peregrinerose

Everyone learns differently. Maybe for YOU skydiving isn't complicated. Maybe for YOU, there is 100% retention of all skydiving related information you have learned, despite being however long uncurrent. Maybe YOU have great judgement, common sense, etc. However, every jumper is different. What for YOU might be over-kill, for another jumper may be very needed review. Which standard does it make more sense to adhere to for that recurrency jump? To assume that the jumper has a good head on their shoulders, good logic, good common sense and just go straight to the skydive with minimal/no review, or to get a feel for what the jumper does and doesn't know through recurrency training? As an instructor, if a recurrency jumper I'm with gets injured or killed, how am I going to live with myself if I assumed that every jumper was like you and didn't do as thorough a recurrency as I would have had I made no assumptions at all about the student? Honestly, I couldn't. Maybe when you are an instructor, your philosophy will be different... maybe YOU will be comfortable putting an uncurrent jumper in the air with no knowledge of their background or understanding, and that's your judgement call to make. "Recurrency training" is a misnomer really. All I do is sit an ask questions. I cover every topic that's covered in a first jump course... in-aircraft responsibilities/emergencies/safety, gear function/maintainance/checks, landing priorities/hazards, EPs, freefall issues (alt awareness, stability problems, etc), hazards specific to that particular DZ (water, power lines, etc), landing patterns, etc. If the jumper knows all the answers, recurrency training goes really quickly. Any gaps in their knowledge or things they forgot will be taught and covered to them. It's more like recurrency quizzing than recurrency training. But I can honestly say I've only had one recurrency jump where the jumper got 100% of the questions nailed quickly (She was a D licensed jumper, more jumps than me, which I admit felt a little weird, out of the sport for a year). When a jumper shows up at the DZ, new license, low numbers, and uncurrent, it's my job as instructor to check their knowledge base before throwing them in the air... it's in the best interests of the jumper, everyone else on the plane, me as instructor, and the safety of the DZ as a whole. If a jumper wants to avoid that issue, it's pretty easy... don't go uncurrent to begin with. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

You are really blowing this out of proportion. How many recurrency jumps have you been on? I've done quite a number, with people from students to D license holders. Most of them went fine, but I've seen enough go to shit to know not to take them lightly. Ground training is far more than EPs. Did you read the NY incident from yesterday? It's also more than just your individual friend's safety. I've seen jumpers licensed from other DZs that were flat out incompetent in freefall. Barely stable, not altitude aware, spinning... yet somehow they got a license in their hand. If they did a group dive with no form of evaluation dive first and they toilet bowl track into another group or another jumper, that's just unsafe for everyone. Jumping with an AFF instructor isn't about dollars, it's about safety.... and not just his. At our DZ in the same situation, it would be $45 for the recurrency (lasts from 1.5-3 hours depending on the student) plus whatever the cost of a coach jump is. $90 I think. The 'coach' would be one of the AFF instructors, as with that low of jump numbers and new to the DZ it would probably be a harness hold exit and the instructor would be prepared to pull for them. Is $135 unreasonable to ensure a safe skydive for all concerned? I don't think so. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

clickified for you Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Apply a little critical thinking to this. If you can't detach yourself from your main system before chopping, what magic do you think you can work to detach yourself after chopping when you are: 1. Possibly falling faster as depending on the configuration, the main may have been slowing you down somewhat 2. Possibly have increased tension on the unwanted attachment point since now in freefall all of your weight would be on that one point, rather than that one point plus possibly risers, thus making it even harder to release 3. Depending on the configuration, it could be a high speed mal to begin with, meaning you don't have time to do in-air rigging to fix it. 4. In air rigging has killed many jumpers who have followed this same philosophy, why are you setting yourself up to be next. 5. A majority of horseshoe or other main entangling on your body issues are almost entirely preventable. 6. Remember EPs for a horseshoe mal? Try 2x to release, chop, pull reserve. That's it. Not Try 2x to release, chop, spend some time doing freefall rigging, then pull reserve. You have just changed the EPs you were probably taught in your FJC.... there's a reason the EPs are the way they are. 7. You just added a bungee system to your reserve flap which INCREASES your odds of the very problem you describe as you'll be intentionally anchoring a part of your main system to your container.... see the irony there? Your reasons for not wanting an RSL are ill informed and defy logic and common sense. Please learn to think independently of anyone on DZ.com, your instructors, and understand how these systems work and the pros and cons... you clearly don't, and that lack of understanding is dangerous. If you are faced with a horseshoe type mal tomorrow, your lack of understanding on this will probably kill you as you go in trying to do detach yourself prior to pulling reserve. That concerns me. You seem like a decent guy, and if this information makes to step back and think a little instead of just regurgitating some really warped logic, we may have saved your life. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

With only 29 jumps, he has very little experience, plus no experience at this other DZ, plus he's uncurrent. I don't see the DZs requirements as unreasonable at all. If your friend knows all the information, recurrency training may very well be only an hour. I've had some students that recurrency with even more jump numbers took 2-3 hours, it was more like a first jump course. They didn't remember a damn thing. It's not just EPs that's covered in recurrency, it's landing priorities, tree, water, electric line, etc. I had one guy with 150 jumps and couldn't remember which handle was the cutaway What's the problem with getting water training, he needs it to get a B anyway, so he kills two birds with one stone there, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. With only having 29 jumps the individual DZ may want a more experienced coach or AFF instructor do the recurrency jump, so I don't see a huge problem with the price either. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

I'm with the folks that said if you weren't 100% comfortable with your reserve, you need to get a new reserve. The last thing you want to do is be under a canopy that isn't landable and be afraid to cut away due to this factor.... trust me on that one, I've been there and it's not a pleasant decision to have to make. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Terry's answer is dead on. I'm a rigger and will be in your same situation in October even though the cypres doesn't go out until early 2009 (Feb, I think), the battery is done in Oct. So, instead of buying a new batter to get through a few months, I'm going to suck it up and get a new cypres 2 at that time. I won't be happy about spending all that money on a cypres, but that's just life sometimes. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Blepharospasm is a PITA. If it's really bad, try getting more sleep, less caffeine, less stress. I have a couple of patients that swear by getting a little extra potassium (eat a banana) when theirs is bad, couldn't hurt to try that too. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

You were so busy training up for BUD/S that you didn't have time to spank the ? Care to explain how my oldest daughter's vision improved from a 12 diopter to 6 with glasses? Or how my youngest daughter's improved from a 2 diopter to a .5 with glasses? If the glasses CAUSE your eyesight to get worse, how was that possible? Sorry, I have to nip this one in the bud too... glasses didn't change their prescriptions either. As kids grow, the eyes grow. That changes the physics of the system and how light bends. That's why the biggest prescription changes are during the growth spurt years, and level off in early 20s. Whether they wore glasses or not, their Rx's would have changed... that's normal. (And with those Rx's, good thing they have glasses!!)

First, a change in visual acuity means nothing. Visual acuity is what line you read on the chart. If you go without your glasses, you get better at determining what a blurry image is, that's it. Your guessing skills get better. A 0.5D change is essentially nothing with regard to prescriptions. Like I said before, it won't hurt you (unless you are doing digital massage of the eyeball), so it doesn't matter to me if you do the exercises or not. But spouting mis-information as though it is fact is scary. Educate yourself about the eye and how it works. It's a PHYSICS system, not a MUSCLE system. You can't change physics with exercises. Sorry. Edited to add... a 1.25 Rx correlates with a 20/30 to 20/50 visual acuity. There isn't even a 20/90 line on a standard eye chart, but even if there was, you really haven't gained anything at all. A -0.75 correlates with 20/25-20/40 most of the time. Visual acuity with a given Rx depends on pupil size, lighting, time of day, and a few other things, but the general ranges generally hold (in the absense of ocular disease). So you really have gained nothing at all other than better guess skills. I'm sorry this probably irritates and or dissapoints you, but it really bothers me to see blatant falsehoods distributed as fact when it comes to health care. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

For what it's worth...I find it reassuring to know that one can have such a deficit and still be able to jump.

No problem. I liked your smart ass comments though, maybe a little wine before posting here isn't a bad thing? I should try it sometime! Just to clarify my Bates bashing post....There are some eye 'exercises' that do good, (neuro optometric rehab, eccentric viewing training, some forms of vision therapy), but they all work on the vision/brain interaction, much like physical, auditory, speech, or occupational therapy works on brain/various body part interactions. Similar mechanisms there. But Bates has been known to be hooey from it's inception. Too bad. If there was a way to get rid of my -5.50 Rx with a few exercises, I'd do it. But I'm a busy lady (I use the term 'lady' loosely) and have better things to waste my time on

LOL!! I love these bogus web sites and things like 'See Clearly Method' Eyes and glasses is a physics issue, not an eye exercise issue. The eye is a series of lenses (tear film, cornea, anterior chamber, lens) that focus on a point (ideally the retina). If that focus point is in front of the retina, you are nearsighted, if behind the retina, you are farsighted. There is nothing you can do to change the size, shape, and refractive properties of the eye through exercises... try all you want to, it won't hurt. You DO get better blur interpretation (meaning you get used to seeing fuzzy objects and get a little quicker about determining what that fuzzy object is). But if you check your actual glasses Rx before doing Bates Method and after doing Bates method, it's the same. Rx is NOT the same as 20/whatever. The 20/whatever number is just what line you read on the chart. The Rx is a physics measurement based on the properties of the eye. The only thing I strongly recommend NOT to do is the eyeball massage thingy. Think about it... glaucoma is high pressure in the eye. When you digitally massage your eye, you raise the pressure in the eye. This truly can damage the eye by squashing the blood vessels that feed the optic nerve during that time. The rest of the stuff won't hurt you, but won't help either. Edited to add: Wearing glasses, not wearing glasses, wearing the wrong glasses, old glasses, or somebody elses glasses entirely will not change your prescription in any way as glasses can not change the refractive properties of an eye. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

It could be eyestrain, a decompensating phoria, accommodative dysfunction, or a few other things too. Do wearing the glasses while you are on the computer make your symptoms better or worse? Is it one eye or both? If both, I'd be more inclined to thing something benign like everything I'd mentioned so far. Let us know what you find out though!

Is it only up close that things get blurry? Could be that you're a little bit farsighted and just now starting to notice it (the older you get, the less you can compensate for it, and one day, you wake up, and just can't see all that well up close any more). Could be a bit of dry eye, mild allergies... the way you describe it doesn't sound like any of the horrible things in life that can affect vision. Take a deep breath, relax, and see your eye doc, but don't panic until the doc gives you a reason to.

Trust me, you will completely regret taking out student loans to skydive.... either pick up another job, or just wait until you are out of school (the sky isn't going anywhere!!) Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

That will never work...The ProTec is simply not 'cool' enough. You're right, I keep forgetting that functionality is secondary to looking good Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

I flat out tell students that even though it's called 'jumping' out of a perfectly good airplane, there's actually no jumping involved. Present to the wind and let the relative wind and gravity do the job out of the KA, and on the cessna, just kicking the foot that's on the step back is all that's needed, the plane will fly away and gravity will do it's thing. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

How about spend $45 on a Protec... you can just hose that thing down, let it dry, and keep on trucking

She's beautiful. I love the little spots on her feet

I agree that some kids respond differently to some punishments. I took care of two girls age 8 and 12 for almost a year... dad was never home, mom was addicted to Rx pain meds and always out of it. The younger girl loved to be the center of attention, so if she did something wrong, she sat at the dining room table, by herself, for some time. It killed her, she sat and cried, but she only had to do it one time (for hiding in the grocery store and scaring the living crap out of me when I couldn't find her). The older girl was much more sensitive and being older, easier to rationalize with. She lied to me one time. All I had to do to nip that in the but was tell her I was extremely dissappointed in her. She never did it again. Had I switched consequences between the girls, it would have been completely ineffective. I do NOT agree that there is a 'huge difference between spanking and hitting'. It's a pretty fine line. I can tell you I was spanked. Nearly every day. Until I left home at 17. Sounds like I was just a bad kid, it's not so bad. But then I can let you know that the spankings started with a swat on the butt with the hand, then moved up to a harder swat that left hand prints, then wooden spoons, then the wooden spoons kept breaking when they were used, so they switched over to a plywood paddle that didn't break. That one left welts and cuts, split the skin. Where in that continuum did spanking go from acceptable to not? Is it an age? You can't rationalize with a 2 year old but a quick swat on the butt gets their attention very quickly. You can rationalize with a 12 year old and come up with more appropriate consequences. Is it the power behind the swat? No marks is ok, but a hand print is not? Is it the implement used? Wooden spoon ok, but paddle not? Where do you draw the line? And just like the girls mentioned above... if I didn't use their consequences appropriately, they would have been completely ineffective. Spankings are a tool, but used in a manner that confuses or scares the child isn't going to teach them anything. I also strongly disagree with is that punishment is teaching Authority... that should NEVER be the goal of punishment. The goal of raising children is to teach them. It should not be so much punishment as consequences.... teach them that every thing they do has a consequence, good or bad. Good, moral, productive choices have good consequences. Bad, unethical, destructive choices result in less than favorable outcomes for the child. The goal isn't to raise an obedient monkey, but to eventually produce an adult who's a productive and ethical member of society. Don't get me wrong, I am not against spanking. With the kids I will be adopting, though I am not permitted to use that tool, or any physical means of control at all. I just finished a solid month of training on alternative means to enforce or change behaviors, and I admit, going into this, I was irritated that I couldn't spank the kids if needed, but I've been given so many more powerful tools in the course of this education, that I'm much less concerned about losing that particular tool from my mental consequence armory. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

I'm not sure what you are describing then, you'll have to take a picture and PM me with it once it's done (see, here's your chance to show ME something new)

For the record, I wasn't laughing at him, only the irony of his decision making of one thing compared to another. It's just one of those warped things that struck my funny bone and I didn't mean to come across as ridiculing him. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, you made me laugh on this one... I'm assuming by 'the ball', you mean the bungee/ball system that attaches to the reserve flap so you can stow your slider behind your head. You're concerned about an RSL and afraid of a horseshoe, but you're not concerned about attaching the slider to your reserve container???? Sweet irony entertains me greatly. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

V-B, you'll notice that there are a lot of strong personalities in this sport, but remember that every jumper has something to teach you (just as you potentially have something to teach every other jumper)... be careful to filter out the horse shit and see that there really is good information in some posts, couched among the attitudes. One guy at a DZ I visited was a total horses' ass, treated everyone like crap, so a lot of folks just tuned him out, even when he had something good to teach. It was hard to learn from him because of that, but the information/experience he had really is priceless if you can deal with the attitude. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda