JackC1

I don't see why. Unbefuckinglievable.

I do not know how the universe came to be. I really don't know, and I'm OK with that. What I can say is that hypotheses which have zero explanatory power should not only be ignored, but actively discouraged.

Or just maybe they just don't buy into this god gibberish. For me, god is a meaningless concept. It's not defined, it's not coherent and it's not consistent. There's nothing to believe in.

No, you need 2. A pro track and another audible, both in your helmet. For competition, the organisers supply two pro-tracks for your harness. For qualification jumps, they use the 1 pro-track in your helmet, so you can use that for training as well, unless you're rich. Not all Jump-Track software, L&B discontinued it in later versions.

This ^. You can't look at a wrist alti during a speed jump without either going unstable or losing a hell of a lot of speed. You absolutely need an audible, you need two audibles. I use an Optima and a Pro Dytter (which I find the most reliable). For training, one Pro-Track in your helmet would do fine, that's the set up often used for qualification jumps anyway. It won't tell you if your out of bounds of course, but getting the speed wobbles will likely tell you that anyway. The older Jump Track software has speed skydiving functionality built in, the newer versions don't (unless L&B changed it again). I just use the replay function on my Viso to get an idea of how fast I'm going. Speed skydiving is scary shit. Going unstable at 250+mph can pop your shoulders out so keep those arms clamped to your side till you slow down (you'll only make that mistake once), and pulling out of the dive into a track will pull more G's than anything else you can do in free-fall. It still gives me the heebie-jeebies busting 5k at full tilt. Pro-tracks can be a few feet out on altitude so to to get the best average you don't slow down till you're well past the bottom gates at ~5500ft. For training, I still tend to pull out at 5.5k or higher.

Other than the ending, which I know offends your delicate sensibilities, please point out the mumbo jumbo. You have my complete attention. Otherwise you are just flapping in the wind. ... You can start by looking up what an observation is in QM. The single biggest reoccurring problem with people who try to learn physics from youtube is they think they understand when in actual fact, they've got the whole thing so arse about tit that attempting to explain why they are mistaken is such a mammoth task, it is virtually impossible to do short of teaching them a full undergraduate physics course. If you want to learn QM you need to do QM, calculus and all. It absolutely cannot be done any other way. Start with this: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Mircea-S-Rogalski/dp/905699185X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407443788&sr=8-1&keywords=quantum+physics+rogalski+palmer But first, you will need to make sure you are comfortable with the contents of this: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407443858&sr=8-1&keywords=mathematics+for+physicists+boas Or if you must watch videos, watch these: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/other/

I very often have to climb out and around the door onto the camera step and I didn't fancy snagging a D handle on the airframe dumping my reserve over the tail of the aircraft, so I opted for a pillow.

That's pretty much where I'm at. Not interested in hanging out at the DZ, and sick of losing friends so I've virtually quit. I still have my gear (can't quite bring myself to sell it, yet) and occasionally do a jump or two if the mood hits me, but I've got more interesting things to do these days.

Of the places I've jumped, most pilots will put the flaps down but a few like to run in a little faster. But then I've also been in a Twin Beech trying to stay with a slow flying Caravan on jump run when the Beech stalled with half a dozen 200# gorillas hanging on the outside of it. Of the two scenarios, I'd rather take the fast run in.

I say if someone buys a brand new $7k rig, they should get an assembled and inspected rig, not a bag of bits.

Since there are no photos of it disconnecting during deployment, you have no way of knowing that. Guess all you like, means nothing.

Nah, that was a skyhook deployment. 3 consecutive frames pic 1: RSL shackle pic 2: RSL being pulled pic 3: skyhook pulling reserve bridle Blink and you miss it.

Then whoever was spotting needs to get their shit sorted. You aren't spotting for yourself, you're spotting for the entire load. Then you bit off more than you could chew and need to re-evaluate your abilities That would have to be a significant change, but OK. Low turns are probably the largest single factor contributing to fatalities in skydiving today. An occasional out landing is inevitable but if you land out so frequently that you get a history of it, then I reckon that should be an indicator that you're doing something wrong. Apparently you think landing out in random places at regular intervals is fun. Good for you.

One could argue that having a history of making out landings and low turns is a good argument that you shouldn't be jumping until you have a good long think about why you so frequently fuck up your flight plan and/or spot.

Bear in mind that it is quite likely that your harness and reserve also have the same maximum weight limit. But like everyone else has already said, a wing loading of 1.6 at 80 jumps is the bigger safety issue.

That's close enough for most practical purposes but it's not quite right. When you have horizontal velocity into a relative wind, it does affect your vertical acceleration, not by much but it does. If you lobbed a bowling ball out of a balloon and an Otter from 5k, it would hit the dirt first from the balloon, by maybe 0.5s depending on the parameters. The reason is that aerodynamic drag doesn't care whether you are going horizontally or vertically, it only works on the square of the total velocity. Hence drag term in the vertical component of the equations contains a horizontal velocity term and that horizontal speed will slow your vertical acceleration.

Speak for yourself. I went from 270+mph head down straight to belly precisely once. It was like being hit by a freight train. I tend to go into a track from head down, wait for the speed to bleed off before starting to bring my arms out, then get big, wave off and dump.

Yes I'm sure you believe that you do. People sometimes ask me what I do for a living and when I tell them I'm a physicist, I am often met with a certain kind of attitude that is really rather depressing. Invariably from people with little or no formal training who have tried to learn their science from the top down, often motivated by a need to justify a strongly held belief. They're often incredibly well read on their pet subject but because they have not taken the time to rigorously understand of the basics, the number of misconceptions they hold is truly staggering. Their hallmark is saying things like "yeah, I understand that but..." and then proceeding to show that they haven't understood a damn thing. Alas they have usually invested so much time and energy acquiring their mistaken knowledge that their belief in the correctness of it unshakable. These are the people for whom the phrase "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" was coined. They are a lost cause and are best avoided.

Then you have not understood a single word I wrote. Nor do you understand the consequences of what you are suggesting.

It's interesting because it's apt. Once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's damned difficult to remove. So for all practical purposes the problem is irreversible. Only a complete moron would want to do nothing until the options left are so drastic they could only ever be a last resort. Like I said, you miss the point. Deliberately I think.

And you've missed the point entirely. Here's another example that maybe you'll get; although I don't hold out much hope for that. "Doctor help, I have emphysema" "Give up smoking" "No" "OK if you won't give up the thing which is causing your problems All I can do is give you some pills that might help" "These pills make me drowsy" "here's some pills to keep you awake" "Now I can't sleep" "OK, try these sleeping pills" "These pills are making me fat" "Try these slimming pills" "But now I have no energy" "here's a stimulant" "Now my liver and kidneys are failing" "That's because you've taken too many drugs. You have 3 months to live and there's nothing I can do." "I should have given up smoking." "yes you should"

"CO2 is becoming a problem" "no problem, lets just pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to block out the sun." "But the sulphur dioxide is turning to sulphuric acid which is reacting with calcium carbonate in rocks and releasing lots of CO2." "No problem, we'll just release lots of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere".

Swallow the spider to catch the fly...

And before that there was the Prince Noir on Le Boulevard Périphérique and before that there was Claude Lelouch's C'était un rendez-vous. Lelouch at least did it with some kind of forethought.

“I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real… Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said – with passion – ‘My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’” ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.