kimemerson

Many of us in DeLand when I was a packer ('89-92) were packing regular sub 4 minute pack jobs, and frequently 5 rigs in 20 minutes. We had to. Competition for work was such that we didn't want to lose a team and they were usually on 20 minute calls from landing. Sometimes we'd team up ourselves and do 5 rigs in under 15 minutes. But alone, 5 in 20 was not only common, it was what separated the successful packer from the rest. And in DeLand, the attitude was that we all always were in pursuit of the best. If you didn't want to be among the best of whatever you were doing, take it down the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeZjq-cyD0w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry7K4pYE__8

+1 one time I jumped on a load with no helmet, shoes or altimeter and as the plane took off, two kids in the back got wild-eyed and one said, "Dude you forgot your ALTIMETER!" The other said, "You can borrow one of mine!" Then I noticed that each one of them had two visual altimeters and one audible -- and one of them had TWO audibles. I said, "Thanks, but I still have two" and pointed to my eyes. They looked at each other as if they'd never heard of such a thing.... using your eyes to tell how high you are - preposterous! Great basic training this sport is providing, isn't it? Really, everyone, if you can't tell where you are in the sky, sell your rig and start bowling. As for the original poster and poll -- you don't "try to judge the altitude." There is no try, young skywalker. There is only DO... or do NOT. And the way to DO is to practice. As another poster said, notice how stuff looks on the way to altitude. Look at the hangar and other objects (people, planes, buildings, roads, runways, whatever), then estimate the altitude, then look at your altimeter and see how close you are. Do it at 500 feet, at 1000, at 2000, at 3000... with practice, you will indeed be able to know at a glance how high you are. you can practice in freefall too. look down, estimate the altitude, then check your altimeter to see how close you were. Your peripheral vision of the horizon is also a huge altitude indicator and not as subtle as object-on-the-ground size. start noticing where the horizon is when it's breakoff time. finally, "realise" that training yourself to SEE how high you are instead of relying on a machine is not very hard to do, and you don't need hundreds of jumps to get it right. JUST DO IT and you'll get better and better at it -- to the point that you'll be able to hop on a plane without a machine altimeter and not give it a second thought until the kids in the back freak out and offer you one of theirs. Bingo! When I was an S&TA and the occasional low puller came under scrutiny on my watch, I could tell them what altitude they pulled at and provided they didn't flat out lie, I could be right within 500'. From the ground. There comes a time when you learn what altitude looks like from anywhere. If I even bother to look at my altimeter it seems that I do it at the same place every time, roughly 4,000' . A lot of us experience this. Equipment dependency is no way to go through this sport. Or, no way to stay in it and come out in one piece.

Unless I'm struck blind my altimeter(s) won't fail.

Yes, it would...is. I enjoy history in general. And in our case so many of the original pioneers are still right here, alive and in some cases, still jumping (hello Lew). And I'm damn sure quite a few are willing to talk. It doesn't just have to be the well known among us (Sanborn, Bird, Istel) but also the not as well knowns (hello Howard) but still important. Add to that the complete unknowns who were there at the time and we have a book in the making. One thing I love about this sport is that, though USPA and others are talking retention rates in decline, we also have people who have been with it 30, 40 years. Or more. So getting to hear some first hand stories from those who were there then is still pretty easy.

Does anyone remember the Parachutist article from around 1991 that was about a parachute packing machine being tested in DeLand? You would place your rig in one end and it would come out the other all packed. I think you could calibrate the machine to give you specific openings. Packers hated it but jumpers loved the time saved. The fact that the article appeared in the April issue, along with a fake cover, took a moment to sink in.

When I was a pup in the sport (still am, really) Tommy Piras and I were chatting and he was telling me how he got started skydiving. He was living in Arizona at the time and one day his brother came home and said he'd seen a bunch of parachutes in the air, and asked if Tommy wanted to go watch. So they rode off together to see the fun. There was a load up at the dz by the time Tommy and his brother got there, and Tommy had found the DZ manager or owner and as they all were watching the skydivers opening from the ground, the DZO looked up and said, "Blues Skies". But then they could see that one of the skydivers was having a malfunction. So the DZO said, "Black Death." Then, just as the main was cut away and the white, round reserve deployed, the DZO said, "White Life." Tommy told me that as far as he knew, the whole expression is, "Blues skies, black death, white life." I've never heard any one confirm or deny that and no one has ever said it to me since. When the skydiver who had the malfunction was doing ok, Tommy told the DZO that that was the guy he wanted as his instructor. So when the jumper landed and walked in their general direction, the DZO introduced Tommy to Bob Hallett. And the rest, as they say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dtoTJ9Aic8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhjKBKvgCps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnBIoPCvplE

Stilleto and Stilletto saphire, triathalon, and various incarnations of "silhouette" I've gotten quite good at typing in searches And that's actually a good skill when it comes to ebay. A number of people can't even spell what it is they're selling - even when it's written on the item itself - so they post it in misspelled form and get few to no bids. So if you just type in variations of misspellings you could find something no one else has bid on.

so sioux me.

It's all well and good to call the guy names and give him a hard time because he's on to spelling. But the unspoken point here is that the education in this country is down the tubes when someone can't tell the difference between "then" and "than"; between "your' and "you're"; writing "should have" as "should of". It's all in good fun to defend illiteracy, I'm sure. And yes, we know what one means even when they don't have enough education to express them selves in their own written language. And some of us value the written word and some don't and likely those of us who do will never convert those who don't. But from a completely subjective perspective, such simple errors just point out the uninterested, un-curious, illiterates among us. And what's worse is that this sort of insidious illiteracy is finding its way into our newspapers (that the detractors here don't and probably can't read) and passing as the English language in written form. I wonder how many people who don't agree with the OP are actually innocent of these sort of errors that are so common these days, and could defend themselves in print without committing any of them. It is very likely that the defenders of such illiterate habits have never really gotten any pleasure from reading. And as a reader I can only add that I see it as your loss. But then, we are all free to choose our losses democratically and without suffering any fool who dares point it out to us. Just as we are free to display our ignorance, illiteracy and lack of education without being shown just how deep and rife the deterioration of the language is becoming. And not that anyone cares, but the deterioration of a native language is one of the proven avenues to the deterioration of the culture that speaks it. I would wager that at least some of the OP's detractors also just happen to be in favor of an English only policy in the U.S., taking the position that if you can't speak the language get out of the country. As I see it, the language is already in jeopardy and mostly by the natives who can't write it.

You can teach that downwind landings are acceptable, doable and likely to be the required direction in tight spots. No need to teach that they are the devil incarnate. And you can even intentionally put a student into a downwind situation - if the wind is light enough - and actually teach how to handle it. The problem is really that when wind direction is discussed with students, downwind is taught as a never, ever under any circumstances. I've watched as experienced people land downwind, even when no one else is landing and the area is clear, Instructors commenting to students that it was wrong. Downwind landings are not "wrong". They are simply more difficult to master but not impossible. They need to be accepted into the repertoire of any accomplished canopy pilot and becoming an accomplished canopy pilot must be included as a goal of any serious skydiver. I also believe some form of CRW needs to be included in early education. Our canopies have a range of flight capabilities that are far beyond the skill level of the average pilot. It behooves us to not be intimidated by the instrument we need to command. As long as any form of intimidation is taught and encouraged, we will continue to foster ignorance and naievete, danger, injury and death.

Yes! And stressed as a thing to avoid and fear. As are crosswind landings. I've witnessed too many injuries, i.e. low turns to avoid downwinders, when a proper education regarding landing in all winds would help. Stressing upwind landings forces people to insist on them especially when the winds are light and variable, causing, at times, as many landing directions as there are jumpers on the plane. I also believe that to some degree the stress on upwind landings by the instructor may well be an indication of the instructor's own anxiety or inability to handle all winds. There are reasons and times and skill levels which would make an upwind landing the preferred, but vilifying down and cross wind landings outright is actually dangerous and irresponsible.

Dude, that's a bit misleading. To my knowledge, the only video you "must see" is the one before signing the waiver with "the guy that looks like he's from ZZ-Top" (Bill Booth). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdf_ycf1qtY Thought that was only if you were doing a tandem... In theory, ya wouldnt have to ever watch that video, if you went straight to AFF. The only one I think is a MUST is Fandango. All others are candy. The FJC in Fandango should be required viewing.

For christ sake you get extra points on this one.

Nice, subtle reference. Someone else has to have gotten it too. Yeah, but didn't that DZ rise from actual, rather than metaphorical, ashes? Exactly. Hence, Phoenix

Nice, subtle reference. Someone else has to have gotten it too.

Does anyone really believe Nancy Koreen said she's "dropped" at z-hills?

In the afternoon.

Thank you for the condolences. He was a good man but we were not close. Still, a great loss. He thought I was nuts for skydiving but that didn't keep him from riding his Triumph or Indian down the highway at full throttle. He smoked cigarettes all his adult life and died of lung cancer at 55 years old. One month from diagnosis to death So let me put in a plug for quitting smoking, all you smokers. "nuff said. Again, thank you. I think we differ on the severity or importance of telling the truth or what constitutes a lie and we may not find middle ground on that. But I welcome a healthy discussion and want to say thanks for pitching in. I see this as just a discussion, not a diatribe. I simply feel that once we get into what I consider the playfully absurd realm of astronomical numbers as claims to the unreal, we are not expected to take it as real, and if we are caught believing, or wanting to believe such absurdity, then it is we who are the fools. As I said, somewhat, if I told you I had a trillion jumps, you would know it wasn't true. But is it a lie? It may be a grey area, or one left to interpretation, but I think that intent is what matters. My saying to you, a skydiver, that I have 999,999 jumps is so obviously not intended to be taken seriously, that it cannot be constituted as a lie. Unless I allow you to believe it and I hope to gain by it. It's a joke. And if one cannot comprehend a well intended joke, then is it the responsibility of the joker to straighten the listener out? Sometimes. Other times it's just a joke. And so I stand by my comment that my saying I have 999,999 jumps should not be taken as a sign that I am an untrustworthy liar. Anyone who insists that I am, based on that 999,999 comment, must also have taken a moral high ground and might also be devoid of a sense of humor all together. And in that case, nothing is safe. I guess I just don't call every untruth a lie. Again, because I consider intent to be the crux of the issue and I allow for the playfulness of hyperbole. It is when the claims play with reasonable possibilities that the truth matters, not when they are so patently and obviously not truths.

My brother died a little over a month ago. If I told you I'd give my left nut to see him again you would likely understand that I would not really give my left nut as payment for a seance, but you would also understand that I really in all honesty want to see my brother again. A claim of a million jumps is a romp through the absurd. It is playfulness. I no more expect you to believe I have 999,999 jumps than this guy expects you to believe he has a million. (You can also run a check on me and find out for yourself if I've at least been a USPA member for 20 years. And that's how you can tell if my one "lie" is indicative of another.) And such play is not lying. It is play. No one expects that any serious discussion on jump numbers would even allow such a claim to be entered into the conversation. The 15,000 though, is a possibility and we know that. So that's the one we might want to verify or check out. It's the one where a false boast or a lie could be used to deceive someone for any reason. The million claim can't even do that because the general skydiving population already knows and fully accepts that it isn't real. The distance between a statement of one million jumps and the known, accepted reality is such that the claim is an absurdity and we are asked to enjoy the fun, not accept it as a claim. If I go to the circus and I see a dozen clowns fit into a Yugo, I accept that they got those clowns in there but I don't accept that those guys go home looking like that. (Unless they're headed to the DZ) Jimmy Durante, a comedian of the '30's - '60's (or so. Not sure exactly) after he got off a good joke, would say as his standard line, "I got a million of 'em." It was a signature line. I doubt anyone took him seriously and I doubt anyone called him a liar. One million is such a far flung number that it is in a category all by itself. Anyone who says they have a million jumps, or 999,999, is hoping no one really believes it. And they are hoping no one then assumes everything else they say is also a lie. We can very easily take this guy at his word because he hasn't asked us to believe he has a million jumps. Unless he is trying to deceive us, unless he hopes to gain from it, there's nothing to indicate that a claim of 15,00 is also bogus. The two claims are unrelated because the million is not expected to be taken seriously whereas the 15,000 is in line with what we know could well be true. And you should believe my claim of 20 (21 in June) years in the sport because I haven't attempted to mislead you in any obvious way. If the 999,999 is used as a yardstick for my truthfulness, then we can kiss good humor goodbye. I put 999,999 because it's the highest number that I can use here on my dz.com profile. It won't accept anything with more digits and it won't let me use words. Numbers only. I'd probably have said a trillion for all it mattered and if I say it's snowing in December in New York and to dress appropriately, I hope no one looks at the 999,999 and gets out the tank tops and Tevas and blames the frost bite on me.

What are the odds that the 1 million claim is being cheeky? Like, (work with me on this one. It's a wild guess) he never intended anyone to take it seriously. Because anyone who has been in the sport for more than an hour knows it hasn't been done and anyone who has been in the sport for a week would have heard about it. Accepting the 1 million claim as truth - or as an attempt at truth - is a sure sign of naivete, ignorance, gullibility and dampness behind the ears. We can still take other claims as fact anyway. Hyperbole and cheekiness do not necessarily rule out the truth of other statements. It remains for us to discern truth, and allowing an overly transparent playfulness with the truth to steer us away from the other truths is really more a sign of our inability than it is of the truth or falsity of the claim. And that's the truth.

Because I don't like the short shrift we got. The birds got wings and we got dreaming of wings. Just trying to even it up a bit.

Then stop taking your rig a few times! Once ought to cover it.

Gort