who gave hot air balloon rides, and he'd occasionally call her and say he was going up & she could come. She'd give him $50 and ride up in the basket with him & the two newlyweds/whatever. Until the one time she got there, and the passenger couple turned and saw her and asked, "Are YOU our skydiver?!?!" Her friend was busy getting things set up, so she talked to them a bit more and realized that the balloon operator had charged them ~$100 extra for having a skydiver on board. So she was an upsell...and she was paying to be an upsell. The other thing you might can do is figure out if there's a spot where balloonists regularly go to launch nearby. It's a longshot, but some balloonists aren't there to take paying customers, and might be willing to have a skydiver come along, esp. if you offer to contribute a little to help them out. Never done it myself, but I know folks who have... Signatures are the new black.

But rules are meaningless unless they're enforced. And that in turn is why the tandem gear manufacturers *have* to pull ratings over things like this. Because if they let it slide, then they *can* become more liable for not enforcing their own rules. (And that was my original answer to the OP's question: the reason to not do it = because the TI is violating a contract they signed with the manufacturer, and therefore can lose their ratings for violating said contract.) So it becomes a chicken or egg argument. Why even have the rules, if you're going to have to enforce them? Ultimately, since the tandem gear manufacturer stands to lose the most, and are the ones making the tandem jump possible in the first place, I think they get to call the shots. Signatures are the new black.

I can't tell you about the night jumps, but as for the trains from Boston & Sydney... Actually, having only made two night jumps myself, I must say - they were undoubtedly some of the most scary AND the most fun jumps I've made. (That was my 98th & 99th jump, BTW). I'm sure other more experienced night jumpers will weigh in, but here's my take: Not sure how they do it at your DZ - at Elsinore, all the first-timers exit first on their own pass as solos. An experienced jumper jumpmasters the load for them, and arranges exit order by wing loading and opening altitude (meaning you're assigned an opening altitude according to your WL, and have to open at that level). It feels a lot safer, knowing that there are only 4 or so more staggered canopies in the air during your first nighttime canopy flight. On that first jump, the exit & freefall were great - I just stepped out and watched the plane for a bit. Too cool watching it fly away at night. The place where things got scary was under canopy. In spite of the strobes & glow-sticks, on my first jump I couldn't discern other canopy pilots against the bright lights of the town below (which admittedly probably means people probably opened at the right altitudes. But still, I prefer being able to see things I want to steer clear of). On my second jump (which was a 4-way) I only saw one canopy. I *think*. Again, that was the freaky part, not knowing for sure - I didn't see a strobe, but it looked like a dark silhouette moving against the city lights (glow sticks are tough to see from a distance). Problem being, you can't focus on it for long enough to be sure, because you've got to keep your head on a swivel. Regardless, like I said, they were a lot of fun. There's nothing like seeing your buddies in freefall in the dark (& in my case, them watching little glow sticks coming loose from where they were taped on me and zinging up into the air). Just be sure you have a bright-enough strobe. I've seen some people use little bicycle strobes, and they won't cut it - you want people to be able to *see* you. It'll likely be kinda scary...but keep your head on a swivel, and you should come out fine, with a big grin on your face. Signatures are the new black.

There's a long-standing saying in this sport. Goes something like this: "You pay a packer, you take your chances." It's just one of those things. In a sport in which you're dead from the second you exit until you save yourself, there really aren't any guarantees. Life is like that, too. I mean heck, who's to say you won't be hit by a car in the DZ parking lot? Simple fact is, stuff happens. Even to the most meticulous of us. If you want a guarantee, your best bet is to do everything for yourself (and thus accept full responsibility). Even then, you're likely to still have something go wrong at some point. It happens to all of us. It's just the nature of the beast. Signatures are the new black.

Maybe it was a 767-283. Y'know, I think you're right. That does look just like the one they have over at Boulder... Signatures are the new black.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think they're operating under the 'better safe than sorry' principle, which makes sense, for the most part. Unfortunately for us (as opposed to most people), to give them access to what they need to see in the event of a false positive requires an expense. Not cool. Re: making a fuss, no doubt! I would have argued it all the way to the top, and probably have been ticked off, too. I was more referring to the tone of your post, which was very thoughtful. So many people (myself included, probably) would come online just to gripe about it - it was refreshing to hear someone who seemed to have reconciled the unfortunate false positive with air safety. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Chris - thanks for the detailed story. Good on you for not making a huge fuss about it...and more importantly, for taking the time to go back, do some research, and educate (both the TSA & us, by posting here). Your post re: Nitrates and Glycerol reminded me of another issue I'd heard about from a jumper who was stopped at security - that certain types of grass fertilizer can lead to a false positive on EDT machines. Not sure if it's true (anyone care to verify?), but it stands to reason that if you biff a landing and slide it in on a freshly-fertilized landing area, or if you set your gearbag down on what looks like a harmless piece of grass, it might show up when being swabbed by the TSA. (Anyone have any experience/knowledge/firsthand info on this?) Signatures are the new black.