Dean358

After such a sad weekend it's imperative we have a constructive dialogue with folks on both sides of the gun control debate to figure out how we can make society safer without restricting the rights of hunters, sportsman and other legitimate gun users. In reading the other threads there is so much knee jerk, name calling nonsense -- on both sides -- that it becomes impossible for us to find common ground and talk about solutions. I am, therefore, reposting below a very eloquent post from another forum on why we're not even speaking the same language, in the hopes of generating some constructive conversation. (Mods -- I hope this is OK, especially given the topic.) The was from Ben in London on Metafilter.com: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think it's been covered so far, but guns and ammunition is a classic example of where the true (i.e. including externalities) cost is socialized. It also partly explains why pro and anti-gun advocates are not speaking the same language. One is talking about personal freedoms, the other is talking about cost to society. In general, humans are poor at conceptualising risk (see more airline security vs safer driving) and extremely poor at dealing with large issues of risk where there are significant vested interests (see climate change). Gun control is, in many ways, like climate change. The status quo is that the personal freedom (the right to own, buy ammo for and shoot a gun) is cheap. In the same vein it is still cheap to buy and use fossil fuels, and reasonably cheap to drive from a to b. The costs of roads are socialised. The externalities of fossil fuel depletion and climate change are also socialised. With guns, the externalities are all the costs associated with guns in general - training and equipping police forces, police investigations, [some] healthcare costs, the cost to schools etc of security measures, the costs to society when productive members are injured or killed. Put simply, the actual cost of gun ownership is subsidised by the state and paid for by all of us. There are lots of examples of governments dealing with costs like these, notably in the way alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. The impact of cost and regulatory changes can be modelled. In Sweden, for example, researchers estimate that removing the alcohol monopoly and privatising alcohol sales would cause significantly more deaths, assaults, drink driving etc as a result of higher alcohol consumption. This doesn't mean there aren't people who can't and don't drink responsibly. It doesn't implicitly mean Swedish drinkers are all feckless alcoholics. It simply establishes a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and its consequences. To which there are costs. There are analogies between gun culture in the US and alcohol culture in Sweden, where, until the beginning of the last century there were no restrictions on the sale of alcohol and where most adults are consumers and purchasers. There are disanalogies too, of course. But denying a causal link between how guns and ammo are regulated and priced, like denying how we regulate alcohol impact public health, is to deny reality. Ultimately, this comes down to the same conversation America needs to have on lots of issues: where the boundaries between personal freedom and collective responsibility lie. It's why the American right has swung so firmly behind gun rights. It also explains the paranoia about arming oneself against a socialist government intent on removing one's freedoms. The two interests are closely aligned because they amount to a wholesale denial of collective responsibility. It is what makes the 2nd Amendment, interpreted in modern times to enable a group of people to arm themselves in self-defense against a tyrannical government, such an absurdity. The people who want to arm to protect society are one of its greatest threats. In the 1,000 posts above a few gun rights supporters such as St Alia and Jacqueline follow a common theme: the gun is there to defend *my* rights when nobody else will. From a non-American perspective this reads less like a mantra of self-sufficiency and more like a rejection of society. It presupposes a failure of the state to deliver its side of the bargain. Soldiers are there to defend you. The police are there to protect you. Doctors are there to treat you. Teachers are there to educate you. In return, you pay your taxes and you expect all these people to do their jobs. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that we see strong themes of keeping state spending low and low taxes among people who often fail to acknowledge socialised costs. And who do not recognise that killing someone - even in apparent defense of oneself or one's property - is placing a large, hidden cost on society. The interesting counterpoint made above - why don't gun rights advocates carry heart defibrillators - reinforces how selective hardline gun rights advocates are. Those who advocate bigger, more or more ubiquitous guns are either doing so from a position of bad faith or simply do not understand risk. Instead we get strong rhetoric about freedom and rights from a purely personal perspective. But - and apologies for picking on you Jacqueline, as one of the rare concealed carry advocates here - by choosing personal freedom over collective responsibility we pick a very shaky security (I will, and will have the opportunity to, make the right choices to defend myself, by myself) in which one is constantly on a state of alert over a safer one. One in which we acknowledge our duties to our fellow citizens in respect of protecting *their* safety. One in which we trust that by giving up some personal freedom (in this case how we own or use guns) we are gaining something back. There is no such thing as gun culture. It is a construct, and used to appropriate the rights-based language of minorities for a cause of selfishness. Gun control advocates have framed the argument more poorly than gun rights advocates. Your freedom has a cost, paid in blood. While you wave the flag of patriotism you are acting against the interests of the society you claim you defend. Gun control is not prohibition. It is not the end of freedom. It is the rebalancing the rights of society of the rights of the individual so we transact peacefully and safely. www.wci.nyc

Good video, thanks for posting. It's interesting how the proliferation of BASE wingsuit videos has tweaked public opinion of the sport. I can't tell you how many times after finding out I'm a skydiver someone says "Oh, cool. I REALLY want to try that BASE jumping thing." (Really? Hmmm...) Pity we don't have the same public relations bump for skydiving. Edited to add: yes, flying down that canyon was better than my morning cup of coffee. www.wci.nyc

Tnx, but allow me to suggest an alternate analogy: A highly experienced tandem master takes a student on a jump. He decides it would be really cool to land in a friend’s back yard – way off the DZ – and just to make sure everyone sees how great this is on camera he turns off the AAD and deploys at 1,000 feet. Given his level of experience he pulls it off – this time. Does that transcend “to each his own?” www.wci.nyc

Yikes. I don't think that was cool at all. Talk about showing off your mad skillz / the rules don't apply to me / but it's OK 'cause we have a GoPro running. While I've only logged apox. 140 hours flying helicopters I can tell you that was very, very wrong: 1. The Robinson R22 is a notoriously twitchy little ship. In fact there have been so many accidents/fatalities in them that the FAA now requires a special type endorsement in addition to your helicopter license to fly them as pilot in command. Wouldn't be my first choice in Helicopters for non-approved maneuvers. 2. By hovering that high off the ground they are completely busting the height / velocity curve. That’s a critical safety helicopter parameter that says (for ships like the R22) if you’re above 5 feet then you have to be going a minimum forward speed on order to be able to auto-rotate if the engine fails. Summary: if they have a power failure doing what’s shown in this video they are in Sangi level deep shit. 3. Then there’s the little issue of hovering into the trees themselves. One minor slip / a gust of wind / an engine glitch and there is a good chance the main rotors contact the trees. This too would be a deadly scenario. 4. The FAA lists five dangerous attitudes no pilot should have. Number 3 Invulnerability: “It won’t happen to me. Many people falsely believe that accidents happen to others, but never to them." Number 4. Macho: "Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others." Sound familiar? 5. He’s doing this with a student??? Seriously?? WTF kind of example does that set. 6. They’re transferring control of the ship between them without full positive acknowledgment. As in, instructor: “you have the controls” student: “I have the controls” 7. He’s smoking a cigarette in flight? (Not permitted as per Robinson) 8. And all of this is being captured by a GoPro – which may explain why he’s “showing off” just a little extra bit. (I believe there's been a thread or two here about the effects of flying with a camera.) Now, it’s obvious the instructor is an accomplished, comfortable pilot with -- I’m guessing -- an awful lot of flight hours. But he should still have his ass grounded and his license pulled if only for being so stupid as to post this on YouTube. Edited to add: I posted a similar comment about this on metafilter.com. Here's my favorite response: I just want to provide a counterpoint to Dean358's comments. While safety was obviously not treated as the highest priority in this scenario, keep the following points in mind: That shit was fucking sick. They had a fucking camera rolling brother. Them guys were fucking tripping. Did you know that? They were fucking tripping, son. www.wci.nyc

Geez guys, how about a little sympathy here? As Spence pointed out, this was a student pilot and he was, obviously, making a poor approach. I'm guessing that he was so nervous he ended up being totally focused on just getting the damn thing on the ground at the expense of situational awareness. Thankfully neither the pilot nor the occupants of the SUV ended up being "dead right." www.wci.nyc

When our culture became poisoned with so-called "reality TV." And if I may, when did the "American Dream" go from leading an ethical life, helping those less fortunate than you, developing new technologies and fundamental scientific break throughs, writing music and literature, creating art and generally making the world a better place for your having been on it to wanting a bunch of cameras to follow you around 24/7 in the hopes of becoming so "famous" that your "personal brand" will catapult you into the top 1% of income? (Top 10%? Feh.) www.wci.nyc

You might want to Goggle "Silver State Helicopters." They were an "established school" too: http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/issue/cover/Silver-State-Helicopters-What-Really-Happened_30107.html#.UG5aOkJhJUQ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13vegas.html Here's an excerpt from the first link above: "....It’s been a little more than a year since Silver State Helicopters (SSH) abruptly shut its doors on Feb. 3, 2008 and went out of business. That day also marked the last time that approx. 2,000 of its flight academy students saw any hope of getting the training they had paid nearly $70,000 for in advance....." If your goal is to become a professional aviator then by all means, go for it! But perhaps not via this particular flight school. Be aware that you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position by paying for that much flight training up front. At the very least, I recommend you have an attorney review the loan documents. www.wci.nyc

I'm not sure how effective a car ad this is, but it's sure a great plug for skydiving. The message I get is: "of all the crazy/outrageous/fun/exciting/scary/goofy/things your kids will always remember doing together with you -- and maybe not tell your S.O. about -- skydiving trumps them all." Plus, the actress cast as mom is cute. :-) www.wci.nyc

Shawanga, Jimmy!!! Congrats. www.wci.nyc

One of the key attributes that’s often not discussed when comparing digital cameras -- at all levels -- is the way in which the color pixels in the single image sensor get converted into an RGB image. Called "debayering" there are bunch of different algorithms for pulling this off, which can dramatically affect how a camera reproduces color. For example, I actually prefer the colorimetry of the little GoPro camera to that of the professional RED cameras (although they're obviously not comparable in other aspects). Anyway, my point is that the published specs for the action cam and the Contour cameras are very similar, but I bet they don't fully represent how images from the two will compare. The best way to really compare them would be to shoot the exact same scene, e.g. a well lit medium close up of a person with nice skin tones, and compare the results on the same monitor. An even better test for this application would be to have them both mounted on the same helmet for a jump. Anyone volunteer? If so please post! On a separate note, Sony seems to be very aggressively reinventing their camera line, from the action cam to new DSLRs to the F65 8K resolution digital cinema camera. It will be interesting to see if the "little" manufactures can compete with them. www.wci.nyc

You liberal New Yorkers are funny.*** Thanks Ron, we do try. Like it says in the ads for the Manhattan Mini-Storage company: "NYC -- tolerant of your beliefs. Judgemental of your shoes." www.wci.nyc

Watch this video written by Aaron Sorkin: (short version): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pzqq9sxKkY (long version): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY www.wci.nyc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGBe-Rh7o4U

I have no experience with the Viso, but someone asked about the Altron a while back. I'm reposting my response for you here: www.wci.nyc

No Pops, I'm not saying that at all. Assuming that logbook entry was a well intentioned but inappropriate and unwelcome prank, then why not just remove the page from your logbook, let the folks know who did it that you really didn't care for it and ask them not to do it again? Hopefully they would apologize, offer to buy a beer and everyone would sing Kumbaya around the bonfire. My point is, it’s a fairly innocent, minor transgression. If the reaction to something like this is to be “humiliated and embarrassed,” text one’s SO because your so upset and have a post on the net about how your logbook has been "vandalized" then really, is a dropzone a good place for someone like this to hang out? Alternately, are you suggesting we should censor and police ourselves so as to never accidentally offend anyone? And, yet again, I’m very sorry she was upset but a dropzone IS an adult environment. Someone this sensitive – some might say overly sensitive – is probably going to be offended a lot by being there. www.wci.nyc

Tnx rehmwa, I appreciate your comments. The example you site of the three women at the boogie is so repulsive that it almost doesn't apply to this discussion. To deny a direct request like that from another human being is such moronic behavior it doesn’t belong at a DZ or anywhere else on the planet. But allow me to pose a more nuanced hypothetical situation: "Jolie” is a perfume designer, a job she has thanks to her extraordinarily sensitive sense of smell. Jolie and her husband have both decided to take up skydiving and have started showing up at the DZ. As we all know, above 10K feet the air inside the plane often smells, shall we say, not so good. For most of us, we laugh this off and shout “Door!” But Jolie is absolutely humiliated and embarrassed by this. We’re talking seriously upset. As in, “her olfactory system has been vandalized” upset. What should we be required to do about this? Should the DZ identify the offending jumpers and not let them continue to jump? Install air freshening systems in the planes? Hold nutrition-training seminars for all jumpers? Post on the net? Or…….. Should Jolie take responsibility for her extra sensitivity herself? Should she accept that this “just comes with the territory” and if she decides to continue skydiving take some steps to make herself more comfortable, like purchasing nose plugs? www.wci.nyc

Yikes. I tried very hard to make my post not come across as callous, and if I failed I apologize. I posted because I was taken back by OP's use of the word "vandalize" which means to "destroy or damage something willfully or maliciously." I was trying to make the point that this is not the case here. Perhaps a tone deaf and sophomoric attempt at humor, but nothing more. I do think that there is, at least in my experience, a skydiving "culture" and it's most certainly not Disney Land (and I hope it never becomes that!). If something as mild as a prank logbook entry gone awry becomes "vandalism" then what about the rest of it? No pies? No Ranch Cheer? Mandate dress codes? No dogs and cats living together? You get the idea. Hello PC police. I couldn't agree more. I pride myself on being a very polite fellah, and I'd therefore be mortified if a prank I pulled so offended someone. That said, if someone is that easily offended I'll ask again if a DZ is the right place for them? I mean, would you go to an adult comedy club if you were deeply offended by curse words? www.wci.nyc

Very sorry to hear your wife was upset but this sounds more like a harmless prank than vandalism. Skydivng culture -- at least at my home DZ, The Ranch -- has a wonderful free wheeling, funny, let's-all-celebrate-life-without-taking-ourselves-too-seriously-once-we're-on-the-ground vibe. Pranks and some of the goofy tradiitions that have spawned them are just a way to make people feel included in the scene. Humor, pranks, and this type of culture are, by definition, not PC. Rather refreshing to find that, actually. Again, I'm sorry your wife was offended and I'm not judging her views but if she can't put them aside then is a dropzone really an appropriate place for her to hang out? Isn't that kinda like going to work for Larry Flynt and then getting upset because you're offended by pornography? www.wci.nyc

We have it in our place in Manhattan. Fricken' love it, especially for the upload speeds vs. our old cable modem. Very reliable and their Internet/TV/Phone packages cost less than Time Warner Cable. Faster, better & cheaper -- can't say that about too many other products. www.wci.nyc

I'm not sure why this thread is in safety and training, but allow me to clarify a couple of things: "Glide Ratio" is the ratio of lift divided by drag, symbol "L/D." Typically one talks about the L/D of the entire aircraft, not just the wing. In the case of unpowered aircraft, e.g. a canopy with a pilot hanging under it, the L/D is equal to the forward motion divided by the descent. For example, if you flew 3,000 feet horizontally and dropped 1,000 feet vertically then the effective glide ratio would be 3 to 1. For any given aircraft there are a range of glide ratios that change with weight (related to wing loading in our case) and speed. Once you get a little faster than stall speed then as the airspeed increases the glide ratio decreases. There are two “optimum” speeds for L/D for every aircraft at any given weight: one will keep you in the air the longest (“minimum sink”) and the other will have you cover the most amount of horizontal distance (“maximum glide”). The engineering behind this is described by something called “flight polar characteristics” an explanation of which can be found here: http://www.gliderbooks.com/downloads/H_Ch4.pdf A ram air parachute with a pilot hanging under it has a very compressed flight polar and will be so affected by wind that it’s not all that meaningful to publish a standard “forward speed” for it. What is useful is realizing that if you’re upwind of your landing spot and trying to get home you want to fly in minimum sink configuration: deep brakes or rear risers to give the wind the most time to push you home. If you’re downwind of your landing spot and trying to get home you want to increase your forward speed by using no brakes or front risers and minimize your drag by getting small. (And pick an alternate landing area well in advance, of course.) So, some crude generalizations: A sport ram air parachute with pilot typically has a glide ratio of between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. A sport ram air parachute of the type you might be flying typically has a forward air speed of about 20 - 25 MPH (use Quade and Dave's 25 MPH estimate). Conclusions: This means the primary variable affecting how much ground you can cover under canopy is: wind speed. But the most important ratio of all, for you Shah? Number of skydives divided by number of posts on DZ.com. I strongly recommend you work on getting that above 1.00 www.wci.nyc

Unbelievable! Wow. My fav interweb quote so far (from Metafilter): Oh shit. It's taking pictures of itself. We sent a Facebooking teenager. Oh, and in case you missed it, here's the full 14 minutes of JPL mission control leading up to and after the landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZgw43GCQ8&feature=youtu.be www.wci.nyc

As much as I'm offended by sweeping generalizations like this there may be a kernel of truth here. I'm a 55 year old skydiver who started jumping 12 years ago. Even though I was already a licensed glider pilot I found learning to land a canopy very challenging. I had my share of bruises and sprains, including a no-flair landing onto a taxiway. Could I tolerate that much physical abuse today? Probably, but certainly not as well. Clearly this is primarily about canopy issues. But don't underestimate the amount of mental workload free fall inflicts on students. if 20 minutes of tunnel time gives students more mental "headroom" to think about canopy flight then it might help the canopy learning process. All of that said, if you're so frustrated teaching 50+ year olds how to skydive that you've "decided enough is enough!" perhaps you're not suited to the task. www.wci.nyc

Asking this question is a great start. First and foremost, listen to your instructors at the DZ. They'll be guiding you through a very well designed student program. Things you might find helpful to supplement this could include: Mental visualization is great. A good book on the subject is "Mental Training for Skydiving and Life" by John DeRoslia, copy here: http://www.amazon.com/Mental-Training-Skydiving-Life-DeRosalia/dp/0970776306 Also, Brain Germain has some great videos about visualization on YouTube. Here's an entire series about transcending fear: http://www.youtube.com/user/transcendingfear?feature=results_main Show up at the DZ well rested and having eaten a good breakfast -- very important to learning and performance. I do 20 minutes of stretching exercises before leaving for the DZ as it helps me focus and gets my old bones moving (a little). The SIM is, obviously, an excellent source of knowledge but it's a little dry to read through. A great supplement is Tom Buchan's book "Jump! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy." A wonderful, easy read that I highly recommend, available here: http://www.amazon.com/JUMP-Skydiving-Made-Fun-Easy/dp/0071410686 The importance of staying humble can't be overstated. Here's a brief article about recognizing and correcting the five dangerous pilot attitudes: http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/sop:hazardous-attitudes Understanding weather is critical to all aviation, especially skydiving. Here's a free download of the FAA's classic "Aviation Weather" book. This reads as a textbook, but it is free. Most applicable chapter is #4: "wind." http://www.aviationweather.ws/ Once you start studying weather you'll want better and more forecast data. I highly recommend this app: http://www.airwx.com/ Lastly, there is great body of general aviation knowledge and training out there that can help increase your understanding of skydiving. Specifically I recommend taking an intro Sailplane (glider) lesson. These cost less than $100. Tell the flight instructor that you'r studying to be a skydiver and that you'r like to learn about: - pre-flight procedures - the atmosphere (soaring is a great way to feel all the things you can't see in the air) - landing patterns. (notice how precise the downwind / base / final legs are) You can find the closest Soaring site to you at www.ssa.org Anyway, apologies if this list turned out to be TMI. Mostly don't forget to be safe, enjoy every single jump and buy beer! www.wci.nyc

Successful: everybody had fun, no one got hurt Successful & Really Good: the above + everyone landed back at the DZ, I landed perfectly within 5 meters of my target Successful & we MUST do that again -- let's manifest!: all of the above + we accomplished the dive objectives :-) www.wci.nyc

About 1,000 jumps ago I owned a Vengeance 170, wing loaded at 1.17 to 1. The openings were so sporty that I either had to sell it or quit the sport. BTW, I'm sure my body position was far less than ideal at opening, but the same shity body position produced much more stable openings with a Saber-2 170. (Still jumping the Saber-2 170 today.) www.wci.nyc