skybytch

Well, yeah, my parents didn't find out what I was doing until I had 12 jumps. But they weren't buying my food or paying my rent then, either.

Speaking from the POV of someone who will never be able to buy a house, a car or even a new parachute on credit due to making the same sort of decisions... he makes a very, very good point. Life with a shitty credit rating ain't all that great. And living in a tent can get old after awhile. Selling the house to pay for jumping and gear, while probably not the smartest thing to do, would make a bit more sense than not paying your mortgage. And you'd get to keep your good credit rating...

And if they still say "no way" after being honest and direct about the risks and rewards, the mature thing to do would be to respect their wishes until they are no longer providing any financial support. Most people don't stay in the sport for more than a few years. It's really not worth alienating his family for something that he may be done with before he's old enough to buy beer.

You mean other than testosterone? I'd love to know why people make these decisions despite being told not to by very experienced and competent jumpers. I have a friend (although I'm not sure he considers me a good friend anymore) who was told by several very competent, experienced and knowledgeable jumpers that a Katana was a bad idea. But all the guys on his team were getting them, and gee, he'd have looked pretty silly being sponsored by PD and flying a big ass Spectre, wouldn't he? He did listen enough to go with a 170 instead of a 150, but he still looked really silly with that logo'ed Katana being held up to shade his broken body in the landing area. It's been a year since that jump. His doctor told him that if he jumps again he needs to find another doctor. But skydivers understand why he wants to jump again. One of the most experienced canopy pilots on our dz told him - again - to go with a big ass Spectre, not with another Katana. Is he going to listen? I doubt it. Is he likely to fuck himself up again? Probably. Will I be driving him to and from surgery and checking on him while he's recovering from his next fuck up like I did last time? Nope. So yeah. If someone could explain the thought processes involved in making these type of decisions, it'd be much appreciated by those of us who want our friends to be able to jump with us next weekend too...

You and I may know that. But does the general public? Not likely; if they did then lots of people working in advertising would be out of a job. Like it or not (note: I don't like it), the perceptions of the general public are what matters here, not what we as skydivers think. By selling skydiving as a thrill ride, we are giving the impression to the general public that the entire "experience" is safe. Do you think the NTSB would have held that meeting and made these recommendations if it were only experienced skydivers and pilots that died in those aircraft accidents?

The electric company doesn't shut the power off until after you've missed paying two months in a row.

Skydiving will be there when you are fully independent. If they say no, continue to show them the respect that you have been and wait until you are supporting yourself before you jump. You might consider taking them out to the local dz to spend some time watching and talking to people (especially the instructors). Seeing skydiving in person may be enough to change their minds. Good luck!

Ask ten jumpers that question and you'll get ten different answers. Only you know which canopy you'll like best. You can only figure that out by jumping them. Demo!

Now that is practical advice. You hadn't considered any of that prior to downsizing? Your "mentors" didn't mention any of that prior to you downsizing?

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, I found the following on a craigslist ad this morning (bold emphasis added by me) - If we're going to advertise skydiving as a "safe" thrill ride, is there not a duty to ensure that the elevator that takes these thrill seeking passengers to altitude is maintained according to a fairly high standard (ie what the manufacturer recommends)? Disneyland is required to maintain their thrill rides to a fairly high standard, aren't they? The argument that skydiving involves only people who are aware of the risks they are taking and therefore the standards can be lower doesn't wash anymore, certainly not in the face of advertising that claims skydiving is safe and that it can be done without having to learn a thing about it. In light of this type of advertising, I think we're very lucky that the NTSB didn't recommend that skydiving operations be moved wholesale to Part 135...

Good point. Assuming that there are valid reasons behind those recommendations, is there any good reason other than cost to not follow them?

Lengthen your steering lines. Demo programs are your friend.

Quote That particular joke is only funny if it's "heard."

42:2:0 42 is the meaning of life. Two jumps - a Cat B with Jesse (who did a frickin' awesome skydive) and a 2 way with my main man (who let me rodeo and fruit loop him on the same skydive).

HBD Chuckie! I'll be raisin' a cockatillio to you this evening.

Every FJC student at the dz I jump at gets a SIM.

Didn't you send it to him?

Skydiving isn't for everyone. Y'know, people die golfing too.

I hear golf is a great sport.

Hmmm... I went the other direction - from a career in skydiving to being a college student. And the income I made in the skydiving industry was such that I get lotsa financial aid now. YMMV, of course.

That's a brave woman. Congrats!

Well, do we not then insult pilots by requiring them to sit through explanations of landing patterns? How about former airborne soldiers when we explain PLF's? I'm currently taking two World History classes; they are required for me to transfer. I've already passed two semesters of Western Civ and two semesters of Asian Civ, so I've already learned and been tested on much of what is being covered in my current classes. Should I be insulted that I have to sit through another repetition of the same information? Or should I be glad to get a chance to review what I already know and possibly learn even more? Oh, and speaking of pedagogy - isn't teaching skydiving just a bit different than teaching math, history, physics, literature, etc? I doubt that a pedagogy that includes a lot of classroom discussion (like the pedagogy many teachers use for teaching, say, history does) would be suitable for teaching someone how to do a backloop... but I could be wrong.

It's a waste of time for me to sit in class and listen to the same concept be explained for the third time because someone in the classroom doesn't get it. But I want that college degree so there I sit. It's a waste of time for me to sit in class and listen to a teacher talk about things completely unrelated to the course topic. Rather insulting as well, since I paid to learn about the course topic, not about the teachers personal life, political views, etc. But I want that college degree so there I sit. There is really no difference between the above wastes of my time and the waste of a "professional educator's" time who has to sit through an hour or two discussion of basic pedagogy to get a USPA coach rating. Well, other than the fact that a lot more of my time is wasted by "professional educators" in class than is wasted on pedagogy in a coach course.

14:2:0 14 more weeks of school. 2 tracking dives. Found the burble.