UDSkyJunkie

*bump* sent in my vote, and forwarded to a few people. To those who have issues with this movie, just remember... no matter what they do, it should outshine the current standard set by "Dropzone" and "cutaway". "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

When I was a packer, I never expected a tip, although it was always appreciated. Most who did tip would give an extra buck a packjob. Honestly, a good packer at a moderately busy DZ can easily earn $30+ an hour without tips... they're not waitresses. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I know a couple guys who stopped at their "C" for the simple reason that they refuse to do the night jumps. The list of things you can't do without a "D" is pretty short unless you're wanting to do demos, so it doesn't really matter. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

yeah... most people are super opinionated about the best way to pack, and having 2 or 3 people "helping" at once is a recipe for an argument and for totally overwhealming the newbie with conflicting information. At the same time, if you can get those 2 or 3 (or 5 or 10) people to show you different techniques separately, it can be very valuble since what is best for you is never going to be exactly the same method as for someone else. Everyone needs to develop a hybridized method of packing that combines elements of several people's methods, as well as a few of their own to reach what is ultimately best for the individual. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Packed my own first-jump tandem (true story). have VERY occasionally allowed another person to pack my rig... I think so far it's been limited to my dad, my sister, and an ex-girlfriend (who wasn't "ex" at the time). Have never paid a packer (or a rigger, for that matter... actually assembled and packed my first rig) and will never do so unless it's absolutely necessary for training/competition purposes. It's funny because I was a packer for 10 years and it put me through college, but I just don't understand why people don't pack their own. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I got some funny looks, but i've taken my weight belt as both checked and carry-on luggage. No big problems, but the look on the x-ray tech's face is priceless. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Agreed, but why not also a paramedic? The medic would be properly trained and wouldn't need an order. I imagine they're also easier to come by than physicians. And as you have pointed out, many (perhaps a large majority of) physicians would have no buisiness giving orders in an unfolding trauma setting, whereas a medic would. For that matter, depending on local protocols, an EMT-B or EMT-I might be able to start one... or, if they aren't able to start an IV without an order, they may be able to contact medical control to get an order. Clearly nobody who is not either a qualified EMT, a physician, or a nurse/ect working under a physician's order should EVER start an IV. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

oddly enough, yes. the risk management strategies used for skydiving are applied to other things in my life. Although skydiving has been in my life since I was born, I did not fully appreciate the risk management until well after I became an active jumper. In terms of making me more aware, more calm, and better prepared to deal with bad shit when it happens outside of skydiving, the answer is a resounding yes. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

OK, so you've got experienced people who are deploying during a momentary period of being belly-to-earth. Sounds safer than spinning wildly to me. No doubt. Where's the part where these first timers who are deploying through their legs didn't f*** up? "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

The deployment system is the design difference, but that's got nothign to do with the environment. A base canopy is effectively a specialty reserve that's deployed in the typical environment of a skydiving main deployment... belly-to-earth and stable. If you're in ANY other position on a base deployment, you f***ed up. With a skydiving reserve, you could be dumping a reserve while spinning wildly on your back through no fault of your own. If you have an RSL or skyhook, a reserve is going to be deployed in whatever orientation you're in right after you chop. With a skyhook, the odds of that being a problem are reduced significantly. Without one, you may or may not be able to get stable. Lots of people will say "I always get stable before I pull silver" but then again lots of people have died from a low-pull or no-pull due to trying to get stable before pulling silver. I have to agree with the person you quoted... reserves are just as reliable as BASE mains. They very rarely malfunction, and more often than not the malfunctions can be attributed to an unstable deployment. On VERY rare occasions you'll see reserves that strait up mal on you with a baglock or something, which would not happen in BASE, but I wouldn't think that's enough to make the claim that they're less reliable. Actually, I have one further thought: BASE mains are always large... 240ish SQFT or more. skydiving reserves are generally not so large. For obvious reasons, a 120 sqft reserve is more likley than a 210 sqft reserve to have a small problem like a line twist develop into a malfunction, or simply not provide enough time to kick out. For this reason, a SMALL or HIGHLY LOADED sport reserve probably is less reliable than a BASE main. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Your buddy's statement is outdated... for awhile the rookie class would rotate through 4 exits. I believe they were Meeker, Star, Sidebody, and Satellite. For whatever reason, it's been changed, and all 16 points are used as exits. Only learning a couple exits is a valid approach. E is the one that's always named (because it's useful and easy to transition to many other formations) but I honestly find it to be one of the tougher exits. H is a good one because it's easy and is a longer formation, which can help if you're transitioning to something like an A, C, or G. If I had to pick two to nail down, I'd pick E and H... if the E gives you a lot of problems (they tend to spin, and they tend to require a strong OC and tail), I'd say work on the B until you're nailing them, and then work on the E later. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I'll start by saying that I haven't been forced to do team training from a cessna... but I know what it's like to not have the same resources as your fellow competitors. Don't worry about it... do what you can with what you have and you'll still come out ahead. My last team was lucky enough to have an otter at the DZ (for the last 4 months or so of the season... before that it was a casa... an even more different exit than a cessna!). Problem was, half the time we couldn't fly it. We spent a lot of sunny mornings waiting for people to show up and a lot of sunny afternoons being frustrated because we couldn't fill the plane enough to fly. Bizarrely, we had discussed at the time that it would have been nice to have a 182 there for backup, because if nobody else showed up, we could still fly it! Our team, with almost zero coaching, very limited tunnel time, and about 150 jumps together took int 6th at the nationals in '06. Every team that beat us had a whole lot more resources... 2 airforce teams with goverment money and incredible amounts of tunnel time, 2 teams from chicago, and 1 team from the ranch. And we beat a lot of AF and big-time-DZ teams too. Get 3 people and do what you can. If you've got a turbine DZ that you can get two a few times through the season for some training camps, do it. Maximize it by training hard during the boogies! I personally get more satisfaction from getting in 20 - 25 4-way jumps over labour day weekend than doing "fun stuff" and getting hammered. If you can, definately show up early to nationals and jump like hell for a few days (take 1 day off before the competition to relax, or at least go easy and do some bigways or something, so you're rested). the lack of video sucks, but you'll still learn more doing 4-way than not, as long as the members can keep the egos in check. The exits aren't as different as you think... just make sure you're using a continuity plan that's compatable with a left-handed door. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Dave And Nick, I actually agree that all your points are correct. I've been to a whole lot more small DZ's than large DZ's, and some of the best instructors I'll ever meet have been at some of the smallest DZ's. One of the best instructor's I've ever met did most of his work at a single-182 operation in Alberta that didn't even have an outhouse, let alone a hanger or a student room. Obviously state-of-the-art gear, fast turbines, and pretty student rooms are nice, but irrelevant when it comes to quality of instruction. That said, I stand by my statement. First off, I said TEND to have the best instructors. It's true... really good instructors who truly want to make their living in the sport have a frustrating tendancy to leave their DZ in favor of somewhere warm where they can earn enough money to buy a slightly fancier trailer and live the high life with Dijon Ramen. Yes, others stay... good for them, small DZ's around the world thank them. The other issue is experience and currency. An instructor who has the opportunity to do 150 AFF's a year or more is going to be more current and gain skill and experience much more quickly than the same instructor at a small DZ where he may only do a couple dozen a year. Granted if you're a shitty isntructor it doesn't matter how much experience you have, but if you're a good one, you'll get even better. My statement was a broad generalization that has many, many exceptions, but I still believe it's true. It is uncommon to find a large DZ with no quality instructors. I have seen several small DZ's that don't have anyone that I would call better than "good enough"... occasionally I've seen small DZ's that don't have ANY instructors past the tandem level. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Agreed with above: #1 concern is the main-lift-web. Too tall is dangerous, too short is (very) uncomfortable, and may impede correct body position. Most of the time, if the MLW fits, you're ok, unless you have particularly large or skinny legs. Legstraps can probably be fixed by a decent rigger if they're too long. If the legstraps are too short or the MLW needs adjustment, I'd recommend sending to the factory. You MIGHT be able to find a loft with the proper equipment (harness machine), but the savings aren't going to be all that large, and the factory knows their rig better than the loft does. Usually MLW adjustment only costs $250 or so. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Sounds like a fairly typical AFF progression to me. At the DZ I used to instruct at, we would have had you doing 360's by jump 5 assuming no repeats, but the programs vary.... larger DZ's tend to have programs with fewer jumps. They can do this in part because they tend to have the best instructors, which often mean their students progress more quickly. Congrats, it sounds like you are doing well. On your question about doing something unplanned on a dive: NEVER, EVER do this! During the dive, the instructor will likley think you're having a massive brain fart or a body-position problem. If you tell them afterward it was intentional, they will NOT be happy. I could see being failed for this alone, even if it went well. You made the right call.

Tracking, barrel rolls, and flips have been around for a whole lot longer than then Vector II. You may note their appearance in the AFF progression, which itself pre-dates the vector II. These maneuvers are safe. When the Vector II and other older designs become a problem is in maneuvers where the airflow is sustained in an non-belly-to-earth position (I.E. sit-fly, head-down, back-fly) rather than a momentary change like a flip. If you intend to freefly, I would suggest a different rig. As was mentioned above, a lot of jumpers who have never jumped older gear are a bit over-paranoid about the safety of that gear. It's kind of like a 17-year-old driver telling their 16-year-old friend that they're being an idiot for buying a car without airbags because those cars are "unsafe". Yes, the older design is going to be more prone to premature openings (on flips/rolls, NOT while tracking), but the difference is incredibly small (though the risk is increased by poor packing, ill-fitting gear, or canopy/container size mismatch, which I tend to see a lot of when people buy old containers). If you put a 170 into a Vector II originally designed for a 220, you're adding significant risk of premature openings. If it was built for somebody who was 6' and you're 5'8", you're adding more. And yes, an older design is going to be quite a lot more prone to bad shit if you're doing head-down. purchase and jump accoringly. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

True, but the point is that if a ripcord/springloaded PC is used for wingsuit base, and a throwout system for non-wingsuit base, it either requires 2 BASE rigs or a single BASE rig that can accomodate both without being prone to rigging errors. No simple task. It also means handles in different locations on different jumps, which can be a problem. I suppose if people are mounting PC's on the leg instead of BOC for wingsuits, than this is already an issue. Ideally, one would be able to design a BASE rig that is acceptable for both wingsuit and non-wingsuit jumping. Perhaps that will not be the end result... after all, skydiving and BASE are different enough that there does not exist a system that is excellent for both. It will be interesting to see if BASE and wingsuit BASE are also incompatable. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Interesting thread! With regard to the problems of springloaded PC's hesitating, it seems like the same rules would apply as do to the throw-out PC. BASE PC's are much, much larger than skydiving PC's, and often significantly larger than skydiving reserve PC's. Springloaded PC's for BASE would logically also be quite large, and therefore less likley to hesitate. A very strong spring would also seem obvious, and with a fairly large diameter to help prevent the PC from launching sideways. If I were a BASE jumper, I'd be much more inclined to use a spring similar to a vector (fairly strong and wide) than that of a dolphin (wide but weak) or a wings (strong but skinny). One disadvantage is that beginning BASE jumpers who may hold the PC during the "exit" would require a different PC, as well as a different way to close the container. Since I am not a BASE jumper, I'm not sure how often this is really done... I'm sure among the experienced BASE community it's uncommon. As a corollary, it would be a disadvantage if the springloaded PC was intended for wingsuit BASE only and not standard BASE, as seems to have been suggested by the OP. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

For years I've had a recurring dream where I'm at a boogie and see multiple 20-ish way formations end up in the basement back-to-back and watch a bunch of people go in after dumping at like 150 feet. Usually a few of those people are ones that I know personally instead of nameless faces. Oddly, that's the only skydiving-related dream I have ever had. Never had one where I'm personally in freefall or even in danger. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I have no issues with jumping old canopies, but I personally draw the line at out-dated harness/containers and cutaway systems. The thing about capewells is that they really DIDN'T work that well 40 years ago. They'd get stuck, or people would pull only one, or they'd fumble with the covers, and they'd end up dead or under the reserve very, very low. Or they'd be forced to give up and dump the reserve into the malfunctioning main. If you find somebody who's got hundreds of jumps on that stuff back in the day, I guarantee you they can tell you some oh shit stories related to gear failing to work correctly... something that is extremely rare today. The other thing to consider is that almost nobody is truly qualified to give a "proper briefing" on the old EP's! yes, they can tell you how it works, but even if the briefing is given by an old-timer who's been there and done that, it was still 30 years ago... they are not going to remember all the details and all the weird shit that could go wrong back then. on top of that, there is so much more subtle variation in the systems back then vs. today that there may not be anybody who has ever been familiar with the particular old system you're using. The difference between the 1-shot, 1 1/2 shot and 2-shot capewells and how you work them is significant... and there are other systems as well. As an aside, I don't really see the point of jumping the old H/C systems, other than to say you did it. When I was a new jumper, a few people were trying to get me to jump some real old stuff, and I told them I'd happily jump an old canopy if they put it in a container that had 3-rings. One guy eventually put a PC Mk3 in a strong hawk, and yes, I did take it up. The novelty (to me) is in the experience of jumping a round, not in the additional risk incurred by jumping a belly wart with pins and cones, pack opening bands, and shot-and-a-halfs. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I probably average about 2800. If breakoff is higher than usual I'll take a few hundred extra feet of cushion and pull a little above 3000. I won't go below 2500 unless there's a specific reason for it (traffic, ect). Under my Sabre2 120, I've had a few dives where dumping at 2400 or so meant that by the time it's inflated and I'm done stopping the inevitable whipping around and slider/brakes/ect housekeeping I'm down around 1200-1400. That's below my personal comfort threashold. Depends on the canopy too... under my old Sabre1 135, 2500 or below was no big deal since it opened more quickly and consistantly. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I was 7 years old. Obviously I had never jumped, but it's my first and one of my most memorable experiences of someone being killed jumping... it hit me hard at the time. After I started jumping, it was in 2006... 7 years. That's the first I would have called a "friend". there were multiple others that I knew who died in those 7 years, but I wasn't close to any of them. how did I handle it? good question. When I was a kid, it was my introduction to the concept of death, and it was brutal. the guy in '06, we kind of saw it coming... it sucked, but I accepted and moved on. There's really not any other way to deal with it. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

Yep... but they're not coming strait in, which is what the OP asked. The speed those guys build up in the course of their turn is easily double or triple what they'd be doing if they didn't do a 720 or whatever from 1200'. And a guy flying a 98 @ 1.9ish WL is downright conservative compared to the pros. And, that 90 mph (or whatever the actual record is) was almost certainly recorded in a downwind landing, so airspeed is probably 10-15 mph slower than groundspeed, which is what was measured. Not knowing where you're at and who the guy is, all I can say is "it's possible". There are definately guys who are coming in a 70mph (post hook-turn). Odds are though, unless the guys name can be found on the pro swoop circuit, he's not coming in nearly that quick, though he may think he is (i.e. not blowing smoke, just incorrect). The lack of a vehicle and proximity to the ground really affects our brain's judgement of speed. 40 or 50 MPH looks and feels hella-fast... I timed myself on a ski run once at an average of 30 mph. I swear to god it felt like 90. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

If you haven't already, take a trip to the PD website www.performancedesigns.com and check out some of the "flight charachteristics" files. Yes, they are written about PD canopies, but they include a lot of interesting information that applies to all canopies. One of the things it will tell you is that if you are happy with the speed of your canopy and only want to improve things like flare power, there is no need to drop a size. The change from F-111 to ZP will provide a dramatic flare perofrmance improvement, as will the newer airfoils designed into modern canopies such as the Sabre2, ect. In addition, you will gain better performance in brakes, a flatter glide, and likley more "fun" turns. All this while maintaining your forward speed in strait and level flight, where a size drop will increase the forward speed, and make landing and such more tricky. My thought is to stay at 190. As for 7 vs. 9 cells, it depends on what you want your canopy to be good at. 9 cells provides a flatter glide that can sometimes get you back from a long spot and tends to make big, sweeping, diving turns that allow it to provide higher performance if desired. they tend to trade this for a tricker landing, less forgiveness, and often a rougher opening. 7 cells will give you a canopy that tends to be easier to shut down on landing and to bring in to a tight landing area, and due to the reduced wingspan can really be whipped around in a turn. They also seem to open more smoothly. The trade-off is a lesser potential performance and a steeper glide angle. Actually, it's much more complicated than that, but there's your general info. Personally I prefer 9 cells, but I know lots of people (some VERY experienced) who love the 7-cells. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

I don't know why it's a retarded question...I think you are both jackasses for your assumption that this is my canopy . Thanks for nothing*** Retarded is kind of harsh, but it's a question that's impossible to answer. My canopy comes in to land at speeds ranging from zero MPH to somewhere in the ballpark of 35 MPH (assuming I'm landing strait in) depending on how windy it is and wether I land upwind, downwind, or crosswind. I suspect what you're really asking is "what is the approximate flight speed of X canopy at Y wingloading in strait and level flight, relative to the air?" I don't know the answer to that either, but I'm guessing somewhere around 30-35 MPH. Maybe a little more if you've got a velo with the RDS and super-thin lines. But if you really want to know, you need either a radar gun or a fancy GPS unit. "Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."