mbohu

The link seems to point straight back to this post.

I was doing the exact same thing--actually the exact opposite, as I'd always turn left, and as billvon explained, it was a sub-conscious reach. The neat thing is that this habit (which wasn't easy to stop at all) helped me get the feeling for a more dynamic flare: Since I could not stop myself from the habit of initially reaching down with my left hand, I eventually just noticed that I could easily adjust to correct for it during the flare: I would unavoidably start turning slightly left, but I'd notice this as soon as it started to happen and I'd immediately adjust by pulling the right toggle slightly further down and noticing how the canopy would straighten out. This showed me how much room and time there actually is during the landing flare, for all kinds of adjustments, and I got more and more sensitive to the feedback from my canopy--noticing subtler and subtler changes in its flight behavior. Eventually, I stopped turning left, not so much because I stopped having the unconscious reaction, but more because--if anything wasn't straight, or if I wasn't at the right height or anything else felt off, I would immediately make tiny adjustments in the flare--this now happens almost automatically, just like your body automatically knows how to make balance adjustments, if you're walking on the grass and your foot lands on a slight angle, etc.: You barely notice this consciously, because it feels so natural. The whole thing does get a little more tricky in cross-wind landings when there is some serious wind, though. (and again: I have the feeling that some student canopies just respond a bit more sluggishly, making these adjustments harder to gauge by essentially having a slightly lax interface between pilot and wing)

I'm no instructor, but I still think there may be a confusion of terms? As I understood it, the 2 "stages" refer to the 2 goals that you want to achieve: Stage 1: level out the flight path of the canopy to (more or less) parallel to ground Stage 2: Bleed off the forward speed and eventually bring the canopy (as close as possible) to a full stop It is NOT meant to (necessarily) describe 2 distinct stages of what you DO, such as: 1: Flare to half breaks 2: Wait and then finish the flare So, HOW you achieve the 2 goals, is entirely up to you and probably depends on a number of factors. I do have to say though, and I know that some instructors have told me I was wrong on this (let the flogging begin!!!), but I still think it's because they haven't flown one of these parachutes for a long long time: When I was renting Navigators at my DZ, there was really only ONE way to get them to level out and that was to yank down the toggles pretty hard and then stop and wait, as they would react with a slight delay. This had to be timed perfectly right. Then you could smoothly finish the flare to stop their forward speed. Ever since I switched to more common sports canopies, and eventually my trusty Spectre, I finally understood what they meant by a dynamic, continuous flare. These parachutes react immediately to the input and I can therefore level them out and bleed out the speed with a continuous flare which I adjust moment to moment with the feedback I get from the canopy. I really don't think that this was quite possible with the Navigator, at least not the ones I rented--but of course, I was inexperienced as well. BTW: I recently jumped in Austria and had to rent student gear, because I did not want to get my rig on an international flight, and that was all the rental gear they had: I did not even try to level the flight path out but just did a continuous slow flare, slowing down the descent without having any "swoop" over the ground. (I know, I know, I'm never swooping as such, but even with my 7-cell there is usually a distinctly long time that I fly straight over the ground before I stop, at least at low winds)

Wasn't meant to be.

Wouldn't it be much more likely that someone could track into them if they left first? On my DZ they generally fly 90 degrees out from jump run and then turn parallel to it; so if they didn't quite go far enough out, or if someone in the last regular group tracks a longer distance than usual, that person could easily track into them or open right under them, no?--not to mention other tracking or angle groups. It seems to me, letting them out last just avoids any conflict whatsoever (except between the wingsuiters themselves.) It also makes me feel good as a regular jumper, as I'm not relying on the wingsuiters to stick to their promised pattern (After all, these guys look and talk like they came straight from the local anarchists convention anyway )

Well, isn't this the most likely ultimate outcome of global warming as well? After all, there are plenty of species that can survive in temperatures that will be untenable for humans. All the prior extinction-level events on earth also never killed ALL species. So: We can look forward to the best years for cockroaches, tardigrades and many other species, after we're all gone.

Just out of interest: If you are not planning to become a swooper (maybe you are?), why is there a need to downsize at all? It seems there is always the assumption that one has to downsize as a matter of fact, and other than at the very beginning, when trying to get off huge student canopies below about 1.1 WL, I don't quite understand why that seems to be the basic assumption. In your specific case: You say you can't do front riser turns beyond 270. But are you trying to do 270s on landing? Since you don't seem that crazy, I assume not. So: Why is it necessary to do front riser turns beyond 270 up high? Just for fun? (I rarely have time for that by the time my canopy is fully open and I have to get back to the landing area) This is not a criticism...I'm just interested, because the arguments always seem to be about HOW FAST (or slowly) to downsize, but there seems to never be any question about downsizing to be absolutely necessary in the long run, and since I fly a 7-cell 230 (weighing about the same as you--but jumping at 5500 ft' MSL) and don't find myself to want to downsize at all (maybe I would, if I thought I ever could rock a tiny HP canopy, but I know I won't get there and made peace with that--knowing I get enough excitement out of freefall)--sure: I'd love a smaller container, but it's not really such a big deal. So, what am I missing? Why is there an assumption that downsizing is required (no matter how quickly?) Why do you need to do front riser turns over 270 degrees? (or is it really the peer-pressure of the un-coolness of having a large rig? I guess that's the advantage of being old: I'm so far away from being cool, that no one bothers me about it...and I don't really care to impress members of the sex I'm attracted to with stuff like that--as the ones that get impressed by that stuff aren't really interesting to me anyway!...or so I tell my wife )

It seems like the question means different things to different people. Some, seem to be looking for some kind of objective statistics, comparing it to other activities, while others (as in the quote above) use the question as a gauge for the "attitude" of the person who responds, trying to judge if they have the proper "respect" for the sport and its dangers. To me, what's interesting is, how do I actually respond to the perceived danger or safety of the sport. What does it mean to me "it's dangerous" or "it's safe". I do wonder about this a lot at this stage in my jumping "career": In the beginning it was quite simple: As soon as the airplane door opened, I could feel my fear and it told me quite clearly: "this is dangerous!" (was this helpful or hurtful? Did it make me more careful and awake, or did it interfere with performing at my best? Maybe a bit of both) Later as the fear of "the door" disappeared, I still noticed for a while, that whenever I performed my EPs on the plane, a little flash of fear flashed by, as it made me conscious of my dependence on the equipment functioning properly (and me using it properly) Now, as time after time I've looked up at my perfect parachute, and experienced my ability to steer and land it, these natural indicators of "danger" have pretty much completely disappeared. I used to get panicked when the 15 minute call came and I wasn't already geared up ("Do I have time to check all the gear, will I forget something because I'm in a rush? Should I unmanifest because I'm too late?") Now if I get to the DZ and a plane is 5 minutes from going up and there is a spot on it, I'll be calmly climbing in 5 minutes later (AAD on, check handles, check pins, check rings, quick check of the straps, webbings, RSL; decide to do a solo in my plain clothes, since I won't have time to prepare anything else, and off I go!) Am I less safe now? Probably not, but I notice I have to find a way to replace my natural feeling of fear/unsafeness with something else that, while more conscious and requiring more effort, may not be as reliable?! I'm not sure. So: If someone says "skydiving is safe", does that mean they do not have the proper respect for the dangers of the sport? If they say "it is dangerous", does that mean they'll be safer? Or does it mean it makes them feel more important thinking of themselves as participating in a "dangerous" activity? I bet either can be true.

Simply mark the tags at the attachment points with colored markers. Sure, it may not be "cool" but why worry about this part of packing when "getting it in the bag" is usually stressful enough (especially if your canopy is large and brand-new!)

So option A then.

Thanks for indulging me on this topic! Looks like we're getting off the "unverifiable" track, and it's getting really interesting. Can I ask what exactly you mean by "consciousness"? And: Why do you think it's an emergent property of matter? Just interested.

Well, I would see that differently: First of all, the mermaid example is not something that is IN PRINCIPLE unfalsifiable. There are many ways that their existence COULD be--in theory--disproven. One could drain all oceans or simply survey them completely, etc, etc. This is certainly impractical but not in principle impossible. The theory of multiverses and the existence of a god who does not interfere with the universe, are IN PRINCIPLE (on logical grounds) unfalsifiable. They are also in principle unverifiable. That puts them in a different category: We will NEVER be able to find out if either of them is true--using our current way of attaining knowledge or realization about the truth. These things are not accessible to our methods of attaining knowledge. This means that assigning any likelihood (99/1, 50/50, 0/100 etc.) is also completely inappropriate. The interesting philosophical question is: Is it likely that the universe is structured in a way that it only allows things to exist that are accessible to our particular method of attaining knowledge? That seems unlikely to me. Therefore: If things can exist but be completely inaccessible to our current form of attaining knowledge about them should we postulate that: A) Such things--being inaccessible to us and having no direct effect on us--are simply irrelevant and we should not bother to philosophize about them or B) We should assume them to not exist or C) Just because they are not accessible to our current method of attaining knowledge of truth, does not mean they can't be accessible to some other method of finding truth (but it would have to be an entirely new method, not just something like getting better at science, etc.) Again, this does not apply to a god who interferes in our affairs (which is what most people mean, when they talk about god.) Such a god is potentially verifiable and also falsifiable. Here we can talk about probability, such as: how likely is it that there is an influence of a supernatural being on things that happen in this universe, given that for every effect we have so far always found some kind of "natural" cause--even if there are still things in the Universe of which we have not YET determined their cause (but which we assume to have a similarly "natural" cause which we just haven't found yet.)

Continuing the topic-drift: It isn't so much about getting around inconsistencies or apologetics; "unfalsifiable" means that something cannot be disproven IN PRINCIPLE. So, in the case of "God" it depends on what kind of "god" we are talking about: A god who interferes in human (or universal) affairs, for example, would in principle be falsifiable. If we can track down every single cause and effect and find that no causes are missing (so every effect can be proven to be caused by something inside the physical Universe) then such a god would be proven to not exist (or to not be of the nature of such an interfering god) If we are talking about a god, who stands completely outside of the universe and does not interfere, then this would be unfalsifiable. If we are talking about an initial creator, who interfered at the moment of creation (before the big bang) and then left his creation to its own devices, this may or may not be falsifiable (depending on if we can trace causality back to "before" the big bang--there seem to be different theories on that) For an unfalsifiable theory that is proposed by many serious scientific minds, we have the multiverse theory. At least the versions of this theory that postulates that there is no way that the different universes can influence each other in any way whatsoever, (either through causality or any weird quantum effects) is an unfalsifiable theory. It cannot, in principle, be disproven as there are no effects we could find that would prove that there cannot be another universe (which has no effect on ours). So: If we say something is unfalsifiable, it means it is not something that is useful to explain our universe in a scientific manner. It could be true, it could be false. There is no way to prove or disprove it, and many people would say it is therefore irrelevant. It does however not mean it cannot be true. There is absolutely no reason why something should not exist, just because it does not conform to our need to prove or falsify something.--That is not meant to be an argument for god, just a clarification of what that term is supposed to mean.

that is an interesting, if accurate, way of looking at it!...but you have to admit it's quite hilarious too!

Again, I do not think it has to do with nationality. From what the Aeroclub is saying, no one with only a USPA license is allowed to jump. The head AFF trainer at the DZ thinks there are some forms that I should be able to fill out and some fees to pay that may get my license recognized and he does think the fact that I have an Austrian passport may hurt--but again, the official body is saying NO ONE with an USPA license is allowed to jump. I asked twice. I said, are you sure? How in the world can you then participate in international meets? They said they are sure. They ignored my question about competitions. Here is the translation of their second email: (NOT from the DZ but the official governing body) No, I'm not wrong. Since the USPA license is not an official certificate, neither a conversion nor an acknowledgment is possible. The training jumps completed abroad and also other legal jumps can be recognized by an Austrian school, a new examination must nevertheless be done.

I like the idea of "complaining to the FAI". I may do that and see what happens. The problem is not the DZ though. They say they all lobbied against it when it changed a few years ago and they think they can get my USPA license recognized via some forms or something. But again: The official governing body says: Austria treats this as a pilot's license and that is regulated by the government and cannot be handled by simple private organizations such as the FAI or USPA.

Hi gowlerk, Unfortunately they do not recognize the USPA license. They require a license that is issued by a government agency, not a private club. They say this changed about a couple years ago and some dropzones don't enforce it, but more and more do, because they can get into big trouble in case of an accident. :-( (So it's easily possible that the FAI recognizes the USPA license, but the Austrian government does not, and requires dropzones to enforce that....at least that is what I could find out, both from one of their dropzones and the government agency that supposedly regulates this.) I guess they would recognize an American license if it was issued by the FAA, rather than the USPA, but since it's not....

Interesting. Not sure where to get an FAI license in the USA, but I'll see if that's possible. The problem seems to be that they demand a license by a government agency, not a private club (such as the USPA). You are right, it just says to get an exam (wasn't clear if it's written or practical) but the problem is, if I have to get an exam and then wait for that to be evaluated, submitted to their government agency and then get their license back, I won't be able to jump. I'm only there for a short time. I'm hoping to drive up to the DZ and--weather permitting--jump for a day. (Again, I wonder how are competition teams doing this when competing in international events?)

Hi, (I remember there used to be a German language forum category, is that gone?) Anyway: I am an Austrian living in the US, with a USPA B-License. I will visit my birth-country in June and want to jump while I am there. The DZ told me I need to contact the Austrian Aeroclub to get my USPA license recognized. The Areoclub wrote the following: Sehr geehrter Herr ..., leider ist es nicht möglich die USPA-Lizenz anzuerkennen, es ist ein österreichischer Schein zu beantragen. Bitte wenden Sie Sich an eine österreichische Flugschule, dort müssen Sie die Prüfungen zum Erwerb des Fallschirmspringerscheines ablegen. Translation: We can't recognize USPA licenses and you will have to get a course and test to get an Austrian License. I know many Americans jump in Europe and I know our teams don't have to get a license for each European country in order to participate in international competitions, so this can't be right, can it???? Has anyone with a USPA license jumped in Austria (or Germany) and have they had any trouble like this? Please help!

Cool!

Is it essential that it exists on every forum category? This can be done, but don't want to add extra content where not necessary. We've added this back to the main forum page. If you go to the primary forum landing page, you can see that the bottom of the forums will now show the latest 10 posts from across the forums. It would be convenient if it was on every page, as I was used to just browse it that way: Click on the first post that was new and had a title that interested me; read it and then just continue to the bottom of the page and click on the next most recent post; BUT: I don't think it's essential. Going back to the main Forum page is just one click, after all. BUT: I realize that on the old site you must have had a filter, where the listed posts only applied to the strictly skydiving related forums. I never found a political or other post there. It was all skydiving, wingsuiting, safety, gear, etc. Now most of the posts are campfire or Speakers Corner related. Not why I come to this forum...but that's just me! ;-)

One of my favorite features of the Forum was the list on the bottom of every Forum page, which showed the 10 most recently added-to Forum topics, independent of which category they were coming from. If your current system has the capability to add this feature back in, I think it would be a great one to add. That was pretty much the way I navigated the Forum 90% of the time. I can't imagine I was the only one. Thanks, and congrats on the update!

Ok. Im going to risk it, in spite of knowing that you seem to be one of the most reasonable and experienced posters here. REALLY? Am I misunderstanding you or are you saying that a student/new A-Licensed jumper who is just coming off a student canopy and still quite a bit under (

Well, that's a fun thought experiment. If you follow that to the logical conclusion you would have a causality-chains going back all the way to a tiny fraction of the big bang (or at least to the first creation of carbon.) Now, if money is truly a good measure to calculate the proportion of the contributions to the carbon footprint is questionable. At the very least that would presuppose perfectly efficient markets ...but it would also mean that there is absolutely NOTHING (other than living at more moderate means) that can be done to reduce your carbon footprint: If you own a $30,000 car it will have the exact same carbon footprint as any other car at that price. In fact, if you owned multiple bicycles that add up to that cost, the same would be true. Ultimately that would mean, that, even if we burned ZERO fossil fuels worldwide, we would still have the same carbon footprint according to that calculation, as long as we were still using money for commerce (actually, possibly much higher, since oil would probably be extremely cheap in such a world--as it would be mostly useless--and so in your conversion you'd end up with tremendous amounts of oil per dollar) So: somewhere there must be an error in that formula

Better yet: Have fewer children: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html BTW: How do you guys get the nested quotes with "suchandsuch wrote:" ? Since there is only a simple {quote} tag, I can't figure that out for the life of me! (I could try nesting the {quote} tags, but that would still not give me the author headlines.)