richard1954

I went hang gliding once. Ended up in a pine tree. I've skydived a couple times, ended up on the ground

Don't be a wimp. Besides, this is politcal rhetoric, not reasoned debate. I support the President, just not his mission. Makes as much sense as "I support the troops but not their mission." Both are lies. My lie is ironic. The Democrats' lie is just a lie. They hate soldiers unless they're filling sandbags to save the Democrats' suburban McMansions. For 8 years I've been told it's patriotic to oppose the President. So, I oppose this President. For 8 years I've been told to think for myself, so I am. I was tired of Bush. I thought McCain was garbage. That doesn't make Obama anything more than a politician from the cesspool of Chicago who talks a good game and wants nothing more than power and the opporunity to reward his minions with pork projects. $1 Trillion in Pork. That's Chicago corruption big time! On his third day in office, Obama killed 18 innocent Pakistanis with missles attacks. He's a killer, and the Muslims find no comfort in him. On the same day, the "press" noted the price of Palin's clothes but only the color of Mrs. Obama's. Obama's coronation cost the tax payers $110 million. How many families could have used that money to keep their homes or feed their families? Did Obama care? No. Did he make a gesture (all he's good for)? No. Should we hold him to any standard of decency? No. He is the Messiah. Might get us all killed, bankrupt the country, put us into a depresson, but he's the Messiah. The press wants him President and immaculate. The zombies will do what they're told and overlook any deficiencis. What could he have done were he a leader? Keep the ceremonies minimum. Tell people to stay home, we can't afford too much hoopla right now. But, no. He needed to be celebrated, wanted it, craved it. Dig me! The first black non-black half-white Harvard grad you ever saw be a man of the people and Eastern Intellectual self-serving ideologue all at once! Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. The fun thing about adopting the logic of Democrats is this: No matter what happens from now on, it's their fault. Period. Bad economy? Democrats caused it. Deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan? Democrats to blame. I lose my job? Democrats did it to me. Terrorist attack? Democrats failed to protect me. But the Democrats voted to start the war in Iraq in the first place, then claimed they didn't. So we'll hear some lies about all this. By the Democrat's logic, of course, if something good happens, it was despite them. They had no hand in it. Credit goes to Republicans. The Democrats have the opportunity, and given the current leadership, the propensity, to oppress me as nobody has in my lifetime. As an American, I have the duty to oppose. Watch your step. Only 53% or so of voters wanted you. A whole lot didn't. You don't really have all that much support.

You're right. This is fun! Palin was more qualified than Obama, but she wasn't a Democrat. She was a perfectly realized feminist, but not a Democrat. Press didn't like her politics. Press is not impartial. Made fun of her for not being Eastern Intellectual. She spoke like an American, weird. She was a normal but successful woman. Not a Democrat. Stalin would not approve. Too independent, too much her own woman. Had to be killed. Politically correct to kill her. It's the leftist way, here, Central America, Cuba, wherever. Done. Feminism isn't about women. It's about political ideology. When possible, use "feminists" to further your goals, gain power. If "feminism" doesn't gain you more power, attack the person, make fun of her, tell her she's a nothing. If she's not a Democrat, tell her she's nothing, a loser. Make fun of her kids, the sacrifices she made to raise handicapped children and still rise to Governor. Attack her "motherhood" as if you, a Democrat, cared who raised your kids or that a woman has a duty to be a mother. Whatever it takes, destroy her even if, were she a Democrat, you'd raise her on a pedestal. A St. Hilary, perhaps, or some Obama thing, or other completely useless and self-absorbed icon. Anyone here think the Democrats represent the poor, the powerless? If so, why did the poor and powerless vote Republican for the last 30 years? The Democrats haven't cared about poor people in decades. Still don't. I don't support Obama anymore than Democrats supported Bush. If "divisiveness" is good for Democrats and even "patriotic" to some of them when they're not in power, that's fine with me. I feel the same. I didn't like Bush, but he was my President. All I heard from Democrats was "Hang him! Impeach him! Try him for War Crimes!." If something is bad, it's his fault, Cheney sucks. Bla bla bla. Okay. I'll take your example. Impeach Obama now before it's too late. Try him as a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, an incompentent boob who has to ask Harvard economists (why them, I can't imagine) how to fix what the Democrats did to us economically. Get the fool out of office before he lets go all the terrorists, or more likely, invites them in for a State Dinner and 911 we'll never forget. He's an idiot in a suit. Sound familar? It's Democratic rhetoric. The Democrats now run everythng. From now on, they are to blame for every little thing I don't like. I get to be as petty, hateful and divisive as they have been. It IS fun!

The death rate for motorcyclists is about the same as for skydivers. Neither activity is required, both are recreational although motorcycling perhaps has a practical purpose. But jumping has no purpose except thrill. We all know that. It's pure recreation, and in some little corner of our mind, we think it might be worth dying for.

What would make me go to the DZ more often, or what would make me skydive more often? Is this a marketing question? Why should I be expected to go to a DZ more often? Who wants me to? Will going to a DZ more often stop the sport from dying, if it is? Do I have to jump when I'm there? Would I want to go there if I weren't jumping? Is "going to the DZ" the same as participating in the sport? Is the question related to how to get me to spend more money at the DZ? What are my opportunities for spending money at a DZ besides jumping? There's a start. Sell me something else while I'm there. Sling some burgers. Make a space a dog park. Make it a family destination. I don't know. Why would I want to go there? The world is full of people who have made millions answering that question. Is skydiving dying? Who says so? The USPA roster seems stable enough. What made anyone ever go to the DZ? I'd also start there: "Why did you ever go to a DZ?" If I'm not actually going to jump out of a plane, why would I drive 1.5 hours to someplace? Why would I keep doing it? Why would I do it "more often?" Why would I do it in lousy weather? Why would I do it if I knew I wouldn't be jumping?

Nobody would wear a closing pin if they didn't dive. Everyone has a carabiner or shark's tooth or dolphin. The essential thing about the closing pin is that nobody knows what it is unless they are in the club. It's like a secret handshake. By contrast, if someone had a golf tee on a necklace, I'd say they golfed. Like a closing pin, it's not otherwise useful or, for that matter, attractive. Nobody would wear one unless they were terribly into golf. On the other hand, it's not a secret symbol since even those who have never played golf know what a golf tee is. Nobody knows what a closing pin is unless they do. But in the spirit of your question, wearing a golf tee is not a common way to express your golfiness although, if I saw someone wearing one, I wouldn't conclude they liked to play tennis. Lots of people wear that sperm symbol pendant on a necklace, but I'm not sure what sport that's associated with. I know some motorcyclists who wear an inline 2-cylinder 248 cc engine block on a neck chain, but that could signify lots of things.

Interesting. As a biker, I often look at riding and skydiving in the same way. Experience counts. Experience queers the statistics. In riding, you're more likely to be killed in your first year of riding, if you haven't taken a safety course, because you didn't learn or master evasive maneuvers, or you didn't wear safety gear. It seems to have little to do with how visible or loud you are, what kind of bike you're riding, the weather conditions, or the mechanical soundness of your equipment. But it seems to have everything to do with your training, state of mind, maturity, and ability to cope accurately with emergencies. To survive biking, ride smart and know how to handle an emergency; make the right decision and know how to handle your equipment. I think that one famous European study cited as the single most common cause of motorcycle accidents (all else being equal, and discounting deaths from no helmets) was the biker's inability to execute a fairly simple evasive maneuver. A nice swerve, if you will. I'd liken that to coping with a canopy malfuntion and doing the right thing early enough. I'd figure doing it right is due to training, maturity, the right state of mind. Know how to cut away, but know when to. Know your altitude, etc. Keep aware. Expect the worst and prepare for it. And while you're at it, have fun. I don't care particularly what the statistics "say." They don't describe me, and they aren't supposed to. They are useful for insurance companies to spread "risk" across groups. That's all. No member of the group IS The Group.

Sorry to hear that. I know ligaments can take longer to get right than fractures. A good sprain is as bad as a break in terms of getting back to normal. I sometimes sprain my ankles and am not right for 3 months if bad enough -- a cast for six weeks, crutches, the whole thing. And it's "just a sprain!" I have 4 jumps, and I've always fallen. Even on that one perfect one where the radio guy said, "Flair, okay, now stand up . . . or don't," when I simply fell. No reason for it except it seemed like a better thing to do and I wasn't sure where the ground was. Feet were already together . . . seemed like falling was the thing to do. I don't do a PLF well, but I do some kind of fall well! I'm really afraid to hang out a leg or two, not being real sure what my velocity or height is or my ability to manage it with all that junk on. I know you have much more experience. But I'm happy to fall each time. Doesn't much matter to me. Unless someone hid a pitchfork turned tines-up in the grass. All kinds of perils. Get well soon.

Welcome! I'm 54 and started static line this year, too. Gone on to the second AFF dive, and will go on I hope. Can't figure a reason why 54 is relevant. Lots of things I can't do now due to age, but skydiving isn't one of them. Neither is motorcycle riding for that matter, which I also started doing. And for the same reason. The real question is, why now? Why not earlier, or never? I think we know the answer. I'm fine with it.

Boffo! I'm a ham, too. QRP CW only. Talk about not elite! I also ride a motorcycle. Similiarities with skydiving, the part under canopy in a crowd. And the general risk. Before leaving the driveway, I have to ask myself, "Am I ready to crash?" Protective gear on, tires okay, head in the right place? Riding a bike around here is obviously (to me and statistically) more dangerous than skydiving. Harley riders don't acknowledge those of us on Japanese bikes or those of us wearing protective gear. "Squids" on superbikes don't notice the rest of us and try to plow us off the road. Scooter riders are oblivious to all this, and everyone looks down their noses at them. Anyway, if the answer is, "Why, no, I'm not ready to crash," I go anyway It's like asking, "Am I ready to plow into the ground at 120 mph?" The answer is yes and no, to be honest. Same for us all. Any activity with a real or imagined class system has all this crap. Body building, tennis, probably rock climbing (as someone here said), fashion, techno-junkies, all the rest. I can't imagine being so good a rider, so good a skydiver (whatever that might mean) that I get terribly cocky about it. Lucky to survive either for long, happy to have others in the same boat, sharing fears, skills, and ambitions. One of my instructors during my first static line training sessions said, "If you land without hurting yourself or the equipment, it's a good skydive." That's my outlook. No need to change that with experience. Long way to go either way.

I went to a DZ once that did it like this: The student faces the instructor and holds up his right hand (like a policeman stopping traffic) and the instructor holds up his left so you touch palms. You both move forward, the student turning right after passing the instructor and the instructor goes left after going under the student’s raised arms. You end up facing the same direction at the door. Then step to the right and step to the left twice, step and hop on one foot and kick the other across (or a small step forward on your right foot and back on the left), or holding your instructor’s left hand just step forward and back. It’s a swaying movement, forward and back, holding inside hands with your instructor. Then you change places, with the instructor going under your raised arms, then turn to face each other still holding hands. This means that you swap places and end up facing back the way you started, facing each other, or facing the other waiting jumpers, depending. Walk to the door and jump out.

Hell, lots of folks have said better what I'm saying, so ignore this if you want. That bothered me, too. I've done one of these Cat B dive exits with two instructors and was instructed after watching lots of videos that had me confused. It really is a three count (the way I learned it), but I think you don't see the first one. The first one would be "out" (because the third one is "out," for real) but I'm already out the door and scared to go further out. I'm saying and thinking "ready" or some such thing, but I don't really move much except a little and enough for the instructors to feel me doing it (they are attached to you at this point). I kind of leaned my legs forward to let them know I was aware I was initiating all this action. This was not an upper-body thing you'd see on film. I'm sure my instructors felt it and knew I was doing something. I'm leading the exit. They simply have to know what I'm about to do and follow. I don't need to make dramatic movements. I know, and they know, what I'm going to do; they just need to feel the rhythm, know it's predictable in its cadence. Nobody is doing this visually. It's all by feel. The second count of "set" is rocking back, and that's more noticable to everyone. I'm preparing to launch myself, so I move back more noticably to do that AND to make it really clear to the instructors that I'm really going. I'm also going back inside the plane, and that's comforting. The third is "Go" or "Arch" or whatever, and it's just launching out, or stepping out (from our plane). I THINK that's what you're seeing because I was looking for that, too. Believe me, it looks counter-intuitive on videos, but in the door, it goes as you'd expect: check in, check out, forward, back, out (ready, set, go, or 1,2 3). Hello? Hello? Ready, Set, Go! Tandem was a little different because you can't move as well with the two of you yoked together, and the instructor on your back is heavy! And if you're as clutzy as me, you're facing a long spot and are in a hurry (you're not, but the TI is). I remember that as being a more two-count just because all movement was difficult. He just wanted a kind of In-then-Launch thing.

Some of us are nervous. I want to think he's what he seems to be. I think we actually need a new start in a vague but heartfelt way. He might be the man to pull it off. We'll see how he fills his cabinet, what kind of initiatives he thinks he should push through first. Or he's just another politician. I've seen these guys come and go. Carter was a savior, an "outsider" who would save us from the entrenced evil manifested by Watergate. Dud. Clinton offered a new beginning of some sort but was just another politician, as the Democrats understood when they rejected Hillary. It's always the same story, the same seduction. Reagan, too, but different message. He was needed at the time. Maybe Obama is needed now. I really want Obama to be what he might be (who can tell). But he's potentially not a unifier, but a huge polarizer. Can he manage the Democratic House that's full of rabies?

The safest ride you can. These aren't "students." They've got gift certificates for a fun ride. Isn't it thrill enough to free fall, deploy and land, without adding what is universally understood to be a "risky" maneuver near the ground? If they seem to be "students," let them pull, play with the toggles, etc. But don't expose them to dangers the SIM says I should never, ever take. Leave that to the hot dogs who risk (usually) only their own lives. Sure, it's okay for many, but for these tandems? That's a glorified carnival ride. It's what's advertised. It's what they think they're getting. So, if I tell my friend he should try a tandem jump, I have to add that the instructor, to whom he's entrusting his life in a situation he doesn't really understand, might be too physically weak or just plain tired to operate the equipment safely without help? If that's true, it should be added to the marketing literature so that the consumer knows as much as possible about the risk they're taking. Look. I'm obviously onboard for the sport. But I'm obviously not a TI or anything but a new student. But I read the Instructors forum and am not overly stupid. I've jumped a very little. I know it's physically damanding to crank out jumps and deal with the politics of the DZ assignments and all that, and the pleasure in giving good ride. And to be the star. But most people expect to survive (it's advertised as being safe), and if they don't, to die for some really good reason (within the confines of the sport). A last minute flourish with little room for error seems unncecessary even if it's done okay 10,000 times before it isn't. An error in judgement by the instructor is precisely what I'm trying to avoid by jumping with a professional in the first place. I understand the perils of misjudgement. I don't think the new tandem person CAN. They don't know anything about it. I get it. I've done it a little, had the full ground training, landed a few times (never well), and have my eyes wide open. I still don't know why or how, but I accepted it in all it's possible horror. The average person, I'm sure, sees the tandem as a risk-free (I should say, a professionally mitigated risk) chance to do something really dangerous, and live through it. A carnival ride, whether you let them participate or not. I'm also sure they expect that the sport involves a certain risk they can readily understand, but not that it involves other risks that may or may not be introduced by the instructor. And if they did, I don't think they'd opt for the riskier versions.

As a fledgling student, I like to read the Instructors area of the Forum. I get insights into the mentality of the instructors, why they are instructors, the problems they have with students, how I can help them help me, etc. I'd like a Students area where we talk about what instructors do, what helps us, what makes us nervous or confused, what an instructor has done to help us, what we think we expect, etc. I'm certain that instructors forget what it's like to be a new student. I read their posts, and they seem often to have forgotten some of our fears, some of our difficulties with the culture of skydiving, of what's expected of us as students, how to get along with an instructor, how to behave on an AFF lesson, etc. Or a place for dialog between students and instructors. My instructor last Saturday said, "You have a tendency to try to help me [adjust the harness], and that's nice, but I really need you to be neutral since this stuff has to be adjusted symetrically," and so on. I had no idea. I'd like a forum for discussing or learning that kind of thing.

What can Obama DO? Lots, as he's already shown. 1. Blame "us" -- The People -- for his future failures, as he already did in his victory speech. These are "pre-excuses" for failure, or "resetting expectations." You have to do this early since about half the population thinks he's a phony if not evil and will oppose his ambitions. 2. Claim that even two terms might not be enough to "remake America," whatever that means and whether or not we want it; and his supporters don't care what it means if it sounds cool and transcendent and "post-racial," or even "carbon neutral." Like 1. above, this clears the way for failure and conditions us to blame ourselves for his failures as a leader. 3. Demand "sacrifices" from the people who supported him, as he did in his victory speech, who are people -- victims of injustice, they think -- who thought the sacrifices would be made by Others. It's a dirty trick, and the Catholic Church has used this technique to control people for centuries, and Obama is skilled at mining history for ways to manipulate the herd (his victory speech was more or less a pastiche from Abe Lincoln and MLK speeches). And he is, if nothing else, primarily an ambitious and power-hungry man (as they must be). 4. Force The People to make those sacrifices through increased taxes across the board and decreased services -- except for more "bail outs" of his business friends, a futher-deteriorating economy, a tax revolt he'll blame on someone else, a military draft, whatever. Doesn't matter. Whatever he wants if it's touted as "Change" or "Progress." Many will shine his shoes and thank him for the freedom to do so. 5. Condition us, as Joe Biden did, that the shit will hit the fan internationally as the Beautiful, Tolerant People of the World attempt to destroy our influence and carve off our heads on TV with kitchen knives. And why shouldn't they? The adults are leaving, and the college professors and other kids are now in charge at the White House and telling everyone we are largely to blame for all bad things that happen. True, maybe, but only an idiot would SAY that unless your true allegiance was not to the U.S. 6. Suppress dissent and free speech. This is an ongoing program of "the left." They hate opposing viewpoints and want them suppressed. I have many friends of this type: Keith Olbermann is telling it like it is, MSNBC is "fair and balanced," that kind of nonsense. On the other hand, if suppression of free political speech would shut everyone up, I'm all for it. 7. Claim that "liberated" women aren't fully formed individuals if they don't think like Democrats. 8. Create endless "crises" and sell us the solutions, as the public education establishment does; solutions that always cost money but never involve smarts or wisdom, and never "solve" the supposed problem but just consume the latest gizmos or "processes" or products sold by social "scientists." And employ more government workers of questionable ability but almost certain loyalty.

Yeah. On my Cat B dive Saturday, the instructor told me to practice-touch at least 40 times in an arch-like position while geared up and waiting on the ground. Tired me out, actually, but I did that and was glad. It was nowhere near where I expected it to be (right on my ass and higher than I expected), but after all that practice, I went right to it on the dive for a perfect deployment. Like you, from now on, I'm going to do that. Not 10 practices; at least 40. (It also kept me busy while waiting anxiously for the load. Smart instructor!)

Jimi Hendrix The Who Duran Duran I'm old.

Fercripesake. It's comparing one opinion factory to another. Whatever the graph shows, it's not interesting. It's like comparing the opinions of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders with those of the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders as to which is the better team. That's as informative, and as deep, as political discussions get these days. People pick their side based on temperment, training in school, the opinons of their parents, what their friends think, what they think they might get out of government (lack of controls or easy money)etc. Then they back-fill reasons for liking that candidate, hating the other candidate, and eventually belive that their own "reasoning" is sound and that this is all a matter, not of politics, but of "truth" and "justice." Hogwash again. Go Redskins!

My problem is I keep opening right over the airport. I can't find it for awhile since it's in the last place I think to look (under me), and when I do find it, I don't know where to go. Straight down? But I'm just a student. My instructors do the spotting. So I don't get to say anything.

I'll chime in just for fun, not to irritate anyone. I could see living alone in the wilderness and, as a way to fund this, setting up cameras and filming myself. Maybe it's an Introvert thing. That Grizzly Man guy did the same thing before he was killed by a . . . bear. Another way we are "spoiled" today, besides air conditioning and airplanes and nylon canopies, is by the need for constant stimulation. A guy who likes to live a leisurely life, not on the clock, moving cameras around to record his actions in the wilderness, is incomprehensible to the MTV generation. Too slow, too "idiotic." Like camping or fishing or deer hunting or something. Who could stand the pace of fishing? Nothing much else to do out there most of the time. Why not film yourself, like everyone else does with web cams and cameras held at arm's length, and have your self-produced 15 minutes of fame? Or have yourself recorded skydiving as if the world is anxious to watch wonderful you, you, You!? The thing about Les is, his solutions often don't work well, and he seems miserable much of the time. But Bear is a kind of "Reality TV" version of James Bond for the kiddies with short attention spans. Les is some Joe who has the guts to be uncomfortable, screw up, and live as if he were truly stranded. He says in one show he's bored to death by a two-day rain that kept him pinned under cover. We're bored, too, if we need some stimulation every 3-5 seconds. But that's a real reaction to two days of rain. It's not for everyone, but it seems more realistic simply because it's imperfect. Les has said in the show, when he had an infection or something, that he might have to get extracted for his own survival. I'm sure he has a radio or something to get himself out of a life-threatening situation. But I don't think people are hanging around in the background with hot meals and clean, dry clothes, as they obviously are on Bear's show. The fine-print disclaimer on Bear's show says, "Bear is sometimes presented with situations . . ." That means some situtations are produced for effect, more or less simulating some adolescent fantasy of a Special Ops guy who can't go 5 minutes without encountering and overcoming some danger. I don't regularly watch either show because I don't regularly watch TV. But I'm tired of Bear except that he moves around a lot (never walks), and I instinctively doubt, for instance, his method of "inserting" himself into the sea from a speedboat by more or less doing a summersault off the gunwales. Maybe that's how it's done, but it's got nothing to do with me or with "survival." It's just showmanship. And where's the speedboat come from? I agree, Bear's show is more about pseudo-military heroics than survival. Les's is about survival, mundane, uncomfortable, often unrelieved boredom, lousy but best-possbile solutions, and the appeal of self-sufficiency. They LOOK like similar shows, but they aren't. One is about plausibly surviving in the wilderness. The other is a glamorized version of that.

What a great post. I only have 3 dives but couldn't have said it better. My first was static line. I crouched at the door of the plane with only a theoretical knowledge of what to do. Lambert, who wears no shoes, showed me that my line was hooked up and sort of invited me to jump out ("get the hell out this door"), and completely alone. I did. How does one do that? Why? That first jump answered the questions about taking the risk. No, going there in the first place assumed I'd already answered the risk question. To be honest, I'd already decided it was worth the risk, or else I wouldn't have been there. To ask that later is a kind of self-flattery. I've looked at the statistics. In any given year, about 2% of divers (not dives) suffer injuries sufficient to be "reported" (by whom, to whom, I don't know). Are those bad injuries? I would think so, but I don't really know. I sprained my ankle and bloodied by knuckles on my first landing, and that certainly wasn't reported. And it wasn't even important to me. I got up with a huge grin. 0.01% of regular divers (not tandems or students) die in any year from skydiving (34 out of 34,000). Some students may have died (did), but my comparison is the deaths against active divers. That's pretty safe. Is it safe for ME? I'm not unusually idiotic or uncoordinated or unlucky. I think it's as safe for me as for anyone else doing it. Once I get hurt, if I get hurt, it might be worse since I'm older than most, but until then, I'm good. It's subjective. I understood immediately why people do it and how to factor the risk. It's not a rational thing to do in the first place, and after a certain point, the risk doesn't matter. You accept it, or you don't.

Thanks, NotBond, and I know what you mean. I can't really stop thinking about it and love to talk about it. But most people just give me a blank stare and change the subject. Lots of things are like that. It's a "niche" thing. An obsession I find hard to share with "outsiders." Peace to all. Last Saturday when we gave up waiting for okay weather and left, I was relieved and pissed. Both. Very mixed feelings about it, but I won't let it go. Other students, the few I've met, are different, of course. We have a great time, especially if they are, like, one step ahead of me. Bits of advice, perils to avoid. And they, like me, keep coming back for this thing. I know: I'm afraid I'll fall out the door that I'm about to jump out of. Makes no sense -- being afraid, not being afraid, jumping, not jumping -- none of it makes sense. I wish I could just hang in the air forever. Will you do your AFF this winter up there in WI? I lived in MN for 15 years and can't imagine it (not most winters). I'll try to get my license this winter here in VA. The temperatures aren't so bad, but the lousy clouds and stuff are. I'll probably hang around the DZ lots of weekends and try to learn something if I can't go u

Hello. I'm just starting and having a really fun adventure. 54, making up for lost time, carefully. I don't know how long someone my age can do this, but if it's just for a few years, that's just fine. My first jump was static, then a tandem (opening), then another static. Odd start. Had ground training for Cat. B but clouds prevented jump. Waiting on a clear-sky weekend for that. I practice the exit and dive flow several times a day and look weird doing it. Nervous as a cat until I get to the dropzone, then settles down. Hate the plane, hate the door (afraid I'll fall out), love the jump and flying, love under canopy, worried about landings. Sometimes I wonder why I bother, but it's just too cool. It's just not quite like other things I usually do. In fact, it's insane and suits me well. I get excited talking about it, which is unusual for me. That is reason enough to keep on with it. It must be good for me. Thanks.