antonija

Don't you think it's a bit selfish to impose this rule on everyone else just because _you_ don't want to see more government oversight, etc.? The fact is that 400k people die from smoking related problems each year in US. Number that high quickly transforms into "just a number" simply because it is really hard to imagine 400k dead bodies as a pile of meat. On the other hand it is very easy to imagine one skydiver dig in times 60. If you wish to save lives, you have much bigger fish to fry than skydiving fatalities. If you really want to help skydivers make informed decision then please don't preach them downsizing charts as the ultimate rule but take time and effort (I know that in some cases that is not possible, but we all try to do our best) to explain them why they shouldn't jump specific canopy. "You have not shown the ability to do solid flat turn with this canopy, you can not downsize" is one constructive limitation, which should be followed by student inquiring how/why/where/when should he improve to be able to downsize. Saying "because it says so in the spreadsheet" is... well... you know I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

I thought about possible consequences in the for of government imposing it's own rules but look at it this way: If we (skydivers) are such morons that we will risk our lives for a bit more "woosh" on landings and looking cool at the DZ, why would government let us do it in the first place? They could simply adopt the approach they use with BASE jumping and make it illegal. Will that stop skydiving injuries and deaths? My guess is no. It would just make it illegal. There is definitely a dilemma in me on this issue: On one hand I am very grateful that people like Brian take time and effort to produce these documents which help to keep us safe(er). On the other hand I deeply resent anyone who imposes these documents as a rule merely on jump numbers. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Then you are wrong. We fail to predict much simpler systems behaviour let alone a human jumping a parachute from a plane. I didn't question Brians experience and knowledge but merely stating the fact that we are not (and will never be) all knowing and able to impose limitations in everything we do in life. ..and I'm also allowed to go smaller. It is just not a wise decision according to Brians knowledge and experience. YMMV (like with everything else). If you can "give" one person the right to make stupid decision about himself, why deny others to do the same? I do realize that this path might lead to more injuries and death but that doesn't give me right to limit someone doing it? And even if you think it gives you that right, wouldn't it be smarter to start at the highest death causes like smoking and such? 400k deaths/year (in US) compared to about 60/year from skydiving must mean something.... If we can allow Darvin to "take care" of so many people through different mechanisms, why should skydiving be exemption? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

This can be very elegantly answered with another quote: I belive I understand it for what it is: It is a guideline every skydiver should consider when deciding on his canopy size. That said I prefer list of skills one should master before downsizing and not some numbers in spreadsheet with no clear description of how they got there (apart from "accident data, many thousands of jumps' worth of canopy flight, and of teaching many people how to fly a canopy" which is not a real explanation). I'm not saying that WL spreadsheets are wrong in general or that they don't serve any purpose, but basing your decision only on them is in my opinion a big mistake. We are all unique in many different ways and it is impossible to determine our behaviour in future, no matter what approach you choose (including statistics which I find to be the most useful tool in predicting human behaviour). While it is true that staying inside the limits proposed by Brian and others should help save lives (I wrote should because there is no proof that larger canopies lead to less accidents, even if the opposite (small canopies lead to more accidents) is "proven") in my mind this is not a reason to limit everyone because of it. To explain my "position" with an analogy: We are all allowed to drive cars (some limitation apply). Any cars as long as they are road legal. This means Yugos with up to 65 bhp (!!!) and Mclaren F1 with 550 bhp (road version). Clearly Mclaren is deathtrap compared to yugo and any reasonable person will shy away from such engine or at very least drive it very very carefully. I apply the same to skydiving: One is allowed to jump any canopy he/she desires, but just like with cars there are guidelines and recommendations what skills you should master before getting into fast rockets and killing yourself (along with others). This is the base of "common sense". Knowing when to seek further knowledge to judge situations correctly. Jumper with 80 jumps is by no means experienced so his personal knowledge wont go very far. Combining his humble experience with recommendations in form of skill list and spreadsheets combined with opinions from instructors (mostly several k jumps and hours under canopy) and other jumpers (experienced canopy pilots) should make for a better or "more true" judgement of the situation. But since people die even if they stay well inside the limits of those spreadsheets it is unreasonable to expect anyone's (including Brians) judgement to be correct or true. There has never been and there will never be a "rule" that can be applied to every human without errors. "Good" examples are dead skydivers which were within limits. I believe that each adult human should be able to make decisions for his/her self, even if it makes difference between life and death. So here is another "interpretation" of WL charts: If you exceed recommended WL for your skill and experience level (number of jumps is really silly criteria to judge skill or experience level, even if it works in some (most) cases) you should expect a higher chance of experiencing harmful or deadly event during your skydive. Now everyone can decide for themselves if added risk is worth it or not. To the OP: My personal opinion at your jump number was that 1.4 WL is too aggressive for my level. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Please don't take this the wrong way but does anyone here really expect that one guy is smart enough to produce a spreadsheet that is correct for _every_single_soul_ in this universe? I do understand that Brian is a great skydiver and canopy pilot and I also realize that he has way more experience than I will ever have, but just from "the obvious" standpoint he can not posses enough knowledge to decide every persons' path without even knowing them or seeing them. The same can be said about >2.0WL rocket pilots. They actually have accidents in perfect weather and perfect spots, but no one runs up to them bitching about how that WL might get them in trouble. Somehow they earned to do "stupid things" that can (and has) led to injury or death. I'm not saying OP should go and buy 1.4WL canopy, but I also don't feel like all those "no"s are as justified as their posters think they are. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

You don't read much, do you? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Talk to your instructor. He/she knows you and saw you under canopy, he/she also knows your tendency to panic and doing stupid shit when you should remain calm. That is why you have people jumping 1.4WL with not so many jumps doing "just fine" and you also have people flying 1.0WL turning low and killing them selves. Just talk to your instructor. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

It's an embroidery. It does not affect container performance or safety what so ever. Why do you think people put wonderhog on their V3Ms and Microns? Because they want others to think that new vector is actually wonderhog?? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Actually googling "gspot" returns suggested software in first hit. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=gspot Seems google is getting smarter... I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Can you tell us what canopies (main and reserve) you got in there? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Sure they are. Especially skyhook. Looks really cool on DZ hidden below that reserve flap. Let me say this: I do think you are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion you are wrong. And judging by your posts no further arguments are required. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

That is not funny. Seriously. When I lived and worked in Switzerland I was supposed to get a UPS Express from the states and it got shipped to Swaziland. It was one-of-a-kind biological sample so they had to keep it frozen the whole way (US->Swaziland->Switzerland). Actually looking back it is kind of funny I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Look at: 1. animal tracking 2. model airplane and rocket tracking and if you have too much time just google for plans for DIY transmitter/responder. You'll find really small stuff that works out of the box and costs up to 100$, maybe 200$ USD. No need to "invent" it. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

I don't REALLY NEED all of those things, they were just listed there as possible preferences people might have. I personally wanted to have skyhook (only few containers) and 3D foam (all containers I guess, haven't seen one that doesn't offer this option). I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

A friend of mine was quoted 30 weeks and ended up waiting 13 months. I don't care if the thig is made of gold and comes sprinkled with diamonds, I'm not waiting a year to get new container. One would think that with this massive wait time they would either 1. increase their production capability 2. decrease availability of their container (increase price basically) #2 would shorten their wait time and also give them more profit with no extra charges. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

I had same dilemma few weeks back. After doing some info digging online and around DZ I figured I'd want to have _something_ that has 3D foam (almost all modern rigs have this option) and skyhook (only javelins and vectors have them; and apparently some icons). Javelin mfg time is 27 weeks. IMO that is waaay to long to wait so I went for vector. The best advice I got when choosing my container was: "Pick things you really need to have (skyhook, mag. riser covers, pop-top reserve PC, etc.) and make a list of containers that offer it. Then pick the prettiest one." :) I guess the point was that all modern containers will be safe for jumping and of good quality, so just pick the one that has everything you need and looks good from your perspective. P.S.: Had Sunpath have normal mfg time (10+/- 5 weeks) I'd go for javelin. EDIT: corrected infinity typo. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Do you mean this one? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Do you want it to log your jumps? Will you connect it to computer? Does it have to be water resistant? I use Neptune because it works with paralog and has all the features I wanted (log, 3 FF alerts, 3 CP alerts, works with paralog). It also works on standard batteries (you can buy them just about anywhere) and has user upgradable firmware. But then again people that have L&B say good stuff about them... I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

This should make all riggers flock to this thread just to give you an answer. What could possibly go wrong? I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

As far as I know microline (spectra) will go out of trim in few hundred jumps. From talking with experienced canopy pilots I know I was told that when you jump high performance canopies at competitive level you will notice change in trim over time, but with bigger, more docile canopies (in my case even 7 cell) the difference is so small that I probably wont be able to notice it. Also Dacron line for main canopies PD sent me is like 5-10 times thicker than 825 spectra. Now my canopy is already listed by container manufacturer as "full fitting" so I really don't wanna push it with thicker lines. So from information I got from other people and from PD I will probably have dacron (untreated) lines on my reserve and 825 spectra on my main. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

I asked and I recieved

..one would assume that current technology (silica based chips) might be nearing it's physical limits. Like CPUs have reached few years ago and we see a stream of multi-core CPUs today. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Yeah, but if you just swap current chip with new cheaper one (and we know chips themselves are cheap already) you still need to redesign just about every piece of electronics (and maybe software) to actually get that picture to human format. It might even make it more expensive because of "cost of design, engineering, tooling into the cost of the new chip" you mentioned. I hope we'll see something better, cheaper and more robust but quite honestly I'm not holding my breath. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

There might be something wrong with this claim. I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Awesome keychain!!! I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne