kimemerson

Please allow the Nazis to own their reputation and stop diluting what they did by spreading their name around to others. The Nazis of WW II Germany were THE Nazis and no one else deserves to be lumped in with them. It's fucking disgusting! No one else should ever be called one. Unless they were.

Now maybe when I said earlier I have no "set" or "rack" it makes some sense. Hopefully you have one of the two... either a 'set' or you have a 'rack'.... otherwise your life is really barren. Not so when the two terms refer to women's breasts. I have ready access to a pair but I don't actually have possession of them. We are on friendly terms and exchange pleasantries regularly. However, as I said, I don't actually own them.

That's also true. No truck=no rack

You're a dude? Fuck. I am indeed male. Named after Rudyard Kipling's "Kim". Now maybe when I said earlier I have no "set" or "rack" it makes some sense.

I've only been in Connecticut a few months, but I believe the term is "masshole". Well I doubt it's what they call themselves. Actually you would be wrong. I'm from Massachusetts and half my family is still there. Thanks for the correction. At least I said I doubted it, wasn't sure. We do call ourselves Massholes, and we do so with pride

I've only been in Connecticut a few months, but I believe the term is "masshole". Well I doubt it's what they call themselves. And I wonder if you're from New England or nearby because I'm not sure their neighbors call them that either. Trivia question for you: Why is Connecticut called the "Nutmeg State"?

[reply If you don't think tits are a free pass in a lot of situations in this sport either you haven't been around long or you've got a set. That's an illogical conclusion. a.) I've been in the sport 20 years. b.) I don't have a "set", another sexist label. I also don't recall saying anything about breasts not being a "free pass". I'm simply calling into question your assertion that any tone or answers would be any different were Bruce a female. Some might. Others might not. Gender plays less a role here, I think, than does each individual's general approach to responding to questions. Someone predisposed to insults will generally spread them around regardless while one predisposed to courtesy will do so evenly. Also, women more than men tend - or seem to - take a kinder approach to responses than we men do.nMany men have been brought up to show a different level of courtesy toward women than we allow ourselves with other men. So it may not be so much a matter of giving a free pass to the breasted among us as it might be that we are more likely, more comfortable, showing a degree of disrespect or even ridicule to the fellow men. It is likely you have not been around long enough to note that "tone" in this forum is often - not always - one of irreverence and satire and jocularity and often less than cordial. Much is also lost between thinking and typing as many here are able to think but not express well in the written form.

JohnDeere: Agreed. A number of years ago I was getting gas and I saw a DZ bumper sticker on the next car. Turned out I knew the woman from around town, from before I'd started jumping. She really didn't know I had been a skydiver a few years by then. So I asked her if she'd done a jump (where I'd been an AFF I at the time) and she said, yeah, I'm a skydiver. I figured I would definitely know if she'd been a skydiver. So I asked if she meant at my DZ. Yep, she said. I asked how many jumps. She said she did the tandem. That's it. One. Never again. I never let on that I was a skydiver too, only with several hundred jumps. I just filled up and bid her good day. Next case! Bruce: I was a Boy Scout Too. I am now neither boy nor scout. I was a married to a woman I divorced. (Ok, she divorced me.) I'm no longer her husband. I was a cook at a few restaurants. I am no longer a professional cook. I once lived in Florida, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhodes Island, Connecticut, Massachussetts & Italy. I now live in New York. I am not a Floridian, a Texan, a Virginian, a Carolinian North or South, Rhodes Islander, Connecticut Nutmegger, Massachussettsian (whatever they call themselves) nor an Italian. See a pattern?

You're saying everything we've all said here is just plain wrong? And that we would have said different things if the op were a female? Then I have to suppose you're intimating that to the female we'd be lying. And to that I take umbrage. I don't lie and the woman in question would get the same insight regardless. Frankly I find your comment a tad sexist by itself. If I were to lie to a woman, the size her breasts would not be a factor.

Let's cut to the chase here. No.

I want to bring peace, prosperity and happiness to all humanity. But I'm a practical sort of guy and I know such altruistic pursuits can take a while. So in the mean time I'm involved in the unfettered hedonistic phase of the overall plan. Just taking the baby steps toward world salvation.

Which, of course, is not the same as following the main down on a steerable reserve, What it is is landing in a safe clearing, dropping your stuff and doing the hard leg work of searching. I've known far too many people who have spent days searching in the woods. There are still canopies out there. So it's not at all like people who don't land with their chopped mains are anything less or couldn't use some sort of help. So to answer the OP's question: Often enough to make it a valid discussion. At least among those who don't "just follow the main down on steerable reserve" except when they don't because they can just "walk straight to the canopy."

Not a lot of dense forest where you've been skydiving I guess.

If a skydiver is the only one in the air at the time then for the most part what he or she does is irrelevant. The wind determining landing direction is - or should be - secondary to traffic setting the landing direction. You are always wrong when you land counter to traffic, assuming other canopies factor in to your landing area. The wind you describe is probably light and variable. "Variable" means it's likely to change, to be something other than what it was earlier. Under these conditions it is absurd and probably irresponsible or plain naive to state that you will land in a Westerly direction - or, for that matter, to tell someone else to do so - because that's what the windsock indicates at the time of the declaration. A huge problem with the way most students are taught is that landing strictly into the wind is stressed whereas landing in any wind is not. Landing upwind is nice and is easiest when the skydiver is new and inexperienced but it isn't a do-or-die situation and should even be avoided under certain circumstances, this being one of them. By building a fear of landing cross or downwind through teaching that only upwind landings are acceptable there is the risk of teaching an inability to handle light and variable winds. When winds are light and variable it would make sense to simply have a responsible DZ person determine landing direction and not allow any variation or interpretations. Canopy pilots should be able to handle cross wind and down wind landings when the winds are light. If they can't then they should consider remedial coaching. Bill was right to land with traffic. Regardless of the wind sock or of what he was told, Bill would have been wrong to land into traffic. His ability to re-evaluate and to correct is actually an asset in his favor. The yobo who chewed him out needs a good talking to. But that's only because he was able to read the traffic pattern for his load. If a landing direction was agreed on before the jump, and winds were indeed light and variable, and the previous jumpers changed the direction to satisfy the windsock, then they should be held accountable for not keeping to the plan. They should be told that under light and variable conditions a predetermined landing direction cannot be ignored. That doing so jeopardizes everyone.

oh, the kids these days!

If he did this regularly during training with the team then they would have known about it and even planned for it. If he did it on that round for the first time, and as a competitive jump at Nationals, then he did his team a disservice just for trying something new without proving it could be done satisfactorily enough for competition. Competition is not the time to experiment with new ideas. Yes, this can be dangerous but with handles on the top of the plane it is less dangerous than those who have not done it might think. I've done it twice but we who did it were stopped because of the paint job on the Otter, not for safety. I've seen plenty of photos of similar things, mostly from the '70's and concerning Beech's and DC-3s. and while I'm not saying danger did not occur, i can't say I ever heard of anything going wrong. The photos survive but so far few if any horror tales have surfaced. My point: You know how we hear it said, "It's only fun until someone loses an eye." Well, how many people do you see with one eye? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Pssst... 70's. 60's was Sears coveralls. Shit! Off by a decade.

The prime purpose of any jumpsuit is that because we jump with others who may well be of different body sizes and types, we have to be able to fly relative. So we compensate for our differences by wearing suits that allow for that difference. So, if you and another are of similar body types, then there is no real need for a jump suit. Grippers make taking grips easier but they aren't the only way to take a grip. If you are jumping solo there is flat out no real need for a jump suit at all. As for relative flight with others, you still don't actually need a real honest to goodness skydiver jumpsuit. Going dirt cheap will accomplish all that but of course you'll have to give up looking like everyone else and accept a certain level of individuality. Not everyone can handle that, though. You can very easily create an outfit that will allow you everything you need. I have been jumping for 20 years and I still jump a pair of jeans and a baggy long sleeve T shirt. I wear two layers of the long sleeve shirt so it has some weight, and I took a pair of Carhart cargo pants and threaded a thin bungee through the hem of the leg to cinch the ankles.Shirt tucked in with a belt, the pants all set and I essentially have the equivalent of any freefly suit except I paid about $50 total instead of upwards of $300. I've known plenty of people who have sewn grippers into jeans to take care of that issue. I've seen empty beer cans and a dead rat as grippers (both Australians so maybe there's some insight there). When you get into more a precise need you may consider the appropriate jumpsuit then. So, if you eventually do video for teams a camera wing suit will be helpful. Booties are indeed helpful for that as well as for RW flyers jumping as a team. Two ways likely have less need for such specific needs. As for safety of using street clothes, that's simply a matter of being smart. As I say above, tuck it in and wear a belt.Use long tailed shirts so they stay tucked in. They shouldn't be so overly baggy that they obscure handles front or back. But remember (or maybe I'm telling you here for the first time) that in the '60's balloon suits were all the rage. Honestly, this sport seems too full of people wondering if accessories will do for them what good skills ought to be doing. An audible altimeter is nice but your eyes and the development of an internal clock should actually be strengthened so that they are primary and the altimeters (audible and visual) become the back ups. Wing suits (for camera) and booties are for specific aspects and are meant to answer particular needs not otherwise met. But they don't make you a skydiver or give you skills you would not have otherwise. Booties didn't exist before about 1991 or '92. They are now deemed essential even by beginners who have no idea why they are essential. They just see others wearing them so they are assumed to be essential. You may want to think about a discipline to get started on. Then eventually do it all anyway without limiting yourself. Just concentrate on one for now but by all means extend yourself into other areas. I know I'll hear some flak on this one but it really is not at all necessary to start out doing RW before doing head down. You just have to have a very good sense of time, altitude awareness and the ability to get back belly-to-earth (to pull) and to be clear of others at pull time (so you need good tracking skills). As long as you can handle your responsibilities at the low end of the skydive it doesn't matter much what you choose to do for the upper end. Safety first and foremost - always. So I would recommend developing flying skills first. Jump with coaches or others who can teach or just partner. Learn what you will need to wear in order to be able to fly well with them but don't put too much weight on buying a real suit if you're still so young. Let your real needs and the direction you take in the sport dictate your attire.

This is comedy, right? Because it implies that not too long ago, before either of these disciplines existed, that there were no options. Which in turn implies that before they existed no one so tall could even consider skydiving. 'Tain't true. Flat out wrong. Ergo my conclusion that this is comedy. Has to be.

What's that mean? Belly-to-earth has no advantage over any other position so long as the required skill is there. as long as you actually have control over your arms and legs and they aren't just flopping around. which is the case for all disciplines and positions, not just belly-to-earth. Stability has nothing to do with the choice of skydiving or body type. It's largely a matter of keeping symmetry of the limbs, or some form of compensation for a lack of symmetry, which is why we place our left arm forward when we reach back to pull. We initially become asymmetrical but we find compensation which is not actually symmetrical.

All he had to do was not flare at all. If he blacked out - or whatever that nightmare thing was - there's no reason to believe he was even aware of the rest of the canopy flight and might not even have considered flaring. He wasn't pulling for himself, that's for sure. So why would he flare? And it isn't the ankles that should make him consider if this sport is for him. Sad part is he really seems to love this thing we do.

Only doing the one jump - and nothing else - I was told very specifically that that was all. I'm not saying that was correct information but the person is an evaluator of good standing. Been at it - I think from AFF's inception. At least a ground prep and a written test makes more sense to me even though I still think it's a weak re-entry for someone who has not had a rating in about 8+ years. So what if I challenge and actually pass? I have maintained that you can do something right by mistake as well as something wrong. I could get lucky on one jump. I could have a weak evaluator. At this point a current evaluator could even be a former student of mine and might just throw me a bone, so to speak. One jump with or without any ground prep or written test just seems irresponsible to me. And it feels like USPA went in the completely wrong direction when they schemed that one. Can anyone challenge a course regardless of their history? What if someone has 1,000's of jumps, grew up on a DZ, has sat in on dozens of Level ground instructions, and anything else that makes him or her feel very ready. Can they simply challenge on their first time and theoretically be rated after one jump? If a rating has lapsed many years ago, what is the difference between the former holder and anyone else who has been around a while? How the hell can one jump quantify skill? We get rusty. We forget.

Wendy, were you told that recently or twenty years ago when the rating expired? If recently, what does this say about consistency in the course? As I recall consistency was also a problem back when I went through the course. It always came up in our discussions. So it would seem they haven't worked out that bug just yet - if you were told recently that you'd have to go through the whole course again. I don't really want to go through the whole shebang again but I'd sure as hell have a lot more respect for my new rating if I did.

I too got my rating from Don Yahrling and I know I worked hard and earned it. Don taught me so damn much. I too miss the guy. I haven't read all the posts and I'm not going to so I apologize if this has been mentioned. The idiotic thing I did was to allow the rating to lapse a number of years ago. And now I have been considering getting it back. Back when I first got my rating in '93, if you let the rating lapse after a while (1 year? Two?) you'd just have to take the whole course over again. Or close to it; maybe only part of the ground prep. Anyway, flash forward to today. I asked a current course evaluator what I'd have to do to get my rating back. "Do one jump with me," he said. I reminded him I'd been out for a while. "Do one jump with me," he said. I wanted to be clear so I told him it had been over five years. "Do one jump with me," he said. I said, "You're not listening..." And he said, "No. You're not listening. Do one jump with me." "What about the five years?" I asked. "Don't matter if it's a hundred years, "he said. "They're dumbing it down, Kim." he said. Incredulous, I asked why. "Because they can't get enough and they can't keep what they got." He told me, referring to Instructors. "Plus, so many newcomers are only dong that head down stuff," he said. "They can't fly on their own bellies anymore. How are they gonna teach it? So where's the pool?" So guess what I now have to do to become an AFF USPA rated Instructor with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges afforded one? Yep, all I have to do is "one jump with [me]." After working with Don and seeing the great pride he took in fostering so many worthy Jumpmasters, I hope I don't have to explain this one to him if I do get my rating back. It would be a travesty and I'd have to hang my head talking to him. But what am I going to do? Force the evaluator to make it harder? Force 6 jumps at two points each out of him? Yarhling used to say, when bestowing ratings on newly minted JMs, "This is not just a license to teach. It's also a license to kill." We knew what he meant and it was always a matter of right to prove him wrong on that one point but now I fear his words are only all too true. Heaven help us if they are at all prophetic. One jump. That's all it'll take.

I believe your question is about stability. And that's a matter of technique and skill and is not at all affected by body dimensions so long as those dimensions are human. It's not only teachable, it's taught. Stability is an AFF requirement. If you were 9'10" and 375 lbs. you should be able to fall in a stable position. If you are built in some peculiar way - like you have three arms - you should probably be able to compensate in some way. Nonsense aside, your ability to free fall in a stable position has 100% nothing to do with your body build. If you are not able to fall stable, you need coaching and not much else.