drewcarp

What kind of plane is that?

http://download.cnet.com/Free-YouTube-Downloader/3000-2071_4-75219434.html?tag=mncol;3 Free, works and from download.com so it's 'clean'. Just make sure to do a custom install and not install the bloatware toolbar. GOM media player is free and will grab stills from video as well.

Awesome thread. I'd def say exiting is the best part of the whole awesome deal. Break off is a blast too. I like the yank of the canopy and feet swinging under me. The canopy ride for me, not as much. More stress than fun, looking out for others and I don't turbulence still freaks me out but it's all worth it for those exits! And the rush of cold air when the door opens and walking towards the door, seeing the plane fly away kicks ass. Fuck I wish it wasn't so damn cold here.

Well, she posted her contact info up on a public Yahoo groups page so I'd assume she wants to hear your opinions on the matter? Since she is monitoring the radios and noting every time a plane goes up, she probably wouldn't mind if you give hear a call or email if you need to know how loud it was because you want to write a letter. Maybe you have bad hearing so you can't hear the planes but you still support her cause of shutting down business that people can hear or see from their homes? Kimberly Gibbs 7468 Mt. Sherman Road, 80503 Gunbarrel, CO 303-530-6918 [email protected] Hey, my dog barks at airplanes too, and he's got a great personality, don't be so quick to judge

We had a discussion on this some time back. I think it was in the Training forum. I take the position that Night Jumps should only be required for those who, 1. Want to do them and 2. For those who wish to do night demos whether they are Pro Rated or not. Reason being that a D license is required for a competition and a tandem instructor rating. Night tandems are prohibited and competition does not take place at night. My feeling is why make someone prove they can survive 2 night landings uninjured when that is the only time they are going to do so. IMHO It adds no skill to doing tandems or competing. Nothing in the regs says you can't injure yourself!

Pot meet kettle... Really? Wow, how insightful. Thanks! (goes off to cross "Be called a pretentious douche in a round about way on DZ.com" off his bucket list..) Well I mean come on, the guy is a journalist describing his FIRST jump experiences as he recalls them...and quite eloquently I might add. Instead of congratulating him on the success of the jump or the book or the interview, why is it necessary to swager 17 years of knowledge and experience with nit-picking every tiny detail he relates? I would venture YOU couldn't precisely recall every little detail of every little thing YOU did on your 1st time...isn't it a bit egotistical and judgemental to call someone else a 'pretentious douche' because you can spot errors in what they are saying? I would hope that anyone with any kind of history with the sport at all could see & understand that what he did and what he said don't exactly match...but so what? He doesn't tell the story to 'hurt' anyone, or change anyone's idea regarding the adventure...why denigrate his character? I agree, some here have drank too much of their own kool aid. Lots of skydivers are more annoying blithering on about skydiving to people who don't know or care about it. And then they come here to whine that everyone asks them stupid questions, like their their boss or some guy with 1 jump on TV should of been born with an inherent knowledge of a fringe sport. So what if he forgot the details, who didn't their first jump? He seemed pretty excited about the sport and spoke well of his experience, much better than most press we get. Reminds me of an Onion article, "Factual Error Found on Internet" STFW?

Question...Will a 2 out with lightly loaded canopies respond to harness input? It seems like harness input would steer both canopies much more equally than pulling risers or toggles on just one. If its stable and you have a place to land that doesn't need sharp turns I'd say don't mess with it by releasing the toggles. If you overcompensated and yanked the breaks that could send the back canopy into the front one which sounds like bad juju. But guess I do see how you could maneuver faster with the front toggles if you needed to and were all smooth and skilled and shit, which I'm not. Good discussion.

The possibility of that little white loop breaking has always bugged me. You can't inspect the connection point to the riser and if it breaks on the wrong riser (rsl side assuming you don't have a skyhook) it will fire your reserve into your half connected main, ya? I have mixed feelings on the skyhook as I think everyone should but that's one situation where it would help, up high at least and I suppose the white loop is probably under the most force at deployment when there would still be plenty of time for your reserve to deploy if a white loop broke. Kinda scary to think that when it comes down to it you are really only connected to your canopy by the same kind of little shoestring that most of us have broken as closing loops. And if it is incorrectly stitched or rigged will break. Has there been many incidents of the white loop breaking?

The smaller the canopy is the shorter the lines are. Shorter lines make a canopy more responsive to your inputs. Someone with more experience can likely give a more in depth answer. Canopy sizing advice on DZ.com is generally better on DZ.com than on most DZ's. Depending on your goals that is.

+1 If you want to take a risk at least make it a fun one, riding up in airplane you know is probably way over do on MX isn't any fun. And dying in an airplane you knew wasn't maintained, even to the lowest FAA standard, is really dumb. No seatbelts, fucking seriously? Wow, what cowboys, impressive. Try out a wing suit or do some low pulls if you want to get dangerous. Much more badass and fun than giving money to a guy who deliberately puts your life at risk just so he can earn a few more $$'s. That should really piss most people off, can't understand why it wouldn't.

I hear that a lot too and can't figure out why. What's the big deal about having a canopy that big and easy to land? Is it really that boring to be suspend thousands of feet above the earth by a little more nylon and string when you could have gotten away with a little less? Especially if you are like a lot of skydivers and get uncurrent a lot. I just got rid of my canopy that everyone said would be good because I'm only semi comortable with it in ideal situations, much less landing it off or downwind on a hot day after a 4 months off for winter, or on rears if a break sticks, drop a toggle, .... Granted, I'm conservative because I was lucky to scare myself early on a couple times under canopy and got to learn about crutches for a few weeks and most unfortunantly had 2 of my instructors go in my first season on swoops gone bad, one was only loaded at 1.4. So I guess I saw the bad side of fast canopies earlier than most. I'd rather have my fun in free fall and know that I can likely land my main, downwind, on a roof, after a winter layoff, in a little turbulance, if I drop a toggle on final....without assured injury if (when) something unexpected happens. And when shit does happen you are always better off the more fabric, a partial collapse, collision, lineover, stuck break, blown cell, 2 out, step through, tree landng, hitting wires.....etc etc etc. It's classic 80/20 for me, I can have 80% of the fun of skydiving on a big canopy and only expose myself to 20% of that risk. You could argue the numbers but I think most will get what I'm saying. Most of the risk these days is under canopy and it's really easy to minimise it. If you want to be a swooper, awesome, go for it I'd love to watch. But if you want to be a conservative jumper and improve your odds of walking without titanium when you're old there's no need to jump the smallest canoopy you think you can get away with. The bigger your canopy is when everything goes to shit the slower you hit the ground! But I seem to be alone in this argument and you will get made fun of for having a big canopy so you should probably just get a 170, most people end up fine. No one "needs" to work on downsizing at all if they don't feel the need to land faster. You can jump a 280 forever if you want a little (actually a lot of) extra safety margin which judging by your post that's the type of jumper you are. Why does everyone one insist new jumpers must work down to something that as small as they can possibly get away with? We give ouselves safety margins with every other decision in this sport but no one wants any extra parachute over their head?

You don't NEED a wing loding of 1.06. That's the max you should have. Nothing wrong with a more lightly loaded wing and it might be nice to have a little more fabric while you are learning.

I think I want to upsize (I know, I know, sorry, another upsizing thread) and was wondering what I can fit in my Mirage G4 M6. Currently I have a Pilot 210 (not zpx). Love the Pilot but I think its a bit fast for me at this point. Will a Pilot 230 ZPX fit in an M6, anybody doing that? I'm looking for any options that are bigger and slower that will fit in my M6. Thanks for all your responses. DC

From my very limited exposure to both I wouldn't ever say base is safer but doesn't it depend a lot on the kind of base jumping? Skydiving already pegs pretty high on my acceptable risk-o-meter but I do kind of want to jump a big wall once or twice just to mark it off the list. Big walls are certainly much safer than antennas or buildings, right? A 3000 feet its pretty close to a skydive minus the reserve, yeah?

Stickers dude. You can hear almost as well under canopy and it won't whistle in free fall.

WTF is a kite tube? Sounds fun...

Thanks Deyan. So it is just 2 "bartacks" holding it all together. Any idea why its not visible so you can inspect along with the rest of the gear check? Could a rigger take the cover off or would that be a bad idea?

I have a dumb question about the 3 ring setup on my Mirage. So the white loop that holds the 3 rings in place is tacked under some cloth on the riser so you can't inspect the stitching. If the while loop breaks or comes unattached, that riser will disconnect and if it happens on your RSL side it will disconnect and your reserve will fire into your half connected main, right? My question is does anyone one else worry about the white loop coming undone or breaking and disconnecting a riser? I'm assuming due to the mechanical advantage of the three rings that the white loop never comes under much tension but still.. There doesn't seem to be a good way to check that the stitching looks good, being covered by cloth and failure of either white loop would likely be catastrophic right? What am I missing? There seems to be lots of redundancy everywhere else but just a little white loop with the stitching covered up to keep the risers attached?

Could anyone who has jumped both a Pilot and a Storm or Spectre do a little comparing and contrasting? I just a bought a rig with a Pilot 210 and was debating trying to sell it and upsize to a 7 cell 230 of some sort so I'm on the safer side. The WL on the 210 is 1/1 but I'm landing at 5K feet so everything is a little sportier here and I wouldn't mind the extra material. I have about 20 jumps on a Storm 210 and a few Spectre 230 jumps as well so I was wondering how the Pilot will compare (I'll find out myself this weekend, hopefully). I was also considering demoing a Pulse 230 because it would fit in my M6, if anyone has any comments on lightly loaded Pulses or any 230 that packs small vs Pilots I'd love to hear that as well. Thanks!

Had an AAD save a friend a few months ago (vigil/mirage if you must know) The saves are less published than the failures, which are still very rare. You odds are much better with one than without. Considering what the device is suppose to do I'm quite surprised they are as reliable as they are. Closing loops probably break with much greater frequency than Cypress misfire, I would guess. I agree they aren't perfect. container design seems to have a lot to do with AAD's not opening containers. I heard the least bad things about Cypress's so that's what I have. And outside of my lemonade and vodka that's all I got at midnight

Brian's chart says that I should be jumping a 270 (248 MIN) and I weigh 215 WITH gear including the 40sf add for density altitude which is often 8000ft+ in the summer in CO. Am I adding that all up right? I don't see anyone but AFF students jumping 260sf+ canopies so i bought a Pilot 210 but I'm considering trying to trade it for a 7 cell 230 that would fit in my M6, is that still too small? Should I really be looking for a 260/280, even though I only weigh 215 out the door, for a first canopy?

So I have always tried to be pretty conservative when it comes to my choices skydiving especially with gear and the kind of jumps I do, or at least I thought. Now I'm looking at Brian Germain's WL chart and realized that my "conservative choice" will significantly exceed his chart. I have no desire to be an aggressive canopy pilot and I have no desire to swoop, I just want a soft landing. I don't mean to knock the chart or Brian as I think it's a really good thing and he is a very good guy to listen to but it says I should be flying a 270 until 120 jumps, does no one really follow this chart or is my situation just unique? Here is the breakdown. Weight: 190 w/o gear, guessing 220 with gear + Chart says add 10sf per 2000 feet in density altitude. I jump at mile high in CO (8000ft density alt. on most summer days) = ADD 40sf. = 270 or at MINIMUM a 248 until I have 120 jumps? So far I have jumped... 280 - 20 jumps 260 - 5 240 (Nav) - 5 230 (Spec) - 10 210 (Storm) - 20 I don't wanna jinx myself but I have stood up all my landings fine except number 1 and 4. I ask because I just bought a 210 Pilot with a PDR193. Now that I think about it I think I might rather have a 230 in there but I would still be busting the chart by 20%. Should I really be shopping for a 260 for my first canopy to stay relatively conservative? I haven't seen anyone jumping a 260 that isn't still in AFF, what's the deal? Is the chart not as linear or important to follow closely in the upper ranges or should I look for something bigger? Has anyone fit any 230's into a Mirage M6 in a very dry climate?

For sure. The point I was trying to get at (poorly) was that any rational outsider would think is that if we can solve the hard problem of making parachutes very reliable and nearly always sure to save you from certain death then surely we can keep them from running into one another in a huge sky. Obviously not the case though, unfortunately. Seems pretty dumb. People always bitch about regulation in skydiving but it is the only thing that is going to stop these collisions. As long as just anyone who desires to can go buy the parachute equivalent of a F-16 for a grand and fly it willy-nilly with little chance of anyone enforcing the admittedly pretty loose 'rules' then these collisions are going to happen. And probably kill 2 people, one of whom likely did nothing wrong. Though it does seems many DZ's are stepping up enforcement. Regulation does suck, but getting taken out while doing nothing wrong sucks more and so does killing yourself on a canopy you have no business flying. When most people enter the sport they wrongly assume skydiving to be like most semi dangerous recreational activities and that their safety is looked out for and regulated much more than it is in our sport. Diving wrecks requires extra certifications. So does doing aerobatics and flying high performance airplanes. Many people expect to be stopped prohibited or warned when they are about to bite off more than they can chew because most places they are but skydiving seems to encourage going big and dangerous and not talking about the incidents or keeping the details because someone might get sued frequently more than taking a cautions approach to a very dangerous activity like HP canopy flight. Which can be fun and wild crazy and a big rush but learning how do it right and proving it doesn't take away from the fun IMO The world wouldn't stop turning if you had to have 1000 jumps before you could load fly a canopy loaded over 1.5 and had to display some knowledge and skills that would dramatically increase your (and others) chance of survival. Manifest checks your reserve date before your jump but how dare they check that you are qualified to fly around your F-16 of a canopy in crowded skies? Sounds pretty backassward. Requiring that people demonstrate competence before risking others lives is standard nearly everywhere other than skydiving. The fact that myself and others, when flying a plane, can't perform high speed dives at the runway on any give Saturday at the airport doesn't make flying any less fun. If I want to do low level aerobatics I can get the training and go learn away from other traffic. It also doesn't take away from my fun that you need a certain amount of training before one flies a high performance airplane. In fact most should enjoy participating in the training and learning how to do it correctly and without endangering yourself and others and it is more of an accomplishment when you do get rated. Why is it so bizarre that we might require people to demonstrate some competence before risking others lives for their personal amusement of flying an HP canopy? Today's fatal collision in Australia is a good example of how not to do it. I bet the guy with under 1k jumps on 2.7 loaded JVX 84 who died would have rather been reasonably held back until he was ready to fly that canopy than die during his trial and error certification. Ian, not directed at you at all just a general question for anyone who feels like typing out an answer.

Q: What will do I do to improve canopy safety? A: Try to remember every moment that parachuting is very dangerous because each moment I forget that fact exponentially increases the chance of death or grievous bodily injury to myself or others. Mind my own business and don't hit anybody or get in anybody's way. Quote Just like you do here on DZ.com, huh? Are you too old to learn any new tricks or is your ego too tied up in fact that if less people die your sport you won't seem so extreme? Separate passes or H&P only for HP landings is the future, how many people have to die first is the only question. Yes, I know non HP pilots collide sometimes too but the difference is that with non HP BOTH pilots have the opportunity to avoid the collision. If you get hit from above and behind by someone going really fast you were never really given a chance. I would also fully support some jump number requirements for certain wing loadings, that seems like common sense though. It wouldn't make any sense to let any yahoo with 100 hours in 172's go fly a Pitts, which is what is happening now with canopies. In the mean time I will use a really bright canopy, land far away or pull high and wait for everyone else to land. Not going to lie though the canopy collision problem makes me jump a lot less and enjoy it less when I do, and that sucks. It is fucking retarded though that the most dangerous thing on a skydive is other skydivers hitting you AFTER everyone's parachutes open. Most people would assume as long as the parachute opens you are home free, which could be the case if we all wanted it to be. I just hope me or my friends don't become another reason to change things. Cheers

So many extremely experienced people must be putting their trust in something. Never been there but lots of experienced people do lots of dumb shit, doesn't make it any safer. Then again, I bet they will maintain the planes really well from here on out.