immanence

Took a bit of finding, but I tracked it down. Click here and then go to "preview". It's quite funny, actually. Once he rolls over off the top of the plane he goes into some pretty funky freefly skywalking "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Welcome to this beautiful sport, Beth! You're not alone in this fear, and no, it's not silly. Your confession got me thinking and I posted on it in the General Skydiving Discussions forum. Perhaps some of the responses, if some come, will help you too. The more jumps you do, the more confidence you will gain. The more you hang out around the DZ, the more knowledge you will pick up, so the more assured you will feel. Slowly you will grow to love the door. Through it, because of it, we experience one of the greatest joys open to us: flight. Take heart. You'll be fine.

Something from "Introductions & Greets" posted by another newbee (like me) to these forums got me thinking: I don't think it's silly. I have something different but similar. Dive exits, no problem. Flip exits, love 'em! Unstables? Can't get enough of 'em! But as for climbing around outside the door, forget it — I pee my pants! It's the wierdest thing. Anyone else feel or felt this? For me, I think the basis of it is that I am scared of heights! (I know! Go figure!) Being out and in the air at 12,000ft, I could be asleep I am so relaxed. But I sure don't like loitering around between the plane and the sky. I think it's because vertigo is something not so much to do with height as such, but rather visual perspective. So I can be in the air at 12,000ft and totally happy, but don't ask me to climb a 12,000ft ladder, even with a parachute on: my legs would be like jelly. Relative to skydiving, any exit is fine, except ones where I have to visually confront something (i.e., the plane) which establishes relativity to the ground. For that moment — floating on the rail, for example — in my visual perspective I have something to be relative to, so I feel a sense of vertigo. Additionally, I think hanging on the outside of a plane enhances the "uncanniness" of the "unusual" act of jumping off the damn thing! My mind knows what it's doing. I'm prepared, trained and safe. But my eyes see the situation unfold and send "WTF!" signals to my survival synapses! Example: recently I saw a video where a guy gets out, hops on top of the main fuselage, shimmies down to the tail and rolls off. I get the willies even watching it on my laptop! Am I scared of hitting something, of some horrible accident happening? Perhaps. On Skydiving Movies there is a video of a premature main deployment where a guy gets wrapped around the tail. My god, it's just awful (thankfully the guy lived). So accidents, yes. But there's something else there too, enhancing my anxiety. Proof is that I feel the same about video of dudes hanging off the wing struts of Cessnas — what is my fear of this? That guy hanging there off the strut: there is total clearance below him! — or a video I saw of a guy who had belayed down a rope hanging underneath the basket of a balloon. A lot of these things, I guess, are just trace echoes of the survival instinct. The more one jumps, perhaps, the more one learns how to command that instinct. For me, I try to make friends with these demons. I may as well, because I probably can't — possibly shouldn't — free myself of them. Sometimes they kick up a fuss in my head ("sh*t, I gotta do a floating exit"), but I know they are probably looking out for my better interest. So I listen to them, try to learn from them, and hopefully one day ........ one day, I'll be the guy on top of the plane, shuffling down to the tail. Are there others out there who have faced this same, specific fear — of clambering around outside the plane? If so, how did you — or how do you — face and overcome this fear? Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Really enjoyed the Turbolet 410 because I could stand up in the door: and I'm 6ft. Climbed fast too. I've loved the Porter ever since jumping in Pujaut, France. Those bad boys land and load up before the skydivers who just exited. But all-time favorite? Nothing beats the grandeur of an open tailgate on a C-130 Hercules. No worries about snagging your jumpsuit on exit. That baby is a sight to behold

When people talk ---- about Bill, the gloves come off .... otherwise, I'm not so bad "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I agree. As Einstein said, everything is relative. I know I won't be flying a VX46 anytime soon ...... but we should keep an open mind, because we know its been done. One little thought to throw out (don't want to start a war, or hijack the thread: just a closing thought on my part ): conservatism is inherently safe; is that why we skydive? Maybe the tie dye pattern I have planned for my new V3 is going to my head ....... "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

That's a great way of putting it

I have to disagree. Light wingloadings can be dangerous in and of themselves. If you don't step in the plane except on nil wind days, all you are doing is moderating what would be a dangerous or difficult (and yes, I know these two concepts are different) canopy to fly given a certain wing-loading. In my view, an under-loaded canopy is as problematic as an over-loaded or aggressively designed canopy. Backwards landings on a square canopy? Are you serious, Wendy? Lisa Marie doesn't need advice as to how to collapse a square she lands backwards. She needs someone to recognise that no square should be landed backwards. Why do students get canopies of the 230 variety? I'd wager part of it is because more men in the 1980s were in the sport (or joining the sport) than women. Standardization of student kits is a function of cost-efficiency. One size fits all. Yes, a lighter-loaded canopy is safer on a student than a Velocity. We all know this. There's no controversy there. But 230s are a throwback to the 1980s when I'm sure the gender balance was different. If DZs had no monetary restrictions placed upon them, I'm sure lighter girls would be given the option of jumping smaller canopies (though likely still at a lower wingloading than 1:1) from the first jump. We put the same students who weight 220lbs out the door as Lisa Marie who weighs 165lbs out the door. If we're worried about over-loading canopies for students, why doesn't someone question the 6'2", 200lb dude who is learning AFF on a 230 Manta? Point: Lisa Marie should be on a smaller canopy. A relatively docile 180 sounds more than fine to me. We also have to factor in canopy design. Take my reserve, a Micro Raven 150. I'll getting rid of it as soon as I can because, frankly, it's dangerous to jump at a loading of over 1.3:1. This canopy is coming out of the 1980s too. Thankfully, canopy design has moved on since then. I won't be glad to get rid of it so I can swoop my reserve. Believe me, I am a very conservative skydiver. But I sure won't be sorry to get rid of canopy that has next to no flare and has put more than a few experienced canopy flyers down backwards on their backs. I'd also say that yes, landings apart, Lisa Marie has legitimate concerns being under a 230 in the air. Canopy progression should go hand-in-hand with one's skydiving. As one starts to jump with others (Category X being at least a 4-way) one is jumping in the same sky as others — possibly many others. Even if a 230 is not a danger to oneself in the sky, others can be a danger to you, and you may need, and fast, to get out of their way. A bulky, slow-moving boat in the sky may contribute to a collision situation which, as we know, may happen very fast, especially if the other pilot has a problem or is behaving recklessly. Let us also remember that without a load, a canopy will collapse. So Reginald, though there may be no stated minimum wing-loadings, perhaps there should be. If Lisa Marie is experiencing end cells closing on opening, one aspect of this is that the canopy is not flying at an appropriate loading (which relates to pressure, airspeed and inflation). I'm not saying it would not be pilotable. But it sure isn't optimal. It's not reckless for instructors to use such canopies on light girls. No one is saying that. But it's not an ideal weighting for the canopy, and I think canopy designers would likely agree. Nil wind days, okay. But how many of those do we see? Personally, I think 0.7:1 is verging on being cripplingly conservative. It could never, Skybytch, be described as "ridiculously aggressive". Far better, in my view, to make canopy control an integral part of one's skydiving training. People should be taught, actively, those skills. In skydiving as it currently is, the skydive is the fall. People learn about stability and manoeuvres but in general, aside from the most basic information ("flare at the right time!") they are taught next to zero about the physics of canopy flight. I think this is unfortunate. With effective canopy training people can be trained to fly an appropriately sized canopy. To emphasise again, for a student I wouldn't advise going over a 1:1 ratio. That would be the upper ceiling. But after 30 or 40 or 50 rides under that limit, I think 1:1 or 1.1:1 is fine, if balanced out with effective training. On the other hand, if I were the instructor, I'd much rather see a student go on their bum because a docile canopy comes in a little too fast than see a student blown around in the air, floating, possibly landing out or backwards. So yes, I think there should be a minimum weighting for canopies. Some other brief points in response to some questions Skybytch posed: 1) Why do BASE jumpers fly them? They don't. They generally jump large, 7-cell, F-111 canopies. Why? Because 7-cells have a low aspect ratio (width versus length), open cleaner and more often on heading than 9-cells. Why large? Because generally BASE is in a restricted airspace. The function of the canopy is to be docile and get you down steeper, rather than to forward fly and cover ground. 2) How the heck did those of us who started jumping in the days when no one loaded a canopy over about 1.1 survive? Canopy design was different. They were designed for lower weight-loadings. The material used in canopy construction was different. The entire canopy piloting experience was different. Who glided in those days? The point is that the two are not really comparable. Canopy design and manufacture was pretty much revolutionized with zero-perosity fabrics, as was canopy flight. Good luck with your Pilot 188, Lisa Marie, and fly it safely

With all due respect, Betzilla (and I know this wasn't your main point), it isn't a matter of "If it was you, you'd do the same." I don't think this is what Mr Booth is doing period. People here are defending the right to make profit when it seems clear to me — albeit I don't know the man — that profit is the furthest thing from Mr Booth's mind when it comes to the Skyhook. In defending Mr Booth's right to bank a buck people are almost lending credence to this ludicrous thread started by Silvere. As such, it is almost a backhanded slight to Bill, who we all know has contributed immeasurably to our sport. The truth of it is — and I will stand to be corrected if I am wrong — the Skyhook has very specific design tolerances that must be respected for it to work at all. It is unsurprising that Mr Booth designed his innovation for use with RWS rigs. After all, these are rigs he made from the ground up, and clearly knows best. Further, Mr Booth has said on these very forums that he hopes to license the Skyhook to other manufacturers sometime in the next year. So Silvere, your ill-informed attack, or whatever it was, doesn't even align with the facts. Mr Booth is not hoarding his invention. Nonetheless, one point stands: the Skyhook isn't like a Cypres that can be just added to any old rig. And prudently — and with great wisdom, in my view — Mr Booth wants to make sure that this remarkable leap forward for our sport doesn't go down the tubes or become discredited by sloppy installations that lead to deaths where original, within design parameter installations, would not. In my view, this is too important an invention to our sport to let fail. I think My Booth is of the same opinion. It's not an issue of money and profit. Any delay in the appearance of this innovation on other rigs is also inevitable in that manufacturers are going to have to re-TSO their rigs. So don't hold your breath for a Skyhook on your Mirage, though for your sake — unless you can swap it for a V3 — I hope it happens sooner rather than later. Finally, Silvere, the idea that Mr Booth is using death as advertising is just so leftfield as to be saddening, not angering. The man offers a genuine gift to the skydiving community out of his own pocket and you sneer at it. I believe this should be pause for reflection on your part. Perhaps you should know more about your sport before you mouth off about it, and especially before you malign in public one of its genuine heroes. Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I did backloops through my static line when I was starting. Mind you, that was on rounds where stability wasn't so much of an issue What you describe is totally normal. My eyebrows raise when people don't get wobbly in the early stages. It is good to have a healthy dose of "woah, WTF!" Funny what some are saying on this thread, though. For me the first jump was almost copy book perfect. I felt almost no nerves at all, where all the other static liners looked like death. And I pushed off and arched with the best of them. Jump 2? Toilet time! I think it was something about knowing what was coming. The opposite of what one might expect (you know something, you lose your fear of it — it is no longer unknown). I think my 3rd was the worst: total mental meltdown. After then, partly because I was so mad at myself, things got better. Give yourself a break, and a pat on the back. Like the saying goes, most sports take one ball, skydiving takes two (no inference, ladies). You will be fine Laugh it up! Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

break a leg! (doh! ) "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I'll say! Sounds like you coped with it well, though. 11 grand under a reserve. Holy pie! You might want to have a rigger take a look at your container. Better yet, beg, borrow, steal and ditch it for something new. Velcro on a main pin just doesn't cut it these days. As you say, it could have been worse. Open container before exit: similar incidents have taken whole planes down. Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

So in other words, you have your own private DZ? Damn Way to go! Welcome from another newbie! Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Windy days on rounds you go backwards. Not part of the jump I relished, but I could deal with it. It was zero winds that were the problem, hence this whole discussion of forward PLFs. I remember them on rounds on nil-wind days. It sucked, big time I'd love to take an optional course at a DZ on various ways of falling forward under hairy conditions. If skydivers could take a few tips from legends like The Clawmaster, The Undertaker or Rick Flair, why not? I wouldn't have students do this, though. I can't imagine the forward speed of a Manta can ever be that great. It might be useful for people who are working on their landing skills under faster canopies. The consolation of a mucked up swoop would be a gymnastic double flip somersault. We could have Wuffos equipped with scorecards giving marks out of 10 "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

That is terrifying Unless I'm mistaken, the whole thing is a crapshoot anyway. On the one hand, cut away and you risk, on reserve deployment (i.e., when one half of the container is emptied), the D-bag, lines and risers of the main becoming dislodged and flying up (under force of an inflated PC) into your inflating reserve with whatever consequences. On other hand, not cutting away could lead to two canopies out (which I imagine must be pretty hairy if your main is a Velocity), canopies wrapping together, possibly, a bi-plane with unpredictable flight characteristics (no thank you ), or at best the ability to safely jettison the main (which would be quite a judgement call under such stressful conditions; again, the nightmare of your exiting main wrapping with your only reserve). At least with a bag lock you know you're gonna be clear. PC-in-tow is a bitch, there's no doubt "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Congratulations! Celebrate all the small victories and know that if you're jumping at all you're not failing in any way! You have a great attitude! You'll be fine

I don't want to comment on the wisdom of making the statement the instructor made to a student: I'm in two minds about that. Winsor makes some great points, and so does JimmyTavino. Doubtless it's important to wake the student up to the real risks. But bravado or rhetoric is not the way to go. What is interesting in this statement for me is the relation it suggests between the skydiver and death. It doesn't have to be seen as negative. We have to be careful on this issue. Shropshire, I think you're right: this isn't "suicide" as we normally think of it. That is a tragic human phenomenon which holds a mirror up to the failures of human society. What skydivers do isn't the same thing. Nonetheless, can freedom be defined without making reference to coercive power? Can "life" mean anything unless in the context of death? Freedom and slavery, life and death: none of these mean anything without their antitheses. Every time I exit the plane I know I am entering a "zone of death", as it were. It is always my aim to survive this, get out of it in due course, but I'm well aware — and the point is — that this is no normal sport. It's not like driving fast cars or surfing the big break. It's different. We're really out there. In many sports you die if you do something (drive too fast, surf too big of a break, etc). In skydiving you die if you do nothing. It is the empty space between the plane and the ground that will kill you. But this is what we play with too. It is where we find freedom, and where some, sadly, find the ultimate end to freedom. Does a steady, calm awareness of this spoil what we do? In my view, no. This presence of the ultimate limit contributes, for me, to the beauty of what we do. Sure, sometimes I'm going out focused on the jump and what I'm doing, and the more I jump consecutively the less I feel those nerves about entering the open sky with nothing but a harness, arrangement of lines and fabric on my back. The point I would simply like to make is that skydiving makes me feel alive in ways nothing else does, and I'm sure that this has something to do with the fact that at any moment from when the plane takes off to when I touch down I could die. I don't obsess about this. I don't sit and ponder it all the time. I do think it's there, though. And I do think it is this — this relation between life and death — that makes skydivers different from tennis players or footballers. In large part, it is what defines, behind the scenes, our entire sport. For me, it has nothing to do with seeking a thrill: cheating death. Death is there and will take me when it wants to. But it is a way of coming close to that (to death); conversing, without words, with that, in order that I am more aware, more humane, more thankful, in some ways, in my daily, on-the-ground life. If I personally fail often to live up to that (in other words, if often I'm an asshole to people), it doesn't take anything away from the opportunity for growth that skydiving provides, along with the fun. That growth, ultimately, follows from the enhanced proximity to death that is a simple fact of our unique sport. This proximity also creates remarkable solidarities among us, as I'm sure many members of this forum could attest, giving birth to wonderful friendships. Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Um, oops, I be a dumbass? "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

It would be great if one could search users / forum members by dropzone. That way one could keep in touch with people from old dropzones who perhaps are using nicknames, or contact new people ahead of visiting a dropzone: making new friends in advance. Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

It's all to do with being current and jumping a lot. Last year I showed up at Empuriabrava with exactly 100 jumps but most of them done in 1993 and 1994. I was crapping it for the first two or three, wondering why the hell i do this, thinking of selling my rig, throwing in the towel, etc. Over the next 7 days I put in 34 jumps. At the end I felt not a single twinge of fear. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

I have weighed these questions many times. When family or friends have expressed concern to me I tell them, "I could be knocked down in the street." While true, I don't make a point of standing in the middle of the road and playing chicken. We do expose ourselves to enhanced risk if we're jumping out of airplanes rather than playing ping-pong. People rationalise it by saying, hey, look at the numbers of jumps done per year and the number of fatalities. Each fatality is tragic, but compared to jumps made the amazing thing is that there are not more. In my opinion, finding comfort in statistics is not a way of coming to terms with the fact that in this sport you can die on your next jump. For me, then, it is a broader issue: one intersecting with all kinds of social ideas and beliefs, of the deepest and broadest and most personal kind. I don't believe in God myself (at least not the way I see others believing in or talking about God). But I do think there is something akin to predestination. I think life is a test. You can sit in your bubble or you can try to get out there and trust the world. As Montaigne said 400 years ago, "There are thousands who are wrecked in port." I think the issue, then, is trust: trusting the world. That is not the same as recklessness, or passiveness. You engage the world by knowing about it (in this instance, by builiding your knowledge of skydiving, its procedures, its technical evolution, etc.). Ultimately, you have a time when you will exit. It may be in the air, or on the ground. Many athletes die of heart failure. Who would figure? What does all this mean? Build your knowledge about the sport and be vigilant and be safe. But know that none of us are getting out of this alive anyway. Engage what you love because time might be short. Better to live and die than die inside living in surrogate womb. I don't think anyone holds death off by playing it safe. They just die inside. One of the other skydivers on this forum has a signature that I like: "I refuse to tiptoe through life, only to arrive safely at death." Blue skies, ian "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Trusting my dumbass instructor who put me out in cloud and drizzle on a 10-second delay on rounds. Okay, no problem, I guess, but we were circling around 2500ft (should have been 3500ft). I found this out afterwards (at that time students simply counted their delays and didn't carry alimeters). I did the full delay and distinctly remember feeling that I was below the vertical height of the trees. By the time the snivelley AirCon was open I had about 10 seconds of drifting down before a thumping PLF. Still, I shouldn't complain. The CCI was more than a little embarrassed (the instructor wouldn't even fill in my log book) and put me, I'm sure as a way of apology, immediately on 15-second delays next. The second stupidest thing was not talking more that beautiful Italian girl who was at Empuriabrava in July last year. If anyone knows her, she has a red and white jumpsuit and matching Mirage G3 and flies camera with her more "senior" boyfriend and some other dude. The way she exited the Twin Otter was like seeing the face of God. She likes to hang out between jumps in her white bikini Dammit! Why didn't I get her number! "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

Develop as much familiarity as you can with your emergency procedures

Has anyone actually tried the hairspray / lighter combo? I never did. Didn't want to risk the can blowing up in my hand. (Just curious: I'm not planning arson or anything ..... yet ) "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'

It's quite an old canopy, early 1990s, P.I.S.A (South African). I really like it, but when I can I'll be changing my entire rig for something more up to date (my Cypres I expires next year ). I pack very carefully, keeping an eye on current propack philosophies, but sometimes have really "tossed to-and-fro" openings. But in general, it's a decent canopy. A bit bulky for it's size when it comes to getting it in the D-bag. It's fast in the air, if you want it to be. I generally prefer a smooth if decisive drive down, instead of pitching myself above the canopy in G-force-producing spirals. I guess you could say I'm conservative. It sure has nothing on the current elipicals, etc., but that's fine by me when I'm under it. "where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'