condorandino

I get what you're saying, and in theory something along those lines might be beneficial to 'certain' people regarding certain circumstances. But in the real world it would likely be a logistical nightmare to institute & oversee. The USPA resources are extremely limited at this point, bringing about an 'additional' program such as this just wouldn't be something that would be practical on a cost effective basis. That said ~ situations such a you describe 'should' fall under the heading of good judgement & common sense. What we REALLY need is a program that both teaches & oversees the concept of personal responsibility. Believe it or not, there once was a time in this sport people didn't need a manual & a flowchart to know how & when to fart in the airplane. Feasible is the question. Since jump numbers are a reasonably safe way to know at least how many exits and landings someone has, it is a rough estimate of 'air awareness' as well. Sure...someone with 10,000 skydives and five wingsuit jumps isn't likely to be a good wingsuit pilot, nor is a wingsuiter with 3500 WS skydives likely ready for a four way head-down with multiple points. However, USPA and its general member BOD have indicated they don't want advanced training, ratings, resource materials at any level to 'clog' the system. Even when the members indicate they want it by way of multiple votes. Ergo, additional bureaucracy won't fit the bill, and do we really want it? Jump numbers are a very good baseline. Not perfect by any means, but neither would certificates handed out over a beer and a bonfire. Yes, I get what you are both saying... and I do agree with those headlines... just wanted to make sure we stopped discussing something that wasn't leading us anywhere (tunnel vs jumps). Now we're advancing the discussion, and I really think we should be open and more creative... air collisions have become a factor we have to address in some other way. I too, am unkeen of more bureaucracy... nevertheless, the problem persists... jump numbers are not a good horizontal measure, it's just a vertical measure of experience and knowledge (and why not say "survivability"). Perhaps then, we could think not in a certificate to allow people to go into any given jump, but a rating for someone organizing those jumps (for example a Wingsuit coach rating would be required to organize 3-5 ways; or Freefly coach rating to organize 3-6 freefly-ways; or RW Instructor rating to organize 8+ ways). Those guidelines would raise the responsability of those more experienced (and also give an objective measure - as bad as it might be - of "good judgment").

I think we are all losing the point here... the real discussion is not jump numbers vs tunnel time. Both measures can easily over/underestimate ones ability to fly safely. A guy/girl that has spent 1.000 jumps doing mostly solo, small ways on his/her belly and camera jobs, without doing any coaching on tracking, shouldn't be allowed to do a 14-way tracking jump. His/her ability is overestimate (by current jump count measure) to do that specific jump. A guy/girl that has 300 jumps with 200 of those with an experienced tracking coach, having attended several boogies and camps with very competent LOs, could be alot more proficient and safe to jump with, in a big-way tracking jump, than the guy/girl on the first example. And I still haven't included tunnel time on this equation... so, no, not even jump numbers, neither tunnel time tells you the whole story. The "home" article today in dropzone.com is about tracking/atmo/wingsuit accidents and prevention... so we could be discussing different ways to measure ones ability/proficiency (safely, of course) to fly in each type of jump/discipline/jump complexity, regardless of jump numbers AND tunnel time... Perhaps a certificate and/or license to jump X discipline with Y requisites (card) up to Z number of participants would be the best way to do it.... is it feasible to apply this kind of "measure" in the skydiving world? Better.... how it could become feasible?

Have been jumping my Pilot 168 zpx since my jump n. 50 (now I have 111) so I guess now I can write about it. Before the Pilot I jumped Silhouettes 190 and 170. Order and delivery time Very nice to order thru my dealer here in Brazil, delivery time (by them) was 10-12 weeks, but it took around 18-20 weeks... not a big problem for me, though. Colors Nice colors selection, mine came exactly as I wanted (a black, red and yellow 168 zpx) Packing Thought by other reviews that it would be easier to pack the Pilot ZPX, but I'm having a hard time doing... specially because it's mounted on a Micron V310, which is tight for my 168 sqft Pilot. The color tabs are great and made it easier for a novice packer, as myself, to start. Openings Great openings! Consistent 200-300 ft soft openings. It's amazing that it opens losing little altitude (at least for me) and still soft. had around 5 90 degree offheading openings and two hard ones... but I guess it was most probably a packing issue than canopy's fault. most of the openings are soft onhead. Responsiveness Great, simply great... my canopy is part of my body... it goes exactly where I want and has the aggressiveness I want.. it responds to input as expected. I was used to a Silhouette 170, so I felt the Pilot 168 was a lot faster and sensible. I feel the front raisers are very heavy, but my WL is around 1,05 so I couldn't expect them to be very light anyway. Gliding Can just say I came back from 3 miles with mild wind against... and with just a little front raiser input to land perfectly Flares and Landing Nice, constant, continous... very intuitive. Came hot some times in no wind days and yet I was able to control the canopy with the correct flare input. Landed near the target and on my feet every single time. Now I'm starting (slowly) to do 90 degree turns on final approach and the canopy has behaved pretty nicely with a short recovery arch, and gaining enough speed to do up to 30 feet swoops... guess I have a lot to learn and get from this canopy yet, at this WL I'm using it (1.05). Overall Great all around intermediate canopy

This altimeter is very well thought, and although some people said it is not intuitive to use, I didn't find it too hard to understand and get used to. After 15 minutes reading the manual I was able to use the computer easily. I guess the commands are programmed in a way that no accidental changes can be made (i.e. if you want to turn off the unit you have to ENTER the menu, go to the OFF submenu, PRESS a button to start changing a variable, MATCH this variable to the number on the left side and press ENTER again - it's not very hard to understand, but it's not like a cell phone, thankfully). Also, some things really impressed me (and reinforced what I said about being well thought): 1. the unit auto-adjusts itself to ZERO all the time, so you don't have to worry if your base ground is correct, it is; 2. It remains ON for 14 hours and then turns off automatically (so if you start jumping early in the morning, you don't have to worry about it anymore, and neither you have to worry about forgetting it ON for days...); 3. Can playback jumps! That's really cool (and useful); 4. Very easy to read, no matter the position of your altimeter relative to your eyes; 5. You can preset your accumulated total number of jumps and free fall time; 6. and all the other pros indicated by the other reviews... But... I was very disappointed the unit came without a cable. This is not a cheap toy, and you have to buy along with a specific software to be able to download your data (AND to update the firmware). And if you bought this altimeter, it's because you want to digitally log your jumps (and 400 minutes of recording is just enough to record about 385 freefalls or 60 freefalls+canopy, which is not a lot). Of course it records all those jumps, which is great, but then it could have a larger capacity to store highlights about all your jumps, so you wouldn't loose these info when the unit starts recording jumps over the first ones stored. Finally, the Altitrack can be set with a negative offset, but just to minus 3000 ft. So if you are going, for example, to perform a high altitude rescue you will have to manually zero the offset while on flight (I don't see the reason for not being able to set a bigger negative offset, as you can do with the positive - for example + 8500 ft).