GobbleGobble

Members
  • Content

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by GobbleGobble

  1. According to that old thread it wasnt "hidden" as it seems on his old Youtube channel he posted multiple videos of himself and either an instructor or coach from the DZ jumping with him. Seems some people were looking the other way or are blind as bats in doing gear checks. He had it in his glove and cut a hole in the palm for the lens to stick through. Pretty sure it was also his right hand.
  2. It depends on your comfort level and experience. For wingsuiting I use a 135. For all other free fall I use a 120. For CRW I jump 126, 143, or 160. If you are asking if its a good idea for you to transition directly from a 230 to a 170, I'd say hell no. No I deffintly not thinking of going straight from a 230 to a 170! Im more thinking of buying the 230 rig and possibly a 210 or 190 canopy here as I can get them cheaper. Jumping this rig until I can downsize to my 170 rig. Thus saving money on kit hire and getting an add for next to nothing. Then I would have to option of keeping the larger rig if I wanted. I could keep it with a 190 in it and have the two to jump once I was confident with the 170. But saying this if its not a good idea I could just sell the larger rig anyway and just jump my 170.... Please slowly work your way down. I think as far as a purchasing strategy what you've outlined is ok. What might bite you in the ass is self control. Are you disciplined enough to NOT hook up that smaller canopy till you've put some solid jumps in? Are you going to do hop and pops and focus just on canopy control (you should). The swooping forum has a sticky thread with some great resources. Read them, do the exercises. Understand what they are telling you. If you don't, ask.
  3. It depends on your comfort level and experience. For wingsuiting I use a 135. For all other free fall I use a 120. For CRW I jump 126, 143, or 160. If you are asking if its a good idea for you to transition directly from a 230 to a 170, I'd say hell no.
  4. From the same exit point, in the same direction, the higher path will inherently be flatter, at least for a period of time. Look at the attached very-scientific paint file. The steep path (1) is in contrast to the flatter path (2). The only way to get the same glide angle at a higher altitude is to fly flatter for a period of time before going steep again (3). My point is that sometimes what you are saying is right. That is, that you can be higher and still fly steeper from some exits. But not always. Exits only affect the big picture for a short period of time. After that your attached very scientific graphic and it's varied glide paths are for the most part a matter of choice. Once sufficient airspeed is achieved the flyer can vary altitude along a glide path gradually with minor inputs and minimal sacrifice of lift-generating speed. Are there jumps that are safest flown with a high-speed, steep angle entry into to the run? I'm sure there are, but that's not the conversation here. We are talking about the big picture, not the exit and initial freefall. In your attached graphic, routes number 2 and 3 could have been flown exactly like number 1 but at a higher altitude with the exception of the earliest part of the freefall when speed must be achieved to produce lift. Beyond that the altitude of the line has no bearing on the the angle. If you are focusing the conversation around flying close, and Matt was. Then the steeper you are flying, the more energy you have. Your ability to translate that energy into lift and climb away from the object is increased over a flatter flight path. The conversation isn't about proximity flying being safe. The conversation was about misconceptions about proximity flying. Flight is about energy management. The more you have, the more you can do. If you want to argue that flying next to shit is dangerous, great. I don't know that anyone is going to argue that point. So again, what is it you're looking for? The "big" picture in the article was proximity flying.
  5. It's not recommended. That said I have friends that jump crossfires at a lower loading and they don't really have problems. have another friend who's wingsuit canopy is a Katana 97. He doesn't have any problems. I suggest thats not a great strategy for everyone though.
  6. I get the science of it. My contention isn't about that. It is with the statement that flying closer to the ground creates a bigger margin than flying higher. I don't think the author was really trying to say that all other things being equal flying closer to the terrain is inherently safer, but his description could certainly leave the reader with that impression. So what are you looking for?
  7. There is/possibly was a club. I'm not a USC student, several jump at Elsinore though.
  8. I have the same container and year. You should be fine with smaller suits. It certainly would be a good idea to get a longer one. If you are looking at it from a $$ perspective a new extended bridle and PC will cost you roughly two reserve repacks ;)
  9. So we have a rig that is overstuffed having issues. I'm more worried about the rigs that have issues when canopies are sized per manufacturer guidance. That said good catch!
  10. I think it has more to do with some rating holders not taking it seriously and less the fee. If you are working, it's a write off and a means to generate income. If you dabble and hold the rating then likely it isn't a financial burden.
  11. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Anyhow looking forward to seeing the changes you guys are talking about.
  12. Is it possible to retrofit the cutaway system to earlier models? If so are there plans to sell it as a kit?
  13. I once sat in a restaurant talking with one of the major players at PD. I believe this was at the PIA Symposium in Jacksonville, FL in '03. This individual, point-blank during a routine discussion, told me that the Optimum reserves exceeded the 'total velocity' test req'ment. If you look up TSO C23d/AS8015B, section 4.3.7 Rate of Descent Tests, All Types, you will see that it says ( in part ), '. . . and the total velocity shall not exceed 36 ft/s (11.0 m/s), in unaltered post deployment configuration.' I have no knowledge of any certificated canopy that has not met the applicable test standard for opening times. Does this explain it a little better? I understand the requirements. I'm just repeating what I've seen on here several times. I don't know if there is actually any validity to it.
  14. No problems hearing my audible (N3) with them in.
  15. Once again: There is no TSO standard anywhere in which a parachute system has to open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an AAD. topdocker writes about: "It's not just rigs out there that are the concern. There are some very slow opening reserves that are part of the problem as well." Then that is on the rigger who packs and certifies that the system is airworthy. I don't like it but that is how it is. JerryBaumchen When activated by an AAD being the key part of that statement. To the best of my knowledge. Top was referring, I believe to the Optimum reserve. IIRC there are some sizes that don't conform to the performance specification and were waivered or something like that.
  16. Make one. Oh, such sweet memories: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4185066;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; So you started a thread about coaching. Awesome. Do the same thing for wingsuit rules. While you are at it ask them about WS specific briefings. Flight patterns for wingies, etc. I'm not being sarcastic. If you'd like to see something happen the best way is to do it yourself. If you can't then try to find people that will help.
  17. Check RI's site. Pretty sure cutter is on top of the reserve.
  18. Well it's only going to get worse when they find out and ask how long you've been jumping. Sack up.
  19. For 2011 I'd hazard a guess it's a reference to Form 990 page 10. Take a look at Legal and Premiums. But IDK exactly what he was referring to.
  20. simon i usually agree with you, but on this topic i dont fully agree. a doscile 9 cell (mostly square) is acceptable, but when you start delving into the fully eliptical 9 cells i cant agree with that train of thought at all. they do spin up faster, no question about it. if the pilot is very current under the wing i might somewhat agree with your train of thought, but a person with a new canopy should err on the side of caution, specifically with a new eliptical canopy It's a Sabre2 135 not a Katana. OP I'd keep your 150 for a while until you get used to wingsuiting OR put some jumps on your 135 to get the hang of it. I recently made that move at a higher wingloading and the 135 is significantly more responsive to any input.
  21. Integration like you are looking for isn't likely due to the form factor of the whole Recon package. The "stock" firmware for Recon devices isn't really suitable for skydiving. It's one of the reasons the Flight HUD was done (limited run). You can find those for sale but you are looking at $300+ to get your hands on them. Recon might do another run at some point. But no one has any reason to believe that will actually happen (for now).