apoil

*** Every free fly coach is like a Pych with out a de-gree... So true. Sometimes I tell my students there's good news and bad news. The good news is your problems aren't physical. The bad news is your problems aren't physical.

McDonald's Douglas

Assuming this isn't a troll... Being able to fly with it isn't the half of it. The risks of not catching a ball include: The pilot losing his license. The drop zone being shut down forever. SEVERE damage to life and property on the ground. The real question to be asking is whether your SPOTTING skills are up to it and whether you have the maturity to appreciate the above risks and say NO if needed. Most people at some point think that they can fly in such a way that they will always catch the ball. Most people who currently think that have missed or had a close call. Shit can happen in freefall. Beyond freefall issues, what if you have a severely fucked up mal? You should probably focus on saving your life rather than holding on to the ball at that point. Spotting properly preserves that option. So before even considering jumping the ball ask yourself whether you can guarantee it wont land on anything. You can't rely on the pilot to give you a good spot. It's not about risking your life. It's about someone else's life, it's about someone else's house, it's about the possibility of taking away the chance for any of your friends to ever jump at your dropzone again. A vladiball has an increased safety margin, but it only reduces the above risks, it does not remove them.

Trying to be a "free agent" during your student progression isn't really in your best interest either. It can end up costing you more down the line as well. Every dropzone is unique in terms of landing area, gear, aircraft, and instructional program. Switching DZ's can often entail refresher training and/or repeating a level. You are more likely to be given some leniency about repeating a level if the dropzone knows that you are committed to them. Not just for economic reasons, it's just more safe over all. I'll pass a student who's struggling if I know that I can oversee their progression or modify the objectives of a subsequent level. If a student shows up at my DZ with any "special needs" in the log book, I'm more likely to do some refresher training and repeat the last level. Becoming a safe canopy pilot is the single most important skill to develop early on. One of the worst things you could do is change to an unfamiliar landing area with barely a handful of jumps. In addition to the added concern under canopy, the added mental exertion of figuring out a new landing area and pattern with different obstacles and outs can only hurt your performance in freefall.

It's more like social security. At the beginning you pay into it. As you get older/more experienced you withdraw more. When you've spent all your money on gear and jump tickets you'll appreciate the new folks in the sport buying their beer.

Hollister also jumps from at least 15,000 ft agl and has a rocket ship of a jump plane that will get you there faster than any super otter to 13,500. Plus the largest unobstructed landing area I've ever seen with the nicest weather in northern cal and consistently low winds generally from the same direction.

The video and the book were originally sold separately.

2 problems with that statement. 1:he wasn't skydiving , and 2: it wasn't a landing problem, it was a canopy collision. Question was "how many on the poster have femured in", and Slaton just broke his femur. Your three points are all nullities. 1: He was under a parachute. The focus of the campaign is safety under parachute, and even if it's targetted at skydiving, it applies to BASE, and Ground Launching as well, to some degree. 2. Just what is a "landing" problem? If you hit the ground and break something, how is that not a "landing". A ground launch is in many ways an extended landing sequence. All the risks present during a traditional skydiving landing are present for the entire ground launch run. 3. Avoiding canopy collisions is part of parachute safety. While it may not have been specifically addressed in the "femur is not a verb" campaign, it's still under the same umbrella. If your point is that slaton was pushing the envelope, so as to be somewhat outside of the target audience of the campaign, that too has only a small amount of validity. Fact: Ground Launching has a greater exposure to danger. Fact: Slaton, who is on the "femur is not a verb" poster, just broke his femur. Fact: This is ironic. Fact: The strength of the message, and the validity of what Slaton teaches are undiminished.

I have done it very few times and ONLY with students whose entire training I had been involved with. These students were so exceptionally comfortable in the air that they had NEVER been unstable at any moment during their entire progression. Not even during their loops and rolls. Since instability recovery is a criteria for being approved to solo jumpmaster, yes, I have induced instability, at a high enough altitude, knowing that the student will have no difficulty recovering, and knowing that I could fix it if they didn't. It is important that students demonstrate this ability. The vast majority of students have no trouble making themselves unstable at some point on their release dives. I respect the "dive the plan" argument. It is important for group relative work. And there is a risk of not re-inforcing that through this behavior. That's why I have only done it in the rarest of circumstances. For a student at that level, I want to see them respond to something unexpected in the air (it happens) before I sign them off to solo.

spam is not advertising. When Kraft spends money doing their research, that's fine. That's free enterprise and that's legitimate business. With spam there's nothing legitimate about it, because the sender doesn't pay their fair share. Just like a telemarketing call to your cell phone using up your anytime minutes. Just like a fax advertisement that uses up the paper and toner you paid for. It may only be a fraction of a penny per violation, but I get THOUSANDS of spam messages every day. If EVERY company that had a legitimate reason to think that you might be interested in their product sent you one email message per year, your email would be overloaded and useless. *** .....I still hate spam..... *** If you buy from spammers they will keep spamming.

Me neither. I think they're foolish, and probably just being naive. If, however, it's the start of a pattern of behaviour, they'll find themselves without any customers. foolish and naive. And I think we can add careless as well. Careless because they didn't realize that it would piss off at least a few recipients, careless because it is a violation of the terms of service agreement they made with their service provider. can we agree on that, then? foolish, naive and careless? ok... now.. who wants to buy a life saving device from them?

common sense? Just let everyone spam you, and you'll keep paying for it? Do you like when telemarketers disturb you at dinner? What if they called every two seconds. So often that your phone became useless? What if some guy got the idea to drive up and down your street with a loudspeaker broadcasting about a sale at the supermarket? What if every business on main street decided it was a good idea? What about when you show up at your business in the morning, and your fax machine is out of paper because you've received 100 advertisements and you are missing legitimate business opportunities? What if your voice mail were constantly full of advertising messages. All these "useful" technologies would become completely ineffective if they were abused to that degree. Most will argue that that has already happened to email. Or the other argument is that it doesn't happen so often now, and only scam artists and bottom feeders employ junk email. Well that's who is trying to sell you a life saving device, and if you give them your business you are promoting the problem. The people who buy stuff from spammers these days are worse than the spammers themselves.

Argus obviously trolled online sites and forums or obtained our emails by some other unethical means. The suggestion that we "ask to be removed" is unacceptable. We should not have to ask to be removed from a list we never placed ourselves on in the first place. Just because we are skydivers and they are a skydiving company doesn't make this not spam. If every company with a legitimate reason to believe you'd be interested in their product sent you an email you'd be "asking to be removed" thousands of times per day. Argus has sent a clear message: "hey we are just like pornographers, illegal pharmacies, and nigerian con-artists, would you like to entrust us with your lives?" Anyone who purchases an argus AAD at this point is explicitly endorsing their behavior and setting the stage for more spam in the future. Spam is a violation of the contract they signed with their Internet Service provider. What they sent is REALLY SPAM. It is unsolicited commercial broadcast email, it doesn't matter if it was "targetted". Are you going to do business with someone who doesn't respect the contracts they sign?

I called you a liar because you lied about me having sold him the canopy. I called you a liar now because you said I told him his canopy choice was fine. What I don't understand is why you feel so threatened by even considering what I suggested? Because it's coming from me? I just found a post of yours suggesting that one should listen to advice even if you don't like where it's coming from. Funny.. I'd say that you did the same thing, both then and now. Why do you keep making this about that? If I concede that the above is true does it change anything? In fact it might go so far as to prove my point. Just because you DO know exactly what you the deal is, doesn't mean that you are communicating it to people in a way that's going to stop them from getting killed or hurt. I don't claim to be any better at it. But if you really were concerned with everyone's safety, why would you be threatened by this suggestion? Would it help if I concede (again) that more than two years ago I challenged you because my judgment was clouded by having just seen a close friend get seriously injured? And that despite being falsely accused by you of practically causing it I STILL learned something from the incident and tried to use it to become a better instructor and prevent it from happening again? >You KNEW me back then? You were around back then? Or are you just >making a wild guess? I based it on your own statements. If I am misremembering your own statements either here or at the dz about the first time you jumped a stiletto then I will take it back. I also know plenty of people who knew you back then. So it's far more than a guess. No need to be so dismissive. The correctness of the info isn't the issue! You're proving my point. You need to respect the person you are giving the info. You need to respect their desire to make informed choices, you need to respect the fragility of their ego, which comes from an understanding that they are probably just like you. Read some Dale Carnegie, fer pete's sake.

At the time you also said I sold him the canopy! But that's not the point. Your choice to bring up all those facts is a smokescreen from the rather simple point I made in this thread which is that maybe if you are getting such a violent reaction from 100 jump wonders it has something to do with the way you talk to them. I'm not so cunning as to have intended it, but notice how being personally challenged made you react? How different are you from that guy with 100 jumps getting told what he doesn't know? You should at least be able to understand their perspective. You were the same way when you were new in the sport. How can you expect others to listen when you didn't. And this isn't about you or me. It's about how to be a more effective instructor, and a better communicator. I'm continually trying to learn how to more effectively communicate the message. Someone truly concerned with keeping people sensible and safe in their canopy progression would be open to any methods or techniques that might get the message across.

This is more true for tunnel flying than for skydiving. But in the tunnel recovery is much more critical since the flying space is so restricted. The "VRW Stable" position and its variants are just as good if not better as a recovery position when learning head up flying. Using the back as a control surface is important in freeflying, but one doesn't have to start with back flying in order to learn to freefly outside the tunnel. Of course if someone wants to its not the worst idea in the world.

Yes, but you told a guy with 100 jumps he would be fine under a certain canopy... -- that's a lie Ron. I said no such thing, and I don't appreciate you attempting to discredit me like that. Telling people what they want to hear? That's a rare accusation to level against me. Most of what I say is unwelcome most of the time. I have been an instructor for several years, Ron, full time for the past year and a half, I train a lot of students and I make a concerted effort to keep them safe. There's nothing I focus on more than canopy safety before giving anyone an A license. But maybe you are right. Maybe I'm not confrontational enough. No matter what the approach, some folks just aren't going to listen. We both know that. My suggestion was only that there's the possibility that if people are reacting to you in a consistent manner, it may be related to the way you talk to them. Believe it or not, I am delivering the same message I just never get told to fuck off because I don't know what I'm talking about. Sometimes my statements are considered and perhaps rejected but my students who have gone on to become active skydivers have all been very prudent in their canopy choices and that has to be due at least in part to my influence. Look how you are reacting to me suggesting that you might not be communicating effectively. You are taking it personally and levelling all kinds of false counter accusations in order to discredit me. Why does a young canopy pilot behave any differently when his ego is threatened? But it still leads me to do some self reflection and consider the effectiveness of what I tried to say to you and whether or not it was undeservedly provocatory. you don't know what you are talking about now! I was upset because my friend just got hurt and I didn't appreciate the way you were making it public. I was probably wrong about that, but you are misrepresenting far too many details.

Anything by Madonna or Britney Spears. Skydivers suffer hearing loss over time, and become more sensitive to loud music, so steer away from any noisy rock and roll the youngsters listen to these days. Stick with something soft and melodic. Maybe "songs of the humpback whale" for that organic feel.

Let's change the context. Consider two passenger trains, A and B. A arrives at the station 10 minutes before B. If the passengers can wander around randomly between compartments on each train, does it prevent you from knowing which group of passengers arrives first? No.. and of course this has almost nothing to do with skydiving or the relative complexities of the models you have presented earlier. In particular the notion of throw/penetration into the hill, which may actually matter somewhat less than we think. That's a fine basic principle. In practice, sometimes groups aren't as fast or as slow as they think they might be, and sometimes jump runs go crosswind and downwind and things get mixed up.

You know, I've never heard someone with 100 jumps tell me that. If you get that response consistently, it's far more likely that it has something to do with the way you are telling it. Hint: "You're an idiot and you're gonna die if you keep it up" rarely works.

You'd be too preoccupied by the abuse your package was taking to even think about any other part of your body. I speak from experience.

That's why my point conceded that the answer was correct, but questioned the "goodness" of it because it can lead to some wrong thinking. >Thats true. Its based on time exposed to the winds aloft. A freeflier that has a freefall of 45 >seconds will drift less than a flat flyer that is exposed for 1:20. In editing that item for brevity I suppose I deleted the "wrong science" part of it. The belief was that drift was affected due to surface presented to the winds aloft - misunderstanding that only presentation to the relative wind matters. I also based my statement on somewhat of an ambiguity about the term drift. Not how far you drift but how fast. The statement I was referencing would have it go the other way. Vertical flyers present a greater surface to the winds aloft and hence drift further. >It is the best model you have. You can claim that flat fliers will funnel...OK, but freefliers cork. I said that both happen, both are common, and both increase the complexity of the model. I'm not arguing for a different exit order, I'm arguing for a better understanding that things may not not always as simple as our models make it seem. >You take a good freefly group and they penetrate much more into the hill than an expereinced 4way team that almost floats on exit. fine. but lets be honest. Who is on most of the loads at most of the dropzones? Not kickass freefly groups penetrating with maximum effectiveness into the relative wind, and not flat groups that are launching funnel free. Who is the rule of thumb for? The experienced guys know how to keep themselves safe in any condition.

That is a damn good answer While it may be a correct answer, I'm not convinced yet how good it is. The problem is that this concept is often applied intuitively by skydivers without a physics education leading to a lot of the "wrong science" we hear around the campfire. I've heard the theory that a horizontal versus vertical mode of flight will affect drift even when the relative wind is from below. I've heard a theory that if your heading is crosswind on opening you are more likely to have an off-heading opening. I've heard that on windy days it's harder to fly certain transitions relative to a ball. I've heard that you must hook lower on a windy day. I've heard that if you are setting up a 270 performance turn for a crosswind landing, that whether it is a left hand or right hand turn will affect your final groundspeed. These are all partially if not completely wrong, and I have heard them all from individuals with over 5000 jumps. -- And anyway, remember that a skilled skydiver is like a badminton birdie that can and will morph into a dart if he's falling too slow and vice versa. And beginning and intermediate skydivers effectively turn one type of formation into another unpredictably. I know from tons of ball jumps that a ball accelerates way faster on the hill. This is consistent with the physical theory. Head down skydivers should NOT be modeled like a skyball. So my issues with the throw theory are as I've stated before, that it is FAR more complex and difficult to model.

While these may serve to explain the theory, they are not exactly safe or realistic assumptions. Sure, maybe excellent skydivers present a perfect unchanging body position to the relative wind on exit, but in practice how often do you make corrections on exit? In practice how many RW launches funnel? A funneling RW launch and a squirrelly head down flower are probably identical in terms of surface area presented to the relative wind. These phenomena are COMMON and UNPREDICTABLE.

I don't know.. maybe if you are too relaxed... If it starts to happen, just do something really scary and pucker up.