ghost47

I agree. But what if the person who blindsides you was 16, had been driving for 2 weeks, and had been sold a car that was both fast and extremely responsive, such that a newer driver would have trouble controlling it in challenging circumstances (say, when someone cuts the new driver off). Further, say the person who sold this car to the 16-year old knew that the 16-year old had only been driving for 2 weeks, but the 16-year old swore he could handle it, and besides, it was his life he was risking, he said. Does the seller bear any responsibility for the car crash? Is the person who was blindsided by the 16-year old justified in assigning some of the blame to the seller?

It is. However, many canopy pilots think about accuracy and ability to land safely while landing into the wind, on a good spot. When they are able to do that more or less consistently, they say huzzah, and downsize. What happens when you have to land out due to a bad spot (either for the myriad reasons that bad spots happen, or even simply because the pilot has declared an emergency, and ordered everyone off the plane)? Can you still land accurately and safely? What happens when the wind changes 90 or 180 degrees on landing, or you read the wind flags wrong (or, on a FMD dropzone, the FMD reads the wind flags wrong) and now you're landing crosswind or downwind? Can you still land accurately and safely? What happens when suddenly on final, a jumper cuts in front of you -- are your instincts such that you might stab down on one toggle to avoid him? If you might do that, would you prefer to be on a bigger or smaller canopy? Bill Von Novak's downsizing checklist is somewhere on this site if you do a search. If you can do all the things on his list, then maybe I'd think about exceeding Brian Germain's downsizing chart by a little (though I probably still wouldn't do it). If you can't do everything on his list, well . . .

Brian Germain would recommend waiting at least another 35 jumps if you're a bad-ass, and another 135 if you're an average canopy pilot. See also "Relevant Variables". http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

What are people's thoughts as to where trackers should go in the exit order? At Elsinore, trackers get out first, I assumed because they would be exposed to the relative wind the longest. Are other dropzones different?

Visualization can be a great tool, used on a multitude of levels. For where you are in your skydiving career, I think visualization is best used to cement things you know already. For example, there is no question that you have the physical ability to do every single thing required to be a great skydiver. You can arch, de-arch, drop a knee, shift your weight, etc. So, what's stopping you from doing all those things in a skydive? It's mental. One, everyone's IQ drops in the sky. Two, you need to learn "up = de-arch", "down = arch / get smaller" etc. And you need to learn it instinctively. How does one learn it instinctively? Repetition. But you can only do so many jumps per day. So you can use visualization. Unlike your opera singer example, you're not visualizing yourself as a great skydiver -- that's too abstract. Visualize instead that you're on a dive, and you're high. Train your body to react appropriately whenever you see that picture -- arch, or get smaller and visualize falling faster as you do that. Next visualize that you're on level, but not docked. Extend your legs, and visualize yourself approaching the formation. Etc. Combined with regular skydives where you put these skills into use, I think soon the moves will become instinctive. Once that happens, you may not need to visualize the actual body movements anymore. But you can till visualize how your body will move to take the next grip, what picture you'll see. Good luck!

Back when I was starting out at Elsinore, I went to all the Excel camps, like you're doing. On other weekends, I jumped with other newbies, and we tried to work on stuff together. If someone experienced invited me on a jump, I said yes (after letting them know what my skill level was). It's true that we did not improve as fast as if we always jumped with very experienced jumpers, but we had fun, we asked for help when we didn't know how to do something, or why something kept not working, and we slowly but surely improved. There are people getting their A-license every week at Elsinore (or at least that's what it feels like). Jump with them and do simple dives, where you're working just on fall rate, or proximity, or a few simple docks. A load organizer or experienced jumper will put together a dive for you if you want. Jump, land, pack, repeat. Ask for help if something goes wrong, but you don't know why. Slowly but surely, you'll improve, too. And when an experienced jumper does a simple dive with you, remember that. So when you become an experienced jumper, you'll remember that it's important to jump with new people yourself, even if it's not the most challenging skydive for you.

Compared to a round, perhaps a Pulse 190 loaded at a little less than 1.0 is a high performance canopy. But I was involved in a canopy collision, flying my Pulse 190 (I don't know what the other jumper was on, but I don't believe it was heavily loaded). How did this happen on two relatively docile canopies? The landing pattern was set in a certain direction. Both he and I were flying the final legs of our pattern, in that direction. Then he decided he needed to turn 90 degrees to the established pattern. (His reasons for turning may or may not have been valid -- I don't want to discuss that here.) But his turn caused him to fly under me, and my foot to catch the top of his canopy at about 10 feet off the ground. I fell the rest of the way, and severely sprained a knee. Had we each been 20 feet higher, I wonder if I would be capable of having this conversation at all. So, some canopy collisions come from people jumping HP canopies. Maybe even most. But some canopy collisions come from people not flying a straight flight path on final. Unless you're alone in the sky, S-Turns are bad in the landing pattern. In my opinion.

Someone who can do an x-ray of the area with the pain, and make sure nothing is broken. I suffered a compression fracture on a vertebra from a hard opening -- had I not had an x-ray done (followed by an MRI when the doc didn't like how the x-ray looked), I might never have known. Jumping before it stabilized would have been colossally stupid. The sky will always be there. Get medical advice and clearance. Hopefully it's nothing but some tweaked muscles.

What's the market? Say you do all of that, and you go to a dropzone. No one is going to let you jump unless you sit through AFF-1 anyway (or whatever student program they use). Why not? A) They have no way of knowing how much you actually absorbed in watching all that, how much you practiced at home, how much you actually understood. They need to have their instructors make a judgment, and they can only do that by observing you in class for a while. B) Liability. No dropzone is going to risk going out of business to save you the $300 of going through AFF-1. So what's the incentive for someone to create such an all-encompassing simulation for civilian use? As technology progresses and virtual-reality simulators get better and cheaper, maybe what you're looking for will eventually be created. But for now I don't think anyone will spend the money and time it takes to build something that is even close to as effective as AFF-1. And I don't think you'll learn enough from watching Youtube.

I won't say it's impossible that you could learn to skydive well by watching Youtube, but I will say that the first time one jumps solo out of an airplane can very disorienting, and very different from what one expects. To use myself as an example, in 2004, I did a tandem. I was perfectly composed the entire time, had almost no fear, and actually found the experience kind of boring. Fast forward to 2008 when I made my first AFF jump. I was fine in the plane. Once I got out -- the scaredest I have ever been in my life. (And this was unexpected to me -- I had thought that, because I had done a tandem previously, freefall would not be so disorienting.) Had I not drilled and drilled and drilled the dive flow, I'm sure I would not have remembered what to do. As it is, I'm not sure if I was consciously thinking about stuff, or if I was just going through the routine that my instructors had drilled into me. And this is assuming that you are able to, as you say, "watch enough of the (sometimes) very good quality videos of all stages of skydiving." Without an instructor, how will you know you've seen all stages? Will you know what to do if you have line twists, a brake-fire, a horseshoe, a pilot chute in tow, a pilot chute hesitation, or even just a slider up? How do you know how to land, where the windsocks are, how not to mess up the pattern so as not to endanger other jumpers? What do you do if your canopy is just turning slightly to the left with both toggles up, but you can correct it with a little right toggle? When you heal, I hope you'll consider doing an AFF class. If, after that first class and jump, you still feel like you could have done all that by watching Youtube and Vimeo, I will be very surprised.

First three-way attempt (Beer!) First three-way success (Beer!)

Both sides have a point. Look at it from the perspective of a newbie: he's found this great new sport, he's having the time of his life, he shares some of his exuberance with one of the experienced jumpers he looks up to. "You think you're hot shit, huh? Well, you're gonna die unless you stop being an idiot!" he gets back. How does he react? How would most of us instinctively react? On the other hand, look at it from the perspective of an experienced jumper: year after year, he's seen people do unsafe things without thinking about the potential bad consequences. Not understanding the gravity of the sport, and how things can go from great to beyond fucked in a blink of an eye. He's witnessed and had to clean up what's left of human bodies -- sometimes his friends -- and is tired of doing it. Whenever he's spoken out in a friendly manner to someone who is doing something unsafe, he is ignored, or brushed off. Sometimes, though, when he raises his voice, at least people appear to understand that this is not a discussion about why pink and purple skydiving gear is verboten, but an actual, serious discussion about safety. How does he react when he sees someone new doing that same stupid thing yet again? Do you think some of his frustration comes through? So, new people, I think we need to work harder to have thicker skin, and, no matter what the tone, to consider the content of what is said. Ultimately, it is our bodies and our minds at risk, and to ignore good advice because it is given contemptuously is the height of stupidity. Experienced people, though I'm sure we newbies try your patience some, please try to remember that not all of us have had the friendly approach given to us before, or at least not with an explanation of what can happen. So, though I'm sure it's tedious, it might help the message to try the friendly approach first. And if it turns out the guy's a DGIT, then escalate the approach. My $0.02 as a not-quite-new, not-quite-experienced jumper.

No, no, no. You got the A. Someone who was trained to evaluate you, cleared you to jump with others. Someone else, based only on one piece of information (that you landed off), said that you didn't deserve the A. Of the two, the person assigned to jump with you and evaluate you has the superior knowledge to make the call. (Also, are you sure the other instructor wasn't just kidding? I was told (as a joke) by several instructors who weren't on my jump that I didn't pass my AFF 8.)

WWJD? See http://vimeo.com/24024223 at 12:22 to find out . . .

I don't see the student going for reserve either. But, if the student was going for his reserve, it seems dangerous for anyone (AFF-I or coach) to be pulling the main. If the AFF-I pulls the main as the student pulls the reserve, isn't that a bigger problem? (I am neither a coach nor an instructor, so I'm genuinely asking.)

If a plumber looks at me and says, man, you should stop eating potato chips, they're gonna give you a heart attack, I'm going to nod, smile, and say please fix my sink. If a doctor examines me and says, man, you should stop eating potato chips, they're gonna give you a heart attack, I'm going to seriously consider stop eating potato chips. If you're not a skydiver, your posts on whether things on a skydive are distracting, and how easy or hard it is to do certain things on a skydive, are much less credible. Prior to actually making a skydive, I couldn't understand what was so hard about arching. I knew the sequence of events I was supposed to complete in AFF-1 after 15 minutes. I have to repeat and practice this HOW many times? For HOW many hours? After the first jump, I understood why the FJC was so long. This list indicates to me that you are not a skydiver, or at least have never spent any time at a drop zone. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. There are new people out there who are reading your opinions on what is safe and not safe on a skydive. If the person stating these opinions has never skydived, that is a very relevant piece of information that the readers should know, in order to place the appropriate weight on your opinion. No one is asking your name, or where you jump, if you do. If you're seriously worried about your rigger not packing your rig correctly, or being forced to repeat AFF 12 times, then don't give out your name or DZ or potential DZ. Answering whether you have actually skydived, and if so, how many jumps you've done, will not compromise your anonymity. So, are you a skydiver? If so, are you licensed? How many jumps have you done?

I imagine this is because, back then, you were likely to die of something else before all that fat caught up to you. No sense in worrying about cholesterol if you're going to be killed by the lack of proper hygiene (or a flaming arrow). But now that we've got a lot of that figured out, we're starting to see what happens when we eat too much, or don't eat celery and nuts.

In far fewer than 10 seconds, this could happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rn1OI25bH4

Never claimed (or thought) that it was. Just replied to some posts regarding discussions of our legal system. Then got curious as to what I said that made someone think I wasn't a lawyer. Feel free to continue discussing the suit against Spaceland. Thank you! It was less wonderful because dz.com seemed to be down all day, but I figure that was a SOPA protest thing. Glad it's back up.

Heh. I find that interesting, and am very curious what about any of my posts made you think that it's "fairly obvious" that I am not an attorney. Would you be willing to share? And, because I am not trying to play a "gotcha" game, but am genuinely curious, I will let you know that I am an attorney. Licensed to practice (and practicing) in California since 2006.

1. What makes you so sure I don't have a license to practice law? 2. I am not dispensing legal advice, I am discussing the advantages / disadvantages of implementing a loser-pays legal system. In doing so, I have "short-handed" a lot of things that are not primarily relevant to the discussion. 3. If my understanding of bankruptcy is wrong (that, with the exception of the bankruptcy exemptions, your assets are liquidated and distributed to a tiered list of creditors (secured, unsecured, etc.)), then feel free to educate me. I'm happy to learn new things.

I agree it wouldn't stop frivolous law suits. But it would discourage them. It's doable, I agree, but my point again is just that it gives plaintiffs more to think and worry about. If a defendant had any whiff that a plaintiff had done such to become judgment proof, the defendant could bring a claim for fraudulent transfer. At debtor's examinations, judgment creditors can and often do ask for bank statements going back 5 years. So you'd have to have a LOT of foresight. Can a person survive a judgment if they don't have the money to pay? Sure. But it makes their life much harder. In CA, for example, they could be required to appear every 120 days for a debtor's exam.

Bankruptcy can indeed shed judgments. However, then you have to file bankruptcy. Which means you liquidate all current assets except for the bare necessities. In regards to limits on garnishing wages, while that may be true, judgment creditors are not limited to garnishing wages. They can also levy on bank accounts, put liens on real property, force the sale of property. In any case, my larger point stands -- in a loser-pays system, the potential plaintiff has much more to worry about before he sues. In return, this will discourage frivolous lawsuits. Which system you consider better depends on which value you think is more important.

Sorry, the "bad facts" scenario was intended for defense lawyers, not plaintiffs lawyers. Defense lawyers often don't have a choice -- their clients get sued, they defend. But in any case, how do you verify the facts of the cases that the guy has won or lost? Do you dig through each of his last five cases (assuming he'd let you, which he wouldn't), read each motion, read each case cited, analyze each statute? It's not impossible, but it's difficult for someone to do, especially if they are not highly educated, or don't have a lot of time. Sure. What I'm saying, though, is that one can't always tell that one has a bad lawyer until it's too late (and often not even then), and that picking the one with the winning streak is not always, or even often, a guarantee. Also, as the great majority of cases (over 90%) settle before trial, it's not always easy to evaluate whether the lawyer "won" or "lost". So say a lawyer gets 10 cases, 2 that are slam dunks, 2 that are pretty difficult, and 6 that are in-between. He settles all of them, getting his client money in all 10 cases. In the 2 difficult cases, he gets very little, in the 2 slam dunks, he gets a lot, in the 6 in-between, he gets a decent amount. Is he 10-0? 8-2? 2-2-6? Does it matter if his opponent was an idiot? A top litigator? And how are you going to find out which the opponent was? I'm not saying it's impossible to up your chances of picking a good lawyer. It's not. What I'm trying to say is that none of this stuff is so easy for the average person to do. I agree this is better than nothing. But it assumes that: (a) you know a bunch of other lawyers; and (b) that these lawyers are good lawyers, whose opinion you should trust. In smaller communities, perhaps this would work better, because there aren't that many lawyers. In larger ones (like Los Angeles, for example), it's much harder.

So what you're proposing is loser-pays, but only up to a certain amount per hour. While I agree that this limits the cost to the loser (and thereby decreases the deterrent to frivolous lawsuits by that amount), it also still remains a significant concern for the potential loser. It is very possible, especially for cases that are fact-intensive, to reach 1000 legitimate hours of billable time for a case that goes to trial. Even at the reduced rate of $200 per hour that you propose, that's $200,000. That could still be enough to ruin the rest of your life. (Think how much money you clear each year after taxes, rent, and food. Divide that into $200,000 + annual interest. That's how many years you will have no money for any extras. In California, interest on judgments is 10% per year. So if you don't pay more than $20,000 per year on a $200,000 judgment, you will never pay it off.)