LloydDobbler

I'm guessing this person is of a size that they've never had to wear a weight belt. His argument reminds me of all the non-skydivers who argue that all objects fall at a constant rate, so there should be no need to 'match fall rates'. No one wants to rely on lead, but sometimes you can't get around it. My exit weight is 135. The other day I flew with a student who weighs 240 out the door. Pretty sure I couldn'tve done it without a little lead. (As a side note, a little goes a long way. You'll be surprised.) I'd jump on Billy Vance's offer in a heartbeat, if I were you. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Sandy - Cool! We were going for a 75-way. The current record 56-way was built over Lamar, CO around 2002. Signatures are the new black.

Exactly. Although I've never been a part of a state record before, it seems a little like 'cheating' to bring in the best skydivers from around the world to build a new 'state record'. I know that's standard operating procedure...but that's not the way we wanted to do it. And it's not like the talent wasn't there. In spite of the attempt having a few low-number jumpers (myself included), the average jump number for the participants was somewhere around 2500. Most low-number jumpers had extensive tunnel time, too (I have about 17 hours), and anyone with low numbers who received an invite was thoroughly vetted through a series of camps, etc. Like I said, the entire event was well-organized. Props to Jim McCormick for that. Signatures are the new black.

+1 on flying with an Argus, but liking the Cypres (& mistrusting a Vigil). The main reason I went with the Argus was that while it had the drawbacks of the Cypres (4-yr maintenance, which some people see as a +), it offered some advantages: - No limited life. Doesn't turn into a paperweight at 12 years, provided it passes the test. - Multi-mode. Yes, you can send your Cypres back to Aviacom to have it switched to swoop mode, but the Argus is user-switchable. - Rigger-switchable, off-the-shelf lithium batteries. To each their own, though. Signatures are the new black.

My one reserve ride was on a Smart reserve. Worked out nicely. My g/f's one reserve ride was on an R-Max. Worked out nicely. I think it just boils down to a matter of preference. I haven't heard anything negative about the R-Max, and people seem to like their Smart reserves. From what I remember, the marketing materials for the R-Max touted that it had been specifically built and tested for higher-than-normal deployment speeds (i.e., premature freefly deployment), but that could just be marketing-speak. I'm not a rigger, so I'm sure someone else will chime in on that one. Signatures are the new black.

Yep - everything in this thread is good advice. I second the rec for the Pro-tec or the Benny. Also - try them on!!! Helmet sizes mean very little - in fact, they pretty much mean nothing except relative to other sizes of the same helmet. One last thing - if ou're dead-set on getting a cool-looking skydiver helmet from Skysystems, I'd go with the HR2 over the Hurricane. Offers much better forehead protection. (But the Pro-tec would still be your best bet - use the money for jumps!!) Signatures are the new black.

Yep. 2 months of beautiful weekend weather leading up to this weekend. And naturally, the weather's back to being glorious ever since. Such is Colorado. For what it's worth, the event was extremely well-organized, and a great deal of progress was made over the 6 jumps. I'm confident that had weather not been a factor - had we gotten closer to the 14 jumps that were planned - we would have built it. But how often have we heard that before? Plans are already underway for another attempt next year. On an interesting note, almost 90% of the jumpers on the attempt were local Colorado jumpers. Signatures are the new black.

+1 to what everyone else is saying here. A tracking suit can definitely be used for skydiving...but most people I see taking them skydiving are trying to get the feel for them before taking them to BASE. But I wouldn't get one for now (even if you're planning on BASE) because of this: as you spend more time in the sport, you'll come to realize that whether we're talking wingsuits, tracking suits, or anything, it's never the suit - it's the pilot that matters. Here's what I'd recommend: - Grab a bootie suit to start with and learn to track in it. The booties will give you INCREDIBLE forward drive, and you can also use the suit to get better on your belly (which is never a bad thing, even if you intend to get into freeflying. The best body pilots can fly on all axes). - Start tracking with other people. Preferably, the experienced belly-flying crowd. A lot of people get very good at dive-tracking (freeflyers in particular, given their orientation), which initially gives them more forward speed and makes them feel like they're getting further distance. Meanwhile, someone with a good flat-track body position will often travel the same distance, but wind up higher. (I was on a 75-way this weekend, and although I'm always the high tracker when doing smaller ways, I found some of the older guys were kicking my ass at breakoff. By adjusting my body position to fly relative to them, I flattened my track considerably without losing forward speed). The point is, if you get a tracking suit, it'll slow your fall rate down, sure. But if you learn how to really track before you get a tracking suit, you'll be able to get more out of the suit. Same goes for wingsuiting, to some extent (although different WS disciplines require different skills, so tracking isn't exactly analogous to it). It's almost always the pilot rather than the suit. As Saskia pointed out, just keep jumping and stay as current as possible. When you've got the numbers to fly wingsuits, currency will help you more than anything. Signatures are the new black.

esp. if new technology comes around that makes tunnel time cost less $$$ Already been done. First it was called 2-way, and now it's called 4-way. OTOH, if you're referring to the idea that parents won't shell out the cash for their kids to do it, potentially true...but there are comparables that say otherwise. Horseback riding/equestrian training can take just as much (if not more) cash per month as a slot in the SVCO kids' league, for instance. (Not that I don't wish it was cheaper myself...but I wish jumps cost less, too, and don't foresee that happening anytime soon). Signatures are the new black.

With such supportive parents, you'd think they'd be counting down to their 16th birthday. Yeah, but think about it - If they can't do it at 16 in CO (& I don't think they can), then they might have to make a trip to another state to do their AFF. Then they have to find a 16-y/o-friendly DZ to travel back to at least once a month to stay current, etc, etc. At some point, I think you realize it's just better off to wait it out. (And I agree - I think they'll both go about it the right way. I've talked to Kayla about it a few times, and she seems to be approaching it with the right attitude.) Back to the original subject, you look at people at the X-Games in skate vert or whatnot, and they all were skating by at least the time they were 6. I'm starting to see us headed in that direction...(well, except for the X-Games part, since that's already been tried back when the X-Games were 'extreme'). Signatures are the new black.

I agree with all of the above. I'd also like to add a bit to what Krisanne said about 'immediate feedback' - a HUGE benefit of the tunnel is that you have solid, stationary reference points around you. I've seen people with 500 skydives get in the tunnel and be humbled, simply because they're used to flying in the big sky with people who move around a bit (and thus, they fly a bit sloppy themselves). Additionally, most tunnels have a nice mirror up on one wall. When you're dialing in the basics, it's an amazing thing to be able to turn and look at your own body position. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, experience with tracking, canopy work, exits and deployment issues can only be gained in the sky. But dollar for dollar, I can tell you matter-of-factly that tunnel time has played a much greater role than skydives in how well my 4-way team is doing this year. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Gary - So am I to understand you hit the button, but the screen never actually lit up? (Only reason I ask is that some people have issues with the chasing sequence on an Argus - I find it best to hold the button down until it flashes, then let go and re-press. But it sounds like yours isn't this sort of issue, seeing as how you've had it for a while & presumably know how to turn it on by now.) I had an issue with my Argus when I first got it, that it was going through batteries like water through a dog. Kept going dead - I put in new batteries one weekend, and by the next weekend it wouldn't come on. I contacted them about it & they had one of their reps come look at it, then quickly sent me out a new one when the rep declared it defective. While I wasn't too happy with the issue, I was definitely happy with the way they handled it, FWIW. Signatures are the new black.

As fun as all this is, back to the OP, I'd second (er...third, fourth, or twentieth) the recommendation to demo as many different suits as you can. I went to F&D 5 this year looking forward to demoing a T-Bird. From all the reviews, it seemed like the ideal suit for me. At F&D, I put about 4 jumps on it, and quickly realized it just wasn't for me. I wound up ordering a Phantom2 (or rather, a Shadow, b/c the P2 was just a little bit too much armwing for my light-ass self). The T-Bird was floaty - and because of that, I almost took it on a high-altitude jump - but its flying style just didn't suit me. It felt like the suit was flying me, not the other way around. And yet others love it. So I'm in the opposite camp as some of those upthread who prefer the T-Bird to the P2, etc. & that's all it comes down to - personal preference. All of the suit manufacturers have made tremendous advances over the years, and I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. The point is, you won't know which one you really like until you try it out. Demo, demo, demo. Tony, PF, BM, or FYB might be the best fit for your body type and flying style. There's only one way to tell for sure. Signatures are the new black.

I would tend to agree with you there. But I have also heard/seen numerous arguments - both in person and online - between very experienced jumpers and someone with 110 jumps who justifies his position by, "I'm a USPA Coach. I know what I'm talking about." It seems to happen much more often with the 100-ish-jump coaches. As I see it, this is where that snicker tends to come from. I recall a thread on dz.com where a user was arguing about docking technique, and pulled out the Coach card. He was arguing with a guy named Kirk Verner. I think at 100 jumps there's a tendency to think you know it all...and at 200-300 jumps you start getting a little closer to realizing that you'll never know it all. To me, it's that sense of humility and self-awareness that seems crucial for an instructional rating holder to possess. Well said. It's been my experience that if you raise the bar and expect a higher standard from someone, they'll rise to the occasion. The problem is, by further handicapping the rating, the USPA is doing the exact opposite. They're taking the 'lower the standards and make it easier' approach. I do recognize that it's a double-edged sword - if a coach isn't ready for that responsibility, you don't want to give them more autonomy/authority than they can handle. But IMO the answer to that is to make it tougher to get the Coach rating - to raise the bar - so that you're more confident that those who get it know what they're doing. The opposite approach only serves to lessen the rating's meaning. (I know we're pretty much arguing the same thing here - I just wanted to bring it back to the USPA, more in-line with the thread's original topic). Signatures are the new black.

Was wondering if someone was going to bring this up. The Bounce Book always did have a special ability to take the wind out of someone's sails. On another note, the sad/scary thing is how many DZs wouldn't even know what the guy was jumping, until he started mouthing off about it (or hooked himself in, or spun himself up at 800 feet, or...). Signatures are the new black.

+1, wholeheartedly. This one made me laugh. For the examiners who make a living doing such, I have no problem believing another big coach course will help there bottom line. However, for the work that most Coach Examiners put into a single course, well let’s just say we don’t do it for the money we are making.

Ok... So maybe we need to ask the USPA to change some rules and policies. My view, as the instructor signing the bottom line, I want to see everyone who helped the student along the way, and their progression. There are lots of real good coaches who are more than qualified to verify that a student used their rear risers, landed within X feet of a target, or was able to explain what an RSL or AAD are. If the USPA requires instructors to sign every line, not coaches, then instructors are going to pencil whip lines when "coaches working under them" are doing the work... So as the instructor signing the bottom line, I won't see the student's accurate learning progression - or worse yet, when I quiz the student and they answer incorrectly, I don't know which coach to confront... So, I believe the 2 page card should be accepted with coach signatures along the way, with only a few blocks that only an instructor is qualified to handle clearly marked, "An USPA coach is not authorized to sign this block". In the long run, the instructor who signs the bottom line needs to know which coaches helped the student along the way as they will be held accountable for knowing who helped the student. "Working under an Instructor's supervision" means that each coach should be able to put their signature on the line to take accountability for what they taught instead of hiding behind the signature of an instructor. I love seeing coaches work with students, and at least at my dropzone, I trust all of them to inspire and teach. I want them to be able to sign the card as it is their signature that proves they did the work and are willing to take credit for their work, and take accountability for their workmanship. Rant over. Anyone else agree? I definitely agree. Of course, I'm a coach at your DZ. I also agree with what Paul said above. By making this assertion, the USPA has further marginalized the Coach rating. As if it wasn't already a joke to begin with. Don't get me wrong - I see the value in an 'introductory' rating. But 100 jumps has always seemed a little low to me. That's why I waited until I had 280-ish jumps & ~13 hours' tunnel time before I got my Coach rating: so I could feel like I actually had something of value to teach. Still, if people are put through the vetting in a USPA-approved course, they should be trusted with some degree of autonomy. Not saying lots of things shouldn't be left to an instructor - but signing off on someone doing a braked approach is different from signing off on someone doing their A-license check dive. By further handicapping the rating and not allowing Coaches to accept responsibility for what they've taught, what's the point of this rating besides raising more cash for Coach examiners (& fees for the USPA)? Perhaps the better solution would be to raise the minimum req's for coaches, instead of doing our best to make sure their role is insignificant. 200 jumps has always sounded like a better number to me. If I wasn't about to go for my AFFI rating, at this point I'd likely let this rating lapse. The USPA seems to be hell-bent on attracting 100-jump wonders (who just want a badge of honor) for the Coach rating, and driving experienced jumpers who want to teach to simply go through an all-in-one Coach-and-AFFI-Rating course. Signatures are the new black.

Never been there, but +1. We jumpers rarely look at the amount of money generated by tandems versus us. This is a HUGE sacrifice on the part of the DZO...good for him for honoring a commitment (and going out of his way to get the aircraft to do so!). I hope the he gets paid back with la ton of good karma and long-term loyalty from the fun-jumpers. Signatures are the new black.

As much as I've enjoyed this entire discussion (being someone on the creative side who has a keen interest in IP law), this has to be my favorite post of the entire thread. Signatures are the new black.

Check out ParaGear. They offered them, last time I was on their site. Signatures are the new black.

Just a couple of points... I think people don't "get it" that the laws favor industries and individuals equally. As an independent writer and photographer, my work is protected by copyright law, just as the intellectual property of a major record label is protected. Are the laws too complex? Yes. But the laws only seem to favor "large industries" because they produce more works than we individuals. Then I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much IP law. I'm no attorney, but I've seen my share of this stuff. The RIAA, or the MPAA, or whomever, will gladly sue if they think they can make an example out of someone. And in this case, they definitely could. From what I've seen, in a case where commercial work is involved, fair use isn't much of a risk to the plaintiff at all. First off, the jury's job is to interpret the law, not the way they think the law should be. It's generally more likely that they will execute their duty as instructed by the judge, and not attempt to 'legislate from the jury box'. Especially in a case where money has changed hands, which is a pretty good way to take the bite out of the fair use defense. Secondly, while the law doesn't favor the big corporations, the system does. The RIAA would gladly have their attorneys sue a small-time DZ or videographer, if only for the simple fact that the individual has little chance of being able to afford a long, drawn-out lawsuit. The plaintiff wins by simply outlasting the defendant. Signatures are the new black.

Thanks for the info, Mike! That's what I was figuring re: the Cookie box...but good to finally get some firsthand info on the Rawa. Thanks! Signatures are the new black.

Really? Interesting. Good to know. I haven't had the firsthand experience of working with a Hypeye yet, so I didn't know exactly what size requirements we're talking about for the connector. I was thinking I had seen some pics when the Cookie box was first announced of a Hypeye controller mounted in the box on the side, but as it turns out, it was the 2k box - apparently they make different boxes for top- and side-mount. So I guess that was what was giving me that impression. Thanks for the info. So I guess my questions have changed: I hear that both the Cookie & Tonfly boxes support side-mounting AND top-mounting - can anyone confirm? Thoughts on whether that would be doable with one of the 2k or RAWA boxes? Any opinions on which one would be best for changing back-and-forth between side- and top-mounting? Anyone have any idea which box is the slimmest? Has anyone compared the different boxes side-by-side? Or even better - has anyone already done this? Which box did you go with, & how'd it work out? Thanks, y'all. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, folks - I'm trying to figure out which of the CX-100 boxes is the smallest/most form-fitting. Any suggestions between the 2k, Tonfly or Cookie boxes? Here's the background: After a lot of research, I'm finally putting together a camera helmet. In the interest of versatility, I'm going with either a 2k Fuzion or a Tonfly CC1, with Zkulls mounts on both the top and sides. Going to be flying a CX-100 for video, and somewhere a couple hundred jumps down the line I'd like to add stills. In some instances I'd like the video top-mounted, whereas at other times side-mounted. And I don't want to be flying with stills all the time. Hence, the 2x Zkulls. Here's the thing: Since I plan to change from top-mount to side-mount on occasion, I'd like to have a narrower profile box. Most of the CX-100 boxes I see seem to be a good bit wider than the camera due to allowing space for an entire Hypeye-D Pro unit inside. But since I plan on changing it up, in an ideal world I'd mount the Hypeye switch inside the helmet and drill a hole for it - my thinking is that if I wanted to change mounts I could just unattach the Hypeye cable at the camera and re-route it through the other Zkulls. So my questions for all you experienced folks: 1) Does this sound doable? (I know the ideal solution would probably be to just grab a Flattop Pro or a Mantle, but I'm not interested in a 100%-dedicated big-ass camera helmet right now. Maybe somewhere down the line, when/if I start shooting tandems). 2) Any ideas on which of the CX-100 boxes sports the narrowest profile? Or should I look into building my own? Signatures are the new black.

Nah, I think this one fits better. Signatures are the new black.