DaVinciflies

And what POV is that? Some sort of god-like over view of the whole world and every jump that is made, or are you just reading the fatality reports like everyone esle? It is not necessary to post in such an aggressive, snidey skygod way, but to answer your question; by "from my POV" I meant "in my opinion" or "from what I have read". I was using the term to acknowledge the fact that this is my opinion of what I have read - not some kind of fact. What the fatality reports don't tell you is about every non-fatal incident, every near miss with another canopy, and every time an injury is narrowly avoided. Sangi is an example of something, but it is not a canopy collision, so it is not very relevant to the point being made. This may or may not be true. If they are not reported it's hard to tell. What has been reported recently are cases involving highly experienced pilots under small canopies and collisions involving students on perfectly reasonable wing loadings. I am not opposed to limits. What I said was why not leave it up to the DZOs? You did not address why you think that is a bad idea. ***So do you honestly believe that restricting WL will not reduce open canopy incidents/injuries? When was the last time jumping a slower canopy was the casue of injury? Beyond that, even if you doubt the ability of a WL limit to help, what harm could it possibly do? Even if the chance is only slight that it will help anyone, why not put it into use for the benefit that it might provide? If that's your opinion, then why not limit WL for everyone and outlaw any canopies of 150 sq ft or less? I imagine you would be against that because now it affects YOU.

It does not seem to be from my POV.

Can you expand on your answer? What exactly did you have to unlearn?

Here's a class you can attend as many times as you like and, best of all, it's free. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JiAegc8EOw Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qyM_LkW8DVI There's also these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEHdKemr1M&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNsFPbKIw8&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSpnXCShs0&feature=relmfu That should keep you going. Now - practice!

So, for the record, you are saying that this incident was NOT contributed to by the distraction of the camera. Would that be correct?

Surely one answer to this (which exists right now) is for the DZO to mandate canopy limits. This would mean that on DZs where the DZO feels strongly about personal freedoms, canopy choice would be left (largely) up to the individual, and on those where the DZO recognizes a significant risk to having free canopy choice then (s)he is completely at liberty to introduce local regulations. Jumpers could subsequently vote with their feet and jump where the rules best suit their own set of criteria. This is really just an extension of AAD-required DZs, or HP turns to landing being limited. Limitation of peoples' behaviour by the DZO in the interests of safety without more all-encompassing regulation.

LOL - ok, man, if your idea of fun is being fisted by a TSA agent - then crack on!

From post #7:

More than that, I would hate to travel with exposed handles. The risk of an inadvertent reserve pull would not be worth it. On that note, I tie down my reserve handle with my chest strap when I travel. That way it is secure, but you can't forget to unsecure it before jumping (like you could eg. if you used a cable tie).

That sucks, so i either pay 20-30 bucks to check a rig and still have a chance at paying 60-80 bucks for a reserve pack job.... or carry it on and still have that chance.... lose lose If they didn't find anything i'd ask them to pay for my pack job Thanks that answered my questions! In reality, I have never had any TSA official want to open my reserve. On the contrary, they seem very respectful and unwilling to touch it. They may want to rescan it (without the carry-on bag) but I have always asked if I can be the one to remove it from the bag. A couple of useful tips: 1. If they do ask about opening the reserve, explain that the reserve was packed, and the lead seal applied by an FAA appointed rigger. This MAY carry some weight. 2. If asked about the AAD, avoid saying that it is a "knife powered by an explosive" (), opting instead for an explanation such as "a device which opens the reserve parachute in the event of an emergency" Back on topic; I use this bag: http://www.amazon.com/Dakine-Under-Luggage-Checks-Black/dp/B002C5L1WM

Grow the fuck up. You are behaving like a total tool.

I still disagree with this, as line length is used by canopy designers to affect the recovery arc of a canopy. Check out post #21 in this thread:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=612543;search_string=line%20length%20recovery%20arc;#612543

Life really turned round for you in the last couple of weeks, didn't it?

It will lengthen the recovery arc by allowing the suspended mass to take more time to swing back under the wing. Anything else?

Your stupidity, arrogance and hypocrisy are breath-taking and your defensiveness is ridiculous. Read Sangi's post-accident posts and take note of what he said. I hope you learn. Fast.

Pretty certain Sangi said something like that too... Absolutely certain Sangi said this, almost verbatim. Pot. Meet kettle. This does seem very ironic. V-B, are you going to accept Bill's offer?

It should be tight but not uncomfortable. It should not be able to rotate around your head! My Revolve with 2 audibles in it presses nicely on my ears and provides some good hearing protection in the plane.

Call Bonehead - they are super-helpful. It sounds to me like this lid is too loose for you, and it will only get looser as you wear it. Give BH a chance to sort things out for you.

One difference is the physical ability to hold rears for a long time vs the convenience of holding brakes while hooking a thumb into the harness to ease the load.

Your choice, man. But a good one, I think. Good on ya!

Have you considered what would happen to your back if you were to impact the ground hard from, say, flying a fast, high performance canopy at a WL waaaay beyond the recommendations for your jump numbers? I'd venture to say that the effects would be worse than all but the most horrendous of openings. Something to think about, huh?

I suspect the answer to that is a very personal and individual thing. However, the great majority of people who get on a skydiving aircraft do end up jumping.

I am pretty sure there was another one where a guy went in (no RSL or AAD) after cutting away with a loose chest-strap and was seen in what people initially thought was a track, but it turned out he was trying to find his reserve handle. If I remember correctly it was a guy whose Cypres was out that week for it's 4-year check. Another point is that many of the people who are swooping and loosening their chest-straps will have a longer than stock chest-strap which compounds the issue. In reply to davelepka's post above about ground-hungry canopies, surely the answer is to pull higher to allow time for house-keeping. In my opinion, jumping a highly loaded elliptical or x-braced canopy should imply a higher pull altitude (to allow time to deal with the violent, fall-like-an-anvil mals that can occur) and if there is house-keeping to be done then even more so.

I agree that it is common practice but you might want to rethink the second part of your statement. There have been problems with this method and it's not hard to pop the brakes and do a full control check before you start loosening the harness.

No there is not - I do exactly that for exactly the reason you mention.