ufk22

Generating "lift" requires something that in some way resembles an airfoil moving through the air parallel to the direction of travel ( lift being perpendicular to the direction of travel). The implication of lift that I was reponding to was that by using a diving track initially that the extra downward speed would generate lift (slower verticle speed) as the track became more horizontal. In free fall, our verticle speed is always so much higher than our horizontal speed that any potential lift (which could only be generated by flying head down or in a standup, not with belly or but into the relative wind) would be so small as to be inconsequential and would always be horizontal. Mainly, we develope a high pressure "bubble" underneath us and move by directing some of that pressure (or airflow) in the opposite direction we wish to move, more like a surfer riding a wave. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

We move around by manipulating drag and force from the relative wind. If we truly could generate lift, then we could fall at a slower rate than normal coming out of a dive. A glider can pull out of a dive and climb. We have to work just to slow down to normal free fall speed. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I disagree but also don'[t really care. I have studied the aerodynamics so I can be familiar with them on solos (off of cliffs) when the time comes. I have no experience with tracking in big ways like I already admitted so obviously people like bill von will be better. I know what I have studied though is that speed will translate into more lift which will equal further horizontal distance. you will arrive at deployment altitude faster and be further from your starting point. it is the same idea behind a wingsuiter diving and then pulling into a horizontal glide. we trackers just have less lift because of our poor aerodynamic shape. I love it when my students comment on my backsliding!!! Anyone who thinks we, in free fall, generate lift has no understanding of what's going on. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE. No, shame on you for suggesting that this student made a decision to rely on the Cypres. Sensory overload, especially when something else goes wrong (on your back spinning) is not uncommon with students. A cypres is required to be there as a last line of defense for students because we all know this can and does happen, This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

A successful track has NOTHING to do with time. Start thinking about covering the greatest horizontal distance for a given loss in altitude. Using a diving track, you may well get to a given horizontal distance faster than me, but by tracking flatter, I'll be much further away when I reach your altitude. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Do the math, how many jumpers are descending into a landing area in 1 hour? Quote If this was true, we should have had tons of canopy collisions back at the WFFC. We didn't. Why? No sub-100' canopies and no swooping (as it is currently done). This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

" ...................................................................... As a Strong Tandem Examiner, all I have to do is write an angry letter to the (Strong) factory, and they will lose their (Strong) TI rating. From the USPA side of things, shouldn't the person who has the authority to issue the rating also have the ability to suspend it (pending board review) ? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Do you STILL truly not get how bad a message that kind of commentary in here conveys? Seriously? This should be a wake-up call to all of us, not just TIs. We can't look the other way when we know a TI that we wouldn't let someone we know jump with. Be it impairment, attitude, or just plain incompetence, allowing these people to continue endangers not just their passengers but our entire sport. As a sidelight, it puzzles me that as an I-E, I can issue ratings but have no ability to suspend them. USPA ratings can only be suspended (temporary) by an S&TA (rating by appointment) or board member (position by election) but not by an I-E (earned rating)??? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I'm not really sure this has much support at the BOD, but since members brought it up, the responsible thing to due is to gather input from the community. I think it's great to check with those in the field. top Agreed, this is the board acting responsibly. Now, if they vote against the poll results, then we have a reason to complain, otherwise let's support them for asking us our opinion. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

The "dance" is a rule only for the AFF course. Most I-Es will tell you that real life has only one rule, deploy above minimum altitude (ok, maybe just deploy). This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Blood makes everything slippery. The line is drawn by the DZO whose legal butt is on that line. S/he may allow/encourage/discourage/prohibit whatever s/he sees fit. That is how private enterprise works. Perris led the way as one of the early proponents of swooping as organized activity and competition. It is now leading the way away from it. Many DZs followed its initial lead; hopefully at least as many will follow it now. The owners and managers of Perris are among the world's most experienced and long-running operators, and their decision was not made rashly. That they chose to make the decision they did should serve as a big flashing warning light to everyone else. 44 Yes, but DZO's will never ban tandems, regardless of how many accidents/fatalities there are. Risk to reward ratio. top Haven't noticed many tandems dying under good canopies.... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

specious, I just love that word!!! This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

You, like a lot of S/L DZs, are still using the old Roger Nelson video. It's the only video that was ever made for static line training. I saw it when I took my FJC 22 years ago, and it's still in use today. There is a new video out there that is based on AFF, but with some editing, it can be used for S/L also, just no S/L exit stuff. This is a terrific video, for sale here on DZ.com http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/classifieds/detail_page.cgi?ID=124470;d=1 This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Some students have always gotten hurt. Nature of the sport (or any sport). Compared to the old days, many less student injuries, a lot more experienced injuries. As for you, yes, more people you know are getting hurt in the sport. Why? Probably because you know more people. No one I knew got injured or killed the first year or so I was in the sport. Now, not a year goes by that someone I know isn't injured or killed. Is the sport less safe or do I just know a LOT more people in it? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Just finished last Wednesday. The hardest part.... Getting my focus off of the flying and onto the teaching during the eval jumps. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

First off, remember that in spite of things going wrong, you kept your wits about you, recovered, and deployed high enough. In that way, the dive was a success. As to what went wrong, a couple of things. You did your barrol roll using a technique that is very commonly taught, even though it's wrong. I see this all the time, especially with those that are trained AFF. The "just pull one arm in" method is a way of getting off your back onto your belly, but is NOT the proper way to do a barrel roll. A barrel roll should involve you turning your body symetricly around a line going from your head down your spine. To do this, you need to bring in one arm while at the same time bringing in your leg, bringing both out again about the time you get a little over 90 degrees through. If this is all you do, you will end up on your back, as you did. To complete the manuver, you need to then bring in your opposing arm and leg about the time you end up 180 (back to earth) through the roll, going back to neutral position just past 270 degrees through. This is a barrel roll. Think symetry. The "pull one arm in" method will actually put you kind of head down rolling on to your back, which is what happened to you. You started wpinning because you weren't symetrical on your back. That all being said, you acomplished the goal of the dive. You got unstable and recovered. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I think it is Wendy who has said a really dangerous mindset is doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. Quote Not exactly.... Doing the wrong thing and thinking it is right because you got away with it is the dangerous mindset. You got away with it, but realized that it was wrong. Put this down to a learning experience. Learning means not doing it again. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Are you spitting the slider and making sure it stays in place throughout the pack job? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I lost two good friends, one that was very special to me, in high performance landings in the last two years... I say this so you understand that I take this seriously and am not blowing off the need for safety. That being said, I don't know if I agree with you... Because, by your own process of delivering safety, we will eventually be eliminating wingsuiting, freeflying, more than one person out on a pass, high pulls, low pulls, cameras, groups larger than 2, etc... Having been at Quincey for the convention back in 93 when most people were jumping lightly loaded canopies, I can say that the pattern was no more "busy" then, and with the reduced speed, it was probably safer. If what you're saying is true, we would be seeing less canopy collisions now. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

But it is a paradox.... From Webster Paradox a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

And this is the heart of the issue. If tandems were truly about training rather than generating revenue, I would also agree about not needing a medical. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

QuoteI get why people compare low pulls and swooping, but I don't think they are even close when you compare the mechanisms involved. Swooping is not conservative, its not safe, and if you fuck up you can die. There is a proper progression, a proper way to do it, ways to minimize the calculated risks involved. reply] So as long I take my passion for low-pulls and progress slowly down to below 1000' and do it properly, in such a manner as to minimize the calculated risk, low pulls are just as safe as swooping??? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

There is no one best way to become a skydiver. Remember, just like in most things, most people will think that the way they learned is the best. A tandem progression will make you more comfortable by the time you do AFF, but is more expensive. AFF is the fastest way to develope freefall skills, but each jump will require you to master a number of new skills, so can be more frustrating to some. Static line gives the slowest Freefall progression, but is cheapest, provides less sensory overload, and will probably make you the best canopy pilot when you get off student status. Know yourself well enough to know how you like to aquire new skills. There is no one right answer. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

A coach can do recurrence jumps. USPA says "instructional rating" and a coach qualifies. BUT, the examples you cite, for me, don't fall into my definition of recurrence training. I would want all of the jumpers in question to go through a first jump course. Anyone who has been out of the sport for 10 years needs more than a recurrence jump. Military jumpers who have not used hand deploy most likely also aren't licensed and have had no USPA style first jump course. Will they complain? Probably. My personal experience, the more adamant their complaint, the more they need the additional training. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

They aren't, no matter how good you think you are. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.