Pulse

Learn about photography. Build a camera helmet. Start skydiving with said camera helmet without going near a tandem. When your camera flying is reliable and people aren't afraid of you. Then, start hunting down tandems. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Every year I see regular skydives that are less safe than some of the 'pranks' I see here. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Advice before my third jump: "Flare when things look normal" "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change the point of the post. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I'd consider any number itself to be 'random' since I'm not sure how they arrived at that number. When the first D-licenses were issued 200 jumps was might have been much more of an 'expert' level than 500 jumps is today. Of course, 'expert' is impossible to define. Even so, I don't throw the term around lightly. We all know numbers don't tell the whole story. But 200 jumps to fly camera and at 500 we're considered experts? Yeah...pretty random. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

200 jumps is faaaarrrr from a lot. But leave it to USPA to use a random number that isn't hard to reach. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Doesn't that describe virtually every tertiary education establishment in existence? Sure does. Of course some professions are easier to learn. Simply because of what you have access to. But skydiving? By the time you're at the point you may consider it as a career you have the access. The notion of a degree for this stuff is kind of ridiculous. But I add that to list if degrees and certifications. But then again, I've never cared for formal education.Quote "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Do you know what wing loading he was coming from as a student? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I have to say that when I saw this school actually existed I had to laugh. It's a business. It's some people making some money off people by sounding like they have the 'secrets'. While also getting some labor out of the students for a time. There's nothing that can't be learned just by getting in close at a dz. In the end, I bet you get more 'real' experience in the latter. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

For 22 years now I've always deployed in a track and I'm a good tracker. I grab my pilot chute and as I bring my arms forward I pitch it. Then my arms go forward and I pitch my body up. This may help to bleed off a little speed. But it definitely helps orient my body flatter to the relative wind. I've only had three malfunctions and I wasn't tracking on any of those. :) "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

What are we looking for here? "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Wow...thank you! I'm not crazy. I've taught this for years. (Using ALL of the drag available to you.) I've never heard anyone else bring this up. The idea that if you have to use this technique you're too far behind already doesn't really hold. It's like canopy piloting skills in general. If you have the judgement, you shouldn't have to pull out extraordinary skills. But if you have a lapse in judgement or something comes up, you've got it in your back pocket. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Using rears is going to change both. You can't change the AoI without changing the AoA. They're not going to be the same angle but they're both going to change. Brakes do have more of an affect on AoA. Because they add much more drag, giving the jumpers body a much larger pendulum effect. Whereas the rears offer a bit more lift without the same airspeed falloff. But only through a comparatively short control range. You're right, it's splitting hairs. But I thought the original line regarding the two made it sound like they had nothing to do with one another. AoI and AoA, two different things. But a very close relationship. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

But it also lowers your AoA. This is why your descent increases. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Start flying with your rear risers now. Learn them inside and out. Use them to fly with other canopies, use them to adjust your flight path. Make them become a non-issue. You're only ready for swooping with them when you use them without even really noticing or thinking about it. When they're just an extension rather than something you're conscious of. I can't say for certain without knowing how much you jump. But I would recommend flying with them for a year before swooping with them. But then again, that's an arbitrary number...like most training numbers in skydiving. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Why is this the 'best' lens? .55 is a bit wider than I really like shooting. But there's always the zoom. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[replyYou forgot to mention the planform which will greatly effect the result of turbulence. Its funny that you mention that Jonathan because when I read this topic I remembered how my Jonathan was particularly suceptible to collapse Given that ellipticals are a bit more 'unstable', I assume you mean the results of turbulence can be more dramatic if you're not on it right away. I don't know how much planeform lends a canopy to be more prone to collapse or not. I didn't feel my Jonathan was any more prone to collapse. I only had the one instance and that was the result of a few factors. Mostly my fault. Just a point. There is a difference between collapsing and just getting blown around by turbulence. Most 'collapses' I've heard people talk about are usually the latter when I've seen them. That's not to say it matters much to the person under canopy, Since both experiences can be iffy. But all out collapses are pretty rare all things considered. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

You're right. We're on the same page. I just wanted to be clear as to what you were saying. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[replySpeed also increases turbulence and makes the canopy less resistant to turbulence and collapse. ????? Are you talking wind speed? A canopy traveling faster doesn't create more turbulence. If you're talking wake turbulence behind it, high AoA's (slow speed) create more turbulence. Tell me if I'm reading you wrong. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

What do we know about turbulence? 1 - Speed increases pressure and possibly makes the canopy more resistant to turbulence induced collapse. The opposite is true with less speed. 2 - The higher loaded you are, the worse the results of a collapse are going to be. I'm with the not believing it's Velocity issue crowd. I had a Jonathan 136 collapse on me from wake turbulance at 3,000 feet. Half of the parachute was folded under and in the lines. It was 'violent' and had I been jumping something smaller it would've been even more so. I got to test this theory years later on my Velo. Yes, it rocked me when I flew in wake turbulence. I was doing this on purpose, so I was very high. But in both instances I was flying in deeper than half brakes. My conclusion is that flying any small canopy in deep brakes in turbulent air is risky. Even more so at low altitude. One reason I really don't care for the deep brakes to front riser method for setting up a swoop. As far as the Velocity. Doesn't this canopy hold a good portion of the market? Meaning there's a lot of them out there. So in the few instances that this has happened the chances are probably pretty good that it's a velo. A friend of mine did have an FX collapse on him while in the pattern that resulted in line-twists. This was some 10-12 years ago. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I've shot video for years. This year I've decided to stop looking for the 'perfect' solid state camera. I'm looking at buying a cx100. My understanding is that there are optically and digitally stabilized cx100's. I also understand there were problems with the optically stabilized models. How do I know what I'm getting? Any help would be appreciated. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

It's kind of an interesting question. My answer falls into the 'no' and 'yes' catagory. No - Because i approach flaring different parachutes with the same mentality. Slow, controlled flare. Increasing AoA but careful to not add too much and kill your energy. So mentally my flare on my raven 135 was no different than any other canopy I've ever jumped. Yes - Keeping the above in mind. The flare probably does end up being a bit different. As many have posted, it does NOT flare like most people's mains these days. Worse yet, I think many hear about how 'badly' reserves flare and people end up messing it up because they change their mindset and do what they're told. Not paying attention to what the parachute is telling them to do. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

Whoa! Are saying that being conservative for a new jumper is going too far? Sweet Jesus! A huge number of jumpers out there should be jumping something bigger than what they are. That also goes for reserves. The fact is that when it comes down to safety, there are many more reasons to stay bigger than smaller. Simple fact. Now allow me to seemingly contradict myself. As for the Micro Raven. I have a 135 and have landed it once loaded at 1.5:1 and it was fine. Yes, it did stall a bit faster than I expected but very reasonable. Video of the landing can be seen here: http://pulsevisuals.com/movies/malfunction.html Granted I had around 5,000 jumps and quite a bit of experience on F111 7 cells. I also fly in such a way that if it stalls, it stalls 2 or 3 feet off the ground rather than ten feet. Many stall their mains 3 feet off the ground consistantly and just figure that's how their canopy lands. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

I think it's very simple. First, get good at skydiving. Definitely to a point where you don't have to think about things too much. As in, do you really have to concentrate to stand up your landings? Stay close and stable on the 'hill'? Are you concentrating very hard to close on a formation? If this is the case, don't put cameras on yet. Personally, I think USPA's recommendation of 200 jumps is laughable. I'm thinking something more like 500 to 800. Tunnel time might help. But keep in mind, tunnels are NOT skydiving and shouldn't be treated as such. They can only teach a very small portion of what it takes to be a skydiver. I am a believer in taking part in whatever disciplines you want to shoot. Though I'm not a TI or AFF, you don't need these ratings to know the dive flow and what to expect. You can learn exactly what an AFFI knows without having a rating. I've never shot at an examiner course where you couldn't sit in on the training. As for TI's, I think we all know there are plenty of TI's out there who couldn't shoot decent video. So what does that say? Here's something else that really gets overlooked in the skydiving world....LEARN PHOTOGRAPHY! If you're not already doing so, start shooting the world around you now. If you have no interest in that, then why would you want to start flying camera? There's a definite difference between camera-flyers, and those who jump out of planes with cameras on their heads. You can be the latter, but why would you want to? But if you're looking to just meet the minimum requirements and are only doing so because the gear is so 'convenient' nowadays. You will be setting yourself up to be just that. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

The canopy stalls because of too much AoA either way. The canopy become s horseshoe shape in the brake stall because the AoA reaches (or close to) 90-degrees. At that point the air is deflected forward and the two sides wrap towards one another. Stalls can occur at high or low speeds. "Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."