LloydDobbler

Probably the Court of Public Opinion. Wrong. If you don't know, why do you pretend to? Who's pretending to know anything? Did the word "probably" not register? (Since no one's mentioned the name of the actual DZ in question, I'm completely operating in the hypothetical. I'm guessing it was in Utah, as that's where Bozo hails from...but that's all I know here. Never professed to know any different. If we want to talk outside the hypothetical, we should maybe start by pointing out what exactly it is that we're talking about. Meantime, given the way the media traditionally portrays our sport, I think my guess is pretty plausible as to why a DZ wouldn't countersue...) As Unstable said above, care to contribute/enlighten us about this specific situation, instead of just shooting things down? Signatures are the new black.

You think? If we were talking a big-way stunt, I'd be likely to agree. But weren't there only 3 people on the jump? Seems to me that it isn't too hard to set up some rehearsal/training jumps. And keep jumping, analyzing the vid, and doing it again until you feel confident with it. I would think almost anyone would/could do that, 100 jumps or 10000 jumps. Stuntperson or not. But then, there's always the really-crazy types...). Signatures are the new black.

Working on the other side of the camera from you, we see a lot of :"professional stuntmen." You might take umbrage with the term, but there are people trained in falls, firesuits, fight choreography, taking hits, drivers, "fall guys" if you will....They are physically, emotionally, mentally more able than the average actor in challenging situations (aside from the insurance issues). These people are called "professional stuntmen," not actors playing at their own little stunts. Travis is trained to take a fall, be mentally alert and aware, and physically/emotionally at the top of his game regardless of what challenging situations he may be placed in either by his own mental mechanics or those of the stunt coordinator. In many cases, Travis is his own stunt coordinator relying on others to oversee and find flaws with his stunt designs, such as the one he performed in Puerto Rico. IMO (just as flying camera ops are often viewed as "professional stuntment), the fact that Travis is trained in the physical, emotional, and mental disciplines that allow him to take the risks he takes, would designate him a "professional stuntman." Dave Major is a skydiver who refers to himself as a "professional stuntman" and skydiving is one of his "stunts" on his resume. We're discussing semantics, but given Travis' unique training for performing "stunts", it's a semantic somewhat worth debating. Hey, DSE - I know you've got experience with it as well, and I don't at all disagree with you re: the merits of professional stuntpeople. I don't take issue with the term - I just wasn't aware of Travis having done much stunt training for all-around stuntwork (like high falls, fight choreography, etc). Googling him and "stunts," all I see is info on Motocross. Which is impressive, no doubt...but it leads me to not think of him as a trained person who does "stunts" for a living. Looks to me like he does freestyle motocross for a living. Seems a lot different than someone like Dave Major, who has training in *many* different disciplines. If he's done all sorts of stunt training, I'll stand corrected. I was unaware he's got experience acting as his own stunt coordinator, or performing stunts outside of motocross. But I still don't find it all that relevant. Yeah, I'm arguing semantics, but I think most skydivers with more than even 100 jumps are well-trained at being "physically, emotionally, mentally more able in challenging situations." It only gets better as they gain more experience. Granted, I haven't been around all that long. But I think skydiving experience is what's relevant here. The same thing was argued when we were discussing Race Price - many have argued that because he was a trained/experienced ski jumper, he could handle these situations better. I know you didn't weigh in on that aspect of the discussion, but to me (and a lot of others), being an expert at another sport does not necessarily make much difference in this sport (and in some cases, may even be a hindrance). That's a matter of opinion, of course (as is all of this). I guess I'm interested in exploring that question more: how much relevance does outside experience have? It'll obviously affect some things...but after a certain number of jumps, does it really make that much of a difference? (Dunno if asking that question would count as derailing this discussion even further...perhaps I should move it to another thread.) Signatures are the new black.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. It was a long day yesterday...I was exhausted, just started writing, and it just kept going. Apologies for that one. But I do think being an "experienced stuntman" really doesn't have anything to do with it, either. Sure, you can keep your cool in intense situations...but most skydivers I know with 100 jumps really don't have an issue with keeping calm in intense situations. But YMMV on that one, I guess. Signatures are the new black.

Who said that? Only part of being a proffessional that had any bearing on this was the fact he knows how to assemble a team. Plan the stunt practice the stunt then perform the stunt. Being a proffessional does give one an advatange in being able to accomplish such a stunt but WTF did your drivig a car through a wall anolgoy have to do with anything? Seems like you wanted to point out your a member of SAG and sound all important like and to argue for the sake of arguing and all you did is talk in cricles and prove what myself and others have been saying all along. Actually, no. I've been posting on here long enough that if I had wanted to point out that I was a member of SAG to inflate my own ego in some way, I could have done so a long time ago. And it's a pretty crappy union when you get right down to it, so it's not something I admit to very often. The only reason I even brought up my own experience was to support the fact that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to "professional stuntmen." Maybe you do as well...but from the way you're talking, it doesn't sound like it. Either way, I've seen enough people put down on this board by someone saying, "What do you know? You're a 100-jump wonder" to know that it's a good idea to point out your experience, when you have it. So I did. Essentially, yes, I am arguing both sides of the point. I agree with you, but not in how you got there. I'll spell it out for you: what I was trying to point out is that about 90% of your posts in this thread reference the argument, "But he's a professional"...as if that's important. It really amounts to a hill of beans. Once you throw yourself out of an airplane, the fact that you've gotten paid to do a stunt before really means jack shit. Skydiving is a great equalizer, in that sense. (As far as organizing the stunt goes, being a "professional" has no bearing on that, either. That's the stunt coordinator's job. Sorry, try again. Either way, it's irrelevant in this case, because it really doesn't take any experience to recruit people to jump with you, as anyone who's just off their "A" can attest.) To continue connecting the dots, my point with the car analogy was that just because you can do one stunt doesn't make you at all qualified to attempt another in a different discipline. It's comparing apples to oranges. I could have also added, the guy who does precision driving like that is no more qualified to do a skydiving stunt like this one, without the proper experience. Ultimately, in the end, I agree with your conclusion. It obviously seems like Travis had enough experience & rehearsal to pull the stunt off safely. But if you're relying on the "professional stuntman" thing to get you to that conclusion, you're misguided. Being a professional stuntperson means nothing here. Once you jump out of an airplane, it doesn't really matter all that much what you've gotten paid to do before in your life. You can be a Fortune 500 CEO or an iron-worker - either way, you're dead until you pull. So let's look at Travis as a skydiver here, and leave the professional stunts arguments out of it. That's all I'm saying. Signatures are the new black.

Probably the Court of Public Opinion. Can you imagine the news story: "Woman has accident at skydiving facility - her parachute didn't open!! The poor, injured woman attempts to sue, but is told she signed a waiver, so no luck! And NOW the SKYDIVING FACILITY is suing the VICTIM of this HORRIBLE accident for EVERYTHING SHE OWNS!!!" (Gotta love the media spin.) On another note, glad your Bro got out of it (sounds like he did...?) The money would be nice, but living with those sorts of in-laws would make my soul hurt... Signatures are the new black.

Okay, I realize I'm a little late to this here party, but I want to chime in anyway to clarify something: You (and a number of others) have spent a lot of time calling lots and lots of attention to the fact that Travis is a "professional stuntman," with 100 B.A.S.E. jumps AND 250 skydives!!! And then you also mention comparing "apples to oranges." I have basic skills of skydiving (120 jumps) and have never done BASE. I am, however, a member of the Screen Actors Guild (though not of the Stuntmen's Association), and have an intimate knowledge of the way things work on this side of the camera in the entertainment industry. I've worked in all mediums of media (film/TV/stage/commercial/V/O, you name it), *and* I've done a number of stunts myself in the course of my career. Here's the thing: Being a "professional stuntman" only means that you've been paid to do a stunt. Don't get me wrong- it's quite an accomplishment, because there's a lot of competition. But saying someone can automatically do this because they're a "professional stuntman" is simply ridiculous. It has virtually no bearing. Let's say I have thousands of jumps, and have gotten paid to jump out of an airplane for a commercial here and there. That makes me a "professional stuntman." But that doesn't mean that I can drive a 1973 Shelby Mustang down the street at a pre-determined speed, execute a whip turn and crash it through a 10-foot wide section of a building (that's been replaced by balsa wood to lessen the impact), bringing it to a halt before hitting the bar 10 feet on the inside (behind which another "professional stuntman" is standing). (I drive pretty well, but I'd need a lot more training for that one.) Just because I'm a "professional" at one stunt discipline doesn't have any bearing on how good I am at precision driving. Or skydiving with a Red Bull in my hand. Apples to oranges. I guess my point is that the words "professional stuntman" are just that: words. For every stunt you see on TV, there's a stuntman who's done their hard time training to make it happen. Throwing the title around like it makes a difference here is uninformed of the realities of being a stunt performer. Anyone who's done it will tell you, "doing your homework" and prepping for a stunt is what makes you a real stuntman in that discipline. The training is where it's at. So catfishhunter, I think you're basing your argument on false premises. Now. That being said, I do think that this stunt was well-rehearsed (or at least, adequately-rehearsed). Billvon, earlier on you said this: And I think that pretty much says it all. If Travis was trying to do a chuteless head-down jump, I'm with you. Or a chuteless wingsuit jump? I'm in your corner, all the way. Chuteless big-way? You're spot-on. But it used to be that 200 jumps meant you were expert-level at belly-flying. And at the time when it was that way, I know of at least 1 person who jumped chuteless with less jumps than it takes to currently get your D (in fact, he posted about it in this thread). So by those standards, Travis should have been good enough to make a stable belly jump, be docked on rodeo-style, and hold a stable arch long enough to be clipped in with a carabiner. The very point of your post seems to be that the sport is a lot different now in a lot of disciplines, and overall the bar has been raised, so people need more than 200 jumps in order to meet the overall proficency level. But this guy wasn't doing the more advanced stuff. If he had done this back in the 70's, none of the new disciplines (or the improved proficiency of belly-flyers-in-general which led to, say, the 400-way) would have any effect on this. By his jump numbers, he would likely be considered qualified. (Crazy? Probably. But qualified.) Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. And if they broke laws/rules, I think the consequences should be applied to them (hopefully they won't hurt the rest of us). And 125 jumps from now, you can bet I won't be considering doing anything like it. But then again, I don't have Red Bull coming at me with check in hand. Regardless, seems he has enough proficiency to have done one of these jumps back in the day, so all things in a jump like this being the same, I think he's good enough to do it (well, obviously, he proved that). But the bit about him being a "professional stuntman", so it's okay? Please. (Apologies for the long-ass post. I've been lurking for too long, and it finally spilled over). Signatures are the new black.

I can totally understand where you're coming from...and the precedent set speaks strongly. However, is the reason these warnings have been made for 40 years without action due to them being baseless warnings, or is it due to people prudently following the rules (as was recommended in tdog's post)? Not to get into Speaker's Corner territory here, but the unfortunate reality of it is, our laws have become increasingly gray as to how they're written and how they're created. More and more government regulation is the norm. I, for one, think it's only a matter of time before Washington decides that we shouldn't have the right to do what we do (the classic argument of 'whose body is it, anyway?' comes to mind). But of course, that's a matter of opinion. Regardless, it's fairly obvious that the act of passing a law is becoming more and more of a subjective thing. Congress will gladly pass laws completely violating the Constitution (it does so every day), as long as public sentiment is in favor of it. And operating in that sort of gray area, I think tdog's post is really prudent. As for the wingsuit/CRW argument, I see your point...but I think that given that we're operating in the subjective zone of politicians' perspectives, those are a little different. It's easy to look at those incidents from the outside and say, "That's awful...but wingsuiting/CRW is a commonly-accepted practice in the sport. And usually it goes okay." But something that's deliberately done to attract publicity is another matter. If something goes wrong, the very act of drawing that publicity is to our detriment as a sport. And as we all know, knee-jerk reactions are commonplace when something goes wrong. "There oughta be a law." We want to continue to live the life we live. And given that the FAA could take away our sport parachuting privilege on a whim, I think we need to be sure to cross all the t's and dot all the i's when attempting a publicity stunt like this. Even if something goes wrong in that case, we risk someone in Washington deciding to make "stopping those crazy people from killing themselves" their cause-of-the-day...but as long as the regulations/waivers are followed, I think we stand a much better chance of not going down that road. Again, apologies if this political back-and-forth seems geared towards the Speaker's Corner - I just think it's quite relevant to the topic at hand. Signatures are the new black.

I had to do a bit of digging, but I eventually found this TSA letter tucked away on the USPA website. Thought I'd post it in case anyone else was having trouble finding it. I usually carry it, and the info from this USPA page, and highlight all the explanatory info, such as me being allowed to be present, them not being allowed to open it unless they detect trace explosives, etc. I also highlight the bit that reads "Skydivers encountering problems with screeners should request that the screener's supervisor become involved. Skydivers should insist that the supervisor review "Chapter Section 17.2 of Version 4.0 of the Screening Checkpoint Standard Operating Procedure." Skydivers encountering unsatisfactory treatment should contact USPA at 540-604-9743 or e-mail us. Be ready to provide the airport, date and time of flight, airline and flight number, and names of TSA officials involved." Figure if it gets to the point where I need to pull out the paperwork, it might be a good idea to let them know, in a non-confrontational manner, that I'll be taking it up with some people higher up if they don't let me through. Hope it helps. Signatures are the new black.

Not too many on my list that haven't been already mentioned, I don't think...but I'll throw 'em out there, anyway.

Yep, what monkeycndo said is great advice. You'll learn a lot of inside tricks you wouldn't have thought of, just from someone who's been doing it for a while (and has packed a lot of new canopies). I'd also recommend psycho-packing. My canopy had 35 jumps when I got it...and I had a broken wrist. So learning to pack it took a bit. I ultimately wound up psycho-packing it, and still psycho-pack it to this day. Just works better for me (and I still have some weak spots in my wrists, which get in the way, so the less stress I have to put on 'em, the better). At this point, however, after about 40 times packing it (and a nice coating of good ole' California desert dirt) , I'm pretty sure I could get it into the bag as a pro-pack. (The dirt's the key.) Good luck! Signatures are the new black.

any idea on the cost to retro a vector. Even though UDSkyJunkie has already answered your question, I'd also encourage you to head to the http://www.uptvector.com website and dig around a bit. There are price lists, gear info...and contact info for their rigging department (who are VERY helpful with questions like yours, speaking from experience). Didn't look like anyone answered one of your previous questions, so I'll chime in: to my knowledge, they can only retrofit Vector 3's (and as someone else said, if you already have an RSL, it's a little less expensive). I don't think Vector 2's/Vector 1's/Wonderhogs can really be retrofitted. Again, talk to the UPT Rigging dept for more info. Signatures are the new black.

I agree with you there - to some extent, we'll never know in any incident "what really happened." But in many cases, something is at least observed. The Danny Page/Bob Holler incident, for instance - if no one had seen it, what would we have thought happened? Would you have still wound up at the USPA Board meeting in July, presenting the BSR proposal, if no one had seen it? With an incident like that, it's much easier to draw conclusions as to "what really happened" based on observation of the event. Something else could have been a factor, sure. But eyes are much less likely to lie. Since no one saw what actually went down in Moab, saying it was experience-related seems more like a hypothesis than a conclusion. It may even be a good hypothesis...but to make it a conclusion, I think we'd need more data. (This bit about someone observing the incident also applies to Susan Spray, who - as you know - someone witnessed putting her hand on the PC. Also, keep in mind, I've been in the sport only since the post-Cypres era...so most incidents I've heard of usually at least involve something out (which usually means someone sees it)). I'm beginning to see that we're running in circles here, mostly because we're arguing the same thing, just our opinions are slightly skewed as to how much we can conclude about what happened from the information at hand. It's pretty much semantics at this point (not that it hasn't been for most of it - it's just that you keep on insisting on telling me how much experience helps a skydiver deal with problems, and I keep refusing to argue with you about it because I agree with you, dangit. You're preaching to the choir, and I'm trying to steer us back into an ultimately pointless discussion of semantics.) We might as well be chasing our tails. Regardless, it's late, and the semantical tango isn't a very enjoyable (or productive) dance, so I'll step away from this one now and let the discussion continue. I personally don't think there's much we can learn from this one, knowing what little we know now - hopefully that will change, if any more info becomes available. But I also think that "there's probably a good reason for those experience limits." I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. There are plenty of observed incidents/near-incidents which already do a much better job of supporting the minimum recommendations. All you have to do is search for "flat spin" on skydivingmovies.com, and there's lots of food for thought. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Wendy - Thanks for the response. For the record, I never met Race Price. Yes, I was on the DZ when it happened - but I have no motive or personal reason to say it was anything other than lack of experience that lead to his death. However, though I work professionally as a writer, my background is in science. And as anyone who's been through Bio, Chem, or Physics 1 knows, you can't draw conclusions based on incomplete, unobserved data. You can speculate, extrapolate, sure - but taking something as a foregone conclusion because it's *probably* that way (and using that as a justification for rules that affect everybody) just seems like a recipe for disaster. As I've pointed out a few times in my previous posts, I fully support the recommendations, and think they're quite justified. But until we know otherwise, Race's death is not part of that justification. I definitely think he made a mistake by pushing the limits - but that isn't necessarily what caused him to die. Anything we say about what actually happened is a matter of opinion. And until we can back up something with facts, it will remain that way...and thus is unsuitable to be used as evidence. I'm sure there are plenty of observed incidents which would support the recommended numbers much better than chasing the It would be similar to saying that Amelia Earhart disappeared attempting to circumnavigate the globe because she was a woman (which would be in keeping with prevailing public opinion at the time), and thus no women should be allowed to fly without meeting the minimum recommendations. Nevermind that the recommendations were there for other reasons, and were the same for both men and women - the simple fact is, Ms. Earheart being a woman *might* not have had anything to do with whatever went wrong somewhere over the Pacific. (please note (to yu and all women) - apologies if this seems designed to be incendiary - that's not my intention. It was just the first thing that came to mind, since I drive past her statue when I leave my apartment every day & was thinking about her story today.) In the past 5 years, I've known two people (both in great shape, non-smokers) under the age of 25 who've been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Even more improbable, one of them beat it - he's been in remission for a year now. I was also there 2 years ago when a 29-y.o. co-worker of mine who was a marathon runner had a heart attack. Shit happens. "Improbable" means just that - "improbable"...but not definite. Without someone at least getting a visual on this person as whatever happened happened, then the events of that day remain firmly in the grey area. Attempting to use his death as incontrovertible evidence for the recommended minimums cause is a really slippery slope. I'm all for the minimums - and truth be told, I suppose I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here (otherwise I'd have let it go long ago). I'm just not for basing universal recommendations on opinions. Data is a much better way to go. And when there's not enough observed data...I just think it's best to move on to an instance that does have enough data to support ones claims. Signatures are the new black.

We're in agreement there. And we're also in agreement here. However, the problem you're still not addressing is that what killed Race Price could have been something that his experience wouldn't make a difference in (if he had a medical issue that rendered him incapable of pulling, for instance. Such a thing could have happened to someone with 7000 jumps just as easily as someone with 120). So using his death to justify the USPA/manufacturer's recommendations is flawed (at best). Again, I agree with everything you're saying here. Just not the conclusion you make from it. If A+B=C, A+B does not necessarily equal G. Following the manufacturers recommendations would have saved Race Price, because he would not have made that jump. That much is true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that experience level had anything to do with his death, and therefore, bringing his incident up to justify the USPA/manufacturer's recommendations about experience level doesn't make any sense. Since (for now) we don't know what really caused the incident at hand, all we're relying on is guesswork...and that's not enough to make the leap to the conclusions you're making. For all we know, what actually happened to Race could have happened to an AFF-I/E with thousands of jumps. If it had been that AFF-I/E who went in, we'd be having a completely different conversation. It might not be likely...but based on the information we have on the incident, there's enough to arrive at a reasonable doubt that experience had anything to do with it. (If someone had seen him in a flat spin, for instance, it would be another matter altogether. But no one did, and there's no evidence as of yet to suggest it.) Please don't misunderstand me - I believe the recommendations are there for good reason, and should be followed. And had they been in Utah, Race would still be with us. I just don't necessarily believe that the incident in Utah accurately illustrates why we have the experience recommendations, because we don't know that experience was part of the cause. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, Bill - Just wanted to bring up a quick point - while I agree with your conclusion, I don't agree with how you got there. We still don't know exactly what happened in the Utah fatality. And we quite possibly never will. It could have been experience-related...or it could have been something, say, health-related that could have just as easily happened to someone with thousands of jumps. So saying "adhering to the minimums would have prevented the Utah fatality," you're right, it would have - but by the same logic, if skydiving was illegal, it would have prevented the Utah fatality as well. Looking at that comparison, I think we can all agree that we shouldn't justify the rules/recommendations based on the fact that they would have prevented the Utah fatality (justify them for other reasons, sure - it's pretty easy to get to the same conclusion - but I think your logic in arriving at the conclusion in this way is flawed). In my personal opinion, lack of experience likely had something to do with the incident in question, because experience is the best indicator of how someone's going to handle it when things go to sh*t. But in this case, keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. Signatures are the new black.

Well-said. To the OP, I'll add - from my observations, it's completely normal. Some people have a much bigger hill to get over when it comes to fear - luckily, mine wasn't as bad as some, but I definitely had my moments where I was telling myself, "This is the last time you ever have to do this. Just get out the door, then once you're safely on the ground, you never have to do this again" on the ride to altitude. My g/f had it much worse than I did, and what helped her the most was talking to some of the more experienced skydivers - people who had 1000s of jumps - many of whom told her they spent the first 40-50 jumps thinking of riding the plane down. So doing what you're doing (posting here, searching the forums for "door fear") is a good idea, as is talking to skydivers around your DZ whom you respect. You'll find you're definitely not alone...but it'll lessen over time, as you gain more trust in your gear and your procedures...(and most importantly, yourself as a skydiver). Signatures are the new black.

Only 4. Two 4-ways (RW), one 2-way tracking dive, and one 2-way sitfly for a friend's 2400th jump (congrats, Jim!) Planned to only go to the DZ 1 day to drop off my jumpsuit for some mods, but had to go back up the next day b/c it was ready (!). So siz hours of my weekend was spent in the car... Regardless, only 4 this week is fine by me. Ask me next week, after Chicks Rock. Signatures are the new black.

Just wanted to second what a lot of people are saying. I have low jump numbers, so take it for what it's worth, but I jumped a Sabre1 loaned to me by a friend for a good 50 jumps, and found it opened well (& on-heading), was pretty zippy, and even got me a little extra glide after I had planed out on landing. I always heard stories of horrific openings on the SA1, but it never happened to me. Which isn't to say it couldn't happen to you, or that it didn't happen only because I was loading it at less than 1:1...but I know a couple of people who fly 'em regularly and haven't had a problem, pocket slider or not. I can't advise you any further, as I haven't been around long enough to give qualified advice...but I *can* at least share my experience with it, which (although limited) certainly wasn't bad. Signatures are the new black.

I 100% agree that accepting responsibility for your own f***-ups is something we should all hopefully learn to do, in a sport that's often unforgiving of bad decisions. I also see a flipside to this coin - it's all of our responsibility to be "that guy" or "that girl" who points out to the offending party that they're acting like a dumbass, and it's likely to get them killed. Sure, there are different ways to get through to different people. And you can come up with a million reasons why you shouldn't speak up and say something. "They have more jumps than me." "Someone else has already talked to them." "They're an AFF-I, and I only have a B license, so who am I to question them?" "It was a one-time thing. I've never seen them do anything like that, and I doubt they'll do it again, so I'm not going to say anything." But not saying something might be a decision you (and they) come to regret. Fact is, we all do stupid things sometimes. And we all need to catch a little grief about it, from time to time. It keeps us vigilant. It's nothing personal (usually). But in a sport where mistakes cost lives, it's a necessity. As a way of self-policing within the sport, we all have a responsibility to speak up - just as much as we have a responsibility to listen to criticisms when offered, and to accept responsibility for our own actions/mistakes/decisions. As the other people who posted above seem to be able to attest, a swift kick in the ass can be a really good thing. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, cmnt - First off, keep in mind that I'm in no way an instructor (as evidenced by my jump #'s), so take everything I say with a grain of salt. From experience, however, I would agree with what JP said above. I'd do no more than 3 in a day. If that. As an AFF student, I found that most of the times I did more than 1 jump in a day, my performance would decline increasingly in the jumps after the first jump. There are some exceptions, naturally - sometimes when you don't pass a level, it's good to 'get back on the horse' and knock it out, as long as you feel like you know the reason for the problem and are confident you can address it. "The only cure for a bad skydive is a good skydive." But ultimately I did better when I was only making 1-2 jumps a day. There's a great deal of stress that comes with being a student and having objectives to meet on each jump. You'll be surprised. Fatigue is a very real thing - you're doing something that's not exactly natural, and the fight-or-flight response is very demanding of your body. You'll start to see how much it wears on you as the day goes on. Ultimately, only you and your instructors can tell what will be best for you. But like most (more-qualified-to-give-advice) people, I'd say be planning on doing 3, max, each day you're out there. Signatures are the new black.

Here ya go... Signatures are the new black.

Yep, I'll second what Gus said. Esp. on the 'clear lens' part. Granted, I've only got 100 jumps - but A buddy of mine (~60 jumps) has been through 2 pairs of goggles already. The other day he was sitting next to the open door in the back of the Otter, and I watched as he put on his goggles to shield his eyes from the wind...and one of his interchangeable lenses promptly popped out and flew out the door. Needless to say, he might've done better with just a pair of plain, clear goggles that cost $5 to replace. I grabbed a pair of $15 reflective-tinted goggles right off student status, only to find that a) I couldn't use them when it was time to do night jumps, and b) I couldn't see well when it came time to do SUNSET jumps, even. Not to mention that it's sometimes nice to be able to see someone's eyes in freefall or in the tunnel. Bottom line is, get something cheap and simple for now. They'll be the most versatile, and they can take some damage (and they probably will) - and you can always 'upgrade' to more specific stuff later. (And since we're talking, like, $5 price, it's not going to kill your wallet to not go for the gusto from the start). Signatures are the new black.

Behind? You mean it is reading 400 feet high? I think it matters! How does 400 feet effect your hard deck and disicion altitudes. Do you want to do math while dealing with a malfunction down low? True on the math bit...especially if it reads high...however, if it's reading 400 feet low, then I think it just becomes his judgment call on whether or not he should send it in. If you're in a mal and it reads 2000' (say that's your hard deck), but your altimeter traditionally reads 400 feet too low...well, then the question is less "do I have enough time" and more "do I trust myself to always go ahead and chop according to the altimeter that I know is low, instead of letting my mind try and get messed up around the math?" "When in doubt, whip it out" & all that... (Speaking from experience, though, I got my Galaxy in CO - where it worked fine - and after coming back to Cali found it was reading 700 feet low at 12,500' and 400 feet low around 6000', even having been zeroed on the ground. I had it adjusted, and it fixed the problem. Steve, I didn't see where you jump, but there might be an Alti-2 rep around your DZ area that can do a tune-up on it pretty quickly.) Signatures are the new black.

Indeed. What they said. Welcome back! Signatures are the new black.