LloydDobbler

Woo-hoo! Welcome back! (I say that, as if you haven't been doing this for almost as long as I've been alive.)

Okay, just wanted to post and say that these are awesome. We've put out a plate before, but haven't done some of the others...thanks for posting 'em, Dave! Not planning on doing a demo any time in the near future myself, but good canopy/accuracy drills are always good to hear...

97 jumps: Sabre2-135 loaded at .94. The best thing you can do, as you've already mentioned, is ask your instructors what they think is appropriate. Fly safe! Signatures are the new black.

Exactly what Derrick said. I'm actually surprised anyone said anything other than "Talk to your instructors." But especially given that none of us have any info on what size body you have, what's your exit weight, etc. Everyone's experience varies. I weigh

Funny...at 12:00 Saturday I was watching my girlfriend's sister getting married. Must've been "Get Married to Keep Skydivers Grounded" Day. Damned weddings. Spoiled a weekend of GLORIOUS weather. Have to put off that hundredth jump for another week or two.... Signatures are the new black.

My god. I am so thankful for this thread! I weigh 130 out the door, and now I finally know how to get someone to stay up with me! RW, here I come. Thank you dropzone.com. But seriously, thanks for posting this, Gary, and thanks for posting the pics (the rest of you). It's really interesting to me, as someone who wasn't around back then. ...Now, given my fall rate in a weak arch, I wonder if I could suit up in one and just hang out in 'freefall' all day...maybe bring a picnic lunch.... Signatures are the new black.

A lot of good advice above. I'll just add a couple of things: - Keep in mind that static line students are really used to exiting at 3500'. If you were an AFF student, it's all a matter of perspective. - If you're anything like me, you're probably worried about time available...but don't forget the 'forward throw'. It'll take you a number of seconds to reach terminal velocity - as you exit the plane, you're moving more forward than you are downward, which gives you more time to work with than you're used to thinking about. - If you can snag one of your instructors and tell them that you're getting a bit worked up over it, they might also be able to add a little perspective. They know you better than we do, anyway. I watched a friend of mine exit for her first hop n' pop recently - she kinda limply "stepped" out of the door, and her left arm catching the wind led to a barrel roll and a backloop or two before she got arched stable and pitched her PC. I can't give you exact altitudes (as I wasn't under canopy with her), but I do know that she had plenty of time under canopy to set up her pattern. Lessons learned: 1) Present yourself to the relative wind. Exit like you mean it. & 2) You've got more time than you think. Given my experience with my first h n' p (and the experiences of others I've met), you'll find once you've done it that it's much easier than you thought it was gonna be, and you'll actually enjoy the feeling of accomplishment so much that you want to go do it again.

Wyat, I only met you once, on my one trip down to visit Skydive SD. I only jumped with you once - my first 10+ person sunset tracking dive. I only talked with you for about a half hour. And yet that one day was enough to leave a big impression on me. Thanks for showing us low-timers around the DZ & welcoming us like part of the family; thanks for the great conversation; and thanks for offering to jump with us without hesitation, without reservations...without us (40-jump wonders that we were) even asking. Should I ever get the opportunity, I'll do my best to pay it forward. Blue skies. Signatures are the new black.

As a writer, I know that most freelance work you sell with exclusive rights to a magazine publisher in the U.S. However, with a few exceptions, most magazines only purchase the domestic rights, and the worldwide rights are yours to keep and do with as you wish. All of which is to say, it would make sense that "over there" you'll see a pic published in various countries' magazines...but I suspect you won't often see one published in 2 "competing" publications from the same country. Then again, I'm not sure if the same practices apply to photography publication rights...but it seems reasonable that they would. Regardless, Parachutist certainly isn't the only mag I know that does that. Rolling Stone, Forbes, Jane, GQ, Details, & Skydiving, to name a few... Signatures are the new black.

My favorite is the one about your first jump costing you $200...and half your paycheck for the rest of your life. Signatures are the new black.

Hey, TToy - What Jan said is very true. A friend of mine was the one who talked me into it. She was supposed to pick me up at 7:30 the morning of our first jump...and instead, she called at 7:15 to tell me she wasn't going. 83 jumps later on my part, and she still hasn't gone. But I've met a bunch of awesome people, had a lot of indescribably beautiful experiences, and discovered something I truly love doing...which obviously wouldn't be any different had she gone or not. Hope you have a blast, and hope we'll cross paths sometime if/WHEN you decide to get your license.

DINGDINGDING!!! We have a WINNER!!! Signatures are the new black.

DSE, I was going to wait 'til I got home tonight and post my objections to Skydive4free, but you beat me to it, and (for the most part) captured my concerns to the letter. #1 - definitely a big deal. I was glad to see you bring up 'Charity Navigator' above. I've been using them constantly over the past few months to research candidates for an ongoing national charitable project at work, and the fact that Skydive4free's so-called 'national charities' a) aren't national and b) score pretty low on the CN ratings gives me pause. Though perhaps this guy's intentions could be good (as far as wanting to help out a charity), but just not his methods. Lots of people give to charities without running them through CN first. Nonetheless, if you're opening a business/non-profit, you should do your due-diligence. So that's a big strike for him. #2 - I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't believe in restricting people's freedom to do something good just because someone else did it bad. But if they started Skyride-esque practices like that, and offer less-than-full transparency, that seals the deal for me. But they're not Skyride until they commit the crimes that Skyride has. I prefer to render my final judgment when I've heard all the facts, and not before. #3 - I totally agree that the fact that he said what he said in support of Skyride's business practices was a big mistake on his part. That was another big strike against him, and he pretty much lost my support right there. (He should really consider who he's talking to, here, and their prevailing opinions.)

For the record, I have my issues with Stuart's business, but just to attempt to be unbiased, I'll correct a number of things you said: 1) The name of the site is "Skydive4Free.com," and there is nothing free about it. You pay a higher than retail price for the jump, give them $45 for the privilege of making an overpriced jump - at their convenience - and give them another $250 to send to a charity. It's free, to the person making the jump. They don't pay a dime to make their tandem. The dropzone gets its regular price of a tandem...they get to jump...and Stuart gets his "finder's fee." I can see as how it could be interpreted as deceptive, since Stu's making money off of it...but then again, all advertising is deceptive. By saying "Skydive for free", he's distilling the whole concept to a short, marketable, zinger. If he was to say, "Skydive without paying a dime out of your own pocket; the dropzone gets paid, I get paid, and everything else goes to a charity.com", it would be a little tougher to fit on a business card. That's advertising. That's the world we live in. Should we take issue with Budweiser commercials because every time we pop a beer, the hot girls in bikinis don't show up? Or should we take issue with the word "skydiving," because we don't necessarily always "dive" into the "sky"? You see where I'm going with this. It's semantics. 2) If the DZ donated the jump and these people did the work in their spare time, just so that people would make a minimum $500 donation to a worthy cause, then you could say that the skydive was free. That's akin to arguing that the office staff of a non-profit theatre company shouldn't be paid. Or that the person leading the Salvation Army shouldn't take a dime. Charity is giving, yes...but there's never a free lunch. There's always costs. (But if that cost is part of the money raised, then so be it. It still seems 'free' to you.) 3) The charity part of the deal is a red herring... I actually think the charity part of the deal is integral to it. It's an incentive. Again, see organizations like Team in Training. Sure, a lot of those orgs are volunteer-based...but the charity is the incentive for someone to go run a marathon. Everybody wins, because ultimately, money is donated to the cause (after expenses, such as flying the participant to the marathon), and the person participates in an experience they might not have already done. Do the expenses make it less valid that money is being given to charity? I don't think so. I think in cases like this, the end justifies the means. 4) Skydive4Free is no more or less legitimate than Skyride. With Skyride you do get to make a skydive, arranged by people that have nothing to do with the actual skydiving process, at a dropzone located conveniently 20 minutes away from wherever you are - and a portion of the proceeds go to the Orphan Ferrari Fund. - With Skyride you don't necessarily get to make a skydive. Let's not forget the "you didn't pay for weather insurance" bit, expiration dates, sending customers to DZs that aren't affiliated with Skyride (or DZs that are 400 miles away), etc, etc. If Stu is up front about the DZs he uses the fees he charges, and all terms & conditions, then he's being infinitely more legit than Skyride. --------------- In Stuart's case, I think as long as he's up front about what he gets out of it, more power to him. Think about it this way - do you know how tough it is to organize an event like this by yourself? How to get tax write-off letters to all the people who give through you? There was actually a Skydive Radio discussion about how someone at LSPC was trying to do 60 jumps in a day (or something similar) to raise money for charity, and several charities turned him down, because they were worried about liability stuff. He ultimately managed to deliver the check to them...but they absolutely didn't make it easy. If Stuart finds a way to secure deals with charities & DZs and automate the process, he's doing a service. Some people would consider that worth $45. At $20/hour, you'd probably spend more time on the phone with the charities, trying to figure out which paperwork they needed from you. Anyway, apologies for being long-winded, but busy work today leaves little time for editing. Signatures are the new black.

While I don't have much experience with full-face helmets, a buddy of mine (who rarely flies on his belly - it's all wingsuit or (mostly) freeflying) has a Bonehead Mamba that he SWEARS by. He's had 2 instances - 1 where he got kicked in the face on a wingsuit exit, and one where someone corked out of a freefly jump and clipped his face - that he feels like the full-face helmet has really protected his noggin on, more than an open-face would have. But of course, YMMV. Personally, I think it's a matter of preference. I have no reason not to get a full-face, except I'm putting a Cypres higher on my priority list right now...and when freeflying, I like the way an open-face looks better. (It is all about looking cool, after all...). Signatures are the new black.

LOVE the idea, Nightingale! Of course, if you prefer the trial-and-error approach, you might want to head up to Cal City for a day. Lots of clear desert area to take the spot long without worry of creating skylights. (Though the Ted might get a bit dusty, if the weight ratio is off the first few times...). Heck, they dropped a piano out of an Otter at Cal City for a 'Senseless Acts of Video' episode, so I imagine a stuffed bear would work out just fine.... Good luck! Post pictures!!

Hey, popsjumper (& everybody else) - Thanks again for all the advice. So yeah, we made the trip, the g/f is back home in Denver for the time being, and I ultimately carried one rig on and shipped the other. I guess everyone's got their own preferences, and their own lousy experiences...I just feel better trusting UPS, than the airline that delayed me for 3 1/2 hours (per usual) and never once apologized. I can only imagine how tough it would be to get something out of them if they damaged my rig. To Krisanne & Nathan, yeah, great little DZ. Great folks. Still only open when there are tandems on the schedule. We called ahead a few days prior, and Clint was able to slot us on a load (rode up with Geoff and his tandem student, as a matter of fact). I might have to head back for the boogie, even, to get another look at that view. To AFFI, awww, I WISH I could've made it out to SkyFest - but work just wasn't having it. It's on my list for next year. I've got some serious boogie traveling to do. To DSE, yep, Cal City is in the low 100's lately...though I tend to think of 110 as the "high 100's." It was about the same temp at Moab...it was just as dusty...and the density altitude wasn't as drastic a difference as it could've been, had I not been used to jumping in similar conditions (albeit 2000 feet lower). Only bummer was that the smoke from the fires obscured a bit of the view...but I can't really be bummed about my missing the view, when holding that up next to the massive size of the fire & all th destruction it's causing. Hope they get it under control soon, and that you Utah folks stay safe. Anyway, thanks again, y'all. Both rigs made it safely back...and most importantly, the g/f got in a great jump out of a plane she's never jumped over a different DZ.

Thanks for all the responses, folks! I suppose checking the second rig makes the most sense...I'm just always a little paranoid when it comes to TSA screeners. I don't like that much power being in someone's hands when they can excercise it with impunity. But hey - if it's worked for that many people, I'll just come right out and say it: "What could possibly go wrong?" (And I wish I could have her carry it on & come back with me...but I'm actually leaving her in CO. That's the whole reason for the trip.)

Hey, folks - So here's the deal. I'm about to drive with my girlfriend across country. She just got her "A" license a week ago, paid her beer debt, and has been enjoying her newly-licensed jumps.

The age should stay 18. What makes you think you are mature enough at 17? ...what makes you think he's NOT at 17? Had a nice, long discussion with him, have you? Chris, there are times I've appreciated reading what you have to say...but this ain't one of 'em. If there's one thing I've learned in my life (and that has constantly been reinforced by skydiving), it's not to judge a book by its cover. When I was 15, I was more mature than most 28 yr-olds I meet today, so I find ageism to be just as bad a form of prejudice as any other. Unless you know his life and the particular circumstances he's been through, you should probably step off, or ask for some more info before you start rendering blanket judgments and shoving them in his face. I think it best to not convince someone interested in the sport that we're all unsympathetic a$$holes before he even gets in it. What's more, come on. I personally have a hard time waiting 'til next weekend to jump, so it would be awfully hypocritical of me telling someone, "Meh, it's only one more year..." Dunno about you, though... Back to Philly, I'd take the advice re: calling around, looking for a DZ that'll take jumpers age 16 & up with parental consent. If you can't find one nearby, then all you can do is suck it up and start saving every penny...you're gonna need it. (Starting packing might be a good idea...and would get you good at that particular, um 'art' before you even get off AFF, which will be a huge advantage.) Signatures are the new black.

Not sure what you mean. The new Sport Pilot ticket and LSA seem to be a move in the right direction. It's just a return to almost the freedom of flying that existed 40 years ago. The population is up, but the number of active pilots is way down. Petty and excessive FAA regulation is the main reason, IMO. And let's not forget excessive litigation, which contributed to people like Cessna ceasing to produce small aircraft in the first place, before GARA & the statue of repose came into being. Self-regulation/limitation for fear of lawsuit is a very real thing, whether it's aviation or business we're talking about (he says, having recently faced a frivolous lawsuit himself). Of course, the attorneys and sue-happy society are only one part of the problem...but whenever there's a big national decline, such as what happened in GA, I'm usually inclined to believe that lawyers are playing a prominent role. Signatures are the new black.

I'm still undecided on the proposed BSR issue, Bill, but FWIW, I began to steer clear of this thread at one point because it seemed like everyone discussing it - yourself included - had decided on solving the problem via "separate landing areas." It seemed like it had become part of the common vernacular, a few pages of posts back, until people like hukturn began questioning it. The only reason I wanted to post now is because I noticed it myself, and it gave me a bad taste in my mouth...reason being, I also don't think that separate landing areas will work for everywhere. It may be that you and the others making this proposal had the general acceptance of "separate landing areas" in this thread called to your attention by folks like hukturn and others, and are now going back to your original proposal and placing more emphasis on the "separation by time OR distance" approach, but for a while (a few pages back, maybe 100 posts or so ago), it definitely read to me like most people on this thread were marching behind the flag of separating the landing areas. So I can understand hukturn's aversion to the idea of this BSR. It seemed to me like people (yourself included) were getting a bit carried away and accepting one leg of the proposal as a given. And when we're talking about a bunch of people going up to SF to push for this proposal, and not a lot of people vocally saying they're going to go there to question it (I personally can't make it...and I'm not necessarily against it, but I DO want it to accommodate all DZ's, not just Perris and others like it), then it's worrisome that when reading the thread a ways back I got the impression that people had begun to accept it as "separating the landing areas," instead of "separating the approaches." Anyway, not wanting to stir up a beehive, but felt like it needed to be said: it's not just hukturn that got that impression. I noticed it, too...and you now going back to what you 'originally proposed' doesn't negate the tone of general acceptance of a 'separate landing area' requirement that I caught midway through this thread, when I was actively following it a few weeks back. I think hukturn's quotes of you in support of that argument are valid. That being said, I'm still not sure whether I support the proposal or not...possibly because I support the option in which pilots are not allowed to make HP approaches after the first SLP person has begun their pattern (it works best at my DZ). No one has been paying much attention to that option for a while...and really, I think it's because of the mentality that "if we're gonna change something, let's CHANGE it." But I'm sure we can agree that change for change's sake isn't what we want to accomplish here. If we implement a BSR, it should be universally applicable. And I can't see how not allowing camera flyer (who's the first person down from the load after shooting a tandem video) to practice his swooping at the student target when no one else is around is going to hurt things. "Separating by time" - if by that we mean requiring low passes for swoopers - would require that lone tandem camera flyer to perform an SLP, even if he was 1000' lower than the rest of the people on the Cessna load. That seems...prohibitive to a responsible skydiver. If there's one thing I do support, it's that this BSR should not make 'lawbreakers' out of responsible, safety-conscious skydivers who are flying safely. Sacrificing them at the expense of having a "one-size-fits-all" rule runs counter to the entire individualist spirit of skydiving. So I sit, ponder, and watch the discussion from the sidelines. Regardless, I'm glad that hukturn's questioning is leading people like mnealtx to begin to re-examine the original proposal, instead of piling on top of whatever direction the tides were then turning. I think it's easy for all of us to get carried away on dz.com...and obviously, I'm sure we can all agree that this is an issue that we don't need to let ourselves get carried away on. I'll continue to lurk, and ponder, and engage in the discussion when I can, as obviously it's a very important matter. Blue skies, KC Signatures are the new black.

Actually, I kind-of agree by disagreeing (if that makes any sense): If there were no USPA, we'd have far less FAA involvement...b/c the FAA doesn't want anything to do with us, really (they've got enough to deal with keeping abreast of GA, without having to learn the completely different set of rules/approaches/best practices that go along with skydiving.) So the way I see it, the FAA would solve the problem by just banning the sport altogether. They'd wash their hands of us. And without the unified front to fight it, we'd find ourselves doing lots and lots of bandit jumps...provided we could find a pilot who'd take us, at risk of their license. Yeah, I resist some of the things that go along with having a national governing body...I think that anytime you have a national organization, you're going to have groups of members trying to assert what works best for them as rules for everybody...& in situations like that, there are few things scarier than a majority with a cause. But overall, I'm darn glad we've got the USPA. I shudder to think of what would happen legislatively without a group designed to set standards and combat issues arising from the negative stigma that whuffos have... ...but back to the main point, yeah, I think if not for the USPA being around, there's a strong chance that the FAA would get involved only long enough to shut down skydiving altogether. Signatures are the new black.

We are running for money? OK, let's see where the money is... Math 101 If a DZO has the last two places in the last load of the day to fill and the net revenue of a tandem (after paying the TI and the cost of the rig) is 3.5 times that of two funjumpers, what would be the sensible thing to do, from a business POV? And then there's Reading Comprehension 101: Read the complete post, then respond, instead of picking one single phrase from one sentence and ignoring the rest of it... (Here's the rest of that first post of mine, since you missed it the first time): Normally I would assume I hadn't expressed myself well and restate my point, trying to word it a bit more clearly, but I don't really think I could say it any more clearly than that. It's pretty obvious. (& not that restating it would matter in a place where people tend to read what they want to read/hear what they want to hear, so long as it supports their soapbox/flame/knee-jerk reactions...). Signatures are the new black.

Well said, both you & riggerrob. From my FJC onward I've been extremely lucky enough to find myself surrounded with people who take the attitude that "We are always perpetual students in skydiving...if you start thinking you know it all, you might want to reconsider getting on the plane until you get an attitude adjustment, because your arrogance will probably make you blind to something that could very well kill you." These are people with jumps numbers ranging from 1,000 to 10,000+, who swoop, freefly, wingsuit and make SLP's safely, so I've always trusted their opinions (then again, what do I know? I'm still new). I consider myself lucky (and surprised) that, in all my travels, I have yet to meet up with such blatant SkyGod mentality in-person. But I know it's out there, and I know it's not exactly indicative of the type of person I want to jump with. I tend to agree that you're setting yourself up for a serious blind spot when you start thinking you know it all. And what is a blind spot? It's a place you can't see. It's not that you don't want to see it...it's just that the structure and vector of the vehicle in which you're traveling doesn't allow you to see it... Signatures are the new black.