SethInMI

Yeah, I saw that too. I am not saying the correct person always wins. I am saying that judging mistakes (deliberate or accidental) happen in a lot of sports. The solution is not to not play them. I think basketball is harder to officiate than figure skating. Deciding whether or not contact was a foul is a very tough call. Does not mean we should not play the game at all though. Instead we work to try and make the judging of bad things (fouls, penalties) or good things (spins, flips, thrown strikes) be as accurate as possible, including converting to computerized methods as available. To that end, I think all officials need to be monitored and the bad ones re-trained or fired; we can all agree on that. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Oh I know what Billy is saying. I just think you can't eliminate the possibility of controversy over a win (in events with possibility of human/human contact) But like I said, go ahead and advocate for it. You will get nowhere of course. The future is not eliminating judgement calls, but making them more accurate. With computers and cameras, eventually the question "what score will that triple axel get?" will be just as accurate and reproduce-able as "how far did that long jumper go?" It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You try to have any sporting event without some official(s) making judgement calls and get back to me. Go ahead, have a football game, or a basketball game, or even run a 100m sprint without any officials. All those events require human judgement calls to ensure people are playing by the rules. The solution to "I hate it when the officials get the judgement call wrong" is not to eliminate the entire sport, but to work on improving the officiating. Figure skating and gymnastics (at least those) have changed scoring a lot to make it more structured, give specific point values for specific moves etc. Some people will always bitch about what sports should be in the Olympics, some others will bitch that we even have the Olympics at all. Whatever. I like them. Every 4 years all these athletes from sports no one cares about get this huge spotlight on them, makes for compelling drama. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Driving in Belgium occasionally I saw signs "XXX in 1600m" and I smiled to myself "the mile still hangs on". And a few years ago on the same weekend, in the US I ran a 10km race, while my Belgian friend ran the popular Antwerp 10 mile race. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

It’s Angola & Myanmar (just three nations). The US is in good company in the non-metric club of nations. Well the UK is not completely metric. MPH for speed limits, and I got a laugh out of the bathroom scale in my London Air-Bnb with dual measurements in kg or stone, and people still talk about HP rather than PS or kW. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

The mechanical designs where I work are the same way. All fasteners used are metric, and dimensions on drawings have both US and metric values, but the distances are fractions of inches (like 50" wide). One problem we have with making international friendly designs is that sheet steel in the US is still cheaper and easier to get in US thicknesses (20 ga, 16 ga, 0.25" etc). This makes importing designs done in the EU a PITA, because sheet steel parts must be re-worked for the small difference in thickness between equivalent metric and US sheet thickness. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You are not going to get many takers on that. Too many people want to have the win / lose of the game reflect as best as possible what happened on the field, not what the refs were able to see at the time. Baseball has reviews too now btw. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Two single stows on my semi-stowless bag, with large bights. I go with the John Sherman theory, that preventing a bag strip situation involves using the mass of the bights to create an inertia that will bend them and prevent the bag from being ripped off the canopy. seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You got a laugh out of me, John. In that link you provided, you say (in bold) I wouldn't expect it to be much of an effect Now I could say that physics is unaffected by expectations, but how would that serve the discussion? The correct takeaway for me is to know that you agreed with me, (or that I agreed with you, since you created that post 10+ years ago). It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Physics is unaffected by feelings. Since no-one has made a measurement of the magnitude of the effect, no-one knows. What we DO know is that Newton's 1st Law says there will be some effect. Oh come on John. When I said "I feel", I am saying it is my estimated guess based on my understanding of the magnitudes of the forces involved and the time over which they can act. That is very different that how you used the word in the phrase "physics is not affected by feelings". Obviously I haven't seen any hard data, but we have all been flying parachutes for a long time, and I think if 5 mph of wind shear distributed over 200 vertical feet could effect a 135 degree heading change, we would notice. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

As usual, peter cuts through the crap and identifies the important nuance in the question. Is typical shear (5-10mph) enough to turn a typical reserve a significant amount (more than 90 degrees?) Do I as an unconscious skydiver need to assume my reserve will be very likely landing downwind? My feeling is that wind shear based turning is a small effect, and which way my reserve lands is more determined by which direction it is facing when it opens. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

It is interesting that they decided to split up the requirements, as I read it, you can't do that, the 220 lb test must pass all requirements, so it would not be possible to certify small reserves without a waiver of some kind. I agree that does not make sense for ram airs, esp since wind speed makes groundspeed so variable, so I just want to know the descent rate. What is the glide ratio of a typical reserve with brakes stowed? Regarding the max weight for my PDR143, the manual has not caught up with the website apparently, as it still shows a max of 171lb. I agree that is not unusual, still I wonder if my incapacitated stowed landing is survivable or not under it. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I just read the manual section on certifications. It was not as clear as I wanted. I agree with shadeland, that it sounds like the waiver they talk about was to set a different max weight specifically for AS8015 section 4.3.7 descent limits (24ft/s and 36ft/s), instead of the 220lb min weight used for the other tests. I would guess without the waiver small reserves would be un-certifiable, since they needed to pass the descent test with at least 220lb weight, and I am assuming a PDR-99 loaded at 2.22 would be descending faster than 24ft/sec. In the PD manual, the charts starting at page 57 are interesting. For the PDR there are two weights, one the TSO max weight (for PDR-99 this is 220lb, the min allowed) and the other is a max weight of 119lb (for a wingload of 1.2) For the optimum max weights there is the TSO, then some skill weights. OP-99 has a max TSO of 220lb, and skill weights of advanced 119 lb, expert 149, and max 220lb. So why did they choose 1.2WL as the regular max weight? I assume that what is needed to satisfy the 24ft/s descent rate, but it is not clear. because if that was it, it should be referred to as TSO descent weight, or some such. It does give me pause to see that for my PDR-143, the max weight is 171lb, so I am overloading at 200lb suspended weight. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Agreed. A few things it would be good to know: 1. What are the descent rates for reserves with stowed brakes at various wingloadings? 2. What happens to a body that impacts the ground at the range of speeds from the answers to question 1? Obviously this depends a lot on the ground, but a lot of DZs are composed of and surrounded by fields and forests, so that is what I would guess is the likely landing surface. 3. Given that a jumper is already incapacitated, likely with severe head trauma, what does that do to their chances of surviving ground impact? If you have a fractured skull already, what will slamming your head into the ground do to it? I am pretty sure some answers to the 1st question are around online, but I can't find them. I thought a German group had done some tests? Obviously some data for it could be crowd-sourced easily by people checking their digtal altis for descent rate before unstowing brakes. For the 2nd question, maybe look at pedestrian vs truck impact studies? For the 3rd, no idea. If you had these answers, you could choose a reserve size that gave you whatever % chance of survival you wanted. 1%, 10%, 70%? pick a size! Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Jerry, *** 4.3.9.1 RATE OF DESCENT TESTS (METHOD 2): The rate of descent corrected to standard day sea level altitude conditions shall not exceed 5 ft/sec (1.5m/sec) at touchdown with appropriate control manipulations and the average rate of descent shall not exceed 24 ft/sec (7.3 m/s) in the unaltered post deployment configuration over a minimum interval of 100 ft (30.5m). These tests may be combined with other tests in this section NOTE: If the total velocity exceeds 36 ft/sec at maximum certified weight, the container or harness (if integral to the container) must be marked in an area readily visible to the user: “For experienced parachutists only. The owners manual contains experience requirements.” Not sure if PD is using this exception, since the exception requires a note on the container, not the reserve itself. But the exception is saying the reserve glide ratio with brakes stowed is greater than 1.12, mark the container and set the max weight for descent rate alone. Do sport containers contain such text by default (I can't check mine right now)? It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yes. Many jumpers are like me and take a casual approach. I am proud of the fact that I have been jumping for 16 years, at least 10 jumps a year but never more than about 50 a year, so it has taken me this long to close in on 500 jumps. Many jumpers who have started after me long since quit the sport. As long as you stay within your skill limits, I don't think that this is a problem. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

The Sonic drive-in fast food joint near my house is always packed on nice summer weekend nights. Car lovers young and old hang out there, checking out each others rides, shooting the shit, etc. Somethings haven't changed (yet) It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Commonly this would refer to the fact that a more lightly loaded canopy has a lower forward speed. If you end up "short" when there is a strong wind that is close to or higher than the speed of your canopy, you will not make the landing area. This would really be "unsafe" if you were at a DZ that did not have outs if you were short of the DZ (over a lake, dense woods, the ocean, etc). It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I think your instructor is right with what a jumper like you will probably be flying in the future. I weigh about what you do, and the progression he outlined is about what I did. 1st canopy bought at 45 jumps: 7 cell 190 2nd canopy at ~100 jumps: Sabre 2 170. 3rd canopy at ~250 jumps: Sabre 2 150. 4th canopy at ~400 jumps: Sabre 2 135. I have about 500 jumps now. (note all these canopies I bought used, and sold for about the same price I bought them for. I also bought my 1st container used, and sold it for about what I bought it for too) A lot of what you want from a parachute flight is your personality. You mention skiing, and skiing fast enough to break a leg. I ski, my style isl my skis don't leave the snow (no jumps) unless I crash, but I do like the speed, the wind in my face, the burn in the leg pushing hard in a turn. Parachute flight is like that, each smaller canopy is just a bit faster, turns a bit more readily, lands more "fun". It also helps that they are smaller, making them easier to pack, and making your container lighter on your back. You mention break even vs. renting at 180 jumps. Don't look at it that way. If you get a decent price on a used rig, it will be able to be sold for close to what you bought it for, so it is an investment that will immediately save you $ vs. renting. So if the system you are looking for is priced right and fits right, I say get it, but you may find in a year or two wanting a smaller rig. No problem, just sell the one you have and get another one. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You are not trying hard enough. :) It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yes, John, you are right. Deviant behavior means in outside normal actual behavior, not some desired standard. We all agree we should eat better and exercise more, but we don't label people who are a little too sedentary as deviants. Only when their lack of movement or poor eating habits puts them in a small minority category (like if you only wanted to eat at McDs, or refused to walk more than 50 ft a day). Although she may not admit it, we all know the woman in your post was making an exaggeration. Like saying "Men are pigs". Yes, yes we are pigs. From a sexual behavior POV, almost all men will do occasionally do things they regret. But trying to take some sort of action based on that label is silly. Calling all men sexual predators is just an unhelpful watering down of the term, unless you long for the conditions of James Tiptree's classic story "Houston, Houston do you Read?" It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I think you mean the Bolt. Regarding vacation driving: My dream when I retire in 10-15 years is to buy a self-driving motorhome. Operate it like a cruise ship: go to bed at one campground, wake up at another. See the parts of the country you want to see without the stress of driving, and sleep through the parts you don't want to see. The same theory could work for a regular car / van, and would take much of the hassle out of travelling. But autonomous driving still has a long way to go. especially solving the poor visibility conditions problems, rain / snow / fog etc, so who knows if my motorhome will be ready for me when I am for it. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

And one more follow up link: https://www.economicclub.org/sites/default/files/transcripts/Dieter%20Zetsche%20Transcript.pdf It is an actual transcript of a 2015 talk by Mr. Zetsche. Note how much more like a CEO head he sounds. Here is his Tesla quote: It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I can find no reputable article that indicates Dieter Zetsche, the CEO of Daimler Benz, said any of this. Instead I tracked down several links to a FB post from April 2016 bu a German named Udo Gollub. https://www.facebook.com/udo.gollub/posts/10207978845381135. That makes sense to me, because the statements do not sound at all like what would be said by any head of Dalmier Benz or any other major car company. An interesting rambling collection of facts and opinions, but I'm fascinated and a little dismayed how it moved from Mr. Gollub to Mr. Zetche. Just another example of what Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't believe everything you read online" Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

two David Sedaris told: Q: What's the worst thing to hear after just giving Willie Nelson a bj? A: "I'm not Willie Nelson." Him: If I knew you were a virgin, I would have taken my time. Her: If I knew you were going to take your time, I would have taken my pantyhose off. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".