How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?

To the original question: Not that difficult, mentally stressful far
beyond anything you will do in a glider and of course unforgiving of
small mistakes. Anybody fit, aggressive, and with reasonable aptitude
could give it a go after a few seasons jumping every weekend(provided
they were training for this as a goal.) There have been about a half
dozen wingsuit proximity deaths in the last few years, no idea how
many people are playing the game. If anyone wants to try understand
it takes a tremendous amount of time(money helps) to travel to these
places, learn lines, hike, wait weather, etc. Similar to racing
sailplanes, you can't do it if you only have 2 weeks vacation a year.
As the saying goes: Good pilots don't have real jobs...

On Feb 9, 10:24*pm, John Doe wrote:
I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7...feature=colike

Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
Thanks.

"Keith W" keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Dave Doe hard work.ok wrote:
John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
This is extremely risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...VRJowk#t=80 s

Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
Thanks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy...feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might
agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows
what the risks are. Our special forces take risks like that,
perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom, but
I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff like
waterboarding is to see how they will react/function/operate when
they think they are going to die. A significant risk of death is
not uncommon during a mission.

and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in the
selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military? Difficult to tell
by your posting history since apparently you are nym-shifting.

--














Keith

Speaking of difficulty... I am impressed at how difficult giving
somebody credit appears to be, here on UseNet. Calling someone a
"coward" is not uncommon, even though it's silly.

Let me try to illustrate the intended point another way. The stunt
starts about here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...VRJowk#t=80 s

Jeb Corliss is not just flying over terrain that is declining at
least as fast as his descent rate. What appears to me to be the
very difficult part is that he flies within 10 feet of the ground.
If that's not exceptionally difficult, you should be able to point
me to another video of someone else doing the same thing (or
similar, at some other location). What appears to me to be
unusually difficult about his stunt is that he has no escape
route. Some wingsuit users fly close mountain sides, but they can
abort simply by steering in the opposite direction at any time up
until the last second.

Daryl dhunt nospami70west3.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Our special forces take risks like that

Wrong,

Bull****.

As dangerous as a Specops mission is,

You just contradicted yourself.

they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
successful.

Well thought out and risky = difficult.

SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.

You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
doesn't use a stuntman or props.

They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability

Are you in a movie?

but chance takers they aren't.

You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.

--






When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
along the way and their people die in the process. When it looks
almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
and execution of the mission. Almost all missions have been
successful.

John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Dave Doe hard work.ok wrote:
John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
This is extremely risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...VRJowk#t=80 s

Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
Thanks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy...feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might
agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows
what the risks are. Our special forces take risks like that,
perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom, but
I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff like
waterboarding is to see how they will react/function/operate when
they think they are going to die. A significant risk of death is
not uncommon during a mission.


Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the
chance of success.

and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in the
selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?

Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
and your drops your comrades in the ****. Special forces
are required to be tough and brave but not suicidal.

Difficult to tell
by your posting history since apparently you are nym-shifting.


I post under my own name and always have.

Keith

"Keith W" wrote:

John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Dave Doe hard work.ok wrote:
John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
This is extremely risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...etailpage&v=rF
Qc7VRJowk#t=80s

Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy...feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
like waterboarding is to see how they will
react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.


Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
of success.

Piddly semantics.

and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
the selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?

Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
and your drops your comrades in the ****.

That's an entirely different subject.

Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
suicidal.

Ever hear of "Japan"?

Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
are nym-shifting.


I post under my own name and always have.

You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?

--














Keith

On 2/11/2012 8:29 AM, John Doe wrote:
Daryldhunt nospami70west3.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Our special forces take risks like that

Wrong,

Bull****.

As dangerous as a Specops mission is,

You just contradicted yourself.

they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
successful.

Well thought out and risky = difficult.

SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.

You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
doesn't use a stuntman or props.

They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability

Are you in a movie?

but chance takers they aren't.

You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.


Exactly what are your Military Credentials? Most of us in here
have them or have been connected to the Military in some way in
the past who generally comment on the procedures. What are your
creds?

Mine is 20 years in USAF and I have worked along with SFs in my
time and can tell you that they are not risk takers. They just
know their jobs so well that it may appear that way to someone
less informed.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" wrote:

John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Dave Doe hard work.ok wrote:
John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
This is extremely risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...etailpage&v=rF
Qc7VRJowk#t=80s

Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy...feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
like waterboarding is to see how they will
react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.


Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
of success.

Piddly semantics.

and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
the selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?

Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
and your drops your comrades in the ****.

That's an entirely different subject.

Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
suicidal.

Ever hear of "Japan"?


Yes they lost, one of the reasons being they disdained normal
military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
result.

Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
are nym-shifting.


I post under my own name and always have.

You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?


Rather more than that I think you'll find

Keith

Daryl dhunt nospami70west3.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Daryldhunt nospami70west3.com wrote:
John Doe wrote:

Our special forces take risks like that

Wrong,

Bull****.

As dangerous as a Specops mission is,

You just contradicted yourself.

they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
successful.

Well thought out and risky = difficult.

SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.

You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
doesn't use a stuntman or props.

They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability

Are you in a movie?

but chance takers they aren't.

You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing
semantics.


Exactly what are your Military Credentials?

Not much.

Mine is 20 years in USAF

Given your lack of honesty in my usual respect for the military
and veterans, that claim is depressing.

and I have worked along with SFs in my time and can tell you
that they are not risk takers.

Ever hear of a "calculated risk"?

You just want to do a semantical circle jerk, as evidenced by your
contradictory and fanciful statements. I'd rather stick to the
subject.

--

















--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.



Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daryl dhunt nospami70west3.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avi ation.military
Subject: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:30:23 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: jh6537$rnr$1 dont-email.me
References: 4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com 39e02738-8040-4786-8f6c-1967b3f7ad7d dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com MPG.29a0954b3c65d70a9898d3 news.eternal-september.org 4f35ea26$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com 4f35eac3$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com jh55n3$vog$1 dont-email.me 4f368956$0$23399$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="Gf8ehz9B5xRnWK3lyvb2MQ"; logging-data="28411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K6CfF6SezGXG/6I9s994S6V3RHw4Id2A="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
In-Reply-To: 4f368956$0$23399$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qgQx6q3PjjDfFP5YTAsq7Uwb230=

"Keith W" wrote:

John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" wrote:
John Doe wrote:
"Keith W" keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Dave Doe hard work.ok wrote:
John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
This is extremely risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...etailpage&v=rF
Qc7VRJowk#t=80s

Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy...feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
like waterboarding is to see how they will
react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.


Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
of success.

Piddly semantics.

and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
the selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?

Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
and your drops your comrades in the ****.

That's an entirely different subject.

Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
suicidal.

Ever hear of "Japan"?


Yes they lost,

lol

Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
do a lot of damage.

--











one of the reasons being they disdained normal
military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
result.

Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
are nym-shifting.


I post under my own name and always have.

You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?


Rather more than that I think you'll find

Keith