ghost47

That would certainly be prudent of him. The problem is, it's not always easy to tell good lawyers from bad. What do you go by? Win-loss record? That helps to some degree, but maybe this guy just had a string of cases where the facts were very much against his client, so he lost them all. Conversely, maybe he was going up against an even crappier lawyer. The lawyer's apparent command of the law? Almost any lawyer worth his salt can make a pronouncement sound authoritative. Unless you actually know that area of the law, it's hard to tell that he's not giving you the full story. Recommendations? Those are often based on outcome -- my lawyer got me $2.1 million. Okay, but maybe you had a really obvious and easy case that a fifth grader could have won. State Bar complaints? That a person has none is good, but definitely not indicative of quality. So, while I fully agree that someone should check out lawyers before hiring them, it's often a difficult thing to do if you're not a lawyer yourself (and sometimes even then).

I agree. The two warring values are "preventing frivolous law suits" versus "assuring that poor people have a venue for valid claims". I think everyone can agree that these are both good things. And I think it's reasonable to choose the first value over the second. My point really is that it is also reasonable to choose the second value over the first. While this case is often cited for runaway lawsuits, the actual facts of the case are a less outrageous than the soundbites make it out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants You still may come down on the side of McDonald's, but I think the facts show that it is at least reasonable to think that McDonald's had some responsibility. So did the plaintiff (and in fact, the jury found that she was 20% in the wrong). Also, her judgment was for a total of $640,000, not $10M. The lawyer would also have to think about who he is going up against. The reason we have lawyers is because good lawyers can be very persuasive. So even if the case is good, it can be a very tough row to hoe when going against some very good lawyers with a lot of resources. In a loser-pays system, there is the added disincentive of having the rest of your life ruined if you lose. There is also the flip side -- it makes it much easier for rich people to harass poor people. Again, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.

So, imagine this: Poor Guy buys a toaster at Target. When he goes home, plugs the toaster in, it blows up, seriously injuring him. Poor Guy finds a Crap Lawyer to file a lawsuit against Rich Company, who made the toaster. Poor Guy doesn't know that Crap Lawyer is crappy -- Crap Lawyer talks a good game. Rich Company hires Awesome Lawyer to defend the lawsuit. Awesome Lawyer kicks Crap Lawyer's ass in court 'cause, well, he's awesome and the other guy is crappy. Poor Guy not only loses his case, isn't compensated for his injury, but he is now saddled with six-figures in attorneys' fees that Rich Company spent to defend itself. The rest of his life is ruined, 'cause whatever he earns above the basics needed to feed and shelter himself is going to be garnished by Rich Company. If you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue? If so, is that a good or bad thing? If you think a good thing, then by all means, a loser pays system is a good thing. If you think a bad thing, then the decision is not so easy.

Actually, 1 in 504 chance of picking 3 cards in a particular order (9 cards for first choice, 8 cards for second choice, 7 cards for third choice. 9 x 8 x 7 = 504. Or, to use the formula: 9! / (9-3)! = 9! / 6! = 9 x 8 x 7 = 504). So, 6 possible combination of aces = 6 in 504 chances of picking 3 aces in no particular order = 1 in 84 chances.

That packjobs really, really matter, and that no one else is packing my gear for me, ever again. I wouldn't worry about this as a student. But after you take your packing class, and learn how to pack, I'd say pack your own from then on, even if it takes you an hour. Body position. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about this until you get your own jumpsuit. Then get in the tunnel with a coach for a session or two. Pack for myself. Not have jumped on November 5 ;)

You say that now, but after 11 solo jumps, you may get a bit bored ;) I know it's hard to imagine, but there may come a time when jumping out of an airplane will be less exciting than it currently is. And I think that's when students think, well, why don't I try sit-flying, that looks cool! If you haven't already, talk to your instructors about exit order, how much time to give the group before you, and the dangers of tracking up or down jump run. Then knock those jumps out, get your A, and we'll look forward to seeing the skydiving duck doing RW!

At Elsinore, students are pretty much on their own. Instructors or experienced divers may check in with students in varying levels of detail (from full-on diveplan review and gear check, to just making sure they know the exit order, how much time to give before exiting, and checking their pull altitude) -- but they may not. If a solo student wants help or has questions, I'm sure (s)he will find plenty of helpful instructors and experienced divers alike at Elsinore. But the student needs to speak up, and should not assume that people are watching out for them. (At least, this is how things worked as of a few years ago, and how it still seems to work now.) Also, if students are getting bored with doing belly jumps and are going to try radically different things (like sit-flying), PLEASE check with your instructors first. There are things to worry about like whether the rig is freefly friendly, backsliding up jumprun, and the like, which often does not occur to the solo student.

But, see, even if what you're saying is true, that you can accidentally or unexpectedly be in a night jump, all that line of reasoning supports is an argument for why night jumps should be required before you get on sunset loads. It doesn't support an argument for why night jumps should be required for D licenses. Because D licenses and sunset loads have no connection -- you can get on a sunset load without a D license. Hell, you can get on a sunset load without a license, period.

At the beginning of your skydiving career, all things are tough the first time, no matter how many people tell you it's no big deal. You're not going to believe them until you do it yourself, and discover it's no big deal. But if you're worried that you'll mess the exit up and become unstable, remember that you've got 8,000 feet to get stable again. You've already proven to yourself that you know how to get belly to earth, in case you flip over. So remind yourself that the WORST thing that can happen from your diving exit is that it takes you 1,000 feet to right yourself. And then you'll still be at 11,500.

Did this DZ limit sunset loads to D-licensed people (i.e. those who had already done two night jumps)? First, this ignores airplane emergencies. So you CAN'T always avoid accuracy and water landings (assuming there is actually water nearby) by checking the spot and knowing the winds. Second, coming back to the original point, I still don't see how this is related to the D-license requirement. It seems that the argument is: you need to do night jumps for a D-license because you might be in a night jump unexpectedly when you go on sunset loads. But the only way that this argument makes sense is if a D-license was required to get on a sunset load. Regardless of the practice of your first DZ, I think you will agree that this is not the case. There could be other reasons for why night jumps make sense for D licenses. That you might unexpectedly be involved in a night jump, however, does not seem to be one of them.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. People with 26 jumps and an A license are allowed on those sunset loads. So it seems to me that either: (a) non-D licensed people shouldn't be allowed on sunset loads; (b) night jumps should be required for A licenses; or (c) night jumps should not be required for D licenses. Further, while water landings CAN happen due to bad spots or simply airplane emergencies, night jumps are easily avoided by not getting on the plane later than, say, an hour before sunset.

What oral quizzes? I don't recall that being in Elsinore's AFF (though I went through my AFF 3.5 years ago). If you mean the A license progression skills, you can do those as you continue on to 25 jumps.

Not being a doctor, I have no idea. However, being a skydiver, there is one thing I do know: the sky will still be there, however long it takes.

Then rent a 230. Or buy your own gear. Or don't jump.

Besides going unstable and kicking something, I'm thinking specifically of when you track to the doorway, grab the edge, and swing forward and land on your feet. Misjudge, and you: (a) kick the sides of the opening (or below); and/or (b) drop from some distance and land on your foot. Can your foot take that? As a general principle, if you recognize what you are doing is not a good thing, why not stop doing it? Even if you booked tunnel time on a whim, now that's over. You've got a day to think about it. If you think it's a good idea, that the benefits outweigh the risks, then go for it. If you think it's a bad idea, that the risks outweigh the benefits, then cancel. But make a conscious and considered choice, weighing the risks and benefits.

So, if you've already scheduled it, why are you asking? What's the rush? And what does your doctor say? If you go unstable in the tunnel, and kick something, is that going to set back your healing time frame? Is your leg strong enough such that you can assume good body position for fifteen minutes?

Back when I went through AFF at Elsinore, they showed you a video clip of what each level was supposed to look like. For AFF 7, they had a guy jump out in a sit, which he held for several seconds, before transitioning to his belly. When I was going over the diveflow with my instructor, he told me there was no way I was going to be able to hold a sit, and the point was to have me tumble and then recover. I remember secretly thinking I had a chance of pulling it off --- it didn't look that hard, the guy just jumped out, put himself in a sitting position, and had his arms out. Needless to say, I tumbled almost immediately, but then went into a stable, belly-to-earth arch.

I thought about doing the same (buying a cheap phone just for skydiving), except all the phones I found in the U.S., the minutes expire, so I would have to re-charge it every 3 months or so. Anyone in the U.S. know of a phone where the minutes DON'T expire?

If your dad is the type to listen to reasoned argument, then find out WHY he doesn't think frequent lessons are a good thing, and explain to him the error of his thinking -- maybe he doesn't understand how frequent training makes you a safer skydiver, because you still need to make certain things a habit, and the only way to do that is to keep your skydives relatively frequent in time. Alternatively, if he's just hoping you'll find something else, then maybe try explaining to him why you're learning to skydive, what it means to you, and what it makes you feel. If your dad is not the type to listen to reasoned argument, then there's not much you can do but agree to disagree.

When you do jumps from full altitude, instead of fun jumps diving out the door or whatever, do a few where you're trying to be stable from the moment you leave the plane. When you feel comfortable doing that, then do your hop 'n' pops.

Two different balls of wax. There are laws preventing discrimination by private businesses against certain classes (blacks, women, etc.). There are no laws preventing discrimination against skydivers with overly small canopies. Though, if the person you're banning happens to be part of a protected class, there's always the threat that they'll sue a DZ saying that that's why they're on there.

Then I'll echo other people's recommendation of a wind tunnel if such is financially and geographically feasible, and this continues to be a problem. 15 minutes of freefall without having to worry about death or injury may give you a better sense of what it feels like to have a good arch in the air, as opposed to on the ground.

When you arch on the ground, your muscles have to be stiff, because, if they were relaxed, you'd be lying in a sprawled position. In the air, you don't need to be so stiff, because the air will push certain things up, if you relax your body. Could that be what's causing the issue? Is your method of putting yourself in an arch the same in the sky as on the ground?

GP, to be blunt, that sort of sounds like a longer way of saying that you panicked ;) But in any case, do you have ideas as to how to minimize the chances of it happening again? Awesome!

For many of us who got injured, we know what happened (more or less) and, while we know it could happen again, we take extra care in doing things to try to make sure it does not. For you, do you know what went wrong? Yes, you know what happened in the sense of you panicked, did not flare correctly, and did not PLF, but those seem to be the symptoms of whatever happened. Why did you panic? What can you do to ensure that you are less likely to panic in the future? It seems to me that the lack of answers to those questions is what is making you hesitate to return to the sport. This is compounded by the difficulty that you are still a student, and so you don't have much experience to draw on. If you do decide to return (and I'm not advocating either way), maybe there is a way to focus your training on landing for a while. I don't know that you could do purely hop-and-pops, especially as you'll need an instructor with you for the first couple jumps, but maybe your jumps could have only three focuses: (1) be stable; (2) pull; and (3) land. That way, your mind is not overloaded with thoughts of what else you're going to need to do to have a successful dive. Once landing becomes more natural, you can then go back to learning to fly your body. (Obviously, this is something to take up with your instructors, and their opinions should clearly trump mine.) Good luck!