Scottjk

I'm getting back in to freeflying after a 8 year hiatus. I'm noticing most pants and suits seem to be more form fitting and less bell bottom baggy. I'm thinking about trimming my Merlin pants to ankle length, removing the bell bottom and then reattaching the velcro closure. I don't care if I look like a Smithsonian Kook, I just don't want to fight fall rate with others on organized loads. Might help stabilize my sit with less work. S

I'm dusting off the rust... been gone for a few years. I'm going to slowly get back in to the sport. I'm just curious how the Birdman Skyflyer 3 compares to current suits with similar wing area. Is it still a viable suit for flocking? Has there been any information or bulletins put out on the Skyflyer 3 in the past 6 years I need to know about? Thanks Scott

I remember seeing a audible computer that uses varying beep rates depending on glide ratio. Can someone steer me to the site or give me the name. Thanks Scott

No it wouldn't be more appropriate. How many hits do you think this post will get here as opposed to where it was. S

I'm lucky to be able to jump at many dropzone across the country and it truly amazes me how many people I ride with that don't wear seat belts and decide to not wear helmets for takeoff. Even though accidents don't occur frequently the one time it happens to you are you going to be one of those that positively or negatively impact safety. Not wearing a seat belt endangers EVERY person in the airplane, not just yourself. Not wearing a helmet endangers yourself and if you don't secure it it endangers everyone around you. Internal velocities of unsecured items during a crash can cause catastrophic injuries to anyone in the trajectory path. Being a commercial airline pilot I do things religiously with the intention of preparing for the worst with expectations for the best. Just last week I did my ritual tug on the window handle and after 14 years and thousands of flight hours later it opened up for the first time. Would it have been catastrophic, no, but it sure could have caused a chain of events that we didn't need. My point is, plan for the worst and expect the best. Choosing not to wear your seat belt and failure to secure your helmet, either on your head or through your chest strap, puts everyone in danger. If you see someone not wearing their seat belt or securing their helmets you need to speak up. It may not only be your life you are saving but everyone on the aircraft. Best wishes to everyone involved in todays accident. Scott ps. This post isn't speculating on injuries and the cause there of, it is simply a reminder of accidents do happen and we need to be prepared.

That is it. Thanks! Scott

I'm shooting with a Diamond/Liquid .3 and need to find a way to protect the lense. I faintly remember someone producing a slide over UV protector but I can't find the site. Anyone got any ideas? Scott

Does anyone have any ideas on how to make a rotatable mount that will connect a Cookie Composite PC105 box to a helmet. This would take care of 2 problems. First: Allow the box to be mouted without using spacers (square box to semi-rounded helmet). Second: Allow the camera angle to be easily adjusted during backtrack filming. What I need is some type of dial mount, preferable ratcheted, that can be loosed and rotated. It has to be light and thin so the box doesn't stick out to far off the helmet. Scott

As far as I know all you need is a GPS that you can hook to your computer via serial port. As long as the GPS has enough memory to store enough points during the jump I don't think it matters how advanced it is. I have not had a chance to use it yet and I don't think I will be able to because the GPS unit I am using is bluetooth only. Scott

For those of you flying with GPS's you might want to take a look at this program I ran across awhile back. I have not used it yet but it seems to have everything I am looking for in a plotting program. If anyone decides to use this, please post your data tracks so we can take a look. http://www.stransim.com/tracer.htm Scott

Hi. Just curious if anyone has a copy, preferably PDF format, of the user manual for the PC105. Just picked one up off EBAY with no manual. Thanks Scott

BIggest problem with the 109 is that you have to have the base connected to a power source and the camera plugged to the base to use firewire. In other words, there is no firewire port on the camera itself. This is a huge drawback as far as I'm concerned so I went with the 105. Apprently the CCD is better on the 105. Scott

Sorry, even with your background you are missing the point and are completely wrong about a Cypres equiped rig not looking anymore hazardous than a radio or computer. Organic material placed inside an electronic item is fairly easy to detect. What isn't easy to find are the detonators. Have you ever looked at a Cypres equiped rig as it goes through the xray? You are exactly right, no security is 100% but that also isn't the point. If something looks like the PERFECT IED as it comes through the checkpoint that can't be fully scrutinized do you honestly think it is good policy to allow it to pass through? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of having to check rigs at the ticket counter. I'm just trying to help people understand where the TSA and screeners are coming from. One way for them to allow rigs to be carried on is to FIRST scan them with the CTX or LLL EDS and mark them as non-explosive. Then during the xray checkpoint when the question comes up of what it is, which SHOULD be every time, it will have a security tag stating that it is non-explosive. As with any organization, especially new ones, people may unfortunately find various policies at different airports, like the previous post about SouthWest's policy. As of 3 months ago Cypres rigs were not specifically approved by TSA and they are the ones that decide what goes and what doesn't, not the airlines. With everything on TSA's plate I wouldn't count on having a defined policy anytime in the near future. So some places you may get it on and some you may not.

Hi. I'm an airline pilot with one of the US majors and also worked with TSA as a trainer for the new security check points. The problem with traveling with rigs is the fact that on the xray it looks as though Cypres equiped rigs contain all the components of an improvised explosive devise. I worked with the FAA Hazmat crew at Salt Lake International to get an idea of exactly how it looked on the xray as well as how the screeners would react. I've trained screeners on the xray and I can tell you that if a Cypres equiped rig comes through the checkpoint and isn't questioned the screener is not doing his job. The problem isn't having a Cypres on board the aircraft, the problem is that the rig cannot be completely scrutinized to verify that it actually is a Cypres and that no other items are inside the rig, unless you want to blow your reserve. So basically the issue isn't whether the DOT has the Cypres cutter listed as non hazardous but what TSA policy will end up being regarding items that flag as a bomb and are unable to be verified. I'm extremely surprised that checkpoints are actually letting Cypres rigs through. To those of you traveling I would have a back up plan in case you can't get through. I wish I could hold out hope that the USPA and TSA will come to a conclusion that would allow us to carry our rigs on but from a pilot and TSA trainer standpoint I honestly don't see how they can while they still utilize standard xray at the checkpoints. If taking someones word is good enough to identify specific items then why don't we just go back to the old way of doing things. Also, what would have happend if the bomb that brought down the PanAm flight over Scotland had been brought through a security checkpoint. Would the screener have noticed something inside the radio that didn't look right but let it go since it could be easily identified as a radio? See my point?