jerm

Members
  • Content

    924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by jerm

  1. indeed. i feel similarly about state records. what's the point/challenge if the only difference is where you land? Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  2. Oh, absolutely. There was no sarcasm in my praise.. i think it's great...was just confused :) Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  3. Oh cool! a worthy distinction.. congrats!!! (thanks for the info) Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  4. maybe.. all the articles seem to say "biggest ever", though none seem to be claiming "world record".. hmmm Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  5. Wondering if anyone knows about THIS women's record I've seen from a few different news outlets. I'm failing to see how this trumps the 181way women's record from 2009 JFTC... anyone? They keep saying "flower", which would make sense as a record, except it looks really whacker-y to me. Insights? Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  6. that may be true in NYC proper, certainly Manhattan.. but it's certainly enough to build one in, say, Yonkers. YMMV in east NJ, Bronx, BK, etc... Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  7. What a stupid stunt.. i mean.. soft porn... really? I expect hard-core from skydivers... seriously. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  8. was this back when STL got kicked out of orange county, or something else? Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  9. in some cases that would be true, but in this case: a) freefall express isn't a dz, it's an aircraft company 2) even if you count the Ranch as "the invading DZ" because of its close ties with FFE, the airport is privately owned by a group of ranch hands, never mind it _really_ doesn't have the room for another operation. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  10. one positive test only proves that it CAN work, it doesn't prove that it WILL work, so his test only shows what was already known, that a backpad mounted cypres can save the day w/o a hangup. One positive test is no cause for celebration. One negative test prices that it does _not_ work every time, and is certainly cause for concern. now, in the case of the russian mirages i heard tell that the rigs were packed with loops so long that it's a wonder they looked airworthy, but that was 3rd party at best. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  11. most of us have done real-world testing, and many of us, myself included, have data that directly contradicts your assertions. Ron has posted video that debunks your 'myth' claim. I've also posted a bunch of very plausible real-world reasons why instability is quite possible, even probably, and you've conveniently ignored them. Please explain away everything sited above. in the meantime, i call shenanigans on your myth myth Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  12. you're right.. the RSL itself does not actually cause line twists. However, reserve deployment not-quite-immediately following breakaway does. Your assertion re: "And when is the last time you have ever seen someone spin on multiple axis post breakaway? It's a myth. " is flawed on a few levels: your logic makes sense in a vacuum where tangents are nice and clean, but in the real world, you will have very inconvenient relative wind direction and even more inconvenient bosy symmetry the moment you cutaway... that can make someone tumble post cutaway / pre line stretch and cause all sorts of havok your theory is more relevant with a skyhook because of how quickly you reach line stretch, but it's still naive to assert that the spin is the only relevant force variable in a spinning cutaway situation. And all of that is ignoring any residual rotation one's body may still have with respect to the canopy -- if you were still spinning in or out of the twists when cutting away. I'm happy that all of your chops have been picture-perfect examples of highschool physics equations, but a broader look at the variables involved in the situation and the vast anecdotal evidence quickly disprove your assertion that it just doesn't happen. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  13. if you, best as one can, frame-by-frame through the slow-motion version, you can see that the reserve does indeed delpoy 'normally' until it gets snagged across the horizontal stabilizer. The video isn't good enough to note any actual damage to the fabric or lines, but in the split second that half the canopy is draped over the stabilizer, you can make out the right 2, now semi-inflated, cells flipping through several of the suspension lines. setting itself up to become the ball of shit that it does once free of the aircraft. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  14. find a CRW camp and go take it... you will learn amazing amounts about controlling your canopy and flying it with precision up in the air. take an accuracy course and you'll learn about flying it with precision close to the ground go do the high hop&pop with someone, and play with a cloud. give it all a try and see what works for you Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  15. that is the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it. well, yes and no.. i was being an extreme example to illustrate my point ;) Complex is a relative term. Do i think that their complexity outweighs their usefulness? No. But they are certainly more complex than a rig w/o them. They offer more opportunities for someone to screw something up and that added complexity should be taken into account in the decision making. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  16. then buy 2 rigs :-P Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  17. Nah bro, didn't you know...? ...there are some in here that are far too cool and experienced for any abnormal shit to happen to them. oh will you get off it already? why are you so hung up on coolness? Nobody here is bringing cool or fashion or "i have too many jumps" into this, yet you keep pretending that they do. i could just as easily accuse _you_ of trying to be the cool guy by insisting on having the latest whiz-bang gadget. does that new gadget make you sleep better at night, Mr cool upt fanboy? Does getting that extra word in on the forums even though you haven't said anything help your ego? see? adds nothing to the conversation other than thinly veiled personal attacks. So please, further the conversation or don't waste the bandwidth, this isn't the bonfire. For my part, i think the skyhook, and MARDs in general, are great bits of kit that people spend way too much energy and rig-buying-decision-making power on. One thing that nobody here has brought up as a downside to the skyhook is how it complicates the rigging. Between the collins lanyard and the skyhook, there's a lot of added complexity that, while not rocket science, should be taken into account as points of failure and confusion for both the user and (hopefully to a lesser extent) the rigger. All that being said, if my sport-rig manufacturer (i jump them all the time on tandems) started supporting the skyhook, would i jump one? Not sure, it's still an RSL after all, though a more compelling one, for sure. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  18. indeed! like the PC in tow discussions :) i used tube stows for years on my locking stows... easier and faster to get through the grommets.. never liked them on my regular stows, tho... didn't hold tight enough with small lines -- i doublestow regular sized rubbers for those. i think i only stopped because it's easier to get a tight stow with rubberbands than tubestows with technora lines Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  19. John Sherman also thinks the racer is the epitome of rig design, i know a few people with more experience than he who differ quite vehemently. i also know several master riggers and a couple of DPREs who refuse to pack racers with the newer freebags. They have, combined, hundreds of years in the sport/industry and are equally convinced that rubberbands on a reserve bag are a bad,bad idea. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  20. I packed it earlier. Therefore it's getting sealed after i packed it. Why is it that in one sentence you're talking about how the regs are conctrete and literal but then in the next start inserting meaning that doesn't exist in the language of the reg? Again, why is my seal any less valid after putting a battery in is it's all my work? It IS after i packed it, and the reg doesn't prohibit it. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  21. if you want to get really pedantically literal about it, it doesn't say only immediately after packing it... it only says after packing it. In fact, by the letter of the law you're clinging so seemingly literally to, as long as I've packed that rig at ANY point in the past, i can seal it. This is, of course, absurd. It's quite clear that the intention and interpretation of that poorly written regulation means that only if i was the most recent person to pack it, may i seal it. You interpret it more narrowly saying that it only counts if done immediately after a repack, but that's not literally what the reg says, that's your interpretation. If i open my packjob to replace a battery, and reseal it, i'm still dealing it after i packed it... it may be 3 months after i packed it, but by the letter of the law, that's allowable. Did i pack it(last)? yes. Is it airworthy? yes... why can't i seal? I can understand the thinking for broken seals. As much as you trust a customer, once the rig has left your possession, you can never really know if the packjob under the hood is still yours. If i'm the one breaking my own seal for maintenance though, why is my new seal any less good than the one that was just on there? Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  22. I don't feel comfortable looping the excess back anyway. I don't think that could be more secure, they are a pain in the ass to use. I don't like those excess line keepers without velcro. I prefer risers with velcro. "i prefer" "i don't like" "i feel comfortable" those are all well and good for our own personal reasons, but it doesn't add much to the discussion unless unless you tell us why. At one point you mentioned something about a "big knot", but you didn't explain your assertion. Again, no "why" So, very specifically, have you identified any sort of actual safety issue with the method in question? Or is this all just an "ooh that's weird and different" reaction? So far you haven't given us any reason to think it's anything but the latter. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  23. why not? What's the issue that you see with it? I've tried to be skeptical about this method in the past but have yet to actually come up with anything wrong with it. Please share your critiques. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  24. if i were unscrupulous and trying to evade import tarifs (which if course i would never ever do) i would say repair or returning item.. that way there hasn't been a transaction for the full amount of the item, and shouldn't incur taxes, even if it IS over $1000. But if you can fall under the limit and not be at huge risk by underinsuring, that's probably a good idea, too. or would be, if i would do such a thing. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time
  25. meh.. the video is 1st person, so beyond just getting do see the opening clusterfsck, it's pretty dull. remind me to look for it after bridgeday. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time