ElectricFetus

ANYone talking about the skydiver that jumped without a canopy into a NET. from like 22K or so. was this faked or something and not worthy of attention? i figured the forums would be burning up with chatter about it.

hey folks. in the movie it was clearly stated that one guy pulled at -300 feet- . he came in pretty hard as would be expected, but i just can't get the '300 feet' out of my head. now from reading the forums i've heard that about 800 is the absolute minimum, but then i've heard about different ways of packing for fast openings and BASE folks opening at ridiculously [comparatively] low altitudes. so i'd love to have some professional help in this matter. and yes, i'm fully aware that it's 'hollywood skydiving', but the actual issue is sort of interesting. i WANT to call BS on this, but i'm really on the edge. i'm just not sure. so what say the sky gods on this?

newbie with 1 tandem trying to understand everything.... "--A kid with about 25 jumps cutaway his main and used his reserve on the used rig he just purchased because "it's mine and I want to try everything out" " isn't that a good idea, though? to get a better feel for the equipment? or if he wanted to do that, should he have got permission first? was this "just" a protocol violation or something more serious?

very interested newbie, with one tandem, has to ask [with no snark]: what was wrong? granted it wasn't too bright of the dad to try and teach a disinterested subject, but what else was at play there that was 'jaw dropping'?

oh dear hopscotching jesus, *HIGH FIVE* for obscure "WKRP in cincinatti" reference! my friends call me 'the archive'. i recall [and have evidence of...] so many trivial items regarding our activities and pop culture in general.

total noob question here so go easy on me.... if it surges or dives, but stabilizes quickly, what is the harm? is it a question of overall stability of the jumper, or is it the potential of loss of control of the canopy?

thank you don! your response is the closest to what i'm after so far. everyone else seems to have hijacked the post for 'congrats!' [which ARE in order of course, but not quite as helpful as i'd like.

http://news.yahoo.com/skydiver-felix-baumgartner-completes-18-mile-dive-134525801--abc-news-tech.html but i have some serious questions about this. maybe my math skills are very wrong or i'm misremembering my tandem or the reporting is bad or something but there seems something VERY wrong with: "After he jumped, Baumgartner was in freefall for three minutes and 48 seconds . After five minutes, his parachute opened, at which point it took another seven to 10 minutes to descend to Earth." when we popped the canopy at about a mile, it took about 7 - 10 mins to land, and it sounds like this guy popped a hell of a lot higher than that, maybe in the 8 mile range. i'll admit math is NOT my best subject, but given those numbers, i'm not getting '18 miles'. please sky gods, instruct the padwan in the errors i'm SURE i'm making. the other option is the story is so bady written as to be pointless. i'm genuinely curious here. please help.

this sounds like one part of a catastrophic set-up to a 'final destination' movie. [as cool as it does sound............]

hello again gang. i did a search for this topic and came up goose eggs for what i was after so: reading the threads it's obvious that a main -too small- can be very dangerous. but i've never seen it discussed here of the dangers [if any] of a main that's -too big-. so my questions are: ARE there any dangers in that? WHAT are those dangers? WHAT would be the 'upward size' where those dangers would become evident? for example a loading of 1: .75, or 1: .5 or possibly most extreme 1: .25. Than you in advance for any input.

something of a bad analogy, but i know where you're coming from. as a certified diver i can say with certainty that 'scuba swimming' IS different than 'regular swimming'. 'regular' you use your arms much more for propulsion, and in scuba, you use primarily your legs. arms in scuba are used for signaling, attitude correction and 'device' holding, etc. in theory you COULD learn to scuba withOUT learning to surface swim, but really it would be a bad idea.

yeah it's me, the troublemaker that started all this..... someone awhile ago mentioned a water landing. what about the possibility of getting close to the water, and start trailing something in the water that would bleed off speed, gradually acting as a brake? mind you i'm NOT saying "an anchor", as we can agree, going from near terminal to zero would ruin your whole day. i picture a LONG narrow pool, maybe 50 yards x 300 yards x say 4 feet deep? make your approach, release your trailer, and if you're good, come to a stand up landing.

ACTUally i LIKE that wind sock/slip and slide idea. many years ago i recall seeing what amounted to a giant nylon stocking that was intended for use as an emergency exit from skyscrapers. you jumped in and it was tight enough on you to control your fall to the ground, but flexible enough to take just about any shape. so: take that, create a hoop maybe let's say 60 feet in diameter, and have the material get gradually narrower, to provide braking action and terminate with the 'exit' being say 1 foot, and extend it for perhaps 150 - 200 feet? as for lubing it, you obviously don't want anything 'gloppy'. maybe plain old silicone spray, if that wouldn't harm the WS? the obvious advantage is no landing gear contraption. disadvantage primarily, you still have the issue of flattening that damn glide slope, and yeah, once you commit to that landing you BETTER have spot on accuracy skills...... but yeah.... we're cooking here! by the way, what effect if any would 'ground effect' have on a wingsuiter to give maybe an extra critical few feet to mess with before landing? or are wingsuiters too small, aerodynamically, to take advantage of that?

THAT'S the idea, but! i'd want slightly larger, wider wheels for use on grass or perhaps slightly stony [SMALL stones of course] ground.... but otherwise.... that looks like what i had in mind. the question is could that be made 'jump rig' friendly? great pic!

Hi there gang! long time lurker, 1st time post, though i do hope there'll be more. i find this a very interesting idea and one i've pondered on rainy nights, but i lack a lot of hard data. it should be noted that i LOVE intellectual problem solving just for the sake of keeping the gray matter functioning. let's just assume for the sake of argument, that it CAN be done. what are the actual problems that make it such a difficult goal to reach? i mean if a wingsuit actually FLIES/glides, then coming to the thought that you could 'glide it in' is a natural one, isn't it? [AND LET ME THROW IN THE DISCLAIMER THAT I'M IN -NO WAY- ADVOCATING THIS BE TRIED. THIS IS STRICTLY AN INTELLECTUAL EXCERCISE TO GET A BETTER GRASP ON THE SUBTLETIES OF THE PROBLEM.] thinking about this with the bit of knowledge that i have, off the top of my head, i'd think the big issue might be the angle of the glide slope is too steep. if that is the case, would that tie in to the possibility of somehow adding surface area to the wingsuit so you could catch more air and smooth that slope out? and if THAT's the case, what about the possibility of a skateboard-type device mounted on the chest area to facilitate landing? nothing fix-wheeled like a skateboard though; i'm thinking something along the lines of shopping cart wheels which turn freely in any direction so that they will turn and travel in the direction of the most momentum so that you would roll nicely as opposed to like a skateboard the wheels would lock up at certain angles. yea, i'm sure i'm getting a lot of head shaking out there, but as stated, i LOVE purely intellectual issues, and from my frequent visits, i get the idea i'm not alone here. so instead of saying "why?" to this, why shouldn't we say "why not?" for awhile and toss around some ideas? respectfully submitted. [and let the flames begin!!]