skr

>IRIX 6.5.12m on my SGI Octane Unix workstation. I had an Indy at work when these came out. I talked my boss into getting an O2 for her workstation. One day I was exploring some of the new stuff on her machine, but displaying it on mine, and I was looking at this VRML thing that you could drag the mouse across and it would do stuff. It also did musical chime stuff when you dragged the mouse across it, but I didn't know that until a bit later when I went down the hall to ask her a question. I stepped into her office and she and the main system admin were standing there looking at her machine with "that look" on their faces. "What's going on?". "We don't know. All of sudden it started playing music!". I had to 'fess up, but it took a while to stop laughing. That SGI stuff was the nicest hardware and most fun software I've ever played with. I'm jealous that you have an Octane at home. Skr

>Now THAT's some optimistic thinking, there. Well, given how many people have fallen for their weapons of mass distraction they might plausibly think that people would believe this too. Skr

> I've lost track, but I think we have around 25 computers > between the two of us. Holy shit :-) :-) And somebody up above has an SGI Octane. I'm surrounded by skydiving geeks. We have 2 FreeBSD machines and an XP laptop. Skr

Martin, One final note is to feel free to use any of the ideas or actual writeups that I put up. That's why I put them up there. I think the "Wings Level" article is pretty helpful in teaching them about flying canopies, and that the parachuting aspect is what they need most at this early stage. There is plenty of time later for fancy freefall. Skr

>how's it working out for you? We've been doing a version of it for two years at Calhan in Colorado. The AFF phase, levels A-E, didn't change much, but I re arranged the coaching phase in two ways. Right after the AFF phase I put most of the instructional emphasis on canopy flying, exit separation, packing and generally becoming a parachutist, and give them a freefall recess where they can just enjoy the freefall for a few jumps. Second I gathered all the spotting and tracking and clear & pull stuff into a 3 jump sequence that we do out of the Cessna. I use the short form of the proficiency card and don't worry about the exact sequence suggested in the F-G-H SIM version. Maybe in a military situation you could follow that but civilian students show up in such a variety of currency, ability, and state of mind that it works better to take them where they really are, keep in mind the final skill levels we're trying to get them to, and design jumps that move them in that direction. The ingredients that go into these jumps are pretty standard and what you'd expect, but the exact combination and what gets emphasized depends on the student. When the students finish the A-E AFF phase they are cleared for solo freefalls, which means they are OK to be in freefall by themselves, but it doesn't mean they are cleared to be wandering around making unsupervised jumps. When they get to the coach phase I hand them a folder with some writeups that tell them what to expect on their way to the A license, which takes another 10-20 jumps. I put that stuff up at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html#learning There is always some push to come up with a rigid sequence and a fixed number of jumps so you can quote prices and try to look cheaper than the dropzone down the road, but it just doesn't work that way, and the best you can do is tell them that it typically takes 10-15 and sometimes 20 jumps to learn all the skills for the A license. As for how it's working ... For the students it's much better, they get to a much safer level of skill before they are on their own. For the coaches it's less clear and I still don't know what to do about this part. All this instruction they are getting is a *huge* amount of work and I don't know how to get the coaches paid for it. You often hear "slot + 10" but you only actually make a few jumps with them to do the freefall requirements. All the rest, the canopy flying, the packing and so on is done on the ground. So overall I would say it is right to go in this direction regardless of details that we may disagree with and regardless of the awkward way it was introduced, but it's still not a well worked out and accepted part of skydiving culture. So, I hope you plunge in and give it a try, the more people try to do it, the sooner it will get worked out. And the extra instruction after AFF really is the right thing to do. One final note is retention rate. Skydiving is pretty intimidating and I think this coaching keeps some number of people who would have dropped out after AFF. Skr

>I have never seen such bad I liked the movie. I didn't go to it expecting much literal realism, but the plots and subplots and characters and atmosphere were based on real jumping. I even flashed back in a couple scenes to feeling that hot, humid Florida weather in similar situations. I thought they managed to get a lot of real protrayal through the Hollywood filter. Of course I thought the first jump course in Fandango really captured some stuff I've seen in real life too. Skr

>I find myself looking up at the sky constantly. I don't look up there constantly anymore, but I'm very aware that it's up there when I'm wandering around in my day to day life. >The problem though is how do I be normal now. No problem, you're a skydiver, so now that you're jumping you're normal. It was all that not jumping before you made your first jump that was abnormal. I'm in my 41st year. I'll let you know if it changes. Skr

> The first one I owned was a Starlite, in a Starlite piggyback. > I put about 400 jumps on it, and really loved it. Now *that* is hard core :-) :-) I had my first malfunction on a Starlite. Well, actually, I had had a few reserves out from screwing around in my younger days, but that Starlite was the first one that didn't open when I meant for it to. 1975, jump #1701, the last jump of the nationals, there I wuz ... We, the Exhibition Team, were demo-ing this new sequential stuff at the style & accuracy & speed star nationals. The meet was over, the winner, Captain Hook had just organized a beautiful 32(?) way star. We were next, how were we going to top that? We settled on a 25 way diamond, which had never been done before. In order to be sure that everybody got a good look we built it right over the crowd and held it to 3,000 ft. I loved tracking over a crowd, especially with a piggyback and wearing smoke, so in the heat of the moment I may have been a little low. WHACK ! The legendary Starlite opening, except that the stabilizers on one side were all tangled with the steering lines. Possibly due to the over boogie factor that week I hadn't had much sleep, so I decided to do the classic screw around with it, lose track of altitude and get myself into really deep shit maneuver. I was really into it when I heard this distant voice saying "Cutawaaaay!". Somebody up above had been watching the show. I woke up - Oh, yeah, right - glance down - I can do it - ching, ching, shot and a halfs - falling away with one leg stuck out about 15 or 20 feet trying to keep that smoke bracket away from my reserve and Poof! Beautiful 26 foot lopo conical. I had no trouble with lack of sleep after that, I was wide awake for 2 or 3 hours. Skr

>Night jumps are only required for a D license. >If someone doesn't want to do one, fine just don't get a D license. Well, but the requirements aren't laws of nature, we made them up, and we made up what the licenses let you do. I think part of the problem is that the purpose of the licenses and their requirements needs to be better analyzed in the light of today's more complex world. Two or three levels of basic license plus specialized ratings for demos and wingsuits and boards and CRW and whatever would probably work better than today's structure of 4 monotonic licenses. >cutaway would be very useful training Yes, even though it's not the same as a malfunction it would take some of the mystery and fear out of it. I've tried off and on over the years to generate some interest. I don't know whether it's my lack of sales ability, or inertia, or some other reason but nobody has ever picked up on it. Skr

>Have you ever been on an accidental night jump? No, I've been on some that weren't planned as night jumps, but I always knew it was dark out there before I jumped out, so they weren't accidental. I can't decide whether they should be required. I think an intentional cutaway should be required, it seems more relevant. I think the real answer is to have 2 or 3 basic levels of license and then add various ratings for demos, boards, night jumps, and so on. The world has gotten too complicated for a single, monotonic license structure to address the needs. Skr

>wouldya watch that crazy frog! He's flat trackin'!" Yes, I searched on "flat track" and found that too. I believe he's using the English slang use of flat for really or extremely, as in He's flat haulin' ass or he's flat broke or he's flat out of luck. I don't believe the phrase "flat track" was used back then. But that's only because I don't remember hearing it until the 90's. I notice in your profile that you jump at Perris. I haven't talked to Pat in a while and don't know whether he's made any more jumps or not, but you might ask him. Anyway, onwards, I see several other threads around here to have opinions on :-) :-) Skr

>You'll find the term "Flat Track" in a lot of stuff written by Pat Works > that was written in the mid-70s. No, I remember the phrase "max track", but I never heard "flat track" until somewhere in the 90's. "Tracking" always meant trying for maximum horizontal distance. In the distinction hooknswoop made above if you were deliberately going steeper or faster then it was diving, not tracking. "Max track" was used for emphasis, the track was really good in a technical sense. Of course, maybe that was just the way I used it and I naturally assumed everybody else was also using it correctly :-) :-) Reality is slippery at best. Thanks for that Pat Works URL, I hadn't thought about that stuff for a while. Skr

> Might try to PM Howard White (howardwhite?) or Skratch Garrison (skr?). >They are both very mature, Mature ?? Hey Howard, we fooled 'em! They think we've grown up :-) :-) Skr

>Some old-time skydivers do the opposite to reduce >opening shock; they pull and then sit up. That way >their bodies are rotated less by the force of the opening >canopy, and they are less likely to get 'rotational' injuries >(like the classic sore neck.) :-) You're way too logical. I always understood that form of sitting up as a way to eliminate pilot chute hesitations. I would, in one motion, come out of my track, put left hand high, right hand to ripcord, pull knees in and drop them forwards, twist into the wind so I was sort of side sliding to the right, pull, watch pilot chute go up over my left shoulder, watch the sleeve go, twist back square into the wind while the lines unstowed, put both hands high because that helped me hold my neck straight in case of a hard opening, look at the ground while the canopy inflated to see whether I needed to start thinking about my reserve. I made about 2,500 jumps that way before switching to a hand deploy. I think most people from those days were doing something similar. Skr

> According to my ProTrack, I fall more slowly in my track > than in the rest of the jump (RW). Good, that's how it's supposed to be. You have your maximum surface area shaped in such a way that you cover the maximum horizontal distance. That's what "tracking" means. (I don't know where the phrase "flat track" came from. (If you're not covering maximum horizontal distance, (then you're not tracking, you're doing forward motion. (Maybe it came from AFF where the instructors mistakenly (told people they were learning to track when they were (really just doing forward motion, and after a few generations (tracking started to mean forward motion and people needed (a new word like flat tracking to mean tracking. Skr

> "It was changed"? By who? Who claims the right > to enforce proscriptive nomenclature on a sport > and a community? Aha !! :-) :-) Someone else who's bugged by this. I think it happens because day to day recreational skydivers imitate, For God Only Knows What Reason And She Ain't Talking, what the competitive minority do. I've got a pretty good rant on this called Freedom is not a Body Position over at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html Well, I think it's good, because I wrote it. Skr

> How many audibles do you use? I don't use one. It makes more sense to me to keep my relationship with the ground in mind and not go for too long at a time without checking. The analogy I use with my students is the cop in the rear view mirror. If I'm driving down the freeway and spot a cop back there somewhere, I don't obsess on it, I just keep doing what I'm doing, fly over here, take that grip, fly over there and so on. But I don't forget he's back there either and so I periodically glance at an altimeter or the ground or the horizon and check my lowness. Up high I'm pretty relaxed, but down at the bottom end, when the cop has pulled in right behind me, I check more often. To me, skydiving with the planet is part of the jump. Without that I might as well be in a wind tunnel. Skr

>And so, on to the next question Jeez riddler, I'm going to have to email you some killer dwee or something to slow that mind of yours down :-) :-) >In the 2003 IRM Edition 2, page "Coach 7", Section 3, >"Document Layout", Part B. "The A license Proficiency >Card", Number 2.a.2., it states Aaaggghhhhh, I can't stand it. This SIM Sludge representation of coaching is so hard for me to deal with that by the time I had finished the coach course I didn't even want to jump any more, much less coach anyone. Now then, the purpose or goal of the coaching phase is to get them to a certain level of skill before turning them loose. Would you feel OK with this person going out after your group? Does he scare you when he's zooming around the crowd under canopy? Do you turn pale watching him pack? The goal is the level of skill attained and not the path from here to there. When you read the SIM you get the impression that the path they laid out, levels F-G-H, is the one and only way to do it, but it is only one way to distribute the requirements across the jumps. I keep in mind the skills we are going for and use the short form of the proficiency card. I emphasize canopy flying first since that is what they need the most and do the freefall stuff last. The long form might work in a military situation where you have more uniform students and some control of their jump life, but out here in the civilian world they show up in all states of currency, mood, energy level, strengths and weaknesses and so on. So on each jump you cook up a nutritious jump that moves them toward the desired skills. The skills are concrete and the ingredients are concrete, but the meals you cook for them are variable according to the needs of the moment. Before the course we'll make a couple jumps together with you the coach leading me the student around. It will only take 2-4 jumps to see that you can do it. During the course DJan makes clear what you need to do. The evaluation jumps are predetermined and you get a handout with the jumps and the possible mistakes the evaluator can make. AFF is *much* harder, as it should be. When we get them at the coach level they can already fall stable and pull, and we're just helping them get from there to being able to jump on their own without scaring anybody. I wrote a handout for the coaches at Calhan that goes into all this http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/cc_coach_handout.html The coach course is a little bit of an artificial environment but that handout is about life after the coach course. Skr

I vaguely remember this but it didn't seem like news and didn't seem important at the time. I do remember a push from PCA / USPA in the 60's to promote "Sport Parachuting" instead of "skydiving" because they were trying to sound like a sport and therefore more respectable. Maybe this was coming from Jacques Istel. I was pretty California / hippie oriented at the time and it all seemed like some kind of up tight, east coast, establishment nonsense :-) :-) God, it's almost embarrasing to recall how young and ignorant I was. Just take some acid and see the light ... Well, we actually did see through a lot of the bullshit, but we missed the part about how complicated the world is and how tightly people hang on to their views and how difficult it is to actually make even small changes in the world. There are still some people around who were closer to PCA / USPA but I haven't seen any of them on here. I think Parachutist should interview some of these old timers while they are still alive, and I've told them so, but I'm just one small voice out here in userland. Skr

>X Windows has locked up my computer more than Me too. I've been running FreeBSD since 1996(?) and it has never crashed, but several times Netscape has gotten tangled up with X Windows so bad that I had to go over to DJan's machine and telnet into mine and kill some stuff. Life is tough :-) :-) It's snowing today. Skr

>I will downsize to a 150 when I feel that I'm in control of my 170. Yes, it is much smarter to learn about canopy flying first. There is always time to go smaller later when you know enough to have an opinion. Also, canopy flying is only partly about toggle technique. There is also the large scale stuff about thinking ahead and winds and other jumpers and how to fly a pattern and so on. I wrote a thing called Wings Level that you might find helpful. It's at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html#learning It's part of a folder of stuff we give our new jumpers. Flying a canopy is not particularly simple, there are a zillion variables and circumstances, and it takes some dedicated effort over a couple hundred jumps to start sorting it out. It's worth the effort though. Skr

>Maybe the coach program will reflect FF at some point >in the future for rebellious souls like myself, but for now, >it's all about belly-flying. No, it's not. I wish there were some way to get this straight in people's minds, I hear this quite often. It's about teaching people how to make a parachute jump, canopy control and winds and spotting and traffic and exit separation and packing and gear and how the dropzone system and society work. I have people make a few solo freefalls right after AFF while we focus on canopy control and the other stuff. And I have them play around in freefall, a few turns and loops, maybe stand up or fall off the plane backwards and see what happens, find landmarks and look at the size of cars at various altitudes and so on. But the emphasis is on the parachute jump aspects, canopy control, exit separation and so on. When they show some signs of getting it we go up and do the freefall requirements and sign them off. All this other stuff, wingsuits and boards and head down and points and stuff, is totally irrelevant until they can make a parachute jump without scaring anybody. It's like teaching people to scuba dive before they know how to swim. >I don't have a jumpsuit with grips, and I was wondering >if I will be penalized for that? Don't worry about it. My fast suit has no grippers, my middle suit is a freefly suit, only my great big jump with 98 lb girls suit has grippers. I have them taking thumb and forefinger grips anyway. >various unions around the DZ Colorado isn't that formal, at least Brush and Calhan aren't. I don't go to Mile Hi any more and I've never been to Skydive the Rockies. I'm unsure about a camera. Students don't tend to stay in the frame and a lot of the time you're supposed to hold still and provide them a reference. We can figure all that out this summer. I know some places do that. Roger's AFP people carry a camera on every jump, but I don't know how it works. Skr

>Yeah! I'm in! Can we do it at sunset? :-) For the sunset loose load I'd recommend a horseshoe. Back when I was being more of an organizer I found that during the day people often wanted to be more formal and build an actual star, but for the loose load they would let me organize a horseshoe. Skr

>leads me to a LOT of questions Hey Phil, Let's do some stuff together out at Brush this summer. There are plenty of people who need help - 15 jumps won't be too hard. The ISP indicates one way to get from post AFF to the A license, but the students don't come in any standard format. Each one needs different training even though we are trying to get them all to a common level of skills by the A license. I wrote some stuff about how to cope with that and put it at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html#learning It's the program we set up at Calhan, but my intuition is telling me to jump much more at Brush this summer. The money question is tough and I've had a hard time coming to terms with it. It takes more money now to jump than it once did. I don't like that, and it does exclude some people, but I didn't create the economic times we live in. Also coaching is way more than just going up and doing a casual two way with someone. It's mostly about canopy flying and packing and spotting and how the dropzone system and society work and it's a *lot* of work. Most people *want* further training. People pay instructors for skiing down bunny slopes, and skydiving is definitely not a bunny slope. Skr

>You can come jump with our 10-way team Thank you John, I'll take you up on that some time if you guys have the patience for a nice, recreational swoop, well savored, followed by a relaxing circle of just hanging out, digging it. You know, I really understand some people's need for pushing and accomplishment and performance. I just object when they and USPA act like that's what skydiving is all about when it's really just one small thread woven into a much bigger picture. Recreational skydivers of the world unite! Or something. Well, that sounds like a lot of work. Screw it. :-) :-) Fortunately I have plenty of new jumpers to jump with. Skr