dorbie

Perhaps its a holdover from military jumpers. Perhaps it's a confidence builder. Perhaps it's a test and a right of passage. Frankly night jumps are fun. Man up and get out the plane. Not everything we do has to conform neatly into some useful training structure for a D license. Maybe if you're overly concerned about the risks of a night jump then you're not cut out to have a D license. You don't HAVE to make night jumps, you can stick with your C license.

P.S. as of the time of this post "camerahorny" has not been registered with any top level domain...

What's worse? A camera horny 70 jump wonder or a camera horny 200 jump wonder?

When the input from experience jumpers is near unanimous and backs up club recommendations and is backed by sound reasoning and video and many other threads it's time to listen. Where is the well reasoned rebuttal that merits a new defense? I quoted you exactly and fairly, I twisted nothing. I quoted this because of the apparent contradiction. You might have been onto something back when you wrote that. You've since rationalized away that inconvenient moment of clarity. This should be a red flag to you about how you're approaching this decision. The only shocking thing is what this implies about your knowledge of statistics. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is simply rhetorical nonsense because you're feeling defensive. The Dunning–Kruger effect tells us that the less we know about a topic the more likely we are to overestimate our abilities in it. You are not qualified to make such a determination and there is a big difference between rationalizing what you desire to do and reasoning whether you should.

Well I started with considerable sympathy for your position but.... At some point you should listen. Reading you rationalize against input you are given as you ask for more input is a bit much. Nobody with under 200 jumps would/should be doing outside camera but that's not the only reason it is safer but implicit in this is a "qualified" experienced camera flyer who takes it seriously. Here's a poll just for you: Did you start this thread for affirmation, for an argument or for advice that might save your life? Have you changed your mind on this: "I will probably wear a camera before 200 jumps and I will do it safely" Do you remember writing this: "I will do it by recognizing that the camera is a distraction" I think you've managed to change my mind on this issue, I was wrong AGAIN. Nobody should be jumping camera with less than 200 jumps. New jumpers are just too green and full of dumb ideas, I've been there and know the feeling, and still suffer from the malady in many respects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcN_1i8HHKk http://cdn2.denofgeek.us/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/snlhero2_0.jpg

Got to laugh at all the moaning over modern movies being too over the top after the original Point Break's bullshit, culminating in the chuteless exit and dropping the gun to pull. The writers must've been on a coke binge, shame on anyone who moans about the new one, it already looks more credible. Yes we're going to see a lot of whuffos wanting to WS BASE. Bring on the WS Tandem!

In addition to the pool exercise, when I was trained by Jim Wallace he gave us a couple of hours of instruction covering years of experience of real incidents. It was amazing and difficult to capture short of video taping his course, no doubt there's more recent info in it now. It ain't in the SIM that's for damned sure. Makes me wonder at the loss when guys like him decide to stop teaching.

Sorry, this sounds like it was lifted straight from a wing loading thread. How can they assess whether you have the mad skillz to avoid getting distracted by a camera? I'm less dismissive than others of your point that someone who has a LOT of sport POV camera experience may be less distracted by the camera than others, it is after all the other half of the experience equation in this and it seems rather strange to be so dismissive of it. However it would then depend on difficult to anticipate factors like how the camera is used, and how much attention it is given. There is a difference between a jump with a camera incidentally filming and one where you are mugging into a camera or fixating on a target with one etc. and I don't think you can make rules that draw a meaningful distinction between the two scenarios. Can a third party a priori know what your actions and attitude would be with a camera? I dunno. Last person I took skydiving got the bowling talk during FJC so I sure as heck can't.

Small percentages matter when the consequences are large.

On FJC I was trained to pull if I lost altitude awareness. Student lessons aren't just for students. Whatever he was thinking turned out to be a poor strategy for him but improvising in the moment can produce some poor decisions. Why did he have an aversion to pulling a little higher? Why the heck did he track for 15 seconds? Try it, it feels like a very long time when burning altitude after break-off. Perhaps he was overly concerned about proximity because nothing really makes sense about his decision making. In emergencies you need to fall back on the big sky principle, wave and pull and trust that other jumpers are doing their part.

"A nut under is much worse than a line over." - my instructor during AFF.

Another reason for student ripcords. I was solo on jump 8 but hand deploy at # 13. Back when Aff was seven jumps total for AFF. None of the 25 jump crap to get an A. AFF can still be 7 jumps, then you need 25 jumps to get your A.

No, an arbitrary number is 70593. If a number is based on something, it's not arbitrary. Don't confuse round with non-arbitrary.

Ahh you mean the number of jumps that used to earn you a D license. Check.

Great timing on this object lesson with the recent focus on gopro safety. This is one scary video: https://vimeo.com/126996983 I'd comment but... SPOILERS.

And yet . . . they are precisely the same. Inventing a mythology for something they simply do not understand. Then, of course, "Downwinders" were assured that there was nothing to fear from the government. historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandthedownwinders.html And then there was the Green Run. You left out the best stuff: http://priceonomics.com/how-the-us-government-tested-biological-warfare-on/ Germ warfare experiments on US population centers by releasing serratia marcescens over San Francisco by the Fort Deitrick biological warfare staff. But possibly more troubling is Judge Conti’s subsequent 1981 ruling against the grandson of a guy killed by this including finding that it is perfectly legal for the government to conduct biological experiments on the population without informed consent. That said, the chemtrail conspiracies are nonsense.

Tasers are a good idea as an alternative to deadly force. Problems arise when they are used as an instrument of convenience and extrajudicial punishment. They were marketed to the public as a life saving implement to give cops options short of deadly force, but they are used without accountability as torture compliance devices in situations where deadly force would never be acceptable.

I've known several people who were able to walk away from a plane crash because they had a seatbelt. This is a question with unknowable parameters. It boils down to do you want to be hurt more, or hurt less. Given that you cannot know all the variables there seems to be only one sensible answer.

That is a case for improved tighter restraint in some aircraft, not a case against using restraints. Claiming they might as well have put them around their necks is nonsense. There are a range of crash scenarios and outcomes. In the Canadian crash I cited, the lack of restraint use was listed as the cause of increased injuries, without even getting into load balance territory. In any case it is moot, restraint use is an FAA requirement.

"The Bill Dause Beech 65-A90 King Air (United States registration N17SA, aircraft serial number LJ-164) took off from Pitt Meadows Airport" If you didn't know, that's the elderly gentleman with long hair that sold you your jump ticket at Lodi. I bet he read it. That was my point.

Still others remember the shit they got up to and don't try to impose arbitrary and creeping safety criteria on others. 200 is a completely arbitrary number based on guesswork and assumptions. No doubt there's someone somewhere saying it should be 500 or 1000. Distraction never goes away. You say nonsense to my $1500 course, but advocate a $250 course. + coached jumps (~$80 a pop) that's actually funny. Yesterday's normal is today's arrogant "mad skillz", all you have to do is move the goalposts and act holier than thou. It's an easy way to dismiss the objections of new brothers in the sport complaining about excessive restrictions. It's worth remembering that this is an arbitrary line in the sand based on fungible reasoning.

Wow!

You've put in bold the stuff you should have known years ago if you'd been paying attention. Yes some bullshitters conveniently ignore that Scooter was Martha Stewarted but the court and anyone paying attention knew this. It is the last paragraph if anything that is novel. The key reversal here is Judith Miller now saying that new information now available makes it clear to her that her testimony at trial was incorrect. Scooter's conviction hinged on her earlier recollection.

An object lesson in use of passenger restraints when skydiving. Given the details, someone at Lodi must have read this report: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp Skip to: Crashworthiness and Survivability Or: Findings 5. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers.