Basejumper.com - archive

This is the first rig to come out of my loft. I did it in camo with tan trim and red stitching. I have included pics. I will be hucking it tonight to see how (and if ) it works. Ill let you know.

Some features I have included:
One piece legstraps
Articulated hardware
triple three pointed lateral connections
Totaly covered three ring attachments
added padding in the back, with pocket for added armor or stash bag


The next one I am working on is a 2 pin rig...A little more tricky....

Looks good . . .

You know, this is kind of out there, but as BASE jumpers who are also skydivers we beg for small things like a longer repack cycle when we should be trying to get rid of the entire TSO certification for skydiving rigs.

The cost of getting anything new certified is why skydiving gear has basically remained static since Bill Booth came out with the Wonderhog in 1975. Every skydiving rig nowadays may be sleeker and prettier, but how they work is basically the same.

We've proved through BASE jumping that many people with the skills and imagination can produce a rig that works, and sure, skydiving rigs are more complicated (too complicated I say) but there are people out there who could be building something better and cheaper in their garage if they thought they had a shot of being able to market it. The high cost of the TSO process prevents that and we, all of us, are the losers.

I bring this up as I was thinking of a getting a new Skydiving rig but when I looked at the prices I about gagged. No wonder skydiving is losing steam.

There would have to be some kind of regulations, for sure, maybe a committee of experienced builders who check out your design, but the way the current TSO process works right now it basically protects existing skydiving gear manufactures from competition.

I know some current BASE gear manufacturers would certainly build dual rigs so their BASE canopies could be jumped at the DZ if it wasn't for the TSO. Unleash their fertile minds on skydiving gear and who knows where it might lead.

And Mods, don't move this post out of the BASE zone, as I'm talking to BASE jumpers and don't care to hear from skydivers calling the idea blasphemy . . .

NickD
BASE 194

No kidding. As of nine days ago, my local dropzone requires all skydivers (not just the students) to have an AAD. Guess who's looking for a new dropzone?

Sigh... Just like AADs, the TSOing has led to the bowlification of skydiving.

I am a firm believer that if bowling balls exploded if you didnt handle them just right...There would be a different class of people bowling....

Thanks for the compliment Nick...And I agree whole heartedly about the TSO thing. Luckily I have access to a TSO that I can manufacture under. I am working on my own skydiving rig now...I would love to be able to buy the rights to use the TSO exclusively. I looked into TSO testing, and the expense is more than opening up an entire new jump operation.

Looks good and congratulations!

A base rig that looked like a soft briefcase would be my next rig if it was available.

Interestingly, I believe Marta Empinotti did not pursue the TSO on the innovative Sorcerer rig because of the cost.

dude if heard of that AAD rule before and its crap I sold mine along time ago when I needed oney to jump thats why I love base all u need is some balls and good weather theres always stuff to jump

by the way nice rig Id jump it and the cooler is phat

 
Stand tall and be proud. You are rappedly becomeing a real base jumper.

Lee

I'm not necessarily a fan of the requirement that skydiving rigs be TSO'd, and I'm certainly not a fan of the related issue of mandatory AADs. But I'm not sold on the idea that skydiving rigs would be lightyears beyond where they are without the TSO either.

Take a look at the rig above. It's a nice-looking BASE rig (congratulations -- looking forward to hearing about the first jump). In fact, it looks in most respects a lot like other BASE rigs. I'd wager that it works even more like them -- that the canopy is hooked to the harness using the same hardware, that the packjob is similar... Clearly it has leg straps and even a chest strap. No major innovation even without a TSO.

Why? Because these things work. BASE rigs didn't evolve like crazy in the 80's and 90's because they were unencumbered by a TSO. They evolved quickly because they were new technology. Now they're not (much like skydiving gear is not), and accordingly they evolve more slowly.

Good work man, and very "Xtreme" !!! (sorta )

I like it. When can I visit?

 
I've got mixed feelings on the other subject. Aveation on the whole has done pretty well with their record. You can say that we've been hamstringed and it's true but honestly the biggest problems have been from liability.
Now if you look at some of the other disaplins that were never really regulated you'll find a diffrent story. If all you've seen is skydiveing you'll have a squewed perspective. And base did come from skydiveing. Some of the most critical tecnologies and designs were stolen blatently from established rigs and harness designs. There was also an established tradition of... Quality and responceability. For the most part they were already riggers, or they had worked for manufactures or in lofts. So there was kind of a structure and a lot of it transferd over with the experence and tecnology. If you have ever been around ultralights or hang gliders you would have seen a very diffrent picture. It's gotten a lot better. Things are way way better then they used to be but I still see some scarry shit. I mean just black fucking death looking for a place to happen. And some really ignorant people looking for a way to die. Don't get me wrong there are some truly sharp guys out there as well. But if you think back there was a time when ultralights were scarry as shit. Wings snapping like twigs, stability problems, really bad construction, and don't even get started on the engions. Hang gliders can be almost as bad and some of those guys treat there gear like shit. No respect for what saves there life. Paragliders are getting really good but they started out pretty damn scarry as well. They still under build some of there shit. All of these sports have killed larg numbers of there pertisapents. I used to be like the rest of you, "Damn the FAA" and all that. Over the years I've come to reallize that we could have done a lot worse. The FAA is not the worst goverment office out there. Not even close. The truth is we have been really lucky in this country. In the end it's probably for the best that they have kept there fingers in even to the very small extent that they have. I'm honestly not sure there would still be any skydiving if it had just been left unregulated. There is a real chance we would have been out lawed or regulated out of exestance with out the USPA and the FAA.

Lee

not every place requires TSO. Come over to Switzerland

damn man, i have barely started. i guess all i have is a stock machine, and leftover material people are sending me.

i like the triple articulation, but i dont like velcro man. at all. it has no place in parachutes i think. granted, its on my tailpocket and toggles... but shit, if magnets are really heavy.

 

Yes the Harness and container were built totally in house. I just finished the shrivel flap, and am about to rig it all up and pack it. Then I shall unpack it ...quit rapidly..hehe

I'm envious. Congradulations. Someday I'll have my own loft

Velcro has saved my life many times, very consistently, and I wouldn't want magnets taking it's place. . .

Velcro had its place in the 80's, and still does today IMO

Canada also has no TSO type requirement. I know several people up here that jump rigs they built themselves. There are a few people up here building skydiving rigs commercially. For the most part...no problems but I know a guy that built a rig who didn't do the chest strap sewing properly and it came off on opening...probably lucky we were doing a crw jump when it happened. It wasn't a problem with the design of the rig...it was a problem with the construction...he just forgot. Which is possible with any manufacturer.

Does the TSO actually protect people? Good question but I doubt that we would ever see it change when extending a repack cycle provokes furious debate.

Its almost a necessary evil for a legalized sport. The cost of obtaining the TSO sucks but really, it outlines a minimum performance standard (good thing), then requires you create your own specs, drawings, and quality control system (good things) and then stick to them (good thing). Minor changes, or anything non-structural (for the most part) can be changed at almost any time, you are required to submit updated drawings though. Major changes are submitted to the FAA for approval, but as long as your QC is in line, the drawings are accurate, and it meets the performance standards, they cant really prohibit you from doing it.

Essentially the TSO process is to make sure you create a consistant product and be responsible for it. I really dont have a problem with then when I am buying gear.

Kudo's to the original poster for your ambition

As I understand it, many countries don't have these type of regulations. If the case is, we haven't seen major evolution in skydiving gear because of TSO regulations in the US, then why haven't we seen major advances in non regulated countries? Many of these countries have just as experienced jumpers, riggers, and manufatures, with probably just as fertile minds (if not more ), and still the mechanics of the rigs are the same (from what I've seen).

I agree, these systems work, but they also may not be the best. Perhaps it's like the automobile. There were not a whole lot of changes to the actual way a car works for a quite few generations, but now we're seeing that it may not be the best thing, and we're trying to change it.

Edit to add: BTW congrats on the rig! keep us updated.

Do you have a rigger's ticket? If not, you should go get it. Great job! Way better than the first base rig I built. And yeah, it's quite unnerving making that first jump on something you built all the way through.

Dont have alot of time..But I jumped it and survived...The exit that normally takes me 4 minutes took me 45 minutes...Finally I heard my buddy udder the words...Come on ya Pussy...Just Jump!...Good Times!

dude i hear that my friends always call me a pussy
by the way ill take my velcro rig over my pin rig any day
when your doing solo missions u dont need a pin check
and theres nothing like hearing that shevel flap let go
rock out man and nice color sceam

Interesting contribution indeed about the TSO.

In Holland, long time ago, there was no need for a TSO on skydiving rigs. (now, we do) We had a jumper who built his own skydiving rig – he works with a respected manufacturer now – and jumped it regularly.

So, does skydiving need a TSO? Well, yes and no. Yes, because without TSO we might repeat past problems. Don’t forget that the TSO was established and updated taking into account (fatal) mistakes in skydiving rigs. Certain parameters must be set in order to build something that allows you to descend safely to mother earth. Claiming now we don’t need a TSO is forgetting that we needed it in order to set e.g. strenght a harnesses. Without a TSO, you could build a harness out of ducktape. Well, good luck 2U. On the other side, with all the knowledge we have now, we could forgo the TSO, assuming everybody, including manufacturers, would build their harness/containers in a safe way. In that we, all base jumpers are guinee pigs....

Maybe changing the TSO process would be a better idea? Not jump testing 50 times, but just 5 times? And more ground strength testing? I am talking about harness/containers only BTW. I would still like to have my reserve skydiving parachute tested well. Mind you, there is no TSO on main parachutes.

The longer repack cycle asked for by skydivers as mentioned by NickDG is already there in many countries. It is just the old fashioned US that is sticking to the 4 months... Also interesting is the remark about the Wonderhog of Bill Booth. AFAIK the TSO given to the Wonderhog is still the same that applies to the Vector II and Vector III. BB was really smart, stating to FAA that all changes applied to these rigs were minor changes, which are allowed for and keeping the original TSO. So, all the base manufacturers have to do is line up, design a dual base rig, get a TSO on that, share it among them, and reasuring FAA that all developments after that are just minor changes.

Ronald

PS: nice rig. However, personally not to fond about velcro. Most skydiving rigs don't have it anymore, for good reasons. Sure, magnetic pads are to heavy, but tuck flaps with some stiffener works just fine, e.g. on my Gargoyle

Of course, there is no way the FAA will let a rig fly with a reserve that cannot be deployed alone. (without the main being deployed first).

dont get me wrong, skydiveing gear is sketchy as hell. like most of us, ill take my single canopy system out of airplanes a million times (and i do )before i do it comfortably with tso gear.

i think that skydiveing gear is doing its job fairly well. we let the riggers who know whats going on do the complex stuff, so the million retard skyjumpers can figure out the simple part of the system.

The 4 month repack cycle doesnt bother me at all...(and no it is not a matter of $$) There have been too many times I have opened a reserve and discovered a FATAL mistake that was made. In that list I have found...
1. A reserve witn NO SLIDER
2. A reserve with 2 step throughs
3. One that was hand tacked to the reserve container
4. One that was not connected to the links properly
And on and on and on and on...Many of the repacks left for a few more months would have resulted in a fatality.
What needs to happen before we extend the repack cycle is revamp the process that is required for someone to get their Riggers ticket. Unfortunately common sense and attion to detail is nolonger part of the process.

Uhm..

One or 10 repacks a year doesn't matter in this case.. More repacks is more chances to screw up..

good catches!

but what is the link between quality of packjob and frequency of packjob?

how does a consumer know if they are purchasing a quality re-pack (other than shipping their rig to you?).

I find it re-assuring that you mentioned things related to rigger error rather than equipment flaws.

7 days without a base jump...

that's a quote from Mark Hewitt, BASE 46... the inventor of the direct bag, co-inventor of the Sorcerer rig, inventor of the line-mod, the pseudo-inventor of the mesh slider...

I dont want to say thats an ignorant statement, but I cant think of a better word. (I might accidentally ruffle some feathers with that, if I do, sorry man, nothing personal)

I definately wont argue with you over jumping equipment that you're comfortable with. I think being comfortable with your gear is one of the most important aspects to jumping, wether it be off buildings or out of planes. If you're not completely comfortable with or completely trust your equipment, you should hang it up right then and there.

There are TSO's on single canopy systems, think pilot rigs. I'm not so certain I'd jump one of those if my dual system was available, depending upon the circustances obviously, but for a pre-meditated jump, my choice is clear.

Why would you tend to believe that skydiving rigs are sketchy, in this case, as compared to a base rig?




Manufacturers building their TSO harnesses in a safe way is still somewhat up to discretion. Depending on your TSO Certification, we'll selectively choose C23c:

"Materials and worksmanship shall be of a quality which documented experience and/or tests have conclusively demonstrated to be suitable for the manufacture of parachutes"

granted, most materials in use today are "industry standard" and coincidentally have a mil-spec, but that its not really required.

No real point to make, just thought it was interesting food for thought. As far as the FAA is concerned, they dont care if you make your harness out of duct tape, as long as your quality control manual is in order Maybe another example of good idea but poor implementation?

Many of the rigs in which the errors were found had malfuntions which required the use of the reserve within weeks of the mistake being found. If we would have been on a longer repack cycle, the errors would have resulted in a fatality.

... And because of the short repack cycle, the riggers who made those first mistakes will have more opportunities to make a similar mistake on another rig, which might otherwise have been functional. The argument still holds. If 1% of reserve packjobs result in some critical error, then it doesn't matter whether they're repacked once a year or once a day -- 1% of skydiving rigs will have such an error packed in.

And how many people have died because their perfectly good reserve packjob was unnecessarily replaced at 120 days with a packjob containing a fatal flaw?

BASE736,

I've just always wanted to say that I'm BASE #637(ya know, 736 backwards). We don't need to be best friends now or anything. Just sorta cool, or not...........

The statistically inclined need to consider if riggers that make mistakes do more or less reserve packjobs on average than riggers that don't make mistakes. I think it may affect the optimal length of the repack cycle.

For what it's worth, I prefer a longer cycle.

Don't have to perhaps, but if you get the opportunity I recommend taking it! BASE 736 is an awesome friend to have.

Too bad he eats poutine these days...

To recap what I originally said..."What needs to happen before we extend the repack cycle is revamp the process that is required for someone to get their Riggers ticket. Unfortunately common sense and attion to detail is nolonger part of the process.

I am for an extended repack cycle...IF THIS HAPPENS

Ignorant? well, i hope not. just different. Skydiveing gear serves its purpose for the masses. you have to agree on that. but the way it is built,

Harness, is awesome, one every skyjump rig i have seen.
but, very thin lines are used to take opening shock, and its not terribly rare they break.

two parachutes complicte the hell out of a system.

and i am comfortable with jumping my warlock and dagger all the time because i dont see the point of doing crazy freefly shit where i could need a cypress, or big ways, etc. i like tracking dives with good freinds. and wingsuiting.

a reserve is packed soooo tight. that shit does not want to come out.

the way i jump, and the way i think a lot of other people do, is that im doing things where a second parachute wouldnt do much, and the simple option to be able to makes the idea of useing skyjump gear unsafe.

over the past year.5 i have been esentialy turning my mirage g3 into a base rig. packing the dagger into it free, lengthened cutaway cables, and 36" vented PC. i would not hesitate to take it off my local 600meter A, but its heavy. but, also TSOd.

skydiveing is safe. retardedly safe. in my 4 years of jumping, i have seen more space cadet morons get to the point of being comfortable with sky jumps. so, when super simple consumers get their hands on the main canopy packing style of the modern rigs, there is no problem with that. but when your flying you wingsuit down to 1500' on the upwind side of the DZ, just behind the tree where the dzo sits, a microlined saber2 135 is not what you want.


PS, skydive rigs are sketchy

Simple systems for simple minds, eh? Do you REALLY believe that? Or do you just not understand your skydiving rig too well?

Yet SOMEHOW they do. CONSISTENTLY. Imagine that.

hArDcORe 4 lYFe, yO! Just the fact that you used the word "skyjump" docks your IQ score down a magnitude in my book.

The same can be said for BASE jumpers....

WTF are you trying to say? Because frankly, English>you

PS: how about entering your REAL D number, IF you have one

BASE rigs (single canopy rigs) are alot safer than dual parachute rigs (skydiving rigs)....

And I would love to hear your arguements against that...

Different contexts, different use-cases. If I'm gonna pull high, like on a skydive, than using a dual parachute rig would be safer than a single rig, all other parameters being the same (i.e. no AAD, no RSL, same large canopy, etcetera. Just a larger container with a second chance behind a springloaded pilotchute). Denying this, or trying to argue the converse by chalking it up to increased complexity (which isn't that much to begin with, and has been largely sorted out over the past thirty years) or rigger error is foolish. Trying to argue that single parachute systems never fail to begin with would be equally foolish. An infinitesimal chance is still more dangerous than absolute safety.

Now add in sloppy packing, head-down flying, sit flying, multi-ways with collision potential, and a huge reduction in canopy size for swoop purposes, and all of a sudden you have a context in which the dual rig greatly increases the chance of survival.

For the record, I'll jump my BASE rig out of a plane any day and feel safe enough. But even then I'm still jumping my BASE canopy, jumping solo, not going headdown, packing carefully, and wearing a hookknife.

Change any of these parameters, and I'll bring my reserve.

If you have enough altitude they do, but his point still stands that they are in there tight and they don't want to come out.

P.S. This is a BASE jumping forum.

On a skydiving web site. Be nice. The guy who owns this house isn't a BASE jumper, so it's 's pretty rude to go around dissing people for that.

Please review the forum rules regarding personal attacks. Specifically:

1) No personal attacks.


Consider this your warning.

I respect your opinion, everybody is entitled to one, but I don't have to agree with it, and here is why.

Skydiving gear serves it's purpose for the masses. Well to some extent, but people still die using it. It's not like it's fool proof, it has just been getting more reliable.

The harness's are good and I wouldn't hesitate to say that it can be attributed partially to the TSO and requirements. It's no secret that modern BASE gear uses the same technology and hardware as a proven design. We all know it works, manufacturers have been required to drop test it with loads that it will not likely see. However, as far as "very thin lines used to take opening shock" that is a jumper choice. Go to performance design's website and pull up an order form for a Sabre2. Arguably one of the most popular skydiving canopies and it has an option for Dacron lines, same with the Spectre. Keep in mind, you aren't loading your BASE canopy the same as most skydivers are loading their skydiving canopy (I hope).

Two parachutes complicating the hell out of the system? I'm not seeing it and you can't explain it. Is it more complicated than a single parachute system, like a BASE rig? Yes. But that's obvious.

A cypress isn't specifically designed for crazy freefly shit or RW. If it was, they wouldn't have a presence on student or tandem gear. Besides, even if you own one, you should never count on it working. In the event of a plane strike on exit or getting kicked in the face on a tracking dive and I go unconscious, I have a better chance of surviving with one, rather than without one. Lets not confuse skydiving with BASE jumping, the same rules do not apply. Tracking dives and wingsuit dives are some of my favorite as well, but I always turn my cypress on. As a side note, a cypress isnt even a gear requirement. You can jump just as reliably without one, same thing for the RSL.

About the reserve being packed tight and not wanting to come out? I'm not seeing it and you can't explain it. It's not supposed to just "fall out". We dont want every piece of fabric over head now, the idea behind them being so tight is to meter the deployment, which is not *exactly* the same in BASE. This is one of the reasons that the reserve parachute is placed inside of a freebag. Granted, there are sometimes that we want the reserve overhead and NOW, it is far more likely to cut away your main at 1,000 ft or more and still have working time for the reserve to deply. The whole system is a compromise. Open too slow and you're dead, open to fast and you're dead.

If the way that you jump is BASE jumping, then yes, you are probably correct. Granted this is the BASE section of the message forum, but this whole conversation started by the whole "F*CK the TSO stuff, the man is holding us down" which applies to skydiving. In skydiving where we typically jump from 3,000 ft or more, a 2nd parachute can do alot to save your life.

Why would you turn your skydiving rig into a BASE rig? Isn't that the whole debate here? How skydiving rigs are over complicated? There is no need for a 2nd parachute? Just because you dont use a Dbag and added a larger PC doesnt make it a BASE rig. It probably is heavy and alot of that weight can be attributed to the fact that its a mirage and that it has a 2nd parachute. The TSO doesnt make it heavy. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if I snuck a TSO tag and packing data card into your base rig, you wouldnt be able to tell that difference.

I dont understand what you are trying to say by the last paracgraph there. Skydiving has been becoming reliable, I wouldn't call it safe. Chess is safe, dropzone.com is safe, but when we cant call sex safe anymore, we sure as hell cant call jumping out of an airplane safe... Is it safer than say BASE jumping? I'd tend to agree. Keep in mind that when you fly your wingsuit down to 1500' on the upwind side of the DZ, just behind the tree where the DZO sits with a microlined Sabre2 135, it was YOUR CHOICE to get into the plane with that configuration... I'd hope you know your setup before needing it, much like packing slider up or slider down or with a larger or smaller pilot chute in BASE. Plan the jump, know the jump, jump the jump.


I'm not talking about using a skydiving rig for BASE jumping, and I'm not talking about using a BASE rig for skydiving. The whole point of the differences in these rigs is due to two totally different situations. But to say that a BASE rig is more suitable for skydiving than a skydiving rig is just as fallacious as saying that a skydiving rig is better suited for BASE than a BASE rig.

A side effect to the TSO process that not a lot of people think about is the record keeping aspect of it. Every manufactor has to keep accurate records showing the path of the materials through the process of building the rig. For example when Sunpath had an issue with the backing of a certian color of parapack becoming sticky since it was not seen as a huge issue since they knew the exact serial numbers of rigs that used that exact batch worth of fabric. TSO'd rig manufactors have to keep extremely detailed records showing what batches of material were used in what rigs so that they can ensure if bad materials make it though the process they are able to be tracked. Capewell was able to isolate the exact manufactoring time peroid that the bad pins were manufactors and what people purchased them through their paperwork. Part of the cost in the TSO beyond the testing phase goes to the on going paperwork needed.

actually I have to disagree with Matt's views on skydiving gear

his point does not stand and all you have to do to check it out for yourself is deploy most skydiving reserves at terminal velocity and you will be surprised at how much that canopy wanted to come out...



actually this is not a BASE jumping forum, this is the DORKZONE

these are BASE jumping forums:
BLiNC
UK BASE Board
FBA Forum
IBA Forum
ABA


and then, of course, there is always the ubiquitous websearch:
search results for 'BASE jumping forum'

maybe you can now do some clicking and try and learn the difference

although personally I would prefer people with your posting style and history to stay on the DORKZONE rather than mess with the signal-to-noise ratio on real BASE forums

cya

As far as I'm concerned this whole discussion is about comparing apples with pears.

e.g. You wouldn't go play hockey with a golf club and opposite...

BASE and skydive gear both serve their purpose and they do so pretty well. They both have come a long way.

As for the original post: I admire your work, good stuff!

J.

Hey Slurp, when you talked about the complexity you just said that it was obviously more complex than an single parachute system and then went on to cypress, so here are some additional complexity things you might not have considerred.

collapsible pilot chute,
retractible pilot chute,
and collapsable and splitable sliders.

Base gear is designed so be as non-complex as possible. The most complex thing on my base rig is the three rings, and it's only there because I trust that it won't fail (I check it before every jump) and it is a lot faster than hook knifing your risers in an emergency.

I hope that at some point in the future BASE gear, is reffered to as low altitude gear, and is acceptable at all dropzones to people with the proper education.

hell ya. it scares me but hell ya. you know i have 4.5 rigs for different reasons. if this 'LA GEAR' idea could work i could sell the shit i dont want and by another blackjack. or would i lose it on blackjack

All this talk of evil skydiving gear has almost got me scared to show pictures of the Skydiving rig II am making....Jeesh!

Some of you guys crack me up. Do some research and remember where your roots are...

What Would Carl DO?

Show the picture!

This thread has gone pretty far off topic, so since you addressed me directly, I'll put up a response and then I am leaving well enough alone. I'm not trying to be right or wrong, just an interesting conversation and my point of view on it

Yeah, those are some considerations, but keep in mind that they are options. You dont have to use those specific items to make a skydive. I have a collapsible slider, but its not a requirement to collapse it, it just reduces drag and wear if I do... Non-collapsible Pilot Chutes have been used in skydiving sucessfully for many years. However, you wont find those items on a reserve canopy. All the parts you mentioned are found on a main canopy, one that is not required to be TSO'd. You could jump a BASE canopy for a main if thats what you really want to do.

I wouldnt say that BASE gear is designed to be as non complex as possible, but I agree it is designed no more complex than necessary. Typically, I would think if you ask a skydiving gear manufacturer, you will get the same response.

But as the guy above said, comparing apples to pears. You wouldn't use brakes from a geo metro on an F1 car and vice versa. I guess techincally you are trying to do the same thing, slow down, but different parts for different applications to maximize safety.

As far as "low altitude gear" I doubt it will legally happen (But thats not how BASE jumpers roll, unfortunately, most pilots do). Check out AC 105-2c which pretty much outlines that you need a single harness, dual parachute system to make an intentional parachute jump from an aircraft.

If you guys are ever in the area, I wouldn't mind discussing other points of view (I've still got alot to learn), and throwing back some beers

This is what happens when you spend too much time in the internest...

On a side note. I take it most of you don't have a rigger's ticket? Isn't it a valuable asset?

what are yout trying to say? those of us without a FAA ticket cant sew or rig for shit?

Ticket schmicket. I don't even know what the FAA (floozy aviation agency) is.

Learned how to pack a reserve (and pack your own) is what I meant. But nevermind...

Man, You have no idea how much I agree witht that. trust me, I would know.