CMiller

I wouldn't say never. That's the whole point of the new upcoming h.265 standard.

Slow falling first. I thought this was pretty much already settled? They drift more in freefall, so going out last means they could potentially drift over the faster falling people.

Wouldn't the best thing to do if your reserve handle is floating be to deploy your reserve instead of your main? That way you have a 0% of a dual out situation. Leaving it be with a possibility that it could deploy along side your main seems like a worse situation.

Jonathan was incredibly fun at Elsinore boogies, and had a wonderful energy about him. Things won't be the same, and this hits pretty close to home. One time I got super drunk, and while he did facilitate some funny picture taking at my expense, he also watched out for me to make sure nobody messed with me TOO hard and that I was ok. Thanks man, I really appreciated that. Very sad.

As long as those ways are not illegal, I'm curious as to why anybody would have a problem with it. If the law says you must pay X, and you legally arrange your assets in such a way as to minimize the amount you owe, what's wrong? Having a problem with that is like having a problem with buying the apple on sale at the supermarket instead of the one marked full price. If it's illegal, then should be charged with a crime. If not, I see no problem. You're not obligated to pay MORE than the law allows.

I would be as conservative as possible on a reserve. You need one when things don't go right. Typically you're going to deploy a reserve at a much lower altitude than your main. This means you may not make it back to the landing area; you are probably going to be landing out. As others have said they don't handle high loading well. That, and landing out are factors that would make me not recommend this to you.

Low pulls do not seem to make up the majority of fatality or injury reports anymore. In fact, they are rather small compared to other categories. Nor do they seem to contribute to other incidents. To me, this seems like a solution looking for a problem.

What do you mean when you say responsible? Do you mean taking responsibility for the choices you make? I am a hard determinist, but still believe that you should be held responsible for your actions, since your actions do matter and have effects on others.

Because I believe we should be working toward a world where NO COUNTRY has the bomb.

Never marry a tennis player. To them, love means nothing.

I'm sure he said FOURTEEN and you heard FORTY.

Just keep doing it. Eventually they will accept it. Be sure not to ask them for money though! Then they will definitely keep caring! P.S. Welcome to Elsinore.

I've been to about two dozen of dropzones in several states of states, and not one asked or checked if I had an AAD. Which country are you jumping in?

Oh no I agree, and I would rather have an AAD than not have one. I'm not arguing against one. However, I think criticizing someone who does not jump with an AAD due to cost is a bit misguided, since the cost benefit analysis could be beneficial for some people.

I don't think the money issue should be discounted. If you really can't afford an AAD and choose to jump without one, I don't see it as a noticeable improvement to safety. Most AAD fires are due to loss of altitude awareness, which is entirely preventable with or without an AAD. The situations where you are rendered incapacitated or unconscious seem infrequent, and can be mitigated by risk management and jump planning. The issue of finding your reserve handle is dealt with by using an RSL, not by an AAD. There are definitely benefits to having one, especially when freeflying is involved where there can easily be large differences in speed, but I don't think any jumper should have to feel unsafe without an AAD. I know I personally would not have a problem jumping without one, and that has nothing to do with machismo. That being said, it's nice to hear the jumper decided to get one.