dorbie

I'm persuaded about your comments w.r.t. lack of preparation and confidence in one's own ability to pull, and complacency w.r.t. pulling, I agree you're right. My only objection is to the case being made that if you won't jump without an AAD then you shouldn't jump. To me that's like saying that if you won't increase your risk on a jump capriciously then you shouldn't jump at all, but I see what's being said more clearly.

I'm very much a beginner too, I know a little bit about probability though.

chance is the key word there which was absent, you can choose to understand or obfuscate. Absolutely but that's a different analog, the scenario you describe is akin to jumping with an AAD and waiting on it firing instead of pulling your handles, not saying having a reserve increases your risk because it makes skydiving acceptably safe to the point where you'd jump. I already realize this. That scenario is not the one I offered, it's not even close to the same thing as I have explained, again it's more like relying 100% on a backup device, once more closer to waiting on your AAD (although the sloppy pach was even better). It's one misguided jumper who doesn't understand the nature of risk and nothing to do with saying (for example) that a reserve increases my risk because without one I wouldn't jump, and it's close cousin, saying you have no right to jump at all if you would jump without one. It's a silly case to make, just as the AAD case is a silly one. My analogy and objection is clear and still stands I think.

Probabilities of failure with sequential backups generally multiply in the simple case. To produce a gross oversimplification with numbers I just made up for illustration this is one way to view the odds: Let's say on a skydive you have a 1/500 chance of your main failing to be successfully deployed. If your main fails your reserve will very probably be deployed successfully, let's say 1/1000 of failure. So your very simplified chance of dying in your 10 jumps due to having no working canopy deployed would be 10 * 1/500 * 1/1000 i.e. one in 50,000 or about one in 500,000 per jump. Now let's say that half of those reserve failures are failure of the skydiver to pull. With an AAD then, half the reserve failures to deploy the AAD has a chance of firing we could guess again and say that chance is 1/1000(including human/rigging and equipment error etc) , that means you have a 10 * 1/500 * (1/2000 + 1/2000 * 1/1000), or approximately one in a million per jump, or one in 100,000 for ten jumps of dying due to having no useful canopy above you. So let's go back and consider your option of lying on your belly waiting for your AAD to fire. Using the same number I guessed a 1/1000 chance that the AAD will fire sucessfully. You're making 10 jumps but you've now reduced your dive to a single point of failure, if the AAD doesn't fire you're dead. You have 10 * 1/1000 chance of going in in 10 jumps, or a 1/100 chance of dying due to no good canopy. In fact it's slightly worse because if the AAD fires there's that other 1/2000 chance of reserve deployment failure (from our earlier numbers)but it doesn't affect the totals numbers much. These numbers are NOT REAL and the scenario is simplified but they illustrate why you pull your main, then your reserve and never wait for your AAD to fire. Waiting on your AAD instantly and dramatically increases your chance of dying. It doesn't matter what the odds really are, the principals apply, you instantly go from having a good chance of surviving to a good chance of dying when you wait on your AAD because equipment & people are imperfect. Sometimes the risk you take by doing something isn't intuitive because people are usually pretty crap at assessing risk. You would probably have no idea that you just made the first part of your skydive 10,000 times more dangerous by waiting on your AAD instead of pulling but that's probably not far from the truth if you were crazy enough to try this.

The first part is merely a function of an FAR. In the absence of federal regulation I could make the same comment about reserves. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. If I look at the historical record and realize that no-pulls before AADs were half the fatalities then I might reasonably decide not to jump without an AAD because it literally doubles my risk. If I were conceited enough to think I'm different from more experienced jumpers who went in with a no-pull, then I might subscribe to your doctrine, but I know I'm not. This is not some esoteric point, it's a stone cold fact that before AADs a no-pull was just as likely to kill you as all other causes put together, that's huge. MY point is that I'm not accepting more risk because of an AAD, rather an AAD reduces the risk of a jump and if it reduces the risk to the point where a skydiver will make a jump that's their business not mine, I'm not gonna say they shouldn't be jumping. If you disagree then as I've said consider the same situation with a reserve and no FARs. If that's difficult pretend you're making a jump from a.. err.. Bolivian plane flying over Antartica. If you won't make the jump without a reserve then don't make the jump! (see it's silly) It's incompatible with how we should treat risk IMHO. Underlying your position is the notion that if you ever need an AAD then you screwed up and you shouldn't be skydiving anyway. But people screw up, they get ill, they have impacts, they lose altitude awareness, they go in. We never really know why post facto. Shit happens. Shit can happen to make me no-pull, just as it can happen to total my main. I don't know what might happen, could be me, could be equipment, could be someone else, I'll play the odds and it's my choice. This is not the same issue as jumping as if you don't have an AAD.

No, we just dismiss them as idiots. We're not idiots, so there's no lesson to be learned here, move along please. Don't put an idiot in charge of a howitzer?

Not all "conservatives" want any interference. If you can follow a thread you'd see that Jeb was impugned as a criminal (and all conservatives for that matter) because he used the legal means at his disposal. It was pure indoctrinated garbage. I don't want any interference despite the attempts to misrepresent my views and the views of a heck of a lot of conservatives. You're so used to slinging mud along the party lines you see on the TV you're incapable of accepting independent thought. I just read that the leader of the local Democratic party just resigned because his party was doing nothing to help Terri. There's another peg that doesn't fit into the hole you've prepared for him. Despite your attempts draw the debate down party lines, the reality is significantly different. As for you polluting this discussion with your non sequitur about fillibustering judicial nominees, it merely underlines your attempts to exploit this tragedy for political ends.

No, I was born (and raised) in Scotland and both my parents are Scottish. FYI Scottish has two t's in it. I've never commented on your nationality although I'd seen from recent posts you were at least from the U.K. If you object to my interpretation of things like "'Scotsman'" then you are free be less cryptic. I assumed (accurately I think) it was skepticism based on my opinions. Truce.

Rubbish, I read and respond to your posts and frankly your cheek like: What a joke you call me arrogant after posting my nationality with a crazy icon. Get a clue.

Wrong on both counts but I know your posting record, it says a lot. Thanks. As for your Scotsman comment in quotes with the crazy icon it's just more of the same. I'm proud of my nationality, thanks, and if my opinions don't match your preconceptions of how a Scot should think, tough shit. I know many Europeans who feel the same way about America that I do.

Risk is not about whether someone lives or dies or about anectodes. You stated that it increased risk because without the device he wouldn't jump. As I have pointed out it's a ridiculous claim to make. I could say the same about a reserve, without which you wouldn't jump, so using your own flawed logic a reserve increases your risk because it allows you to jump. This illustrates how contrived and ridiculous your argument is. A reserve decreases the risk of a skydive to the point where a lot of people jump. If an AAD further reduces that risk to the point where other people jump so be it. There's no difference. Your flawed argument has nothing to do with jumping with an AAD but pulling and acting as if you didnt' have it, you'll get no dispute from me on that, but you're going way beyond that with irrational observations. If I said that some experienced jumper who went in with a double mal had their risk increased by having a reserve because without it the wouldn't have jumped I'd probably offend a lot of people as well as make myself look like a bloody idiot. There's not a lot of difference making the same case about an AAD.

No bias here, looks like if you moved to the USA there's no option to stay. Wouldn't expect any more from the poster. The whole poll presumes there's something to be ashamed of. It ignores the stuning good the USA has achived since 9/11. I'm admire what the USA has accomplished since 9/11, there's nothing to be ashamed of and no reason to even think of leaving.

More rubbish, I've highlighted the relevant part of the text. It's pretty sad that a bunch of politically motivated people including you Bill stick their nose in a family's grief, and misrepresent the facts to score political points against a politician you hate because his brother is the President. You've accused Bush of breaking the law and even your own quote demonstrates he's attempted no such thing. What standards do you hold yourself to Bill? Why are your baseless and exploitive accusations moral when Bush's legal conduct isn't?

I don't disagree with that, however that doesn't make their actions illegal, which is the original sweeping accusation you're now trying to ignore.

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation. Some things are funny yea. Yes. I was able to watch it on TV permanently over the past 2 yrs. Impressing. Living a little bit in the past, I guess? BTW: What you just called "freedom" is considered as "invasion" in other parts or the world. It just depends on the point of view. Americans still tend to overestimate themselves, it seems. The world outside your borders is moving, living, proceeding, you know? It seems to be the old well known mistake: People look down their feet, what do they watch? Nothing. They are "standing" on their point of view, impossible to realize it. Sorry, I know that's too much. Good night. Christel Yea DW is a real impartial source, and which country's borders? Invasion and freedom often come as a package especially when the invaded aren't free to start with. Your accusation that people who disagree with you are myopic is not just misguided, it ignores the benefits you reaped from the same nation you arrogantly sneer at from your comfortable perch of freedom they helped build for you.

I don't think that's a right wing trait at all. . Not been paying attention, eh? See my last post. Your frustration at being outvoted yet again doesn't make your opponents criminals. It's just more name calling.

Is that an example of American humour? Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion. The world is a funny play yard, isn't it? Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation. Some things are funny yea.

Legislation is lawful and it cuts both ways. Your presumptions about the right's recourse to lawlessness are specious. It wasn't the right that started issuing illegal marriage licenses for example (since you went there). It isn't the right that routinely throws bags of feces at police during demonstrations (last I checked that wasn't legal). Exhausting legal options is entirely legitimate. As you contemplate why the right split towards supporting feeding Terri you might consider why the left split towards pulling the tube. That kind of observation cuts both ways. Like I said it's part of the American political problem. Most Democrats I hear (including you Bill) are making grand sweeping assumptions about how Christians and the right are reacting to this, in fact they have difficulty separating the right from the Christian right or accepting that there might be a diversity of opinion on any issue within any group on a host of issues. They preffer to draw up two extremes and paint one side black and the other white. This is just the latest media and political fiasco in the USA. For whatever bizarre reasons the battle lines on the issue gets demarked early, the cynical assholes in D.C. milk it for what it's worth playing to their base (but also led by selective use of information, it works on politicians too) and the pundits play along with the tune. As for what Democrats are saying, speak for yourself Bill, once again you presume that an entire block of people share your opinion with everyone on the "other side" opposing it in an issue on conscience and two conflicting sides of the same story. It just ain't black & white.

That's not a given. It may still decrease their risk overall, in fact I'd bet it does. The guy didn't freeze, saying that an AAD increases the risk to someone because they otherwise might not skydive is a silly argument. Would you jump with your standard main and no reserve? No, and I sure wouldn't and most other jumpers wouldn't either. So according to your theory of safety devices a reserve is increasing our risk because without it we wouldn't skydive. Where do you go with this ludicrous observation? It's utterly useless. On top of this the incident you described sounds downright bizarre, like the guy made it up as he went along. I suppose we'll never know what he thought he was doing when he cutaway waited then pulled his main, perhaps under pressure he confused his cutaway with reserve handle. Makes more sense to me than alternative theories and the same thing may have happened with or without an AAD.

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

I don't think that's a right wing trait at all. Plenty of right wingers don't agree with any interference, even the thus far legal interference. In the absence of a living will it's a simple custody dispute. Shouldn't even be in the headlines. This is one of those bizarre American cases where politics seem to line people up on either side of an issue of personal conscience. This is not defined by right or left wing politics for me. The lefts misguided preconceptions about how a Christian should feel about sustaining someone on a feeding tube do not actually define how I or many others feel about this. It's a case of personal tragedy with at least one side seeking publicity to bolster their desperate position. If I take anything away from this it will be to get a living will, rest assured it won't say keep me alive with a feeding tube in a bed for years.

Bwahaha. You don't get to make that call, and depending on when you took your poll the action would have been quite popular. You don't get to second guess command, you signed up and the guy in charge makes the call, you follow orders. If you don't like it tough titty. There's no excuse for some pongo deciding he doesn't agree with the war after he's signed up. There's no excuse for claiming to be a conscientious objector AFTER you frigging signed up, you're not one. It's desertion in the face of the enemy, nothing else. The only thing you get to do is refuse to follow illegal orders, and that doesn't include discretion to decide is an entire campaign is to your liking. Geeze what a joke.

No he won't because Jeb has already said he won't because it would be illegal. You could try listening to statements made by the guy you're attacking on the very subject you're attacking him over. Even if you despise his brother it would be a reasonable thing to do before impugning him based on some left wing fantasy.

Well done, it's good to see at least one person knows about the bigger picture here although Clinton promised to refund the money in 1998, years after the US welched on the deal. The undelivered F-16s and stolen money had been a huge running sore. This is a healthy quid pro quo for Pakistan's assistance in the War in Afghanistan and the broader theatre. It ain't America's fault that India and Pakistan are at eachother's throats in a decades old territorial dispute. I'd much rather Pakistan bought F-16s than MiGs, thanks.

Smacks of the preamble to Afghanistan. The real Laos factor was the Whithouse hamstringing the US forces, preventing them from prosecuting a war against enemies sheltering and raiding from a no go area. As for the surrogate China support there'd need to be the equivalent of very substantial tangible support and a Ho Chi Minh trail. I don't think that would be tennable today. Many other things spring to mind like effective air defences supported and updated by an enemy superpower over an enemy controlled zone etc. It just doesn't fly.