3mpire

I learned a lot from this answer, thank you for sharing

I think using BillVon's checklist and engaging with the person is best. Instead of just talking AT someone, say "so you're think you're pretty good, prove it" and challenge them to put up or shut up doing the checklist. Jump with them and do the checklist items yourself too or have some video saved up so you can compare their performance to yours. If someone really is progressing faster, then they should have no problem doing a bunch of maneuvers on a bigger wing. If they struggle, then you don't have to say a single word to them. The video will speak for itself. It will be obvious to everyone and the jumper that they have more work to do if they fall short. I think the trick isn't telling people what to do, it's helping them learn for themselves what they can or can't do. You do that by engaging with them in a constructive way and give them a path towards their goal. It has the added benefit that it's done in a way that allows them to ask for help when they can't complete the checklist that is easy on the ego. Say they got 80% of the items on the checklist, the experienced swooper could say "not bad for all of this stuff on the list but that last bit isn't so great, here is how you fix that. You get that last bit down and you're going to outswoop me in no time" or whatever bullshit you would say. Trick is, it takes two people. A swooper who is willing to do more than berate someone (which doesn't take much work) and a jumper who is willing to put up or shut up on the checklist challenge. But it seems like a good place to start.

You make very good points - I eat like crap. I will suggest we keep working on moving lead around while I work on flying slower and see how far that gets us. Our latest efforts have been in the tunnel so I'm really curious if it will be as big of an issue in the air.

You are a sailor on a submarine?

Yeah we're going to try several combinations to see how it works. the levels issues are all in the tunnel, in the sky things don't seem as bad though we haven't put this particular 4 way group in the sky much yet so we will see. Not to hijack the thread, I just wanted to put it out there that sometimes determining weights is a group not an individual thing once you start flying as pieces (each piece has a fall rate and adding or removing weight from one person in that piece can change how the piece flys)

Something we are struggling with is that OC (me) and point fall a faster than IC and Tail (tail is the lightest and wears the most lead). Even with ~16 pounds of lead on tail, we are struggling with levels issues on certain blocks. We're considering switching slots so that each piece has one heavier and one lighter person just to try to balance some things out a bit. I only include this anecdote to illustrate that it's not often just individual fall rates you have to take into account, but how pieces fly when you have different people paired.

We tried to buy it and move it to Seattle but that deal fell apart at the last minute, too.

Figure: $2,500 - A License $2,000 - rig, main, reserve, AAD (used, older, maybe not pretty but safe and functional--make sure you get a rigger to inspect it) $500 - helmet, altimeter, jump suit, gear bag, etc. (all used not new) $1,250 - 50 fun jumps @ $25 (avg five jumps a day wed-sun for two weeks) Total: $6,250. About 2500 for getting licensed plus 2-3k for gear is about right. You could get a rig for 2k and then you'd just need to figure some more cash for things like altimeter(s), helmet, jumpsuit, etc. You can get all of these used for less but if you buy new any one of those can cost 200-500 new depending on how fancy. If you really hit it hard you could get licensed in a week or two and then do 20-40 jumps a week for 2 weeks if you were jumping every day/weekend for the balance of your trip. Plus whatever you need for lodging and food, etc. But you would leave with around 75 jumps, be current, and have all your gear, which is a good start.

I'd do exactly what you are talking about -- set up a progression plan with measurable goals and hold myself accountable for meeting those goals before moving to the next step. On a 150 Sabre 2 With the naval analogy, you wouldn't take a 182 pilot and say fly for 1000 hours and then get into an F18. You'd say, "try this T6, then try this T45, and then try the F18". edited to add: that is actually what I am doing -- I spend time under canopy working on stuff like flat turns, flare turns, front riser dives where I note altitude, execute maneuver, check altitude and see if I did it within my expected altitude range, etc. I'm on my Sabre2 170, and I have no problem with it. I'll move to a 150 sometime but I don't feel that it is necessary to meet my immediate goals. Plus, I like having a 170 over my head when I get to jump my wingsuit (have you considered the ramifications of jumping your canopy as a beginning wingsuit pilot? how do you like line twists in a straight jacket? ) It's all about risk, and I have a lower threshold since I have a 1 year old son at home and a wife that depends on me. Your body your risk, so if you are ok with your loading it's your business--unless you put others (me) at risk, in which case, that's where the friction with your fellow jumpers starts. A lot of people rag on your quick progression more out of their concern for how it could affect others.

I am totally on board with the idea of a plan and executing to that plan. I think the only distinction I'd make is that while carrier landings are deliberate training, that is deliberate training with the thousands of hours of boring flight already under the belt. So while jumping a larger canopy won't give you the same practice, it still has value. So to stick with the naval aviation analogy, the flight training is first in prop planes. That's your 190 sq. foot canopy. Initial tailhook landing training is in a T45. That's your 150 sq. foot canopy. You have to do a minimum of 65+ flights in that T45 before the Navy decides if you're even allowed into something like an F18. The F18 is a sub 130sq. foot elliptical. So yes, F18 pilots practice their carrier landings (actually you know you can watch them do that at OLF Coupeville on Whidbey island). But only after they have demonstrated proficiency on less performant platforms. Lots of people learn to swoop on a 150 sabre2. I bet a really good canopy pilot on a sabre2 150 could out-swoop a bad canopy pilot on a smaller canopy. T6 : F18 :: Triathlon 160 : Safire 129 It's skipping the middle bit that is tripping most people up, and is contributing to the backlash

Even beyond insurance, if you have a rookie jump pilot and a newly licensed skydiver, there are a mountain of things they don't know. From snag hazards to how to fly jump run, to what modifications would need to made to the plane, there is a certain level of knowledge you would need to make the whole thing safe. As already hinted at in this thread, there is increased risk to jumping off DZ with a non-jump pilot (though in that case, there were many other factors that also contributed to the situation).

A more direct analogy, I think, would be to compare canopy progression with Naval aviators progressing from flight school to an F-18 landing on a ship at sea. Check out the progression new navy pilots have to follow: 14 hours civilian flight training (plus a solo flight and cross country in GA aircraft) Primary Flight Training in T34C or T6 Texan (both prop planes) Intermediate to advanced training they finally get in a T45 and do an additional 65+ graded flights Only after all of that time behind the stick of progressively staged classes of aircraft do they get to fly the real deal. Notice they didn't go from a 182 in civilian GA to an F18? I'm glad you're doing all the extra training and I'm not flaming you, but your logic doesn't make much sense to me.

Howdy, neighbor! If you live in the Yukon and you have the time/means to travel that far south for a month and get your jump on, I would recommend thinking about coming a little further south and look into a DZ in Washington state. Jumps cost a lot less here, (anywhere from 5-10 dollars less per jump than BC drop zones), so you might consider that an option in your planning. I know some friends on both sides of the border who can't cross due to past... "issues"... but if that's no problemo for you check out SD kapowsin in Shelton, WA, that would probably be your best bet. I primarily jump in Snohomish which is great but you would probably get through your progression faster and have the opportunity to jump more at kpow (they have an otter and caravan and turn more loads a day with plenty of room for fun jumpers). WRT jumping your buddy's plane I don't know what the canadian rules are, but make sure you get him to sit down with an experienced jump pilot so they can talk about it. there's more to it than just opening the door and stepping out.

I would guess slinks would wear even faster given the fact that all the energy is focused on such small area where as individual lines probably individually have much less energy (more distributed). Is that an accurate assumption?

We always post videos of people making mistakes -- does anyone have a nice video of someone doing a full stall with proper recovery technique? that would be very instructive

Sorry for the delay -- it is not coming out every jump but I would say every five jumps or so when I'm repacking I see that it is peeking out (maybe 1/2 the tab visible) so I tuck it back in. The slink is fairly set, probably just a hair off of where it should be. So it isn't a situation where the slink is rotated 90 degrees from where it should be, however it does annoy me that I still can see it from time to time. The thought of the hand tack was that it would just prevent it from coming out at all

On that first link I noted at the end that you can tack your slink's locking tab in place -- I think that's what I need. What is the risk of having the tab exposed? Increased wear or risk of outright slink failure?

How about tandem rigs? I seem to recall seeing a grommet on a tandem slider that looked to be much wider, though to be honest I've never really closely inspected a tandem rig to see exactly how big the risers/grommets are in comparison to most sport rigs. Is it possible for a slider on a tandem rig to go past the links or is the riser large enough to prevent it (or a stopper perhaps?)

Thanks for the summary, it's really interesting to me how there are cycles where certain designs/techniques come and go and then come back again when it comes to gear. I wasn't familiar with slink hats, but I like the idea. I did have a brisk opening sometime last season where the slider came down pretty quick and dislodged one of my toggles. The toggle did wedge in the grommet, however, so it wasn't a full toggle fire. It was enough to put me into a lazy turn, but no biggie. I easily cleared the toggle from the grommet and released the other toggle without incident. Since all I do is collapse my slider and never pull it down, maybe slink hats would be something I should ask my rigger about. Seems having something like that in place would nearly eliminate the risk of having a toggle stuck in a slider, which was the cause of the incident in the original thread. It might also have the added bonus of helping to keep my slink tabs from working their way out, which they have a habit of doing.

It hadn't occurred to me that the larger grommet would have coincided with larger risers but that seems very logical. Same behavior (slider stopping at links) just different size/scale.

It makes a lot of sense that the slider should stop at the links during deployment rather than being forced down the riser and past the stowed toggles. I hadn't thought of it that way--thanks

I guess that is where my knowledge of gear history is limited--I believe brass grommets are larger than stainless, but I don't know when brass stopped being used. Is there a reason why the #8 is the standard?

I have a question about grommet size and pulling your slider past your toggle stows, but I created a thread in "Gear and Rigging" to keep this thread from drifting more than it already has.

In the A first look at a no pull cypres save thread davelepka said: Talking about this incident with other jumpers, we speculated as to whether the diameter of the grommet on the slider in the incident was a contributing factor. I'm not in the habit of pulling my slider past the toggle stows, but it would seem that larger grommets would present less of a snag hazard or would be easier to clear. The question I have is: why do sliders have different size grommets? Is there a reason why some are larger than others (does it affect opening, line wear, etc.)? If a smaller diameter grommet increases the risk of a stuck toggle, is there some kind of benefit to the smaller grommet that outweighs the risk?

TapTap: Hey dude you're pilot chute is hanging out Duder: LALALALA I'm not listening!!!