ghost47

It depends on: (a) the rules of your DZ; (b) how big your landing area is; and (c) where you are in the pattern. Some things to think about (besides the rules of your DZ) are: (1) do I have the altitude to change the direction of my landing? (2) will changing the direction I land have any effect on jumpers in the air with me (e.g., will I suddenly be landing towards them, as they are landing towards me? Do I have a chance of colliding with them?).

What if the tandem had a separate video flyer?

I understand this is the prevailing wisdom, but I am wondering if this idea should not be revisited. If you're in a scenario where you're deploying a reserve into a messed up main, you're already in a very bad place. You're just trying to get more fabric over your head to increase your chance of survival. If you cutaway, your RSL or skyhook might fail, and you might go in with nothing out. That would suck. But it seems to me that you need to compare the chances of your RSL / skyhook failing to get a good reserve overhead in time, against the chances of you not surviving because you deployed a reserve into a messed up main.

For whatever it's worth, I use a UPT semi-stowless (previous style) with dacron lines, and it works fine. Bulkier than before I switched to dacron lines, obviously, but I can still close my container.

I always thought the modern exit order had to do with how long the jumper was exposed to the relative wind, and trying to ensure adequate horizontal separation. Can you elaborate on your statement above?

I don't think there's any way for anyone to diagnose the issue without examining the gear, but two things that come to mind are: (1) your pilot chute is getting old and needs to be replaced; and/or (2) either your toss is lazy, or somehow the pilot chute is making it into your burble for a bit, before clearing and extracting the bag.

Four months ago, flying out of LAX, TSA would not let me carry my weight belt on (I wasn't wearing it, it was in my carry-on bag). They said there was a limit of five pounds, and to check their website for more detail (I've checked their website, and see nothing about that at all). Flying out of PHX two weeks later with the same weight belt, I had no issues at all. Teammates of mine flying out of BUR and SNA also had no issues. All with more than five pounds of lead. So I guess the moral of the story is you may have issues flying out of LAX if you have more than five pounds of lead.

I'm going to assume that was not intended as a reply to me, though you replied to my post. If it was intended as a reply to me, I don't see where anything I said was "shit[ting] on" anyone or disrespectful in any way.

One thing you might want to consider is the consequences of one side being wrong. If the people telling you not to downsize, and to stay on your current wing for a lot longer, are wrong, then that means that you will have several hundred jumps on a more boring canopy. Packing might be a little harder. If the people telling you downsizing is fine are wrong, then you increase your chance of injury, paralysis, or death. So, at this point in your skydiving career, do you feel qualified to decide which side is right or wrong? If so, then do as you believe is right. If not, then decide whether you're willing to incur the risks (not only to yourself, but to your DZ, friends, and family).

So, then, if you realize you blacklist people for the most random things, why don't you stop doing it?

I think there are two things to think about here: 1. When the money runs out, are there plans for you to be self-sufficient, or will you be supported by your parents? If the former, then I think they have no legitimate say in your decision (except for you to consider as you would consider advice from anyone who knows and loves you). If the latter, then I do think you need to give serious weight to their thoughts. If you will be able to take care of yourself after your sailing adventure, then: 2. You are weighing, on the one hand, a significant amount of cash (which can translate into security) against, on the other hand, what is likely to be an awesome life experience. Really only you can make the decision of whether or not it's worth it to you. Think not only of how it will feel to be out on the water, and those endless days of sailing, but also how it will feel when you need to sell the sail boat, and get only a fraction of what you paid for it, and what you will need to do to provide for yourself afterward, and how hard and how many years you will need to work just to get yourself back to where you are now. On the flip side, think not only of how great it would be to have this money in the bank, earning interest for you, but also how you'll feel when you're too old to do this sailing trip, and how you'll wonder how it would have been had you taken this chance. I don't think anyone but you can make the call of whether the trade-off is worth it. Good luck with whatever you decide!

If you're anywhere near a wind tunnel, you could also consider doing 15 minutes in there. Cost should be comparable to a tandem, and you'll have 15 minutes as opposed to 1 to get used to the sensation of floating. It'll still be different than the sky, but you'll have the ability to work on your body position and get used to the feeling without the fear of imminent death.

Imagine that you're a belly flyer with a larger canopy. You get out first, do your jump, then pull. 10 seconds after you left, a freeflyer with a smaller canopy exited. He did his jump and pulled. Because his freefall was shorter, and because he's on a smaller canopy, he's descending faster than you are. You may not see him because he opened behind you. So now you're on final, and flying straight, say 20 feet parallel to the right edge of the landing area. The other pilot, seeing that you've staked out that line, has taken a line 40 feet parallel to the right edge of the landing area. Plenty of separation. Because he's on a faster canopy, he's going to land right around when you do. But now you notice you're a little long, and so you turn left 25 degrees so that you can land on target, intending on turning right 50 degrees after a few seconds. Now this other pilot, who's going to land in 200 feet, sees a canopy coming toward him. He doesn't know when or if you're going to turn right. So he needs to assume that you're not going to, and there's going to be a canopy collision if he doesn't take action. So he needs to turn left. If he's not expecting this, and doesn't do a flat turn, maybe he makes a low turn too close to the ground. Or, imagine that HIS buddy is 60 feet parallel to the right edge of the landing area. When he turns left to avoid you, HIS buddy is now impacted too. If the only way you can avoid hitting an obstacle is an S-turn, then I wouldn't fault you too much for doing it (though I'd probably still be unhappy that you put yourself in that situation in the first place). Otherwise, just land long and walk.

If you do S-turns of 25-30 degrees in the main landing area on final at either dropzone that I jump at, someone will probably yell at you. You could now be in the way of an imminently landing canopy, who thought you were landing straight in, like everyone else.

Your landing experience is very like mine --- AFF 1, I flared too late, and crashed. AFF 2, I flared too early, realized it, let go, and then the canopy dove and I crashed. AFF 3 and 4, I forget when I flared, but I crashed. AFF 5 I landed on my feet, and was completely surprised --- I hadn't known a landing could be so soft. I wish I could say that AFF 5 flipped a switch in me, and I landed fine thereafter, but that didn't happen at all. It took many jumps and a canopy course before I even started figuring out how to land somewhat consistently. I still biff landings occasionally. But I can say two things that might be helpful: 1. It does get easier. The more you land, the more you'll be able to judge how high you are, and when and how you should flare. Try to look at the horizon, and not the ground. 2. Learn to PLF, and prepare to do it every jump. In fact, perhaps intentionally PLF the next 10 jumps or so, just so you can convince yourself that doing a PLF can easily save you from injury you might otherwise have sustained. Once you know that you can safely PLF, then perhaps rough landings will scare you less, and you can start working on standing up landings again, always ready to PLF at the first sign of trouble. Good luck!

I know nothing about how many times the USPA had been sued, successfully or otherwise. But the USPA need not be negligent to be sued, it needs to be found negligent to be liable. To be sued, all it need do is be accused of something that a judge will believe a reasonable jury could find negligent. Then litigation commences. Potentially very expensive litigation. I also don't know anything factual about TIs and DUIs. But could a judge see granting a tandem rating to someone who has been convicted of a DUI as negligent, or at least enough of a question that the judge would refuse to immediately dismiss the case? I could definitely see that happening.

I brought that up --- even if you had to pay for three other slots, that seemed cheap compared to a plane ticket. What they told me was that: (a) it was difficult to find three such jumpers (they said that often the people qualified to sign off on it were doing instructional jumps in which they made money, so they didn't want to do a 4-way with a newbie) and also that, because the jumpers wouldn't teach them anything, it wasn't like you paid once, and that was that. Anyway. I recognize I have a skewed sample size --- those that I would have met are those who decided it made more sense to come to CA to do their FS1 than stay in the UK, so of course they are more likely to be the ones dissatisfied with how things were done at their DZ in the UK. I'm glad to hear that others have had different experiences.

I don't know anything about UK instruction. But I will say that I've met several UK jumpers who came to the states to get their FS1, which would allow them to jump with other people (an A-license is apparently insufficient to do this in the UK). To obtain a FS1, you have to do a 4-point 4-way. I asked them why they had to fly to another country to get a 4-point 4-way -- I take up A licensers myself all the time, and turn that many points. And I do it on my own dime --- I consider it part of giving back to the sport. After all, the experienced jumpers who jumped with me when I didn't know how to do anything never asked me to pay for their slot. The answer I have uniformly gotten is that, in the UK, you need to pay for the slots of the three other experienced jumpers to do that 4-way, and that even with that, it's hard to get three such jumpers to jump with you, and they won't teach you anything. So it's easier for these beginners to fly to California, and do it here. This seemed incredible to me, but I was assured that's the way it was. My experience in skydiving is limited, and I've only met a handful of UK jumpers, but that's the consistent story I've gotten from the UK beginners I've met.

I think you ask yourself two questions: 1. If I were her, would I want to know? 2. From what I know of her, would she want to know? If the answers are: yes and yes, I would definitely have told. If no and yes, I probably still would have told. If yes and no, I would consider what I knew about the person, and whether I felt I was in a position to override her preferences. And if no and no, then I would not have told.

I'm pretty sure the direct reason was that the slider had slid down the lines somewhat -- I pitched and had a fully open canopy what felt like immediately. Why the slider slid down the lines, I can't be sure, but I will say that it was the last time I ever used a packer.

I had a less severe injury due to a hard opening on a Sabre 2 - compression fracture of the eighth vertebra of the thoracic spine. I decided it was okay to jump when my doctor said that I was as healed as I was gonna get, and that I looked pretty stable. In my case, that was six months after the injury.

If the only purpose of this thread is to argue that there exists at least one person in the world who may be able to forget the camera after they turn it on, I don't think anyone would seriously disagree with that. What they disagree with is that: (a) the general rule should change for that one person; (b) that person is qualified to self-identify; or (c) you are likely that person. Now, you may say that you never made any of those claims --- I haven't followed this thread carefully enough to say otherwise. But the reaction you got I think was a result of two things: (1) the great majority of people who made the claims you're making (certainly everyone I can remember), made them either to: (a) advocate for lowering the C-license rule; or (b) claim that they were able to put a camera on their head and not let it distract them; and (2) there is little utility to the truth of your statement. I'm sure you would agree that we should not let students jump Velocities. Why? Because students aren't experienced enough to do so. I could point out that you can't categorically say that 100% of students are unable to handle a Velocity, and I'd bet quite a lot that there is at least one student in the world who could, but, so what? What utility does that true statement of exception have? None. So, if I were to make such a statement, most would assume that I was advocating a change in the rules, or, alternatively, that I should be allowed to do something I wasn't currently being allowed to do. Because why else would I make that statement?

First, remember that you are having trouble at something that you have spent roughly three minutes practicing. Second, staying relative to someone horizontally (and to a great extent, vertically, barring radically different body shapes and sizes) is often a matter of knowing what to do with your body when your eyes tell you the relative position of the other jumper. In other words, the other jumper is moving away from you -- extend both of your legs to move forward. He's moving to your left -- extend your right leg to side-slide left. Etc. But the problem is, with three whole minutes of practice, these reactions are simply not intuitive yet. So, while you're thinking about what to do, the other person has moved very far away, or has changed what he is doing, meaning that you need to think of what to do now, and in the meantime he's changed again, and then it's track-off time. Or, you do something, but you find that you've done it too much, or too little. Getting these movements to be second nature requires repetition. Tunnel can help, if you have a good coach. Keep at it. Sooner or later, the movements will become more natural, and you'll find that you can stay with people without even having to think about it.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is whether you think what you're trying consists of something new, or will add elements of danger, or whether it's just a variation of something you've done before. For example, when some friends and I tried to do new formations in RW that we had never done before, we didn't often ask for advice, we just tried them. That was not the best way to learn, but we certainly didn't feel it was a safety issue. Because we had each done RW previously, and this was just a variation on that. In the same way, I'm betting many new camera flyers see putting a go-pro on their head as just a variation of what they've previously done -- it's just a skydive, except now I need to press a few buttons before I exit, what's the big deal? So it doesn't occur to them to do research, because they're not trying something new or radically different. In other words, they don't know what they don't know.

Several years ago, I remember talking to some students who were off AFF, but were not yet licensed. They were telling me how they were trying some freeflying with student rigs. The rigs were not freefly friendly. But they didn't know that. They didn't even know there was such a concept as freefly friendly. They just knew there was such a thing as freeflying, and couldn't think of any reason why they shouldn't try it themselves. Today, I witnessed a non-licensed jumper who had gone tracking. Besides not knowing that he wasn't permitted to do a tracking jump as a student, he didn't know in which direction tracking jumps went, and I'm betting he had no idea why it was important to have a direction, and also why he shouldn't track up and down the line of flight. These are examples of people not knowing what they don't know.