brettski74

Under most conditions, your exit separation should be sufficient that people should not be able to fly their canopy underneath you before you deploy. My guess is that this was probably caused by one of the following: insufficient exit separation. How long did you leave between groups at exit? one or the other group flying up or down jump run in freefall. Most likely causes are newbie sitfliers backsliding all over the sky or people tracking more than necessary from their group. Keep in mind that all you need is adequate separation. You don't need to track a mile to get separation from a 4-way. Ridiculously high upper winds. For example, if you had 65 knot winds at 12000' but only 10 knots at 3000', your exit delay would be long enough that a canopy would have sufficient time to fly underneath you before you open. That said, this is a fairly unlikely scenario that I don't think you would see very often in most places. If something like this happens again, it would be worthwhile talking with the other jumper to figure out why this happened so you can avoid it better in the future. It sounds like you did, but I think this was most likely caused by something in either your or his/her freefall or exit, not from his/her canopy flight.

In retrospect, I guess the better post would have been to comment on how inappropriate the standard mount is for skydiving use.

Anything you intend to cover entanglement hazards needs to have some rigidity if it's going to deflect a loaded line or fabric around a snag point. My guess is that a spandex or similarly flexible, elastic cover would be of minimal utility because in freefall, the wind would press the fabric against the harder surfaces underneath and even more importantly, a line with a couple hundred pounds of load on it will easily push the spandex against the harder surfaces, if not cut/burn through it, exposing it to much the same snag hazard as was there before. I have seen flexible covers made from neoprene rubber used over cameras before, but their usefulness is primarily in keeping dust and moisture out of your camera. I'm not sure how much snag mitigation they provide.

That was perhaps me? By spectra, I'm assuming that you're talking about something like 725lb suspension line type stuff. I'm curious as to whether you think the same argument applies to the leash that comes in the box? I'm assuming you're familiar with what comes in the box. We used the leash when testing the adhesive mount provided in box specifically because we were concerned about the implications if the mount failed and it fell off. Our thought process at the time was that in the case of any non-trivial entanglement, the leash would break under a relatively low load, which would make the risk from the leash relatively low. I don't have data on the maximum load required to break that leash, although I have a spare one that I'd be happy to use for destructive testing. After several test jumps and about a 50/50 success rate for the mount failing at deployment, we abandoned the standard adhesive mount in favour of more robust options, which should not require a leash. On the downside, these now mean that in the event of a non-trivial entanglement, the camera will not break away under the entanglement load, so I have to ditch the entire helmet, which requires action on my part and is a bigger falling hazard than the camera alone. Are we missing something?

In the past, where there was some confusion on my part as to what I could have done better, I ask someone with appropriate experience, knowledge and/or authority for advice. I don't know the specific situation, but that could be someone like the DZO, S&TA or an instructor/coach with appropriate experience. It will depend on the situation, though. If it was something like landing pattern issues, then probably the DZO and/or S&TA would be the place to go, but if it was an issue during a wingsuit flock, then you probably want to talk to the load organizer for the jump or a wingsuit instructor/coach at your DZ. You'll have to use your own judgement as to who is the best person to get advice from. As for weighing different opinion from different people you trust, make sure that you ask enough questions to understand the reasoning behind the advice - not just the solution provided. Understanding the reasons behind each answer will help you understand the pros and cons and help you decide what is the most appropriate solution given the circumstances. I tend to think that knowing why you should do a particular thing will make you a better skydiver in the long run than simply knowing the thing to do.

The mount that comes with the camera itself is probably the least snag-worthy thing you could apply to your helmet - mostly because of how flimsy it is and how easily it is knocked off the helmet. I have seen at least one instance where a jumpers attempts to overcome the engineering weaknesses of the standard mount created more problems than it solved. Fortunately, the mount is flimsy, as already stated, and when it got slapped on opening, it broke off, snapping one rail on the mount and breaking the other rail slot on the camera body. I've since pointed him in the direction of some better mounting options for the camera, which he's now using. As for the shade tree engineering and snag hazard argument, the same arguments could be made about almost any camera used in the sport - not just the small form factor cameras. In fact, most professional videographer's helmets I've seen have large still cameras with large protruding lenses on the front, plus a sight and quick-shoe mount with multiple sturdy snag points. They may also have a cutaway system on the helmet, but it's difficult to cut away a helmet with a broken neck. Could people be using better mounts? In many cases, I'd agree that they could. Is this a problem specific to small form factor cameras? I'm less convinced about that. The biggest problem I see with small form factor cameras is that some people are beginning to get the idea that because they're small, normal wisdom about camera flying doesn't apply.

The factory leash supplied with the camera and all the VHoldR manufactured mounts comes in two pieces secured in the middle with a plastic clip. Each section is about 1.5" long once secured with a lark's head to either camera or helmet making the complete leach about 3" long from camera to helmet. . The plastic clip in the middle is relatively small and strong enough to resist minor knocks, but would easily break under any real load. The cord used is also relatively thin, although I would not hazard a guess at the breaking force required to snap it, but as suggested before, the plastic clip will likely break long before the breaking strength of the cord is reached. The camera itself is a much larger snag hazard due to size and strength of the mount (assuming a decent mount is used), but if you were really worried about the leash, you can tape it down flush. I had mine taped down flush at one point, although after removing and re-mounting the camera, I have not yet re-applied the tape, but I'm not too worried about it. As I said, the snag potential of the leash it negligible compared with that for the camera itself.

We actually had an incident where this was a factor around a month or so ago. We had a female jumper with a spinning malfunction, not highly loaded - maybe 1.1-1.2 wing loading. She could not see her handles. Due to the position and load on the harness, they were both obscured by her breasts. Still, she went with what she had been taught. She got two hands on her cutaway handle, and chopped the main. She then reached for her reserve handle and couldn't find it. She couldn't see it. She finally found the reserve handle and pulled it, but not before her AAD fired the reserve and saved her life. This was this particular jumper's second cutaway. She had no problem finding handles on her first cutaway. In the above incident, the feeling of most who witnessed or discussed the incident is that one hand per handle probably would have been a much safer method in these circumstances. While she may have had to spend just as much time finding the reserve handle, she would have been doing so while descending under a lightly loaded canopy, which while spinning, was descending a lot slower than she did in freefall. This is somewhat speculative - who knows how things really would have gone in such a situation, but at the very least, it shows that this is not as black and white as the OP suggests. Our chief instructor has a similar level of experience as Sonic - around 7000 jumps and 20 years in the sport. My home DZ teaches the two hand method to students and novices, but after this particular incident started questioning our methods. He's still confident that two-hands is the best method to teach to students for similar reasons that Sonic mentioned - specifically, more pull strength in the case of a hard cutaway and reduced chance of out-of-sequence EPs. Based on incidents such as the one described above, he is now thinking that when we get to doing emergency procedure reviews for B licence and above, we should also highlight the possibility of the one hand per handle method. I'll also add that I was originally taught the two handed method, however, I transitioned to the one-handed method after my B licence. I completed my B licence requirements and exam while away and visiting at another DZ. During the emergency procedures review for my B licence, we noticed that I was doing two handed method but that the people from that DZ were using one handed. This prompted a discussion of the various pros and cons of each method. Nobody told me to change - in fact the end result of the discussion was that there are various pros and cons and we should use whatever works best for ourselves. Shortly thereafter, I changed my procedures based on my personal evaluation of those pros and cons. I'd also add that the chief instructor and DZO at that dropzone has more than twice Sonic's jump numbers, more years in the sport, and has medals and records in CRW at the world level. He's had more than his fair share of chops and based on what his students are being taught, I'm guessing that he believes that one-handed is the better method. Again, it seems not so black and white. "Better" is a very subjective term. If you want to really prove that one method is "better" than the other, you'll need to define what "better" actually means and then come up with some hard data to back your position up, not just anecdotes and opinions.

That's it. WE are too lazy to get off our butts and tell YOU the things that YOU want to know. I mean, that's what we're here for - to serve YOU and YOUR needs, right? Aside from the back-asswardness of your statement, there are other good reasons for you to be using the search function and reading what's already been discussed, such as: keeping information on a given topic in one spot so it is easier for others to find. points made in a discussion two years ago may not arise in a new discussion of the topic, so you would miss that information if you do feel that there is further discussion on the topic, you can post to the existing thread to continue the discussion along the new line you post.

How was it attached to your helmet? I'm assuming that you used the mount that comes with the camera and no leash. The mount that comes with the ContourHD is not ideal. If you don't knock it off in the exit, you're at least as likely, if not more so, to have it knocked off by your risers or opening shock at deployment. There are better mounting options out there for the ContourHD, such as the universal mount adapter, the waterproof mount case or even a full box.

I have a number of jumps where I hit the mid 80s. 84 was the lowest I saw, but quite a few 85/6/7 as well. I also saw a 68 in my log book, but I suspect that was meant to be 86 and I just wrote it wrong. 68 seems highly unlikely. These speeds are all in a track at the end of a dive wearing a regular RW suit with booties.

If you get really stuck, you can order it from Para Gear. You can find it on their website under "Raw Materials", but you can probably find cheaper sources elsewhere if you spend some time looking around.

Did you look at my profile? It's no secret who I am or where my home dropzone is. Judge much? No, it is not common, nor was I talking about any one dropzone. I've seen it once or twice at home, and a few more times at other dropzones I've been visiting at the time. As I said, several times. This is over the course of hundreds of jumps that were 10-way or larger. It's generally always someone with perhaps 200-300 jumps who had never been told this was a bad idea. On more recent examples, I had a word to the person involved and they adjusted their break-off behaviour accordingly. I guess Ogden must be one of those magical places where everyone is just born with the skills and knowledge of the typical experienced skydiver and nobody needs to be taught these things. I'm sure we're all jealous of your good fortune to live and jump in such a place.

There is a big difference between tracking for fun on a tracking dive and tracking away at break off. In a tracking dive, I'm never in anything even approaching a max track. This is by design, since almost nobody would be able to form up if everyone was max tracking. At break off, you're aim is to put as much distance between you and everyone else as possible in a short space of time. I've seen people roll while tracking several times during break offs. Every time, their track is significantly shorter and steeper than those around them and they end up well below everyone else in a short space of time. A good flat track requires a body position that simply cannot be maintained throughout a roll. At best, you can maybe end up with something approximating a half-delta/half-track body position. You'll still have some forward drive, but you'll be going down a lot more than you'll be going forward, which is not what you want at break off. Meanwhile the people tracking properly are floating up and off into the sunset far ahead of you. As billvon said, if you've planned for extra maneauvres in the dive and allowed altitude as appropriate, there's nothing wrong with rolling in a track, but since most dives are mostly about playing with your sky friends as opposed to solo shenanigans when you're supposed to be saving your life, a barrel has no place in a typical break off plan.

Generally speaking, you will learn faster in the tunnel, however, when it comes to sit flying and head down, you really need to be fairly good at it to do it in the tunnel. The wind speeds are high enough that you could seriously injure yourself if you lose control. Those walls are hard and very unforgiving when you hit them. When you learn in the tunnel, you'll probably spend more time on fundamental base skills which you can build on later. Tunnel time is generally cheaper, too. If we assume that you pay around $20-25 per jump, 60 skydives is $1200-1500 dollars. You can get an hour of tunnel time for much less than this. If you live somewhere where the jumps are more expensive than that, then the margin becomes even bigger. When you get into team training in the tunnel, this also increases the margin.

Based on the discussion in that thread, it's believed to be a 370 square foot canopy. With a 420 pound jumper and about 30 pounds of gear, that would put you at over 1.2 wing loading. That's very aggressive for a student. Enough people have already commented on the tendency of heavier student to injure ankles, knees, arms, etc from hard landings under appropriate wing loadings, so I even that canopy may not be large enough.

None of what you have said has addressed any of the problems introduced by the barrel roll, specifically: compromised track, which in turn compromises how far you get away from the people you know are there compromised heading control, so you no longer tracking straight away from the centre of the formation steepness of break off, since you're not really tracking when you roll and you end up far lower than the others who are tracking as they should be the ineffectiveness of scanning the sky in about a quarter second while the entire world is rushing through your field of view There are good reasons why most load organizers and more experienced formation skydivers advocate against any kind of barrel roll at break off. They apply regardless of the context. If you need to get away from everyone and find clear air to deploy, the best way to do that is to track, straight, flat and on your belly the whole time. Your enthusiasm is great, but we've already done this experiment a thousand times. We've seen the results. As for the straggler, again, the break off plan is the same. Everyone breaks off at the planned altitude. Plan the dive. Dive the plan. If you're low, you do your best to stay with the formation until break off and then you break off with the first wave (also the only wave for the majority of skydives). The same applies if you're high, although that is rarely a major problem. People who are high are usually fairly close and have good visibility of the break off to be able to work down into it. If they're not close, everyone will be long gone by the time they reach break off altitude. As for this talk of looking over your shoulder while tracking, that will also compromise your track. You should be able to see most people behind and beside you while keeping your head down, which also gives you a more effective track and makes you less likely to be below anyone. Look over your shoulder as you start your flare at the end of the track and just prior to the wave off and pull.

Expected?? Where the hell did you get that idea? Hiring a packer is optional. I've never been anywhere where hiring a packer was expected. Most places have packers and for a nominal fee, you can use them if you so wish. Generally speaking, I don't use packers except for things like 4-way training camps and such where we want to maximize our coaching dollars.

We can handle a slap in the face every now and then, too, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it. You seem to be labouring on the mistaken premise that because you like dogs and think they should accompany you everywhere, that this is good for everyone. My home dropzone does have their own dog and allows visitors to bring dogs. For the most part they are well behaved and their owners clean up after them, so it's not a big deal, but it certainly does nothing to enrich my dropzone experience. I don't mind dogs and even enjoy playing with them once in a while, but they are certainly not necessary at the DZ and they do need to be kept in check and cleaned up after. If I'm at the DZ and I see your dog leaving "land mines" that are not cleaned up, we will be having words. I don't expect the dog to necessarily understand and follow normal etiquette, but as the owner who brought him, I do expect you to take responsibility for him/her and any mess he/she creates.

What's your point? It's no wonder that newbies on here never use the search function or follow forum rules, because when they do use the search function and try to do the right thing, people still give them grief.

They are the most powerful, but they have to be because they are the biggest. The wider the column of air, the more power you need to get it moving at the same speeds. That said, they are capable of very high wind speeds, but there are several problems with this. Even at the highest wind speed, there is the possibility that you may be too heavy to get off the net. If you can get off the net at such high wind speeds, you're now a belly flyer with almost zero control flying in a system with a very large amount of energy. Walls are hard and they can hurt, injure or even kill you if the wind slams you into them hard enough The instructor inside the tunnel is responsible for you safety in the tunnel. I'm not a tunnel instructor, but you may want to see the instructor and talk to him face to face before laying out the cash. They may be unwilling to accept the risk of putting you in that situation, or putting their body on the line to try to stop your 400+ pound bullk getting injured. I don't know how big you are, but the door to get into the flight chamber is necessarily narrow to minimize disruption of the airflow in the vicinity of the door. A reasonably large but athletic person could easily fit through the door, but I have seen morbidly obese people who I'm sure would have trouble physically passing through into the flight chamber because of their size. I'm imaging that if you're over 400 pounds, you may fit into that category, too. I guess you're already talking to instructors at Paraclete, but perhaps some things for you to consider when you're talking to them. I'm not sure of your reasons for not wanting to lose the weight, but like so many here, I think you're really trying to do this by the hardest way possible. No matter how hard you think it's going to be to lose the weight, I'm quite certain that it will be far easier and cheaper to lose the weight first and then proceed along a more "normal" route.

You'll never see this on large organized jumps. The people who are invited on such jumps know better. I have, however, seen people attempt to do this on moderate sized jumps thinking that they are clearing their air. What I observed of those people however was: They had by far the shortest and steepest track of anyone in the group. They had poor heading control in their track as a result of the roll The roll happened in perhaps half a second. That's the entire roll. They'd be lucky if they had half that time to scan the sky above. If you can spot a solitary person in the sky in less than a quarter second while the entire world is whizzing through your field of view, you're clearly not human. They had to spend tome getting stable again after the roll, while I was still far above them, still tracking and finding lots of empty space to deploy. Pretty much everything that's already been said will happen when you try this. I have seen this happen every time I see someone try this. It's just a bad idea. I know you think you have a new and wonderful idea for break-off safety, but it's not new, nor is it better. It's been tried. It really doesn't work. It creates new problems and it doesn't really improve anything.

I never suggested it was or wasn't a disability. I said that this is a cross-post, which it is. Cross posting is not permitted. Pick the most appropriate location for your topic. Post it there, once, not in multiple places all over the forums.

All the more reason to spend your money on jumps, coaching and tunnel time. The piece of equipment that most often fails a skydiver is the grey squishy bit between the ears. You'll have a hard time finding many, if any, incidents that have been prevented by a skyhook or that may have been averted by having a skyhook. You'll find lots of incidents due to skydivers making bad choices, flying beyond their abilities and other human factors. If safety is your goal, your money would be better spent improving your knowledge and skills than on a piece of equipment that has a 1 in a million chance of being a deciding factor in an incident - unless perhaps you're a millionaire and money is no option.

Call the crossposting police... Your other thread in General Skydiving Discussions is the more appropriate place to discuss this. You may want to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.