polarbear

This isn't a skydiving project, but I'm using the same tools I use for tandem video (Sony Movie Studio 11 and a Sony CX 100). I'm putting together a video of a family event. In some instances, a lawnmower drove by the event and the noise really covers up what's going on. Any ideas how I might be able to filter it out? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/ The text of the letter "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I must respectfully but emphatically disagree with you on this. In the past several months...in fact, in all of my decade of membership in the NRA...they have never once tried to sell me a gun, or encouraged me to go out and buy a gun. They have never once stood up and said 'The government's going to take your guns! Better get 'em while you can!' In my experience, the three top things the NRA does are: 1) Keep reminding me to reup my membership. 2) Encourage me to write my local and federal officals about gun issues and participate in rallies. 3) Encourage safe and responsible enjoyment of hunting and the shooting sports. Now, while I am a member, I don't agree with everything the NRA says or does...but I certainly can't see how they've done anything but exercise their 1st ammendment rights in defense of the second. Using mass-murders to sell guns? Sorry...I haven't seen the NRA or any gun manufacturer do anything like that. Personally, it seems clear to me that those who are pushing the bans are causing the upsurge in sales. As for whether or not NRA allegiance will be a plus or a minus in future elections...undoubtedly in some areas (say, for instance, Illinois) it may be a minus, while in others, it will be a plus. The overall effect is still to be determined. The elections are still two years away...by then, there will probably be another crisis. As for me...the NRA doesn't dictate who I do or don't vote for, but I can say I consider it a major negative when a politician's first response to a problem is to limit constitutional rights. I believe in all of my rights...ALL of them, not just the 2nd ammendment...and politicians who seek to limit them will face an uphill battle for my vote. But that's just me. I'm only 1 out of 350000000. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Why does it have to be one or the other? To me it's about responsibility. I believe that a society that exercises individual rights with responsibility can still have safety. I also believe that giving up individual rights does NOT make one safe. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Agreed. The nuclear weapon argument is really ridiculous. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This is the way I see it: Strictly speaking, I think arms means all arms...and yes, that includes nuclear weapons. But I'll never argue that civilians should have access to nukes - here's why: 1) Security - There are some very, very bad people out there who would like to get a nuke and use it to kill millions. The US government has to spend an enourmous amount of money on nuclear security. If nukes were distributed in civilian hands all over the country, how long do you think it would be before someone bad got a nuke and blew it up in a major city? Yes, I know criminals will steel guns...you can thrawrt most common criminals with a gun safe. How will a civilian ever protect a nuke against a well-organized, heavily armed terrorist group? 2) Cost - Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive. Even if I was a billionaire I'd still prefer to spend my money on something else. How many people out there could actually afford a nuke? A really, really small number. 3) Safe use - How could a civilian ever safely use a nuclear weapon? With small arms, all I need to do is find a place far away from other epople with a clear field and a good backstop and I can easily shoot all day without bothering anyone. You can't just go out in the desert and set one off a nuke. How would our country know if it was under attack or if it was just Johnny having some fun with his nuke? What if someone went and set one off just for fun and it started a war? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. Evan if it didn't start a war, what about the fallout? We still experience increased radiation all over the world from the fallout from tests in the 50s and 60s. These are just the three big arguments I see. As I said in the beginning...to me, 'arms' means all arms. But the nuclear weapon argument isn't even worth having. Why fight about it? So a few rich people can have a pet nuke? We have bigger problems. I know that some people reading this will argue that the same arguments apply to small arms, such as semi-automatic rifles, as well. I personally wouldn't agree. Why? 1) Security - yes, there are criminals and crazies out there who would like to steel an AR-15. It isn't that hard to buy a quality gun safe and thwart them. Point is for nukes, I have to protect against well-armed and organized terrorist groups; for a private firearm I pretty much just have to worry about the common criminals. 2) Cost - Sem- automatic weapons aren't that expensive to buy or operate. Indeed - the AR is the most popular firearm in the country. Obviously many, many people want them and can fford them. 3) Safe use - It isn't difficult at all to use a semi-automatic safely. I just need to find a place away from other people with a clear field and a good backstop and I can shoot all day and not bother anyone. And semi-automatics are used every day by millions of people for safe, legitimate purposes, to prove my point. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Personally I wonder if Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation would survive the supreme court if passed and subsequently challenged. It seems to me her proposal is so restrictive that it could be construed to effectively ban an entire class of firearms that is in common use. Not only is the AR 15 a highly popular rifle amongst civilians, it (or it's militarized cousin the M4/M16) are generally the standard issue carbine/rifle in our Military, National Guard, and most Law Enforcement agencies. It seems it could be argued the AR 15 is specifically the type of weapon that the Miller decision (referenced in the Heller decision) says the 2nd Ammendment protects. Not that I'm a law scholar...it just seems to me that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the legality of the Senator's proposal. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Raymod gave some good performance criteria. From a safety standpoint, the biggest mistake I see new competitors make is get so fixated on getting in the gate that they do whatever it takes to hit the gate...even if it means hitting the ground hard. So I would say that you need to be able to keep from getting fixated and know when to bail and save yourself, even if it means getting a zero for the round. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Thanks...I've gotten no response from Aerodyne yet. The trims you gave me match the canopy I'm inspecting, so that's good. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Anybody out there have a recent copy of the line trim specs for Tempo reserves? I can't find them on the aerodyne website. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

We are alive and well and Skydive New Mexico! We had a miscommunication amongst our staff that resulted in us not getting our USPA membership renewed, but that will be remedied quickly. Come on out! "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I actually haven't seen the new rules. Can someone post a link to tham? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

It may be true that you have no groundspeed for the last few seconds when swooping into a strong headwind, but we are really talking about distance here. It doesn't matter if the last three seconds are at zero groundspeed; what matters is how far you went over the ground. The difference between airspeed and groundspeed is the windspeed, you add windspeed to airspeed to get groundspeed. The distance coverd in the swoop that can be attributed to wind is the windspeed multiplied by the duration of the swoop. It doesn't matter if three seconds of the swoop are at zero groundspeed, they still count in terms of swoop duration. In your example above you still spend 10 seconds swooping, it's just the last three have zero groundspeed. Again, this all assumes the pilot does everything the same no matter what the wind, which I don't think is true. Take a strong crosswind...in order to fly straight through the course, you have to turn into the wind, which means the canopy will have a roll angle. At the same time, you probably have to add more tail input to keep from sinking, since the canopy isn't straight over head. This additional control input means the canopy is banked and pitched and flying in a dirtier configuration than it would be in no wind conditions. Point is, wind does change things, strong winds change things a lot. It isnt quite as simple as adding windspeed, but it's a good 1st-order approximation. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I think that's only because we fly differently in different winds, Ian. We swoop through the air, but we measure our swoops over the ground. To convert from one coordinate system to the other it's simple math, just as Dan described above. That's physics 101. Assuming the pilot does everything exactly the same on an upwind and a downwind run, the headwind will have an equal but opposite effect as a tailwind. But, since the pilot likely will not do everything exactly the same on an upwind run as on a downwind run, it gets more complicated. Still...you can't argue that you won't go much further with a 6.7 meter per second tailwind than you would with no wind. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just to be clear, is that 'mps' as in meters per second, or 'mps' as in typo for 'mph'? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Clockwise, so the coriolis effect helps. If I went to the southern hemisphere I'd turn the other way.

I had a conversation with Nick Batsch about this a year ago. He told me that his experience with forward/backward lean started with ground launching, where they found that leaning forward caused the canopy to fly flatter while leaning backwards caused the canopy to fly steeper. Translating over to swooping, this means leaning back keeps the canopy in a dive, leaning forward causes the canopy to start recovering. This seems counter-intuitive to me; I would expect the opposite. But that's what the man said, and Nick is probably the best at forward/backward weight shift I have ever seen. I also think there is an aertodynamic benefit...leaning forward in the harness aggressively presents your body to the wind in a more aerodynamic shape, sort of like flying head down vs. belly flying. Personally I agree with Dave that being smooth in the harness is probably more important then forward/backward lean. I also find that forward and backward lean is pretty difficult. I've only seen a few who are really good at it, but they sure get good results. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I personally backslide, but I'm either waving off (at wave off altitude) or giving them the pull signal while I'm doing it, and of course I pull at 3500. I go over those signals on the ground every time. I can understand the notion of tracking, but I think it's better to keep eyes on the student and I think you can get the 'pull' message across without tracking. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just a general comment I'd like to make here. We're focusing the debate on whether or not a coach or SL-I has the flying experience to administer a recurrency dive; the argument is that only an AFF-I should do that. It is easy to wacth the video and conclude someone with the ability to fly in and stabilize and/or pull for the jumper (for instance an AFF-I) could have had a different outcome. I think focusing the debate on who administers a recurrency dive is completely missing the point. I think the debate should be focused on being surprised by your student, which is what happened here. In this particular case, the coach had well over 1000 jumps and I know from personal experience he had the flying capability to fly in on the student. I've personally witnissed it time and time again. He had personally dealt with low pulling students before and had never failed to perform appropriately; he had flown video for countless students (both Tandem and AFF) and chased them all over the sky; he had even flown video for an AFF-I course - you know, the jumps where the examiners INTENTIONALLY do everything wrong to force the candidates to deal with it - and stayed right with them the whole way. The reason things went bad is because the student (recurrency jumper) totally screwed up, the coach was surprised and shocked, and subsequently locked up. An AFF instructor *should* have the abilty to fly in on an unstable student and pull for him, but the question is how will he - or YOU - perform if you get surprised? AFF instructors get surprised, too...they go low, sometimes even go in becasue a student surprised them. They have the ABILITY to perform, but they lock up because they get SURPRISED. I have seen and heard about it happening (on occassion) at DZs all over the country. I really think the point of this video is that students (or even D-licensed recurrency jumpers) can do some amazingly crazy things with no warnings, and you can't afford to be surprised and lock up. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I know lots of them. I personally have observed that I can't see enough to diagnosis problems beyond 10 seconds; I know plenty of SL-I that agree with that number plus or minus a few. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I don't understand this idea that staic line instructors can't teach freefall. It is incorrect. Static line instructors can teach the entire student program, from jump one to the license check dive. They are trained, rated, and expected to teach the exact same skills as an AFF-I, they just use a different method to do so. Only the first five jumps of the static line program are done using an actual static line. Everything after that is in freefall, and the instructor is expected to be able to teach the student, jump with the student, stay with the strudent, and evaluate the student. You cannot become an SL-I without doing these things. The SL program has been eclipsed by AFF, but SL and IAD are still officially recognized and frequently used training programs. Many of the best skydivers today learned in the SL program. They could not have done that if SL instructors could not teach freefall. There are no SL-I with 'no freefall instructional experience'. Such a thing does not exist; you have to instruct freefall before you can get the rating and you must be continually successful in teaching freefall to keep the rating. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

It's done that way all the time at drop zones all over the country, Dave, and it works just fine most of the time. It's common practice, which is why it was written into the regs. This video is one of those times it didn't work. It's easy to watch this video and then attack because of the result, but that's because you have hindsight. I do not believe it passes the common sense test to force someone to work with an AFF-I. What if that DZ has no AFF-I? What if there are no AFF-I on site at the time? What if the student or recurrency jumper didn't learn in the AFF program? Do you send everyone home, even though you have appropriately rated instructors on site who can handle the load? That makes no sense to me, Dave. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

When a student 'passes' a jump, they have to perform at a reasonable level, not perfectly. Coaches exist to help refine and perfect. As I have already stated several times, this gentleman DID make a jump with an instructor, he DID stay stable in freefall and pull at the correct altitude, he DID fly his canopy and land safely, he was just a little rough. He was asked to jump again with a coach to help refine him. That is what coaches are for. It was well withing USPA regs and I think it completely passes the common sense test. Point is, he went from 'rough' to 'unresponsive' very quickly and with little warning. SINCE YOU HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT you are justified in your comments. We did not have that benefit. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

S/L instructors ARE freefall instructors, Dave, they are rated to do all of the freefall jumps with any student who went through the S/L program - stability, turns, flips, tracking, fall rate, docking, all of it. They can also work with an AFF student once that student gets to Category F. They can also do recurrency jumps. Are you saying the only person who can teach freefall is an AFF-I? That isn't true. AFF-I are required to teach and administer an AFF Category A-E jump. That's the only thing they are required for. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"