teason

How? If you told people you wanted to break your own leg, people who already have would tell you their experiences and that it is painful. Not because they are proud of it but because experience carries more weight than conjecture. So how has this exercise proven anything beyond "if you make an innappropriate comments about watching people die, you'll get a negative response." What it really shows is that if you have predetirmined a conclusion, you'll find the proofs to suit it. Now please explain how his point was proven. If you're going to make a statement like that, you should be able to back it up. p.s. many who haven't seen a fatality have also said so, are they bragging too? I think your logic is flawed. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

OK, how about a generalization of the respondants the the OP took exception to in his second post. That was the main focus of my response It seemed to me that it was his inferance that those who took exception to his post were parading their tragedies as a badge of honor. Fringe individual responses I previously mentioned not withstanding, I disagree. I have no illusions that I can speak on behalf of all those who have lost. Rather I wanted to show other perspectives. Single perspectives were what I was objecting to. I was hoping the tone of my first post (where I propossed not one but two possibilities) illustared that but I was wrong. As for guessing the motives of the OP, The thread is called "Desire to witness a fatality". If it isn't tounge in cheek, what is it? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Sorry, I was simply bringing into question the motives behind the origional post, a tounge in cheeck poke at those who talk about friends who have past. I believe that those motives are highly suspect. I then tried to illustrate to the origional poster the perspective of those who have experienced tragedy and how they would view the poster himself. (I admit, I was quite backhanded) If you don't want the thread to be an inappropriate emotional flamefest then lock it now. It was started by trivializing fatalities. How can you expect those who respond to be dispassionate? You know what, just lock the thing. No good can come from this. Tim I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I thought you were posting tounge in cheeck but the reality is worse. The origional observation appeared to be a satirical critcism of those who use a tragedy to elevate themselves. It reminds me of what happened when a guy in the underground scene died some years ago. 4 or 5 girls sought to deflect attention to themselves by claiming they were his girlfriend. It turned out none of them were. I actually thought that maybe you had witnessed a death and had been bothered by the response of those around you. Judging by your last post, I may have given you too much credit. Now that's weak. The posters took your origional post at face value and are trying to either a.) illustrate the seriousness of a fatality or b.) giving validity to their point of view by showing past experience with the subject matter. Neither of the two support your thesis. PA deleted. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Some cheese d**k wrote it. just pointing out weak arguments and cheap comments I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Distrorion of truth through association, nice touch. Still, can see the humour from your point of view. Actually quite funny! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Jeez Rob, I hope you didn't think that was me saying that! People hyper focus on one potential yet unlikely scenario. It's like the anti-seatbelt dude that says a seatbelt can kill you. The argument focuses on one possible scenario and precludes the vast majority where the opposite is true. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

While your statement is technically correct, the generalization of the origional point cannot be disputed. If we focus on one possible scenario, we won't be able to see the forrest for the trees as it precludes all others. This brings up an important point. AADs reduce your margin of safety when deploying a main. How many of use practice a loss of altitude awareness and the correct actions when we go through emergency scenarios? How many of us are going to dump our main when we realize we are to low? I'd bet lots. It's all about understanding the dangers and risk involved on our jump. p.s. I've never seen a low jumper go for the reserve first, they always seem to go for their main. I've done it three times including the time 4yrs ago I thought my AAD was broken for when it didn't fire.(turn, flare,land all that quick) Shame on me! This may be a deeper issue. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Exactly. It protects the jumper in a certain pertentage of potential situations. For some that percentage is higher than others. For some, the cost justifies that protection. Whatever decision is made, it should be based on accuate self-assessment and awareness, not a false understanding of what is and what is not safe. The second definition is not based on Jumper "A" with an AAD and jumper "B" without - that would require more insight than just who has the AAD, we'd have to see their canopy size, jump numbers, currency, decision making ability, skill level and I could go on. Rather, the opposing definition of "safer jumper" compares Jumper "A" with an AAD vs. Jumper "A" without. This is the crux of the misunderstanding but I think we're back on track

I'm starting this because the previous threads are hurting my head. AADs are a touchy subject so lets all stay frosty. First, the following statements are true and cannot be disputed. 1.) AADs lessen the likelihood of being seriously injured or kill by a low/no pull. 2.) Irresponsible jumpers are more likely to be injured or killed than responsible jumpers. These are the two basic truths that can guide us through the quagmire: The first side of the argument states that a jumper cannot make himself a safer jumper by wearing an AAD. This statements has been the source of the main confusion because it fails to define what a "safer jumper" is. This point of view defines a "safer jumper" as one who exercises good judgement. It identifies that the most important safety skill we have is good judgement. Good judgement can manage risk far better than any AAD ever will. This point of view is consistant with statement 2. Unfortunately without the definition of "safer jumper" it is up for interpretation and those who define "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed, will see a conflict with statement 1. This is why there is so much confusion in the thread. The basic terms we are using are being defined differently. The end result is that one side is saying AADs cannot replace good judgement and the other side saying AADs reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death; or as it is written in the posts AADs don't make safer jumpers vs. AADs make jumpers safer. Foggy arguments. The following are some arguments that are either poorly constructed of just plain based on poor logic. It's my hope that I can clarify the points and reveal the ones that are bogus. 1.) AADs breed complacancy. The first time I recall hearing this argument, it was from a DZO who often said "AADs are for students". It was origionally forged in the furnaces of arrogance and allowed people who irrationally oppossed their own AAD use a moral higher ground. This was the reason they didn't have one and it gave the argument a sour taste in the mouths of others. A shame because the argument is not entirely without merit. We've all seen someone use poor judgement and defensively shoot back criticism like "well, at least I have an AAD". They cling to their AADs as if it proves they are a safe jumper. I personally believe that the AAD is being used to deflect criticism for doing something stupid not the cause of the stupidity itself. 2.)Jumping without an AAD is stupid This statement hinges on the speaker assuming that to not have an AAD is an unacceptable risk. When you look at the percentage of fatalities that happen from a low/no pull, even pre '92, and then throw in the higher acceptable openning altitudes, you see that an AAD, while still provides a reduced risk, only reduces that risk by a fraction. Other things, such as canopy collisions and landing problems, can only be managed by good judgement. I believe that an irresponsible jumper with an AAD is less safe in general than a responsible jumper without one (and I own a DZ with an AAD policy). 3.) You can't prove fatalities have been reduced by AADs. What the speaker means is the degree by which they have been reduced and that AADs are not solely reponsible. They are only technically right, as higher activation altitudes and other influences do have a small impact. However, talk to Karen Dean or Kim Griffin and their numbers will blow the technicallity of the argument apart. 4.)AADs are for students, an experienced jumper is more likely to be killed by an AAD than saved by one. I've always chuckled at this. First because of the low numbers of canopy entanglements caused by AADs and secondly it's own logic contradicts itself. The arguement is as follows; 1.)"Students loose altitude awareness and are more likely to be saved by an AAD." (true, by the way) 2.)"An experienced jumper is less likely to lose altitude awareness."(also true) 3.)"The AAD could fire during deployment and then you'd get two out." Here's where the argument falls apart. I don't know to many Experienced jumpers with sentinals or FXC 12000s and when I have seen them, they opt to open high. That means that the Expereinced jumper will get two out when he's lost his altitude awareness and is therefore openning low! You can't have the argument both ways. Either they are altitude aware which means they won't get misfires or they aren't which means they need an AAD! Am I the only one who finds that funny? (please no annecdotes about tandem settings on experienced jumpers and static shock activation) 4.)I want an AAD just incase I get knocked out. Yeah, like when you read the incident posts, it's full of people being knocked out. I find this the most bothersome. Most no/low pulls and AAD saves happen to conscious people. To think that the reason you are wearing the AAD is to protect you from that extremely rare occurence shows a lack of understanding of the risks you face when you jump from a plane. If you think losing altitude awareness isn't a danger for you then it's time to take up golf. With or without an AAD it's dangerous. You will be the most likely cause of an accident and when you accept that resposibilty, you will become a responsible jumper. In conclusion here are the points truly up for debate: Are resposible jumpers without AADs safer than irresponsible jumpers with them? Do AADs affect judgement or are they used to defend critsism following poor judgement? To what degree do AADs reduce risk for the average jumper and does it justify the cost? Do DZs have the right to enforce AAD policies? What situations (camera, birdman, hop n' pops etc.) make AAD use critical/unimportant? Phew! that felt good to get off my chest! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

An interesting point that has come from this is the belief that some jumpers jump beyond thier abilities because they have AADs. That AADs breed complacency in some. I think that this is the point worthy of debate. In other words do people allow AADs to change thier personal risk threshold. I would have to be in the "No" side of the ledger. I have also heard a jumper claim that he should be allowed to do a jump beyond his skill and then point out the AAD on his back as justification. I don't believe that he is choosing to go on the jump because of his AAD but rather using his AAD to deflect critcism of his choice to jump beyond his abilities. As an instructor I've noticed the same jumper wanting to jump a smaller canopy claiming "I'll be careful". It's just a tactic to deflect criticism of a poor choice. I'm sure if you listen to those jumpers long enough you'll hear more examples e.g. Mr Bills "I'll wear a protect". Inexperienced crew;"we both have hook knives" Faster canopies "The winds are high" Zoo load 4 way "we'll break high". It's a chicken and egg arguement. Does he raise his risk threashold because of the AAD or use the AAD to justify his high risk threshold. The real thing that we instructors have to be careful of is getting worn down by those jumpers and thinking "yeah, well maybe it's OK, he has a Cypres." I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Wow, there are alot nebulas view points in this thread. There are others that are well put and arguing against a contrary point that wasn't intentionally made in the first place. So I guess I'll weigh in. 1.) I think we can all agree that an AAD doesn't make you a safer skydiver, it just makes you less likely to die from a low/no pull. 2.) An AAD reduces your margin of error when deploying your main canopy. Those with AADs should be just as mindful of thier deployment altitude as those without. Most people who are uncomfortable without an AAD aren't that way because they feel the AAD makes them invincible but rather because not having one is not thier norm. If you drive with a seatbelt all the time, try driving without one. You'll feel uncomfortable because you're used to a seat belt, not because you think you're gonna crash. Also, having a seat belt on is not gonna make you drive faster and more reckless. The belief that people are using thier AADs as an excuse to take extra risks is specious. They jump that way because they haven't got a firm understanding of the dangers and risks not because of a "magic" device. Well, that's my view. Thoughts? Tim I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I second that. I got my rigging ticket at Jumpshack a couple of years ago. I sat in the restaurant at DeLand studying my manuals on the evenings and weekends. A fellow skydiver came up one day and took interest in what I was reading. It was Gus. A punk kid skydiver with a crew cut sitting by himself was important enough for a legend like Gus to talk to. That says it all. Blue Skies Gus. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The change in airspeed will affect the lift on the wing until the wing can accelerate and that will sometimes require the canopy to dive. The ammount of lift is directly proportional to windspeed and in gusty conditions, the airspeed can change (dangerous on the landing). Example; We had a beautiful day at the DZ, winds were 7 mph out of the north and it was getting close to lunch, it started to get quite hot. A 180lbs student under a ZP 290 was faced into the northwind. at about 10-15' the student flared at the same instant a thermally genrated wind gust hit him from the south (behind) at about 5 mph. The resulting change in canopy airspeed caused the flare to be totally useless and the canopy dropped out of the sky. The student suffered a broken back. If a 180lbs jumper can can break his back under a ZP 290 Manta, then obviously jumping in high wind gusts and performing high performance landing is lunacy. Yeah, I'm one of those grumpy old guys. It's one thing to know how to do high performance landings, it's another to know when not to do them. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I was stunned stupid when they called me to be apart of the Skyride Team last year. I couldn't believe the gawl of trying to do business with Adventure Skydiving Steinbach when My site is the most blatant example of theft. I told them who I was and about the website issue and they started back peddling saying that they had never heard of "Adventure Skydiving". I then asked for contact information of thier owners and they wouldn't give it out. Talk about calling the wrong DZ! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Thier aircraft have US call signs. I checked the Stationair, it's for sale in South Carolina right now. The Caravans look american too. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Out here in Canada, we've kinda gotten a raw deal if we bought before the summer of '03. Two years ago I bought a used rig, not a great deal but a fair one, for the same price that I could today pay for brand new. That's because our Dollar has increased about 30% compared to the US dollar. What looks expensive in US dollars is way bellow what we payed in canadaian. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

It seams that any strong points that get made seem to be buried so deep in the thread, no one can find them anymore. I think that's why you get a cyclical stream of posts. First, someone posts that Skyride is just another business, that "we" should stop whining or that they don't understand what's wrong with what Skyride does. Second, "we" all post on the tactics Skyride uses. Third we start talking about the steps that have been taken against Skyride and it's owners and what we should do in the future. That goes on for a while until the the origional points on what they are doing gets buried. Finally, someone reads the last 100 or so posts and joins the thread with the belief that Skyride is just another business, that "we" should stop whining or that they don't understand what's wrong with what Skyride does. And the chain goes unbroken. That's the reason the same points are repeated over and over again. I also get frustrated that I haven't seen a valid argument for Skyride. I know there are those out there that support them but I see more specious reasoning than valid arguements. That's why I get cranky. Can we get a reader's digest version of this thread? Maybe Coles notes? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Weak, very weak. Theft, dear boy, theft. I don't recal ever stealing someones images and copyrighted material. They use me personally and call me thier chief instructor on some of thier banners. They use the logo that I designed and use it to promote thier bogus sites. I designed, not stole, designed it. Spent time on, revised, redid, I have several versions and the process took hours. It took them 2 seconds to steal it. While you may be correct on your observation that the thread's title is presumptous, your "get over it" comment irks me just as bad because I was directly wronged by Skyride's actions. It's like saying if you don't like being screwed, use vasoline. What is your beef with those who have legit greivances against Skyride and want honest dialog? I don't get you. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Umm.... ok, Why are you posting here? It can't be because you want meaningful debate. Your comments have always seemed to be in defense of Skyride without real substance. I feel they skim profit from DZs that could use the extra income for new gear, upgraded airpower and so on. I feel they do not expand the market and increase DZ traffic (unless it's at the expense of another DZ) I feel they cause disatisfaction among customers and word of mouth advertising can work against the sport when it's that negative. I know they have engaged in theft (Duh) I know they mislead customers (unethical) I know they operate with loose morals. Argue against it cogently. Saying that some people don't what anything to be done makes no arguement at all. What if it's true. What if 99% of all skydivers are indifferent to Skyride's tactics. How the hell does this effect the above statements? Why not post that the sky is blue, or that you like peanut butter sandwiches? Oh yeah, that woudn't stir the pot now would it. It's like you can't think of a strong enough arguement so you resort to the "no one cares about what you think" technique, hoping to undermine the opposing view by declaring that people don't care. Weak, very weak. Now go home, get that two cycle weed wacker brain humming and get ready for the next thicket because you need to give a well placed point of view. Give some valid side to your pro Skyride emotion and join in! The waters warm. Just bring a bathing suit for crying out loud! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Has anyone checked out the staff page? Someone must know who they are if they are real. They seem like an ecclectic bunch I wonder how they communicate? Not the foriegns but the guy from Kent. We Kent types have only a 1000 word vocabulary ... and 850 of those words are F*ck I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I've seen it on a Vector as well. The vector I with a mesh pilotchute has to have the cutter on the #3 flap. Don't know why, don't the RWS knows why, it's just what cypres says. Makes the vector look bad too. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

On a technical aspect, I'm blown away by Patrick Passe. He is one of the few that understand that you can structure the video in line with the music. I was a nightclub DJ in the nineties when Traveling 1,2&3came out and was amazed by what good editing can accomplish when sync'd to the music. I can't stand the Vids that have whatever music happened to be in the videographers cd player at the time the video was put together. The disconect between the two hurts my head. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I tore my ACL some years ago and was jumping within a month. I found it really depends on how good your landings are as well as how good your strength is in your legs. If you can consistantly stand up your landings and have good muscle built up, I think you should be fine. Talkto your Doctor AND your instructors. The lack of an ACL will make your leg unstable so muscle tone is the key factor. You may have lost alot of tone following the accident. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

While I agree with JP that it's unfair to make a blanket statement, I refuse to charge a customer extra because I'm not familiar with a rig. The way I see it, if the rig is hard for me to pack, then I need more practice or familiarization. I once spent five hours packing and repacking a rig. I wasn't happy with how well it looked. I studied the manual, got the tricks down and in the end, I packed it beautifully. It would not be right to have slammed it in half assed and then blamed the rig for looking bad. It also would not have been right to charge the customer extra because of my ignorance of the rig. I look forward to packing unfamiliar rigs, it gives me a chance to broaden my scope and be a better rigger. I'm not going to charge the customer for my education. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.