JDBoston

Currently "Home," by Witold Rybczynski. Try anything by Alain de Botton too. Joe

I don't think they should need waivers either. But that's partly because I also think we as a community can do a lot more to reduce the number of incidents they're likely to see that day. I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility and accountability. But I include in that category the responsibility of people who know better to look out for people who don't, even if they create some hard feelings by doing so. Joe

Figured this belonged here instead of appended to a post in Safety & Training. For the instructor/experienced folks out there: what correlation do you see between the % of landings that someone stands up, and serious landing injuries (i.e. low turns, tib/fib, femurs, or worse, not a twisted ankle or something)? Joe

Fair enough... now I know where NOT to jump Joe

Anyone can write the response, but I am most interested in how people hold those two (to me, apparently opposing) viewpoints simultaneously. Every canopy ride is indeed risky, but not EQUALLY risky. How about defining the canopy as something loaded at 1.5 flown by someone (the pilot is obviously a factor here too) who has 100 jumps total and 20 on it. And then someone suddenly cuts him off in the pattern below 100'. How much do you want to bet his landing is not very pretty? If he's at 1:1, it may still not be pretty but maybe it's the difference between a dirty jumpsuit and the heavy metal club. Also, I would not be nearly as afraid of an underloaded canopy as an overloaded one. You shouldn't be jumping if you are close to backing up under the current winds. If you aren't backing up, you can land out someplace. If there are no good outs, again, maybe you shouldn't be there, at that time, under that canopy. If the winds kick up 10 mph while you're in the plane, well, shit does happen, but that hasn't happened very often in the 3 years I've been around. Maybe it's more likely in some climates than others. Joe

I see your point, but how about people sitting in their yard a mile away from the DZ who get to watch someone cratering in in front of them trying to land off in a tight spot for the first time? And I would disagree that the crowds of spectators at most DZs are EVER told that they might see someone get hurt that day, or be put in danger themselves. Little plastic signs aren't the same as waivers. Joe

I think most people don't find out for sure where they are on the skill curve until they fuck up somehow, put themselves in a scary situation, and either land safely or don't. Which means that erring on the side of making people walk before they can run is probably wise. Skydivers especially tend to be overconfident more often than underconfident. There will always be people who don't like rules. Tough shit. The sport is what we need to preserve, not the extra 5% of someone's enjoyment. I would prefer watching someone sulk and pout for a while to visiting them in the hospital. In my opinion the Darwin comments do not have a logical basis. I don't see anyone advocating doing away with license requirements or PRO prerequisites or the FJC. I get the feeling that people are just concerned about one rule that they think will rain on their personal parade right now, and then try to extend it and make it look like a whole freedom of choice philosophy instead of just sour grapes. Maybe someone who's against wingloading BSRs can address the hypothetical question of why it's OK to have experience limits and performance prerequisites to jump demos (one or more PRE-PLANNED challenging situations), but not to jump a canopy that is a potentially challenging situation EVERY TIME you jump it, if external conditions and luck turn a little bit against you. Maybe some people out there think PRO prerequisites are an unnecessary pain in the ass too? One other thing I'd be curious about, on a bit of a tangent - people that get hurt, what % of their previous landings on that canopy were standups? Not butt-slide and pop back up - standups. Do other people think that's a valid indicator of skill? My $0.02, Joe

THE PARENTS are to blame for the TEENS. The TEENS are to blame for that particular incident. Joe

Use a middle man - a rigger in your area, preferably one who is relatively well known (big DZ, etc.). In my mind there is absolutely no reason to ever do it any other way unless you are a rigger yourself and can verify that the condition of the canopy matches the claimed jump #'s etc. When the rigger says it's OK, the seller gets paid. Simple. Joe

Maybe, but her understanding of skydiving is still inferior to yours, I suspect, so her advice should not carry very much weight with you. More importantly, this is STILL the complete reverse of a situation where an expert skydiver who's been around a long time advocates for a WL BSR based on his or her experience, and the less experienced person doesn't see the need or is comfortable pushing the envelope. There are plenty of other safety-related regulations that are meant to keep people from hurting themselves, based on the experience and observations of the people who campaigned for them. Maybe we should just let everyone do demos too - PRO or not. Good analogy? This is not unfairly dictating allowable risk; it's using experience for its proper and morally correct purpose in a sport like this, which is keeping the newer participants alive until they reach the point where they actually DO know most of what they THOUGHT they knew earlier. To say nothing of the fact that when someone dies, it is not just between us jumpers and it really does have implications for the future of the sport if people keep dying from one specific cause and we don't address it. But that's a different issue. Joe

Hahahaha. Yep. And what percentage of American adults have racked up a couple DUI felonies, I wonder. Oops. To me, that's a little worse than getting a blowjob from an intern and not wanting your family to find out. But that's just me. Details, details. Our first felon President. I differ from a lot of people here in that I don't trust Bush at all. I don't buy the "he's rough around the edges but at least he's honest" thing. I don't think he is. At all. I think he has consistently acted to benefit the people and industries whose pocket he's in, with little regard for the long-term good of the country, and makes up excuses to justify his actions to the public. Whenever I listen to him speak, I get the feeling he's lying about something. He's just too imprecise in his answers to direct questions. To me that's the sign of someone who's being untruthful. On the religion thing, it's my impression that political leaders who talk about God a lot do not have a stellar record in general. Separation of Church and State is so fucking important. Mixing God and public policy is not an indication of private morality, it's using a smokescreen that appeals to uncritical voters and deflects debate on the actual issues by taking them out of the realm of logic. My $0.02, Joe

She is wrong because she does not know nearly as much as you know about skydiving, especially in terms of how many ways there are to mitigate risk. This is the COMPLETE opposite of the (common) situation where a less-experienced skydiver takes risks that more-experienced skydivers would deem dangerous/unnecessary. They are not taking these risks because they know better but choose to do it anyway due to a "higher risk tolerance." They are taking them because they do not fully appreciate & understand the risk. That's why more experienced people have a responsibility to step up, put people on the spot, and risk some bad feelings in the name of safety. IMHO, Joe

Oscar... Oscar... Oscar... does he miss me? Of course, you have some stiff competition with those puppies that Leah and Matt brought on Sunday... Joe

I think maybe one of his kids got his password and started posting as him? I want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt since with 4 kids you would assume he might be an adult. Joe

Like what some of the other posts said, I believe that everyone should have certain basic freedoms (freedom of speech, religion, the pursuit of happiness, etc. - very much like the Constitution...). Morality comes into play in how you exercise your freedoms. If you attempt to exercise your freedom in order to limit someone else's, then that is immoral no matter what side you are on. BUT, that ASSUMES that the other person's exercise of their freedom does not infringe on YOUR rights to begin with. For instance, I am not "free" to pursue happiness by killing your dog. Discrimination is also a very tricky word and you should define exactly what you mean by it. "Not like someone"? "Refuse to hire someone"? For what job? Etc. etc. Joe

So what point are you trying to make exactly? That unprotected straight sex is perfectly safe? Noticed there was no response to the "logic" part of my other post. I'm confused. Joe

What your posts (your own words) said is: 1. Gay sex is "wrong and immoral" 2. You wouldn't want to hire a gay person 3. You don't think gay couples should be allowed to raise kids 4. You don't like it when gay people are "obviously" gay 5. You link homosexuality with pedophilia Yeah, I'm sure you're REAL close with your "gay friends." If you actually are, then it's a real testament to them for being a hell of a lot more tolerant of you than you are of them. My instinct is to call bullshit on that particular claim and call the whole thing a troll, but what do I know, never met you. Joe

OK let me see if I follow your logic here. 1. AIDS started spreading first among gays before it spread to other segments of society. 2. THEREFORE homosexual sex, PROTECTED or UNPROTECTED, is everyone else's problem (not the disease itself, or treatment, or education on safe sex). 3. THEREFORE we should outlaw homosexual sex (whoops, along with oral sex, sorry, because that's how all the laws read). 4. AS A RESULT of those laws, a significant portion of the population are likely to simply give up having sex with the people they are naturally attracted to. 5. AS A RESULT of that, AIDS will stop being a problem. Let me know if I am missing some crucial link in your thinking. I may be making a mistake trying to boil all your posts down to an actual train of thought, since when I look back over them they basically just seem like a string of unconnected rants about how you don't like gay people, with no real point, but I figured it was worth a try anyway. Joe

Yep, page 15 of 44 to make it easy for everyone. "HIV infections" = new cases = more relevant data than the cumulative totals since reporting started. Especially because reporting and testing early on were very much focused on homosexuals. The heterosexual #'s are probably higher in reality because many straight people still (wrongly) do not perceive themselves to be at risk and therefore may not get tested. The facts do speak, but you have to actually be able to LISTEN to them first. Joe

Well put, my friend. I can't believe any thinking person would support any law whatsoever that restricts what consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The fact that they do, and then throw out inane shit to try and justify their "belief" (i.e. it's wrong because someone else told me so, not because of any rational argument I constructed myself), means they're probably the same kind of people who supported Hitler when he told them the Jews were the root of all evil. No ability to think for themselves, easily led, full of hatred, and probably hypocrites in a lot of ways too. But of course the US is a free country so they have the right to air their horseshit and we have the right to dismiss it. Still makes me sick though. Plus ca change... Joe

Yeah, but if they don't know that thinner air affects their canopy flight, then perhaps again their knowledge/skill has not yet caught up with their choice of canopy. So it's actually kind of similar to someone who's simply out of their depth wingloading-wise, no? Joe

500-700 feet, opens on heading at least 75%+ of the time. My first reaction if someone else is nearby during the opening sequence is grab rear risers and get the hell away from them... Joe

Most definitely... good point. But I would also hope that by the time I have turned and tracked away a bit and realized that the airspace below me is crowded, the camera person is already deploying or deployed. Still, a barrel roll would probably be a good idea... Joe

Actually it gets even more unique as the other JM was Nancy's brother Keith. Surely that's worth a picture in Parachutist? Joe

Congrats Chris! It was good to meet you. Just keep banging out those student jumps and try not to take any more days than you need to between them. You'll stay fresher that way, and it will be easier to progress... anyway, great job. If the weather looks marginal, make sure you call the DZ or even stop by. We've had a couple of odd New England days where the forecast really sucked, but we managed to send 7-8 Otter loads up anyway with the people who were there taking the chance. Makes you wonder whether they just hire people off the street to be weathermen. See you next time. Joe