dudeman17

IF you were planning on doing any tunnel time as part of your training, just prior to the release dive is one of the better times. Not necessary, but it helps. Otherwise, just be relaxed and fluid, not tense and rigid.

A couple jumps ago line twists scared the pee out of you. Now, rolling over on your release dive is fun. See, it's happening already... Ha!

The best altimeter on the planet is... The Planet. It's always right there, it never needs batteries, and it never lies.

Actually it shouldn't be that hard to do. If they've got the fall rate and stability of the airplanes worked out, which apparently they do, I bet most good skydivers could fly the stunt. And with practice, which they are doing, climbing in would become as rote as climbing out. The ballsy part would be if they plan to do the stunt chuteless. Not sure how they would work that out with the authorities. I remember Jimmy Tyler at least claimed he went down to Mexico to do his chuteless stunts, and Travis Pastrana got in some trouble for doing his. Don't know what arrangements Luke made for the net jump. I can't say that I wholly disagree with that. But the promotional/money aspect is the whole/only reason to do something like this.

Taboo? When I first started jumping as a teenager, I went into my mom's laundry room and cut one of the smaller logos off of her box of Bounce and taped it to my Protec. Mom was appalled.

Must be running out of 'net' money. ------- Okay, that was a bit snarky, but the following isn't. Genuine, curious questions... Other than the net jump and Baumgartner's jump, what else has he worked on? Are they planning to not wear rigs on the actual stunt?

Ditto that. I can not imagine skydiving and not wanting the wind in my face.

vs I don't necessarily see those as a conflict that doesn't make sense. I can see Cooper's comment as relating to while they're on the ground refueling and stuff, that he doesn't want any shenanigans meant to delay and trap him. Tina's joke about the money (and then turning it down when he actually offers her some), is a fairly standard technique in a hostage/victim scenario. If she can personalize or endear herself to a perpetrator, it might make him less inclined to kill her. Being a young attractive female, she may have learned that in a rape prevention course, or it might possibly be part of stewardess training?

Are you kidding me? In an environment like this I would far rather consider any possible scenario and have the questions answered before something takes me by surprise in the air. Could this melting sticky stuff infuse the material? What long term effect might that have? Someone mentioned an instance where it took 30lbs of force to pull the bag off. In a live deployment, could that cause a tear? Yeah, I'd really rather know stuff like that beforehand.

Aside from what it may take to pull the bag off of the canopy, does this problem pose a threat to the canopy itself? Could the heated sticky stuff degrade the material? If someone had a rig like this stored through the off season (or longer), would replacing the bag be enough, or might the canopy itself be compromised?

Well that's what I meant. On the 'side' or bottom face as opposed to the end where the closing stows are. I'm aware of all that history behind it, I'm just trying to determine exactly who came up with it.

Well I bought it from Joe Crotwell who was the original owner. I think he worked at AASP and built it himself. So apparently he made it that way on his own preference. If I could repeat the question... I've been trying to find the answer to that for some time and nobody seems to know or agree. I'll shut up now.

Disclaimer: I am not a rigger, so I don't know all the variants like you guys might. But my Handbury rig most definitely does have the continuous through loop as described, and 2 risers. I still have the thing and I just looked at it again. The data thing is faded and the stamps are hard to read, but I believe it says DOM of July '79. It does say model FFE 202. The reason I brought this topic up is that I did put a square reserve in it. It originally had one of Jim's Preserve rounds in it. but I got a Hobbit reserve for it, and Bill Gargano approved a method to put it on 2 risers, and he put a diaper on it so that it could be packed in the container the same way the round was. And I did use it once. ------- Here's a question maybe one of you could answer. It's my understanding that the freebag developed for the Safety Star/Flyer had the line stow pouch on the side like they do today. Do either of you know exactly who invented that pouch?

I'm sure that it did use a through loop. At least mine did. One long line with loops on both ends that threaded under the pack tray and up through the flap grommets. I have something hanging from my ceiling by one of them and am looking at it right now.

The Handbury rig has a two-pin (and two-riser) reserve container and would not accommodate a free-bag, which it's my understanding was developed at PF with the Safety Star and Safety Flyer.

Now you're sounding like a skydiver!

I'm well familiar with the Handbury rig - I still have one in the closet. The reserve riser covers are kind of over the shoulders and, as you say, wrap over the risers and velcro under the harness. The main risers then route over the top of them, and I can see where if the main was still in place, they could impede the reserve risers from opening and clearing the covers. What kind of square reserve did you have in it and how was it packed?

That's interesting. Most likely main risers tightly packed over the top caused the problem? And a round reserve wouldn't really spin and dive as a result. Side note trivia question - Has anyone else ever deployed a square reserve from a Handbury rig?

Clarify that please.

For a post seemingly meant to disagree with mine, that statement seems to agree with the point I was agreeing with. I'm personally not that concerned with their (ulterior) motives. If someone is out there looking for potential flaws in gear function, I'm all for it. ------- To me, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated is the primary reason for an AAD. If someone is fully conscious and capable and they take an AAD fire, then by all rights they should have gone in. NO, I DO NOT prefer that people go in. I prefer that if they are going to place themselves in situations like skydiving that they pay attention to what they are doing.

I would not consider an unconscious AAD fire to be a one-off exception that is unlikely or invalid.

I'm sorry, I just have a hard time letting elementary stuff like that pass. To tie it to your topic, if people are overlooking that point, what else are they overlooking? Keeping twists out of the brake lines? Keeping proper and symmetrical line tension? Things that can contribute to tension knots, while they wait for someone to engineer them out of existence? But I get your point. You're asking a specific question. So I'll leave it at that. Oh, except If you're referring to what I think you are, loop style brake settings preceded tandem rigs by a long shot.

Not necessarily. Just study everything so that it all makes sense. That will ease your anxiety. As will more experience. But this is all still new to you. You're still in the 'Holy crap! What the hell am I doing?!' phase. We've all been there.

Then you need to rethink what you're doing. Complacency kills.