bgrozev

I was planning to pay $1 for the opportunity to share my opinion right there on the donations page, but turns out the minimum is $5, which I am not willing to give him.

For me this is only annoying if it is unclear which one is meant (2^10 or 10^3), which happens very rarely. More annoying is the ambiguous use of "b" or "B" for either bits or bytes. I see this much more often, it is not always easy to check which one is intended, and the difference between the two is significant.

Hey, Some thoughts, coming from a fellow n00b. I think that you handle what might seem like harsh advice well. However, I am a bit surprised, given this reasonable attitude, that you got this far still thinking that doing low 180s and getting a 150sqft Crossfire as a first canopy are good ideas. I also come from another "risky" sport (inline vert skating), but there are two important things about skydiving that I noticed: 1. The consequences of any mistakes are potentially much much worse. It's not just broken limbs anymore, and "wear your fucking helmet" is not sufficient advice. 2. There is a lot of knowledge around. Whether it's about equipment or technique, many smart and talented people have thought and written about how to minimize the risks. With those two things in mind, it seems quite stupid to push your limits on your own (at this stage, anyway) -- it is dangerous and can be easily avoided by learning from others. Seek information before you try something new. Personally, I find that this also helps me with the being bored part. And sure, posting a question on the forum is a legitimate way to seek information, but here are a few other suggestions, arguably more efficient: * ask experienced people, take a course * read the SIM * read Brian Germain's The Canopy And Its Pilot * read through the articles posted on the website * read through the forums here (taking everything, including this post, with a teaspoon of salt)

I would say, come up with a plan that you think is safe and then do the math and see which options makes sense from an economics perspective. As opposed to first finding a cheap option and then convincing yourself that it's safe.

There is an inherent danger in believing in outliers who have had success in predicting things. The danger is believing they actually know what they're talking about when the fact is it's entirely possible to reproduce similar results by coin flips. Let's say you were looking for genius predictors of future Presidential elections and wanted to do that by taping into the mystical powers of the universe and, as previously stated, flipping a coin. We gather 1000 potential genius experts and have them flip coins and record their results. Heads is D, Tails is R. Each person is given 8 blindfolded flips. What are the odds at least 1 person in that group of 1000 will have mystically predicted the winner of all 8 races? Well, actually they're pretty good 1:256 is what we'd expect by random chance. We'd probably expect 3 (plus or minus 1) people in that group of 100 to have correctly predicted just using coin flips. Yeah but, the professor actually studies political climates and trends and makes his predictions based on those studies, rather than flipping a coin. He even predicted Gore would win the popular vote but Bush would win the electoral vote. To summarize your argument: Out of all the people who make predictions based on studies, we should trust this one guy, because he has been right so far. And we know that he hasn't been just lucky because he makes predictions based on studies.

Sort of. It sounds like the way you describe it you would swing under your canopy in a shorter horizontal distance but still cover the same vertical distance. Meaning you would reach the ground and just have a short swoop distance. You may swing the same speed under the canopy, but the canopies forward velocity has decreased much faster in a headwind, causing you to be under it and thus change the pitch sooner than you would on a no wind day The canopy's forward velocity relative to the ground will decrease faster against the wind. However, what causes the change of pitch is the canopy's motion relative to your body. And since the canopy and your body experience the same wind, whatever it might be, the relative motion between the two is the same. I think you should revisit that assumption. It goes against very basic principles, and that should be a clue that your informal observations show a subjective feeling and not an actual effect. At this point the question should still be: "why is the plane out higher?". And one possible answer is: because of different input.

I've yet to meet someone who has in anyway showed annoyance at my questions, although my social skills are lacking and I don't express myself very well. But I always feel like the next one will (I rationally know that my feeling is wrong) -- this is my own problem. I find it easier to save my questions and ask them at time when it is clear that they wouldn't worry people, e.g. during a canopy course.

Pete, this is not aimed directly at you and I don't want it to be, but often someone says, "You didn't fail, you learned something didn't you." Well the reality of the world is that we do fail and very often. Failure demands change, before success to happen. If there are no hard and fast measures, then everything would be sort of okay, just not the best in the world. Nothing must be fixed, just hope for better luck next time. (not) Most people would feel that failure is not an acceptable level of performance. When I had to repeat a student level, I failed to progress to the next level, which was my objective. Did I fail to properly skydive, no. Did I fail to do other things, no. But I did fail the task at hand. And that, has a profound effect on my next move. (I don't like to fail) If the OP thinks he failed, I will say, "Okay what can we do to succeed the next time?" Completely agree. Failure, n.: Lack of success. You can bend over backwards trying to avoid a certain word because you don't like the sound of it, or worse lie to your self by changing your goals, but that doesn't change the facts. I'd rather honestly analyze the situation and learn as much as possible from the experience. Try not to fail next time. But if you do (and you will at some point) that's OK -- learn from it and go again. Repeat. More to the original point: I also did a static line course, and the first couple of jumps were really really scary. I knew that I wanted to do it (otherwise I wouldn't have got on the plane in the first place), and the way I dealt with it was to concentrate on just the tasks that I needed to do in order to exit (where do I put my feet, how do I push out), and actually force myself to do it even though it didn't feel right. I'm not sure I would recommend doing the same, but this is what worked for me.

Overcompensation for their mental and physical inadequacies. So why do people with mental and physical inadequacies predominately buy white F-150's? That's for Future Work ;) Joke aside, none of the observations reported in this thread can be taken seriously because they are subject to all kinds of biases. We're nowhere near answering "why" questions and drawing conclusions. I think most of the posts are at least a little tongue-in-cheek.

Exactly the misrepresentation I am talking about. How about we look at the whole sentence?

That's ironic, since "sliding landing is landing on your back" is a misrepresentation of the post that you replied to. One of the problems with getting advice from the internet is that it is often hard to differentiate between good and bad advice.

Well no fucking shit. My original point was that it's what an individual does that is the problem. It makes no difference what means of destruction an individual chooses to use, yet there's many here who would blame an inanimate object. Oh, oh I see. That last line of yours wasn't making light of a mass murder. Your intention was to simply use a mass murder to promote the NRA agenda. Got it. That shows great sympathy for those who died. Good job. (Facepalm) Not quite. It pointed out the stupidity and naivete of those who blame the instrument instead of the operator. Those who don't pick up on that are, well... Which is a complete strawman in the first place. The stupid semantic issue of whether the "blame" in on the guns or not is irrelevant, and no one seriously argues that guns are responsible in the same way people are. And this is independent of the actual important question, which is what would the effects of certain restrictions be.

You're right. We should require people who want to drive to take a test first, so we can ensure they can drive the vehicle safely. We should license people who want to drive, and revoke that license if they cannot drive safely, or if they commit crimes while driving. We should register vehicles so we can trace them back to the owner when we need to do that, and have a means to do safety recalls. We should have a list of safety requirements that vehicles have to meet so they are acceptably safe to use on public roads. Brakes, horns, brake lights, windshield wipers, horns etc. We should insure vehicles so that if they are used to harm others, the other person has a legal recourse to recover damages. And if you want a "heavy grade truck" (whatever that is) - no problems. But if it's significantly different/larger than a car, you are going to have to train for it, and get a new license, and follow a different set of registration, inspection and road-use rules. (car nuts - HELL NO! Cars are a basic right! If you register cars, then Obama will just use the information to GRAB YOUR CARS!) Crazy liberal agenda. What are you going to propose next, that we do research to find out what the causes of accidents are and what solutions work best?

Yeah, that was mentioned already. I was wondering about the landing on his back part.

From a post on facebook: I wonder how landing on his back is going to work.

No.

I do not disagree with your conclusion. I disagree with the flawed logic which lead to that conclusion. This logic ("you walked away, ergo you made a good decision") is generalizable to other situations, in which it clearly leads to a wrong conclusion.

This is very clear and unambiguous. As stated, it also applies to someone who just survived a round of Russian roulette, but I find it hard to believe you would actually suggest they made a good decision. This is very different from the original formulation above. If the student made a good decision, why not explain to them the actual reasons for why it was a good decision? The truth is, sometimes people walk away from bad decisions, and sometime they make all the good decisions and end up in the hospital anyway. I personally very much appreciate it when someone gives be feedback, whether it is positive or negative, and I try to incorporate it and improve my chances in the future. When someone just says "you survived, so it's all good", that doesn't help me at all.

Getting a new canopy is relatively easy, getting a container is harder. It seems to me that you have two viable options with regard to the container: get one that fits tightly a 190, or one that fits tightly a 170. The first option will serve you immediately (or rather once you get the rig), while the second option will serve you once you are ready to downsize. The advantage of the second option is that it will serve you for longer (it will fit a size smaller than the bigger one, probably a 135). You seem to be doing a lot of jumping, so you may be ready to downsize relatively quickly. A 170sqft canopy will put you at a WL of 1.5lbs/sqft, and if you follow the general recommendation and wait until 500 jumps, and you make 40 jumps per month on average, this means 9 months from now. Given a lead time of 6 months for a container, the question now translates to: would you rather have to wait ~3 months until you use your container and then use it for longer, or use it right away after it's ready, but potentially have to change it earlier (when you want to move to a 135). Two more things to consider: if you get to the point where you want to move to a 135 and your tightly-fitting-a-190 rig doesn't work, you will probably still want to have two rigs, so getting a new rig will still be an option. This will leave you with the option to continue using a bigger rig with a more conservative canopy for, say, wingsuiting. On the other hand, this means you'll have the heavier rig for longer. Secondly, have in mind that even though present-you is rational and makes educated decisions based on generally accepted recommendation about the acceptable level of risk when moving to a smaller canopy, if you do order a rig for a 170, 6-months-from-now-you will be much more likely to say "fuck it, I just wanna play with my shiny new toy" and happily accept a higher level of risk :)

So horizontal separation between groups won't be much of a problem.

I too used to find reading the analogue altimeter somewhat non-intuitive. I think that for me personally reading a digital altimeter is quicker and requires less thought, so that may also be the case for you. In the beginning I just memorized where the pull point is, and didn't actually read and register what my altitude was (this is not an advice, just sharing my story). After 6-7 free fall jumps I got used to it. Now I am happy with my digital altimeter. With more jumps you will develop intuition about this, and won't have to consciously think about it much. Same way as you know that 70mph is highway speed and 100F is a hot day without doing arithmetic (unless you were spoiled by growing up with a sane system for measurement like I am:)). You made a mistake and you will make more, we all will. You picked up on it early and didn't miss the opportunity to learn from it. Pulling at the correct altitude is very important, but it is something you can learn to do. So talk to your instructors, pay special attention to altitude awareness, and go make some more jumps. And have fun :)

We are all born atheists. We have to learn be brainwashed before believing in religion. It's no different from "teaching" children the Santa myth as though it is real. I can understand why you would reject that concept. If you were to accept it, then your little analogies to Santa, leprechauns etc., just become irrelevant babble. It's interesting how you reject science when it doesn't fit your narrative. Besides, this isn't necessarily about religion, but a general inherent belief - how you identify with God after that is another story. I'd suspect that the majority of antagonists that mock belief in God would rather we ignore the scientific concept of innate faith, lest they be exposed as the intolerant, condescending bigots that they are. You keep repeating this misconception. Do you honestly fail to understand the difference between belief in god and the existence of god? No one questions the fact that some people believe in god. Maybe human being are predisposed to believe in god. This says NOTHING about the existence of god.

This is not exactly profound advice, but: Optimize your spending. Save up money for your own rig, it is worth it in the long run. Finish your education (you are just finishing high school, I imagine?). Your jumps are limited by money, not by time. So if you get an opportunity for extra work, prioritize it over jumping. This makes more jumps in the long run. Since your jumps are limited, try to learn as much as possible from them -- avoid going out for a jump without a goal. Try to improve your knowledge and skills in other ways: read up on the subject, learn about your gear, etc. Unless this completely takes the fun out of jumping for you.

Reminds me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1957

Language evolves; words change their meaning. That doesn't bother me. What does bother me a little is how words which have different meanings in different contexts are used loosely, without clarification as to what is the intended meaning, often (but not always) deliberately in order to promote an emotional reaction. Examples include "chemicals" and "brainwashing".