ufk22

So, if I'm understandign this, in England..... If I have 1000 jumps and this FS1 sticker, I could not jump with this guy to help him along, even though he has over 80 jumps and 2 years in the sport, unless I had a "coach" rating. I'm also assuming that the 4-point 4-way he has to do to get this FS1 sticker would have to be done with all coaches, so he'd have to pay for 3 coaches to get this done? Is this true throughout Europe, or only a BPA thing? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, just looked at the video a second time, it appears that coach/AFFI did NOT take an arm grip, I apologize on that one. Still , what I said about an untrained coach possible doing this stands, also, don't understand grabbing the pud rather than taking a harness grip first. Any AFFI or I-E's care to comment??? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

My take on this, without getting into the gear issue, as adjustable laterals can loosen up and student gear is "one-size-fits-no-one".\ Then there is also the "2 tries, go directly to silver" that the student ignored. But... If this was an AFFI, 1. bad exit, took 10 seconds to get into position for the student to dock. 2. Pulled with the wrong hand while apparently holding the students arm grip. There seemed ample oportunity to get that harness grip. The reason a coach shouldn't do this, beyond just "he doesn't have the rating", is just the way this was done. There is a reason you should pull with the right hand while holding a harness grip at the hip with your left hand. What if the student got totally floaty right then? With the arm grip, he would have been pulled head low, pulled on to his right side, or even inverted. With the hesitation seen in the video, worst case the pilot chute might have actually gone under the "coach". Good time had by all. With a harness grip at the hip, you can keep the hips low. Plus, when there is a pilot chute delay, like this, you maintain full control over the student in a position to assist. Can't necessarily do that holding an arm grip. To be honest, this actually looked more like a coach deployment than an AFFI. Thankfully, just fodder for a discussion. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

So you're saying an I-E, C-E or BOD member will be more likely to allow someone unqualified to sign the card than an S&TA??????? I worked hard to earn my ratings. I didn't get an appointment (not to slam S&TAs, but it is a rating that is given, not necessarliy earned). I don't intend to allow anyone I don't think is qualified the oportunity to give canopy instruction. Could you please explain your view on this. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

SIM=Skydivers INFORMATION Manual, not the skydivers regulation manual. The only part of the SIM that, if violated COULD endanger your membership in USPA are the BSR's, Basic Safety REQUIREMENTS (and the chance of that is unlikely). Everything else is just good advice. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

What is the definition of "weekend warrior"? I'm curious now as I seem to have misunderstood all the time I post on here. WEEKEND WARRIOR; someone that has a real life outside of skydiving, a term often used to criticize those who do by those who don't. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Last tunnel trip I took, got about 1 1/2 hours over a 3 day weekend. I'm over 50 years old. Quit your whining and get back in the tunnel! This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I'd wouldn't put it on the list for a 10th jump ground school. There's too much 'detail', too many 'what ifs' involved in letting a broken steering line stand, and just rear risering it. However, I would certainly put it into the trainng for a 20th or a 24th jump. Note that both of those numbers are within the requitrements for an A licesne, with the idea being that it should be taught before a jumper is licensed, but it would certainly be later in the training. Rear riser turns and flairs are part of Cat D ground school and canopy training This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I mostly jump Cessna's, so I gotta ask. I was always taught to launch off the left foot-downwind foot (this would be left foot going out last) in order to keep the right shoulder a little high/present to the relative wind when exiting a left-side door. Has something changed???? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This, like a lot of things in skydiving, is a bit vague. It is a judgement call by your S&TA or I-E. Personally, I would include any "teaching" jumps with any unlicensed skydiver and "possibly" recurency jumps (if they included thorough E-P reviews and training, a dive plan to test skills, and a proper debrief, not just a 2 minute brief and a jump). Free fly or wingsuit training for a licensed skydiver, no. Canopy training, no, especially when USPA says that coaches can no longer teach advanced canopy skills to students. But that's just me. Whoever needs to sign off on your rating has the right to use (with justification) their own standard. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Great story, but you've got a lot bigger nuts than me. Glad it went well, but.... If I told the first 2/3rds or your story to a group of I candidates and asked "would you let her jump or not?" what would the correct response be? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Where did you used to jump and how long ago? If you talk to an S&TA or Instructor where you used to jump and explain the situation, they should be able to verify your jumps. What kind of jumps did you do? If 90% of your jumps were freefly, you may not have the belly flying skills necessary. How much jumping have you done since you got back? Again, flying skills. Al that being said, I find teaching skills and judgement are a much bigger factor for me in evaluating whether I am comfortable signing off on a coach rating. Obviously, you need some belly flying skills, but a coach isn't expected to be able to do AFF. You need to be able to fall stable (that means straight down, no slip) and have a decent range of fall rates and decent mobility (notice I said decent, not great) without having to think about what YOU are doing so you can pay attention to what you student is doing. That's about it. On the other side (and much more important to me, at least) you need to demonstrate that you can teach effectively (use good teaching technique, proper repetitions, positive reinforcement), that you will teach proper technique (meaning how things are presented in the ISP, not a bunch of old school crap), have the ability to remember enough (not everything) after the jump to do a positive and effective debrief and the judgement to fairly evaluate student performance. Good luck. The best coaches and instructors are the ones that do it for enjoyment, not for the $$$$. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

What about people who defuse bombs with one hand, tame lions with the other, all while having a king cobra wrapped around their neck and crocs strapped to their shoes while in free fall? You mean SEALs? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

ufk22's profile lists a Stiletto. After the OP tried to insult or diminish his knowledge and experience, ufk22 replied to the OP with ... I know that ufk22 was just being sarcastic. My comment was just to remind some that the Stiletto is still a HP canopy. Everyone has an idea of what's cool. Given the opening and flight characteristics of the Stiletto, I think it is still a great canopy after all these years. I had one for a couple of years and my SO has been flying Stilettos for about 9 years. It is cool because it has reliable openings (our experience), excellent glide and a nice flare. It is also a lot of fun on toggles. But the Stiletto is not a swoop machine and I suspect that the OP is looking to eventually fly a canopy that is more appropriate for HP landings. That doesn't make the Stiletto, Triathlon, Safire, Silhouette, Sabre II or others any less cool. It's nice that there are so many options available besides round vs square. The coolest thing someone can do is select a canopy based on their personal experience, not because the canopy won some event or because someone else said you need to jump canopy 'X'. Taking the question of which canopy one should fly to an Internet forum is not cool. You get it.... I curently average about 100 or so jumps a years. I talked to PD at Couch a couple of years ago about changing canopies. Told them I wasn't into major swoops (90 or fronts to build speed, that's it) and wanted a canopy with good glide, good openings, and something I could safley land in deep brakes or with low brake turns if needed for accuracy. They told me that a Stiletto load at about 1.5 (my current canopy and wing load) was still the best overall choice. I believe that anyone doing less than 400-500 jumps per year has no business flying a micro-swooping canopy. They just aren't current enough to consistently be able to avoid a serious mistake (and more importantly, recognize those small mistakes and recover immediately, because we all make those mistakes), and even flying my stiletto, a small mistake too close to the ground can easily get you. I've seen enough bent, broken, or dead to have much patience left with the "mad skilz" posters. Ignorance I can deal with, stupidity I have NO time for. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

TOTALLY wrong attitude if you want to be really cool. Just downsize to something cross-braced at about 1.8/1 wing load. You'll be fine Seriously, there is an upside to walking without a limp (or worse) This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Here's the PM I got from tobyiscool1982.. "Some advice,,, if I wanted to talk to an asshole is bend over by a mirror thanks for all the vast knowledge that it took you 20 years to gain" My vast knowledge tells me that too many people have died, lost the ability to walk, or at the very least have been badly broken by what you seem to want to do. I just figured that maybe looking at the $$$ side rather than the common sense side might give you a clue..... Why bother, those "mad skilz" kids never listen anyway. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Let's do the math..... Save $2000 buying a 100-120 sq ft canopy right off the bat. Spend $20,000 (or $200,000 or more) on medical bills/no work. Maybe never walk again if you aren't dead. Sounds pretty COOL to me, but what do I know? I've been in the sport 20 years and haven't learned how to fly a really cool canopy. Guess I just don't have what it takes...... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

He must have gotten his looks from his MOM!!!! This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Now we've gone from talking about seat belts to cloud clearances. let's not mudy the water. Again, other than inconvenience/uncomfortable, what is a valid reason for not wanting to wear a seat belt during take off? Because no one that's cool wears a seatbelt????? If you've been around as long as your profile says, I'm sure you remember those days. I can still remember my 1st boogie, Skyvan with a ramp type tailgate, never closed the gate, sitting on the outside edge of the tailgate hanging on to a seat belt for dear life but not buckled because no one did that. It's not that many years ago that wearing a seatbelt went from uncool to cool. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Not at all. I'm actually quite happy about this. But two questions does come in mind: -If something happens to Red Bull, is there another company that can sponsor our sport as much as they do? -I'm still confused how a company with only 4 billion $ of revenue (keyword: revenue) can do so much. 1 F1 team should cost approximately 100-300 million $ per year. 2 teams make it 200-600 million $. The owner has about 49% of Red Bull Company thus have access to 2 billion $ in revenue. Minus cost of production, transportation, TV ads, other (non-sponsor) ads, facilities, etc... And well, its very impressive! But seriously, the math doesn't add up (then again, we are missing a bunch of information). Cheers. It totally adds up.... First, the fact that the owner doesn't own 100% of the company doesn't mean he only has control over a certain percentage of total revenue. Second, look at the math. $4 billion-cost of production=$3.6 Billion profit. Spend $1 billion on advertising=profit of $2.6 billion The alternative, quit advertising, cut sales in half, profit of $1.8 billion (assuming only a 50% loss of sales). People buy and drink Red Bull because it gives them a mental association with all those guys doing cool stuff even though most will never do any of that stuff. It has almost nothing to do with the product. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

This is one of the most astute things I've taken away from this experience, Andy. I feel that I'm a reasonably capable and competent person. Certainly not a young, fit athlete, but capable enough. I've taught hundreds of students to try twice and go to silver. I'll give myself a pass for trying 3 times because I started out pretty high... But the attempt to shift my rig was completely unplanned. I'd never considered doing such a thing and I'd have told anyone who suggested trying it that low that they were a fool. And yet there I was, CYPRES aside, about 4 seconds from cratering in with nothing out for no reason at all. No reason. I'd say you SHOULDN'T take a pass on the "try 2, go to silver". If you had followed this you'd been in the saddle plenty high. The rules we teach to students aren't just for students. I also learned this with a very low pull. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In retrospect, taking seconds away from dealing with the problem to look at my altimeter doesn’t always make sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If one is stopping their procedures to check altitude, they're missing the point of the training. One can, and should be, doing both at the same time. Quote Actually, you can't do both at the same time. For the cognitive portion of our brain, multi-tasking is not doing two things at once, it's more a matter of time-sharing. This is why many studies have shown that talking on a cell phone while driving, two tasks that would seem much easier than doing EP's while checking an altimeter, detracts from the ability to do either. As for me, 4 reserve rides. Two high-speed, never even thought about looking. Two low-speed, had plenty of time to look and did. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

S&TA is an appointed position. This is not a rating that has to be earned. In some cases the appointment IS earned, in a lot of cases it's not. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

There's nothing inherently wrong with SOS. I was trained SOS over 20 years ago, and had no problem converting to 2 handle system at jump 15 or so. The fact that a rig is SOS does not mean that it's old. I work with 3 different DZs, one uses SOS for student jumps through 10 sec delays (S/L DZ) and the other two use 2 handle systems, and all 3 DZs have equipment 5-10 years old, with some of the SOS rigs being much newer than some of the 2 handle rigs. A good argument can be made for either. SOS is much simpler for student training; "look silver, reach silver, pull, arch. count" rather than; "look red, reach red, look silver, pull red, reach silver, pull silver, arch, count". Also, SOS adds no complexity to the rig, just that the cutaway cables and the reserve ripcord are all attached to the same handle rather than on separate sides. A two handle system, although more complex for initial training, means no retraining later. There is nothing wrong with either system. If your wife completes her training with SOS, just be sure to get adequate retraining for conversion back and forth. I recommend EP review and practice at the beginning of every jumping day while doing her remaining student jumps and for the first few weeks/months (depending on frequency of jumping) after going back to a 2 handle system. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

As opposed to getting your tongue down your sister's throat? Talk about not right on a lot of levels (unless you're from Oklahoma. Famous Okie quote "Mom, if I divorce her will she still be my sister?") Personally, 17 years w/frap hat, 5 years with full-face This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.