Divalent

For your typical fun jumper, non-perfect landings are the thing that most often are the cause of the bumps and bruises you get in this sport. They happen all the time, many times because of factors beyond the jumpers control (wind gust, an obstacle noticed at the last second, being cut off by another jumper, etc.); they are not rare "major catastrophes". Mostly the consequences are minor, but in your case it sounds like they have the potential to be major. The PLF is a basic safety technique to minimize injury during a hard landing, an important and standard part of student training, and you almost certainly will be asked to practice and then demonstrate your ability to do a PLF before your first jump. If you don't think you could do even this, then I think solo skydiving is probably not something you want to attempt. JMO.

Well, a better survey would have placed it in the context of whether they want it or not at all, and whether membership dues would be cheaper if they opted for digital or for no mag at all. I mean, if a non-optional benefit of USPA membership was a free automobile every year, hell yes I'd opt for the Porsche over a Chevy if the cost to me was the same. But I would chose "nothing" if my annual dues would drop by the cost of the Porsche.

While that might be okay for an otherwise healthy jumper, even very experienced jumpers will occasionally biff a landing, and for students it's almost the rule that they will have several. (It's how you learn!). So I think you should consult a medical doctor, and the question to ask is not whether you'd be fine with routine landings, but with those inevitable harder ones. FYI: PLF = Parachute Landing Fall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_landing_fall. See if you can do these from a 4ft (1.2 meter) high platform onto the ground. And do it instinctively, so that when you are about to land hard, you actually do it!

I am still waiting to see the list of them that makes video such a dangerous thing. ... This is a post I made several years ago after categorizing the lists of camera "incidents" in DSE's "incident list" post that is mentioned below. At the time everyone kept citing that post as conclusive evidence that cameras on low-timer jumpers was dangerous. When I looked at them in detail, I reached the opposite conclusion, particularly for GoPro-type camera. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4565386#4565386 I can think of about 5 things that setting a 200-jump minimum on that would be vastly more effective at improving safety in this sport compared to having a 200-jump minimum to wear a GoPro. (Not that I necessarily would be in favor putting a 200-jump limit of those 5 other things.)

Can you stall the canopy with a deep flare (done at altitude, of course). If not, it may be that your brake lines are too long (as others have suggested). I have a 188 (1:1) and it was a problem with mine when I first got it. You could try taking a wrap on your toggles (effectively shortening the brake lines a bit) to see if your landing flares improve; and if so, consider shortening the brake lines permanently.

Notice the nice arch on that door?

I like your thinking. It seems quite common to see a group of 3-4 young (18+) kids come to the dropzone to do tandems, where one or two are super eager, another is sorta on board, and one seems much more hesitant (but also doing it). My standard joke when seated on the plane is to look one of them direct in the eye with a serious expression and ask them "What the HELL are you doing?". Typically the eager ones reply enthusiastically, the "sorta" ones reply with a sort of fatalistic humor, and the reluctant ones usually honestly and nervously admit they don't know why they are doing it. (Of course, they are all high-fivin' it after landing.)

Well, from the DZO's and tandem MFG's perspectives, a 16-18 change in minimum age probably only resulted in a slight pause in revenue (and probably only a very small revenue hit at that). Most people only do one tandem in their lifetime, and chances are if they want to do one at 16, they will eventually do it after they turn 18. And it may well also be that an eager 18 yo is more likely to bring along a group of friends that also don't need parental permission to jump, so possibly overall better for the DZ's (and MFG's) bottom line in the long run.

Both good pieces of advice. Regarding wind direction, it's unlikely there will be a wind sock or flags where you land, and depending on what's in the area, it may be hard to discern. It would be a good idea to note the ground wind direction relative to the sun before you take off (or as you take off). IMO, the most interesting view is looking back at the balloon as you fall. It will be a dead air drop, so be careful about pushing off at exit so that you don't give your body rotation.

Since everyone has a camera on their head these days, you couldn't you verify deploy altitude from their video? (make em hold their hand in view for a second or two before pitching.) Would also probably tell you how far they got. While getting flysight gadgets might be going overboard, no sense not using the modern gadgets they already have.

Right now we have an arbitrary jump number limit for doing something that, as far as I can tell, won't become substantially less risky as you accumulate jump numbers. Jumping without a camera does not inform you, or force you to consider, the risks of jumping with one. There are all sorts of far riskier things we allow licensed skydivers to do regardless of jump number that, year in and year out, continue to cause much much much more injury and fatalities; speed-inducing turns on final, higher wing loading, Mr Bills, no limit on size of groups and intending dive plan in free fall, etc. Things where prior jumps probably would be giving the jumper skills and experience that would minimize their risk. Yet other than the individual decisions of a particular DZO, any licensed jumper is able to do all of these without the rule book saying they can't. IMO, the proper way to do this is education about the risks. A one hour course (~$25; a small amount relative to cost of camera setup) taught by an AFFI that educates the jumper about the various risks of jumping with a camera. (Maybe even make it part of the B-license.) Cameras are no longer rare, specialized things: probably more than 50% of all fun jumpers jump with one (and the % is higher in the younger groups). Whatever the risk you think cameras have, it does not substantially diminish with jump number (as even the hardliners here admit), but arguably would diminish by a course that made the jumper aware of those risks and gave them guidelines for minimizing them.

Except for your prejump reservations about the pack job (I had no reason to suspect mine was iffy), your account of your response and emotions to the mal nearly perfectly describes my first (and only) cutaway (at about jump 480). I had a goal to never need to cut away, trying to be a careful and thoughtful packer, and so I remember having a few seconds of disappointment (while I also was doing several pointless things in a futile effort to "fix" that perfectly unfixable bow tie above me) that I wouldn't even exceed the industry average number of jumps per cutaway (which I think is ~700). Oh well. (Video if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5gnJQybiZA)

Bluetooth would not be feasible for those distances. FCC limits the power of BT transmitters, so don't expect anything to be reliable more than 30 ft or so.

It is still standard bluetooth, so no different than other similar tracker products. Their FAQ says 30 ft range normal, and "up to 200 ft" when "there is a clear line of sight". So I wouldn't expect this to be any different than any of the others. The FCC limits bluetooth power in consumer devices, so I don't expect anyone will be able to overcome this limitation in a blue tooth device.

There is a road near my home, and it's kind of annoying to me when cars travel on it. I think I will petition the city to have them prohibit all Blue colored cars from driving on that road. Then I will be happy. (So those of you with red cars, or green cars, or silver, gold, black, white, or yellow cars have nothing to worry about.)

There was more recent double tandem fatality June 2012 due to a hard opening: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4330697 And the thread for the Mike Truffer incident (May 2013) is here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4490938 Lots of personal stories of hard openings in those threads.

Two vampires, for many years, had terrorized the local area but due to greed, they killed every man, woman and child for miles. Because of this, it had got to the stage that they couldn't find prey within bat-flight range and make it home again before sun up. So, after weeks of starvation, they sat upon the window ledge of the highest tower in their castle to discuss their predicament... Vampire one: Well, my friend, it's only an hour until sun-up and I fear I'm too weak to search for food. I think I'm going to sit here and enjoy the sunrise that I've not seen in two hundred years. Vampire two: To hell with that, weak though I may be, the blood is the life! And with that, the second vampire zooms out the window into the pre-dawn darkness in search of something, anything to feed upon. Ten minutes pass when all of a sudden, the second vampire swoops back out of the darkness and lands beside his friend - his face is covered in blood and he's greedily licking his lips, savouring the taste. Vampire one: Fucking hell, you lucky bastard! Where did you find that? The second vampire pauses and points into the near-light... Vampire two: You see that huge oak tree just beyond the main courtyard gates? Vampire one (excited): Yes! Vampire two: Well, I didn't!

A man and his pregnant wife are selected as test subjects for a scientific experiment. The doctor explains that while the mother-to-be will give birth, a machine will transfer some of her pain to the child's father, giving her some much needed relief and allowing the father to experience childbirth in a way never tried before. Come the day of delivery and the doctor, after setting up the machine, declares: -"We'll start with 5% transfer." -"Fine!" say husband and wife After a few minutes, the doctor asks the husband if he's okay. -"All dandy", he replies. The doctors pushes the switch to 25%. Still the husband is smiling and seems in no pain at all, while the wife feels the welcome relief. The doctor then pushes to 50%. Same, husband unfazed, wife almost painless. In a fit of scientific bravery, the doctor turns the knob all the way to 100%. Wife is almost falling asleep from painlessness while husband plays Angry Birds on his tablet. The doctor is quite amazed, even as the child is delivered, then tells the couple to go home and call him if anything peculiar happens. As soon as the couple and new child are home, they call the doctor. -"Yes?" says the doctor. -"Well, that's quite peculiar" they say, "we've just found the mailman dead on our doorstep."

In my post above (#1811) I noted that they did get attorney fees for having to defend the RS claim, and the remand to the trial court was to have the trial judge provide the reasons for awarding attorney fees for defending that claim. It's for just a couple thousand $, so I do wonder if MHS will just concede that part of the award to avoid likely expending an nearly an equivalent amount to re-litigate the issue. (OTOH, it would also cost Quiet Skies to re-litigate it, so if MHS is sure they will win, maybe worth doing to make QS pay the cost).

Very well. Your answers imply that an "exit" is detected by means other than an altitude pattern. (Perhaps by sensing proximity to a mass of metal?) By posing those scenarios, my question really was whether a competent (or grossly incompetent!) pilot could inadvertently (or deliberately) mimic the motion an exiting jumper might have, and thus fool the device. And whether under some rare conditions an exiting jumper might mimic the motion of a plane that lost control and headed into a dive. (Although extremely unlikely, I think both are possible if the device was solely using an altitude pattern.) All things being equal, maybe it is the case that the fewer AADs on a diving plane that would fire would be better (not all reserve fires will get out the door, but maybe the guy right by the door happens to own your AAD). (OTOH, if you are in a plane going 100 mph down at 1000 ft, you are seconds away from a very bad thing happening anyway; it might even be the case that your best chance of survival would be to be ripped out of the plane at that point. But I won't take the discussion there, lol!) My only concern is that protecting against this rare situation, the additional complexity and the cost (development, testing, coding, etc; all of which ultimately will be passed along to every purchaser) might also have negative unforeseen consequences in other areas that compensates for the extremely marginal benefit it might provide. So are there other situations where determining "exit" gives an advantage/functionality over competitor's units?

Until all AADs have this capability, I don't see the point, as pilots will have to assume that a descent rate that exceeds any AAD in service would present a risk of an in-plane fire. How critical in other areas of operation is this capability? And here's a scenario that I wonder if your exit-algorithm would get correct: for jollies, the pilot does a zero G maneuver, so for a few seconds both plane and jumpers are falling, but in the plane. Exit detected or not? And a variant (that probably is so rare its never happened nor likely to ever happen), during this zero g maneuver, a jumper sitting next to the open door floats out, but early in the maneuver, when the plane wasn't actually falling (it's upward motion was decelerating at 1g). The wind blows him towards the tail, and his head strikes the tail, knocking him unconscious. Exit detected? (So that the AAD saves his life?)

I noticed in the trial court Judge's order awarding attorney's fees (http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/20150728-Order-re-Defendants-Motion-for-Attorney-Fees.pdf, on page 14) that the amount that she awarded for defending against the "respondeat superior" claims is, at most, $4,884.17, and that likely it would be half that (that amount was a lumped with another claim that they got costs for). This is out of a total of $47,984.41 for attorney's fees that MileHi was awarded. (They were also awarded additional $ for expenses). So I wonder if MileHi will just abandon that part of the award, rather than incur the litigation costs to resolve this one remaining issue in the case. (I'm assuming they wouldn't be entitled to any additional attorney's fees to litigate this to the end.)

Dude, don't knock them. Mine's lasted much longer than any other vehicle I've ever had, and I drive the shit out of it. Over 360,000 miles on my '05 Toyota Highlander. Just oil, brakes, tires, a new starter, and a spark plug or two along the way. (It's had a cracked windshield for ~250,000 of those miles; I probably would have replaced it if I knew how much longer I'd be driving it.)

There are African-Americans in Ireland too?

That is a question you probably should address to the DZOs where you jump, as they are the ones that make it mandatory for you. But in general I think the answer is: to minimize freeloading.