ghost47

The biggest problem I had in AFF was remembering to arch when I got out of the plane. There is a disorienting moment when you step out, and you may instinctively kick your legs, or reach for the ground, or ball up because you're falling. If you can remember to relax and arch, that solves a lot of problems. And when you feel unstable, instead of trying to get your feet under you or your hands down (as you would if you were on the ground), arch. But obviously the most important is to listen to your instructors on everything, including whether or not anything you read online is right.

Well, I haven't trained anyone, so I'll take the word of people who have. But isn't it important to tell the student that pulling at the right altitude is more important than pulling stable? In other words, if I'm low AND on my back, what do I do? Do I try to flip over and pull or do I just pull? Similarly isn't it important to tell a student that being stable at pull time is a good thing, and they should try to do it? I guess for me, when my instructor taught me pull, pull at the right altitude, and pull stable, it just made sense. And, when someone else in my class asked the question of what to do if unstable at pull time, the instructor was able to point to the priorities and say, is it more important to pull at the right altitude or while stable? Seemed to work. But hey, that was only four students, three of whom don't seem to jump anymore So I'll concede to the more knowledgeable.

To me, it makes sense to think about it this way: When you step out of the plane, the one thing you have to do is pull. If you do nothing else, pull. If the option is pull or don't pull, always choose pull. Doesn't matter if you're low, high, stable, unstable. Okay, so you're pulling, no matter what. Second priority, if you can pull at the right altitude, do that. If the choice is pull at the right altitude while unstable or wrong altitude while stable, right altitude while unstable wins every time. Third, if you can pull at the right altitude while stable, that's better. So if the choice is pull at the right altitude while stable or pull at the right altitude while unstable, then pull at the right altitude while stable is best. Now, I think experienced jumpers have a little more leeway on this. For example, in a standard 4-way after break-off and tracking, I think it's better to pull at 3300 while stable rather than 3500 while unstable, even if 3500 is your pull altitude. Or if you discover that someone is pulling 10 feet to your right at your pull altitude of 3500, you might track away and take it down to 2500, reasoning that the chances of problems from opening at 2500 are smaller than the chances of problems from opening at 3500 while next to someone. But for students, I think it makes sense that we drill into them that they must pull no matter what, and secondarily, if they can pull at the right altitude, that's better, and third, if they can do both of those while stable, that's best.

Because you talked to your instructors, anything they say should supersede anything I say. But did they recommend that you PLF in those situations instead of trying to run it out? That sounds like a better idea to me. Personally, I think that, while stand-up landings can be a good gauge of whether you're landing well, it's also important to PLF when the need arises.

Well, we're all spinning our wheels here without knowing what the mother's concern actually is, but even if she knows everything about what happens in skydiving, it doesn't mean that OP can't allay her fears. For example, say the mother is worried about the shenanigans around the bonfire after beer light -- OP could make a deal that she'll always leave the DZ before then. Or she's worried that OP will become obsessed with skydiving, and will drop out of school. OP could make a deal that she'll quit skydiving if her grades drop below a certain point. Or whatever. Or maybe there's nothing that can be done, because mom won't budge. But there's no harm in trying, I don't think.

Well, it's not an either / or thing -- I currently work 50 to 60 hours a week and still manage to spend a full day at the DZ most every weekend. I'm definitely working harder now than when I was in school. So OP could probably do both skydiving and school if her mother would still pay for college. I'm not saying there aren't dangers to skydiving -- both skydiving-related and DZ-related. But OP is in college. Hormones galore. In any case, without knowing the full story, it's hard to judge whether OP's mother is making sense or not. The point I was trying to make is that OP's choices should be reject her mom's money or accept her mom's money with her mom's conditions, but try to get those conditions rescinded or changed by talking to her mother about whatever her mother's concerns are. Not take the money, lie to her mother, and skydive.

It's totally not weird. Mom has money. Mom says, I'll give you this money as long as you don't do solo skydives. Daughter can say, okay, and take the money, or say, I don't like that condition, keep the money. Why in the world is it right for her to lie to her mom? Her mom can have any reason she wants, stupid or not stupid, sensible or nonsensical. It's her mom's money! Now, nothing stops her from trying to convince her mom that she's wrong about skydiving, or skydiving once she decides she doesn't need or want her mother's money anymore. But if she's accepting money from her mom, and that money is explicitly conditioned, then she's accepting that condition by accepting that money. OP doesn't seem like the type to lie to her mom (which, IMO, is a good thing), and even if she were, she's likely to get caught at some point, and that trust would be very hard to rebuild. To the OP: I second what others say -- try to talk to your mom and see if you can alleviate her fears, but if she insists, there's tunnel and there's tandem. Once you're on your own, you can make your own decisions as to what risks you're willing to take. And maybe once your mom sees what joy skydiving can bring, she'll be more supportive. Mine hasn't been, but perhaps yours will

I think people's point isn't that they never made mistakes. It's that the long periods of time between your dives makes it harder for you to learn from those mistakes. If you were jumping daily or weekly, I think the advice might be somewhat different. You say your instructor gave you some good advice which you'll never forget, and I don't doubt that. But it's one thing to know what to do on the ground and one thing to remember to do it in the sky. And it has little to do with how smart you are or aren't. To give an example from my own skydiving career, up until maybe jump 5, I didn't always remember to arch in the sky. How could I forget something so basic, so simple, so vital? Dunno. But I did. When I was landing, I'd tell myself to flare slower. Time came, I yanked down hard, landed on my tailbone. I said to myself, NEXT time DON'T DO THAT. At the very least PLF. Did I? Nope, landed on my ass 4 times in a row. Did I quit? No. But what I did do was decide to jump more frequently, until I had drilled at least the basics down. That's great. And perhaps you'll continue with no more trouble until you decide to quit. But skydiving is a very unforgiving sport. On your 6th jump, you were knocked unconscious and only came to at 2000 feet. What if you hadn't come to? What if you had flown into a building, or worse yet, another student skydiver? You say that your instructor bumped you and you violently flew across the sky and had a shoe fall off. You didn't regain stability, and an instructor had to pull for you. What if your instructor hadn't been able to get to you? Additionally, 5 good jumps and 1 bad jump = 17% of your jumps have knocked you unconscious. If driving to the DZ is statistically more dangerous for you than that, well, you need to get off the road immediately. Sounds like you were watching the infamous Shayna Richardson. I haven't watched that video in a long time, and don't really care to again, but if I remember right, she did go to her reserve, and her reserve had some problem or something. And that was what the pump the brakes was about. Ultimately, the choice to continue is yours and the DZO's (and S&TA's, I suppose). If your instructors feel it's safe to put you out there and you want to assume the risk, then that's up to you guys. After all, I'm not sure how it's any more dangerous to make your 7th AFF 1 jump (or 8th or 9th) than it is to make your 1st one. The only thing I think is incumbent upon you is to research the statistics and the sport more. You've said several things in this thread (the car thing, the instructor staying with you thing, the "bump" causing a violent, uncontrolled tumble) that are either just not true or show a basic lack of understanding in what's going on in your skydive. And I think that's what has people worried. Good luck in whatever you choose to do.

Let's not forget the awesome Jim Hickey . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eYJH3bRnUg&fmt=18 Edited to make clicky (Thanks Milo!)

I've had (and sometimes still have) this problem. I've been told to start the flare at about 8 to 10 feet off the ground, but that wasn't at all helpful to me, because I had no idea what 8 to 10 feet really looked like. And, because I don't have a great visual memory, standing at 8 to 10 feet high and looking down at the ground (or rather 45 degrees away) to remember when I should start wasn't that helpful either. (However, that's something you can try if you think it would be helpful for you.) Taking a canopy control course was very helpful for me. The main thing I learned was to try to plane out first. In the air, you practice flares and try to find the "sweet spot". I'm not sure how to describe it except as the point where I feel like the wind has stopped. Then, on landing, flare to that point first, then finish the flare off. Also that flaring is not static, it doesn't have to be full flight > flare! It can be full flight > flare a little > oh I'm too high > hold it > flare some more. Or full flight > flare a little > oh shit I'm low > flare hard. Eventually, you get the feeling of where to flare, and whether to speed it up or slow it down depending on where you are. As long as you're PLFing and not getting hurt on your landings, I think really the only cure is to keep doing it, and try to remember what things looked like the last time, and adjust accordingly depending on if you were too high or too low. And of course talk to the instructors at your DZ. Good luck!

I'm very curious as to how this would happen. The only thing I can think of is if one of the defendants (or plaintiffs) themselves posted on here. If that happened then that statement would probably be allowed as admissible evidence. Additionally, I could MAYBE see a scenario where a lawyer tried to use forum posts as evidence of some sort of custom and practice of skydivers. I would think most judges would not allow that though, because there's no real evidence of who the posters are, that they're actual skydivers, etc. But other than the two scenarios above, I'm having a hard time seeing the legal theory that would allow your post in Incidents to be used to prove or disprove anything in trial. I mean, with bad opposing counsel and bad judges, I guess many things are possible. Turning to the practical side, I could see how posts could affect things by: 1. Making someone think there's a case 2. Educating a lawyer as to the types of questions (s)he should ask. It also might lead them to witnesses to the incident. Other than that, I can't think of what else. On the plus side, I think speculation and brainstorming in the forums really help us newbies in trying to learn about gear and what can go wrong up there. Weighing the two sides (benefits versus detriments of posting), I personally hope people continue to post and ask questions and speculate about whether A or B or C might have gone wrong.

My current plan should I not be able to find my hackey after a couple tries is to cut away and then pull reserve. My thought is that maybe the pilot chute is out already, and I've got some weird pilot chute in tow thing, in which case I want to cut away first. And if I just couldn't find the hackey and the pilot chute is still in the pouch, then cutting away shouldn't do anything bad (except for eat up a little altitude, but I go to pull at 4000, so I'm not too worried about that). Plus this way I have only one set of emergency procedures. Is this a bad idea? If I can't locate my hackey, should I just pull silver?

Don't know what's causing the error, but LuCallbackProxy.exe is the LiveUpdate program associated with Symantec / Norton products. Perhaps uninstall and reinstall whatever Symantec / Norton products you have installed.

You have no choice (probably). The AFF course (at least at Elsinore) consists of 8 levels. You need at least 25 jumps (in which you need to complete a bunch of skills) to get an A license. So it's very likely that after you finish AFF, you'll do a bunch of student solo jumps. You don't need to get the A license right away. However, getting your A license will make things cheaper, not more expensive. A student jump is $69 at Elsinore, an experienced (i.e. A-license or above) jump is $25. The $69 does include gear rental and packing, but if you make more than two jumps a day, it's cheaper to be an A-licensed jumper who rents gear than a student jumper who rents gear.

At least in my Square One shop, before I could rent a rig, I had to sign an agreement saying that I'd pay for anything that was lost, and also that I'd have to pay for a repack in case of a cut-away.

Maybe someone should give this girl the skydiving speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXC_-EFW3Rk

Where? From what I've seen when checking prices, it's something like $2000 for a container, $2000 for a main, $1000 for a reserve, and $1000 for an AAD. Where are you seeing $4200?

The IP address of the sender is found in the header of the e-mail. How you view the headers of an e-mail is dependent on how you're viewing e-mail (in Outlook, using a web-based system, etc.) so best to google on that method. If you scroll down the headers, you should be able to find an originating IP address. (There should be some tutorial that's googleable if you need help on this, too.) Take that IP address and go to http://www.arin.net/whois Enter the IP address and click on Search WHOIS. That should tell you which ISP owns the IP address, and you can go from there. If it's not a US-based IP, you may have to do the same thing with http://www.apnic.net (Asia), http://www.ripe.net (Europe), http://www.lacnic.net (Latin America), or http://www.afrinic.net (Africa). Another tool is to go to http://visualroute.visualware.com/ and enter the IP there. This usually gives you a visual as to where the IP originated. Good luck.

Took it in 2002. The LSAC has a free sample LSAT available on their website at http://www.lsac.org/LSAT/lsat-prep-materials.asp. My recommendation would be to take the sample test first, to get an idea of where you are (it's an actual LSAT from June 2007, so it's a good gauge). You'll see what areas you're good at and what areas need improvement. You'll then be able to tailor your studying to that section. There are specific books to help with each section. I'd also recommend taking a practice LSAT at least a couple times a week, both to see if you're improving in whatever area you're working on, and to make sure you can still do the areas you're good at. Plus, if the LSAT makes you nervous, this is a way to get into the routine of taking it, so on test day, it's familiar to you. You can buy actual past LSATs from the LSAC (or somewhere, I forget where). Figure out a schedule and buy however many past exams you'll need to stick to it. And finally, I'd recommend you actually take a break when practicing the LSAT. If I remember right, in the actual test, you do three sections, then take a break and do two more. You'll only have four sections in the actual exams, but take that break after the third section. I found that I actually got one or two more questions right if I did this, instead of powering through and doing all four sections in one sitting. Good luck!

The law on this issue varies depending on the state, but there is a concept of bona fide or good faith purchaser (you can google it). I THINK it basically says that if an innocent person does what he reasonably should do but ends up buying property that the seller did not actually have title to, that innocent person's claim to the property is superior to the original owner's claim. However, this A) is from memory and B) would in any case be state-specific, so OP should consult a competent attorney from his jurisdiction who should, within an hour, be able to tell him the answer to his question of what his legal rights / duties are. That's the law. As to what SHOULD happen (as opposed to what the law says), my own opinion is that OP and the original owner should try to work something out, maybe split the difference. Situation sucks for both parties, but neither keeping it for free nor giving it back for free seems fair.

It's not that in any way I'm glad that people die in our sport. But I know that I enjoy the freefall from skydiving MUCH more than the "freefall" in a wind tunnel. I guess what I'm wondering is why? Is it just more fun to be outdoors and jumping with my friends? Or is it that added risk that comes from jumping out of a plane, and the total commitment required to do so? I don't know, it's just something I'm thinking about.

So, in yet another conversation with a whuffo in which I tried to convince her that I did NOT skydive because I had some sort of death wish, I said something to the effect of: "Believe me, if there was a 100% guarantee that I'd land safely, I'd still jump. In fact, I'd like jumping even more." After I said it though, I started wondering if it was true. I know we do everything we can to minimize the chance of death or injury, but I also know we can never eliminate it. And I wonder if part of my attraction to this sport is the total commitment and focus, the knowledge that you have to keep aware all of the time, no exceptions, and even then something bad might happen beyond your control. What do you guys think? If there were some way of guaranteeing a safe landing no matter what, would you still love to jump as much as you do?

This works only if each writing assignment was equal to 20% of his grade. But there isn't enough information (that I see) to make that determination. If, instead, each writing assignment was worth, say, 10% of his grade, the quizzes worth a total of 50%, and the final 20%, then his grade would be: (0.1 x 98) + (0.1 x 99) + (0.1 x 97) + (0.5 x 78) + (0.2 x 72) = 82.8. Which still should be good enough for a B, unless there was some weird curve. To get to 77% (which, IMO, is the highest one could get while justifiably getting a C in an uncurved class), each writing assignment would have to be worth 0.33% of his grade and the quizzes worth 79% of his grade (giving you (0.0033 x 98) + (0.0033 x 99) + (0.0033 x 97) + (0.79 x 78) + (0.2 x 72) = 77%). This weighting seems highly unlikely. So either there are some factors missing (e.g. other things factored into the grade that we don't know about), there was some really funky curve, or the professor messed up the calculation. Maybe there's a reason she teaches anthropology as opposed to a hard science . . . ;)

More experienced jumpers can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a decision altitude (i.e. a hard deck) is very important, especially for newish jumpers like you and me. As I'm sure you know, things happen very fast in the sky, and I personally do not want to be at 2500 thinking, hmm, do I chop or continue trying to fix this? By the time I answer that question, I'm at 2000, then I think oh shit, and I'm at 1500 . . . as you can see, this quickly goes somewhere bad. It's also a good idea for us newbies not to unnecessarily do anything radical with our canopy below our decision altitude (and by unnecessarily, I mean short of avoiding a collision -- and even then it depends on what you're colliding with, how high you are, and how flat you can make your turn).

Dark Tower fan?