Pulse

If I recall, this happened at least once when X-braces were new on the market. I believe it was a velo 96 and the pilot got busted up pretty bad since he didn't have altitude to kick out of the line twists. I have had another friend have a collapse on him while flying his downwind. Though significantly less violent. He ended up with line twists but luckily wasn't spinning. Kicked out and landed downwind. He was jumping an early Icarus FX. I guess fabric wings feel the need to exercise their power over us periodically. "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."

If you've taken a humble and reasonable approach to swooping you shouldn't need any metal. A reasonable canopy choice - followed by mastering that canopy - only then applying that canopy and your skills to swooping. If you have ever figured, "I can't swoop this cause it's not _________(fill in the blank)." You've already started down the wrong path and I see metal in your future. "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 know you said you want something "better". But why do you want to downsize? Any ZP canopy is going to have a better flare than well-used F111. "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."

A couple of the previous posts sound like they're doing all they can to maintain a sweet swoop. But here's the fact, forget about your swoop at this point - switch to life saving mode. You have to feel out the threat. Is the guy a long way away? Do you have to just make a small correction? Maybe you don't have to change much of what you're doing. Simple harness input and a touch more riser to maintain altitude through the turn may be all that's needed. Then again, you might have noticed the guy very late and have to make a hard correction. Forget about the rear risers at this point. Start your ground level turn and using toggles will give you more authority to tighten the radius of the turn. Another thing to consider: Where were you in the stack? Are others coming in behind you? I'd say try to make as small of a correction as possible. This is a valid issue to consider. But really, if you're unable to make this decision through experience. I wonder why you're swooping. Or doing it anywhere even near where other people are landing. "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."

Are you saying you shouldn't already know your altitude before you see it on your altimeter? What is the difference between 'reliance' and 'over reliance' on an altimeter? I think we're kind of saying the same thing. However, my question is this. How do you know when your altimeter isn't telling you correct information? What's the plan when you realize it's not? I do think too many jumpers rely on the altimeter more than their visual cues. I assume this because I've seen too many jumpers freaked out by the idea of making a skydive without an altimeter. "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 can't say I know much about it but I remember reading about it when I first started jumping. Jamie Paul was doing it and from what I recall he had some 'pulley' system where he raised the camera up towards the canopy after it was open. In other words, the camera was not in the parachute on opening or anything. But again, I want to state that I'm not 100% sure on all of this. I'm just going on faint memory. "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 would say 'no' simply out of the fact that I believe the USPA requirements are very light for flying camera. It's typical for us to simply meet the minimum stated requirements and continue on. But then you're just joining the legions of other skydivers out there with cameras on their heads that are recording crappy images. If that's what you want...go crazy. "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 always say about AAD's? Something like, "NEVER rely on a mechanical device." But sooooo many jumpers rely on their altimeters in freefall and under canopy. Even if your visual altimeter were to break. (Needle stuck?) When would you notice it? How much altitude would you lose thinking the altimeter was right? How would you know how high you are when/if you realize it's wrong? Avoid relying on your altimeter for anything. It should be telling you what you already know. "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."

Quite simply, jump the same canopy A LOT. For a number of years. Fly with other people under canopy. You don't have to be right next to them right away. Use the altimeter as 'rough' information. But use your visual cues for fine tuning. "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."

Reminds me of a conversation I had about abortion years ago with another guy at our drop zone. HIM: "I used to be very, very pro-life." ME: "Used to be? What changed?" HIM: "I found out I wasn't shooting blanks." "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."

Not true "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 would also add to play with your canopy with the brakes still stowed for a little bit. Start a hard turn with a rear riser and see what happens. How long it takes for the canopy to stop on it's own. Also, unstow only one toggle and try to correct. Sure, in 'real life' you might still choose to cutaway something. But this will give you a feel for getting it back under control to allow a little more time for your decision making. Over time it also adds to confidence (like all of these drills do) so you can better control a situation. Without any sort of panicked feelings. "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 fly a Velo 103 WL 2.1:1 With any sort of tailwind I will use deep brakes. While also While also streamlining my body position in my harness. With a headwind and any penetration whatsoever, I add a little brake or rear risers to extend my airtime and cover more ground. If I am not penetrating, I will 'stairstep' with my front risers. They won't get more penetration but they will reduce the exposure time in the high winds. You might be able to gain a little more penetration on the 'flat' portions of the stairstep. My other canopy is not crossbraced and I fly the same way. Crossbracing doesn't make that big of a difference in flying technique when it comes to simply gliding. "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 don't know what good re-writing it would do. I miss the days of the 3-ring binder SIM and i'm sure those that came before me remember an even slimmer version. To me the SIM seems so overdone and complicated. All the while I have seen the same amount of skill coming out of newly A-licensed jumpers that I have been for the past 20 years. You know why? Because they're new. But I have noticed a trend among newer experienced jumpers in that they are quite skilled as long as things are going according to plan. The instant something is different however, they're lost. "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. It's a piss poor metaphor and beware...the sport is full of them. And beware of the person who uses such metaphors without further explanation. I understand this as someone who was fed the metaphor at some point and never pursued any further understanding but that doesn't stop them from spewing it out to others. People like short answers that don't require much from them. I applaud you from thinking twice about this one, that alone says you're on a good track. "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."

Right....but ground effect is experienced by all wings. This seemed to be listed as something only the Jedei can do. Also, "wing in ground effect swoops" is just using too many words, hehe. "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 is a 'ground effect swoop'? "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."

Sounds reasonable. My only worry about using the sports mode is that I think it can make people NOT learn. If people tend to find a setting that works, they just keep using it. They don't learn much in the long run. Can I ask why you choose to use Tv and what you set it for? Also, what you mean by having a 'better' camera and lens? "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 never really understood why we got rid of ringsights. Are they a snag factor? Yes, anything could be, you know, like even a camera. I will agree, there is a point where you can shoot reasonably without one. But that works mainly if you're just keeping something in the center or even 'somewhere' in the frame with little regard to the position. If you're using a lens with a 180-degree field of view and just strapping the camera on your head on jumps sure, it will work. But that's not exactly 'camera work'. When you zoom in your camera the more you're going to want some reference to the center. As long as you know where the center is you then have your reference to frame your subjects using thirds, tilting, etc. The easiest way I have found to set up a sight is to zoom all the way in on something that touches all edges of the picture. Have someone look through your viewfinder, and hold your head steady while you center the target. Even if it's not spot on, it will be fine for most of the stuff you'll probably be shooting. "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 understand what you're saying, because if the plane is way underneath you, then by the time you descend to his altitude, he won't be there anymore - he'll be somewhere else. At least you hope so, assuming he continues in a straight line. And that's the problem I have with your dismissal of this as a problem. He could be checking-out the airport in preparation for landing, and circle back. He could do almost anything - you don't know. And because you don't know, you should do a go-around on jump run so that you can ensure that he has in fact cleared the area before you exit. Your average "checking out the airport" is going to take much longer than your freefall. Aside from any sort of aerobatics going on. Put me in the catagory of aligning this with the 'golden BB' idea. "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 Cherokee vs. skydiver incident. Yes, let's look at that one. However, the Otter in formation is far from the type of accident we're talking about. There was also a woman who collided with a Pitts at an airshow years ago. Again, that Pitts was in formation with the jump plane for the demo and she elected to exit anyway. Not the situation we're discussing when it comes to spotting and scanning the sky. From what I remember about the Cherokee crash. The skydiver and cherokee collided about 500 feet below exit altitude. The Cherokee was approaching from the pilot's left/front quarter of the jump plane. Seeing that the jump door on Cessnas is on the right side, this brings into light that whole checking underneath the aircraft concept. In 18 years of skydiving, I've seen someone do this only once. However, I have seen far too many go-arounds on jump because someone saw an airplane directly below. A practice that is completely ridiculous. "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 advice given to me for my first standup landing, and which I now give to students is to flare when things start to look 'normal'. As in, when you're standing on the ground. I've had very good luck in giving this advice to others. But a flare isn't a flare, isn't a flare, Even on the same canopy. Conditions and canopies all make a difference. "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."

Exactly while it is important to stress flying smoothly. Not 'slow' but 'smooth'. This seems to be the determining factor in line-twists. "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."

Who was this written for? Seems like a presentation on what fliers have always known. "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 had a debate with an instructor at our dz who is thinking that a 'dead man' style landing might be a good thing for students. He's not talking about a speed building turn or anything. Simply dragging the feet behind them and then 'popping up' for touchdown. I have any number of reasons as to why this is dumb. Along with considering the source. Since this instructor has never really shown great knowledge in how parachutes fly. The idea is ridiculous. But in the hopes of being surprised I'm wondering if anyone can provide any reason this might be acceptable. "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."