Pulse

My, my. How did we ever go without this in the past? Oh yeah, we actually skydived and paid attention to what was going on. Sorry, I think I would have laughed if an instructor pulled this out when I was 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."

A parachute is a wing. No wing can fly without forward speed. The parachute will stop flying before coming to a complete stop in no wind. The best you can do is to follow through with your flare and reach the slowest forward speed as possible without losing lift. "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 to be nit-picky but.....you didn't realize you were on your back until you reviewed the video? I had the same experience last summer with a cutaway. It comes with the territory. "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."

Wait! American society? Hysterical and hypocritical? Huh....go figure. (Not that Americans are the only ones. "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."

And he even gave us the term "misunderestimated" in his final press conference. I'm going to miss him in a way. Then again, it seems this word would mean he was underestimated. But not quite underestimated enough? Do with that what you will. "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."

Gato is right about everything happening faster. Also, smaller canopies are more responsive to harness input. On a larger canopy, if you have line-twists and your risers are a little uneven, this won't be as big of an issue as on a smaller canopy. If you can keep your risers even on during line-twists with a high wing loading you still won't spin. But if you start shifting in your harness when kicking out you will start spinning. It's very simple. If you don't like the idea of cutting away. I would REALLY take a second look at whether or not this sport is for you. "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."

Too many distractions around a DZ for booty. But I will say there seems to be a number of those who can't skydive. Are kind of scared to skydive but love to be called skydivers. These are the ones I'm thinking of when reading this article. "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 asked a question, you bit, I asked for clarification, and so on. But why is that you pro-invasion types always seem to feel if someone makes a comment against how something is being handled. They somehow are glad that america hasn't been attacked? I might as well say, "Did you want over 8,000 americans dead? Was the 3,000 in 2001 not enough for you?" How many iraqi civillians have been killed then? The pentagon has said they don't track civillian casualties. And though there is some dispute about how many there is total, even the lowest estimates seem to run around the 100,000 mark. Even if was half that it sucks. But that's the cost of war. I just wish more Americans understood that when we went in because at the time, most of America seemed to think it would be an in and out job. Thanks to a sketchy but effective enough marketing job by our leaders. I guess we're looking at the US attacks in different ways. But part of my point is that if we are doing so well at squelching terrorists, why are other countries being attacked? It's all spin. it's all a moving agenda. That's all this war has been about. They have WMD's. - Uhm, we don't know that for sure. We can't find anything. But he killed his own people! - Uhm, that hasn't been proven yet. In fact it seems that the gas used was more the type that Iran was using at the time. It's not to say it couldn't happen. But we don't know for sure. But we need to spread democracy and liberate iraqi people. And look , now that we're there, look at all of the terrorists! - But they weren't here before we went in. This can't be solved on dropzone.com. "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 lost a few friends in this war. Yet what if that was a son, daughter, mother, father. What about the relatives of the 100,000-plus civillian's killed in Iraq? When I hear people talk about "winning" in Iraq. What do they mean? What are we winning? It would be nice if you actually answered a question. You ignored the part where I mentioned attacks "on american soil". The only one here were the WTC in '93. Everything else was outside american borders. And there are STILL plenty of attacks outside of american borders. Why the hell would you even bring up OKC? That was brought down by Americans. One could say we haven't had an attack on our mainland for seven years. But we had gone longer than that in the past so....it's kind of business as usual. Or you could say attacks against westerners are still occuring so....business as usual. This shows how narrow-minded people who use this line of thinking are. Just because I've gone six years without a speeding ticket doesn't necessarily mean my driving has improved. "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."

Should we turn our head and pretend it isn't happening? I think the key word was said before, 'containment'. I've come to think a 'cold war' situation is not really a bad thing. Sometimes decisions are made that don't necessarily benefit you directly. That doesn't make the decisions wrong. As far as the war on terror, we haven't been attacked in 7 years. I would say that's benefitted a few people. So you're saying this doesn't necessarily benefit the tax payers. Interesting. The idea that 'we' haven't been attacked in 7 years means nothing. If you mean 'we' as in an attack on American soil. You're right, we haven't been attacked in 7 years. But prior to 2001 we hadn't been attacked since 1993. Prior to 1993, excluding the Oklahoma bombing, it seems we went much longer without an attack on American soil. If you mean 'we' as in the western world. There have still been plenty of attacks elsewhere. But, to use your logic, you don't see those. So they are of no consequence to you. So again, who exactly is this benefiting? How many people have we saved? For what? "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."

There are still plenty of psychopathic murdering dictators out there. Are we going to go after all of them? Are our leaders going to lie to us each time we go after another one? As for genocide, how do we decide which people to 'save' and who not to? Also, you did not answer the question. How does this second part of your answer benefit the taxpayers? "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."

Whatever happened to ringsights? Why don't people jump ringsights anymore? When talking about 'aligning' the camera....without a sight....what are we aligning it to? "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 have any jump numbers for flying camera. I guess I could agree with the 500-jump rule since that would dictate that you've at least put some time into the sport. Then again, I know plenty of people with 500 jumps that shouldn't be flying camera. My advice is this, keep the cameras off you're head until you can be where you want to be, when you want to be there. This goes for freefall and under canopy. You're right, "Everyone has to start somewhere." But people who juggle knives didn't start with knives. Learn to skydive first. Then accessorize. The scariest thing about that whole 'kill zone' idea? If you ever get into shooting 4-way teams, those areas you refer to as 'kill zones' suddenly become known as 'where you need to be'. Weird. "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."

About flaring: The advice I was given and what I've given that seems to work is to flare when things look "normal". I know that sounds kind of stupid. But there is a point on descent where everything seems to 'click' into the same perspective you have when you're on the ground. Also keep in mind no two flares are ever really the same. I know I've just contradicted myself a smidge. But that's what keeps it so exciting! "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 last point is what I was getting at. And even if the wave off helps the person above see them is there really enough time to take action? Honestly, if you're stopping what you're doing in order to take NEW actions. No, there's not enough time. But if you simply keep doing what you're doing. And you should be...TRACKING. That's the quickest way out of there. Even if you're over someone's back during your entire track. They stop to pull, you keep tracking, you're clear. Wave off or not. I really don't care what someone does. I know I'm not looking for waveoff's. But I have heard a few people on occasion say, "But I waved off." After they've had a 'close call' with someone. Sure, it might make you feel safe. But as I mentioned before, I've seen people put more into their vigorous waveoff than into their track. But in 17 years of big-ways, freefly dives, 'zoo' dives, and a lot of camera-flying. I have yet to hear anyone tell me, "It's a good thing they waved off. Otherwise I would've hit them!" And frankly, I don't see a lot of waveoffs out there. In the end...do what you feel makes ya safe! My job is done 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."

I wouldn't say I'm trying to talk anyone out of anything. My point is that flailing arms the instant before pilot chutes fly has limited use. It's akin to the pilot who yells, "CLEAR!" while turning the key. In a way just telling whoever is in the way of the prop they're going to die. A more prudent approach would be to CLEAR, wait a moment for reaction, then continue if no one has made their presence known. Likewise, it would work better if the skydiver waved off, waited two seconds, then pulled. But that's asking a lot on the bottom end of the skydive. In the end the burden doesn't lie on the person waving off. It lies on the person above who has to get out of the way. So, if you are this person, why not take the fact that they are tracking as the waveoff? I dont' think it is that unreasonable to think - That person is tracking...therefore they are probably going to pull at ANY MOMENT! Waveoff, scream, fondle, whatever you want to do before pulling. My point is, if you are that person above, don't look for a waveoff. Therefore, negating the waveoff. "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."

Aside from the fact that he would've been lying about this. Is this to say that a Muslim could never be president? "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 guess my point is that if you weren't able to stay out of their way for five seconds. How will you get out of there within one second? Aside from that, pulling as soon as you see they guy below you waveoff isn't acceptable. What if you have a slower opening? What if you have a mal? If you're arguing the validity of waveoffs, what about the guy above you? Really, I don't mean to sound like an a**hole. But my point remains that it's very hard to cover all bases. A jumper stopping and reaching back to pull is really just as much movement as a waveoff. If you're paying attention, there really is a lot of time. I'm reminded of this because I was shooting video at a boogie last year where some camera guys were refusing to jump with a particular tandem-master. Mainly because "...he pulled without warning." Without warning? I've shot numerous tandems that have had premature deployments and even those were not without warning. "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, how long do you track? In recent years many 'up-jumpers' have seemd to raise their opening altitudes to that of the noobs. What is limiting your tracking time? Where are you losing track of people on the three-way? What were you looking at? If you lost track of the jumper, or are not able to get out of a 'dangerous' position from them for the five seconds of tracking. Are you going to be able to avoid them in the next second between waveoff and dump? If you aren't in an area where the jumper is simply close, but not a threat. Is the waveoff a big deal? The jumper could be right next to you, but if you're not in their airspace above them, they're not an issue. "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."

This, in my opinion, should have been taken care of by the group leaving behind you. In the case that groups do track into each others air, I don't think a waveoff really makes the difference. I'll go back to my original point. For example: Your group follows out a group closer than it should have. While you are tracking away you see another jumper from the group before you tracking back your direction. You can count on them pulling at ANY time. So what good is the waveoff? You're not going to stay above them until you see a waveoff. This is if you see them. If you DON'T see them a waveoff will not be of any good. You will see them or not...waveoff or no waveoff. In this case, I would keep tracking but keep looking for other traffic! We should strive to take care of all we can when it comes to safety. But we need to also be realistic. We can't cover EVERYTHING. In this scenario you're going to have to TRUST that the group getting out after you is taking proper separation. "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."

When? I'm not sure I understand your question. But at the end of the freefall? Every skydive goes as such: Climbout---->Exit---->Freefall stuff---->Breakoff---->PULL. I WILL waveoff if I am pulling for some reason anywhere between the exit and 'normal' pull areas. But my point is not to be in that position. I've watched plenty of people pull and the waveoff really doesn't offer any extra time. Unless they're waving off for a very long time. To which I say, spend the time tracking. Then again, I've had some instances of opening canopies going by me and that's the first I saw of them. I couldn't tell you if they waved off or not. - shrug - "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'm preparing to get flamed here. But as I've gained experience over the years I have failed to see the importance of a wave-off. Case being, I'm in a formation, we get to breakoff altitude and turn to track. Everyone tracks for awhile and what next? I know what comes next. I know people are pulling. Frankly, why do they need to tell me they're pulling? What am I doing flying over them at pull time? I have seen too many people track a ridiculously short distances. Then spend two seconds waving off! I've always felt that time could've been better used tracking. I will do a half-roll periodically, especially on freefly dives. But I've always thought it was a good idea to start my track on my back while freeflying. My question is this. When you look over your back before pulling, and someone IS there. What do YOU do? What if you're at minimums? "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."

Holy crap! The original question was reasonable enough. But I cannot believe how much this simple idea has been debated! Include EVERYTHING, physical weight, clothing, goggles, helmet, cameras, container, reserve parachute, main parachute, weight belt. If you take a piss before jumping, you've just decreased your wing loading. If you eat a 1/3-pound cheeseburger, you're just increased it. When you cut away your main, it falls to the ground. That being known, you should include it in your wing loading. If you have a reserve ride after a chop, youre reserve WL will be lower. If you have a total mal, your reserve WL will be higher. Simple. Not so simple. If you increase your wing loading bit by bit. Say you add a pound every ten jumps. At what point do you notice a change? Also, what about density altitude? Depending on what it is, your wing loading won't change...but it will seem like it did. I call it 'virtual WL'. "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."

Well, you've pretty much stated the same conclusions I've come to. Sorry to say this only after you've written all of that. But maybe we're on the right track then? It seems to come down to that wicked angle of incidence thing. "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."

Actually, I'm not trying to build/predict anything. I'm putting together a canopy class for our drop zone. One thing I would like to do is put together a portion using canopy 'myths'. This led to a few other areas but one of them being the often lauded 'recovery arc'. I would like to find a way to explain why some canopies have a long recovery arc. "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."