ghost47

Reading the Incidents forum, I saw the following posted: Which makes perfect sense to me. But then, I notice that on my A level proficiency card it says that one of the canopy skills I need to master is: "Above 2,500 feet, perform a maximum-performance 90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately by a turn of at least 180 degrees in the opposite direction (two times)." This sounds like a recipe to get myself into line twists. I assume it's not, otherwise it wouldn't be on there for newbies to do, but what's the difference between what the USPA is asking me to do, and what the OP has said will get me into line twists? Is it because I'm only doing a 90 degree turn before turning the other way, as opposed to a 360?

From a newbie to a newerbie, I would recommend you save up a little more and do AFF1 instead. Yes, you're going to have to repeat it unless you suddenly come into a lot of money, but it usually costs only a little more than a tandem, and the experience is so much more . . . "there", for lack of a better word. Plus it will give you a taste of what it's like to do it on your own, and maybe give you a better idea of if it's something you want to pursue when the timing and finances are right. Of course it's normal. In every day life, you fuck up, you look stupid, you get fired, you get a bad grade. You fuck up in skydiving, and serious injury or death could easily result. I think it's rarer NOT to be scared shitless the first time. But part of the wonder of skydiving, besides the awesomeness of flying through the air, is conquering that fear, trusting in yourself, and going for it.

Not homos, though . . .

They'll most likely pull for you. But don't we spend six hours learning that WE are responsible for pulling? That one or both jumpmasters might be lost somehow? I've seen vidoes of AFF instructors being shaken off. I have yet to see a video of a tandem master being shaken off. Plus the tandem master flies and lands. Until my FJC, I had no clue that you needed to flare a parachute, and that failure to flare correctly could result in serious injury or death. Nor did the danger of being taken out by someone in a congested landing pattern occur to me (not that I've ever had to land in a congested landing pattern (yet)). Or dealing with mals.

I can only speak from my personal experience, but one reason I began AFF was because I thought my tandem jump was a little boring. The way I've put it to people is that on my tandem jump, I didn't have to do anything except for not stop the guy from jumping out. There was one second when we went out of the plane where I was like, huh, I'm pretty high up here, but other than that, I really had no fear. We were immediately stable, and there was no falling sensation. I knew that the guy I was strapped to was very experienced and that he had a huge incentive to save his own life, and therefore, as a byproduct, he'd probably save mine too. After this experience, I talked with a friend of mine about how underwhelming it was, and he suggested that maybe it was because I didn't have to do anything but not stop the guy. On a solo jump, he said, you have to go against your own instincts and throw yourself out of a plane. That's gotta be harder. This idea bounced around in my head and five years later, I put myself into an FJC. And let me tell you, it was MUCH harder to step out of the plane knowing that *I* was ultimately responsible for my own life. Also factor in that I'd just had a six-hour class in which I was repeatedly informed of the many ways I could die or seriously injure myself (things I knew nothing of when I did my tandem). The freefall was terrifying, and I remember very little of it except for being very, very scared until the parachute opened. I think there are good arguments on both sides about whether tandems ultimately help or hurt the sport (as a newbie, my tentative sense is that it helps, but who knows if I'll change my mind as I progress). But I think there's little doubt that at least for some tandem jumpers, the fear that needs to be conquered is much less than for the AFF student. The anxiety I feel now as an 11-jump wonder is much less than I felt before my first AFF jump, but it's still way more than I felt before my tandem.

One problem that I had during my AFF was that, whenever I went unstable, I reflexively put my hands out to steady myself, because that's what you do on the ground -- when you're about to fall, you either put your hands out to steady yourself, or you even ball up to protect your vital organs. When I was in the tunnel, there were times that I would go unstable. It would be apparent when that was, because the tunnel was so small and had so many reference points, that if I started to flip or spin or whatever, it was immediately noticeable. If I tried to do any of my "ground" reflexes (put my hands out, ball up), I'd go even more unstable. After two tunnel sessions, it finally sank in at more than an intellectual level that arching fixes instability. So when I started to flip or spin or whatever, I relaxed and arched. That made me stable, and as it happened over and over, it got etched into my brain that arching = stability. And that's what I do in the sky now. Whereas my pre-tunnel jumps, when I went unstable, my first instinct was to engage those ground reflexes, which of course didn't work. So I think for those of us who didn't start with a good arch, and who were having trouble instinctively arching when things went bad, the wind tunnel is a great (if expensive) resource to help cure that problem.

No argument from me. Though if a 105 lb blond chick wants to lay on me, I guess I'll just have to endure for the good of the sport.

I don't think it's being suggested that guys are trying to impress you by showing you how unafraid they are on the ride to altitude (though maybe that happens, too). I think what's being suggested is that guys like the physical contact that comes from laying on a 105lb blond.

First you said: So people assume you've said to your instructors, "hey, I'm landing hard, and trying to flare to "3". Also, occasionally, my chest strap is going above my head after I pull the 'chute." And their answer has been, "well, just try harder to get to 3." So lots of people reacted to that by saying if that's all your instructors are giving you after you telling them those problems, something is very wrong. Even newbie me can't imagine any skydiver with more than ten jumps (let alone an instructor) not telling me that something is wrong if my chest strap is going above my head after deployment. In my newbie opinion, if that was the response an instructor was giving you, then that instructor should be slammed. However, now you say, Which seems to me to be materially different from what you first said. But if that's the case, like everyone else, I encourage you to tell all of this to your instructors, who, as you say, can only know so much if you don't speak up. I would imagine they're going to be very disturbed that your chest strap is slipping to above your head after deployment.

Neither was I. So I didn't "step out of an airplane". I just looked at both jumpmasters, looked at the propeller, rocked forward, rocked back, and stepped to my left. By the time my brain caught up to my traitorous body, I was already in freefall, and there was nothing to do but try to fly and land safely.

How much do you think it would cost to get someone to sew one of those donut pillow things onto the back of my jumpsuit?

As a recent AFF grad, I completely remember what it was like to land badly. My first five landings were hard -- first one I flared too late, the next four I flared too early (and too fast). Hurt like hell, though no permanent injuries. After each one, I'd talk to an instructor and get advice, but nothing worked until jump 6 (AFF 5). On jump 6, I was reacquainted with the two-stage flare -- flare 1 to about shoulder height, flare 2, all the way down. Both done smoothly. (Previously I was just jerking the toggles from full up to all the way down.) On final approach, I waited for my instructor, and when he said flare 1, I did, when he said flare-flare-flare, I went all the way down. Did both of them smoothly, and landed on my feet. Same thing happened on jump 7. Having finally had two stand-up landings, I had at least a fuzzy memory of what the ground looked like when I flared 1, and what it looked like when I flared all the way. So on jump 8 (AFF 7), when my instructor said, okay, this time I'm not going to say anything, you're going to land yourself, I was able to do so. It also helped me to look at a 45 degree angle, instead of straight down. I'm certainly no expert at landing (or anything else), but I thought maybe my experiences would be helpful. But I second everyone else who says "talk to an instructor".

Anthony, Are you able to arch correctly when you're not in the air? If you are, I'm wondering if the problem is mental rather than physical. My AFF 3 and 4 jumps were horrible, I didn't arch at all. However, when I was on the ground, my instructors said my arch was great. Stupid as it sounds, when I was in the air, I think I simply forgot to make sure I was arched. I was relaxed, enjoying the sensation of free fall, and when my body is relaxed, it doesn't naturally arch. After level 4, I went back to the wind tunnel to work on my arch. Not the physical aspect, but the remembering to do it when in free fall, and the returning to it when things go awry. (A non-skydiver's natural instinct when things are going unstable is to "stand up" or ball up, neither of which are going to work in the air.) Before my next jump, the whole way up I repeated to myself, arch, arch, arch. When I jumped out, after the initial second of brain-freeze, I remembered to arch. Five jumps later, it's become natural, such that I no longer have to think about it, it just happens. I'm just a student, so I may not know what I'm talking about. But assuming you're physically able to do it, then drilling it into your brain that that is the one task you are going to accomplish no matter what might help. Good luck!

It's funny, I was talking to my FJC instructor on Sunday about this. I was telling her that I found it funny that an instructor had apologized to me for failing me on a level of AFF. If I can't do a task, I SHOULD fail, I said. Otherwise, you pass me, you put me in the sky doing something more advanced, I mess up, and then I DIE. That's MUCH worse than failing a level. She said, ya, but a lot of people come in with the mentality of, well, I paid the money, so I should get to pass. That mentality just seems weird to me. What I'm buying with my money is some of your time for you to teach me something. In a sense, I'm paying you to do your best to keep me alive, and that includes failing me and making me do things again if you think that'll increase my chances of living. I mean, I've got an ego too, but if someone said "hey you, make a choice: look stupid or up your chance of dying," guess what I'm going to pick?

I don't even mind being treated as an inferior, in the sense of knowledge, because I really know very little. I mean, if all goes well, I know how to fall stable, how to pull, how to land, but I read all these posts on the forum and I learn something new every day. Sometimes I think, huh, how come no one told me that before I jumped? Nor do I mean that we should all be sensitive to newbies' feelings and all that. I think a certain amount of teasing makes the atmosphere fun, and if you can't stand a little heat, well, grow a thicker skin. I think it's really just the mentality -- your big brother will make fun of you, maybe beat you up once in a while, but you know that when push comes to shove, he's got your back (so I imagine -- I'm an only child). In the same way I don't mind at all if some experienced jumper wants to make fun of something I did or didn't do, as long as a) it's done in the spirit of fun; and b) the jumper will also tell me how to fix whatever I'm doing or not doing. So if we're ever on a load together, feel free to make fun of my flares. Just tell me how to do 'em better, too ;)

But isn't there a middle ground here? Are the only options to treat students like me either as VIPs or like dirt? Couldn't the attitude instead be like big brother / little brother? After all, I do want to get better in this sport, and I want to make sure that not only do I come down safely, but that if I screw up, I'm not taking others with me. If people treat me like I know everything because I'm off AFF status (which hasn't happened), then I'll never learn anything. But conversely if everyone ignores me and gives me the cold shoulder (which also hasn't happened), I'd likely ask fewer questions, and also enjoy the sport less. I would think that the best way to impart knowledge to newbies is to include them in conversations, tell them nicely when they've screwed up and how to correct it, and in general act like an older, wiser big brother. As an example, I used to (and probably still do) have a problem of having my legs be asymmetrical during freefall. One instructor heard about this before my AFF 7 dive, came up to me, introduced himself, and taught me how to do a quick toe-tap in the air to make sure my legs were symmetrical. He was nice and helpful and I learned something that made my jumps more stable. I would think that interactions like that would make skydiving better for everyone, by both imparting important knowledge to people who need to learn, helping newbies realize they don't know everything, and fostering an environment where newer skydivers are encouraged to ask questions and get tips from older skydivers. (And also encourage older skydivers to look out for newer ones, since sometimes we don't know that we're ignorant.) Additionally, when the tips you teach us make us better skydivers, we're also more likely to listen when you tell us about safety, because we already have learned the value of your advice.

I don't think there's a question that we're engaged in a dangerous sport, and I think that anyone who wants to skydive should be made aware of the risks. But the question isn't whether the sport is dangerous or whether people die or get injured, the question is how dangerous and how many people die or get injured, how often, and under what circumstances. For jumpers, we know that usually, people survive jumps. We know that the 25 to 30 fatalities per year are out of 3,000,000 jumps or so. So we recognize that we could die, but we also know that the chances are small if we're careful, do gear checks, stay altitude-aware, etc. For the public, they don't know any of this. All they know is that when they hear about skydiving, it's when someone died "because their parachute failed to open". So their perception is that skydiving is more dangerous than it really is. I think you're right that a lot of people don't care about skydiving, and wouldn't jump no matter what. But bad press fuels the general perception of our sport as more dangerous than it really is, so that when people hear about skydiving, they have an automatic bad reaction based on what they've heard in the media. When a friend says, I've been thinking about going skydiving, they may be more likely to dissuade that friend. And people who were on the borderline may decide against it. This results in fewer skydivers and less money to operate the DZ. And that affects all skydivers.

Many plaintiff's lawyers do indeed work that way -- there may be some negotiation regarding if the plaintiff is responsible for costs (as opposed to lawyer fees) such as the filing fee, fees for photocopying, etc., but many plaintiff's lawyers work on what's called a contingency basis: you win, I get 40% of what you win. You lose, I get nothing. The contingency fee is what allows a lot of poor people to bring legitimate suits because they would have no way of paying $100 an hour to a lawyer (and that's the cheapest I've ever seen a lawyer charge). And it does deter some bad suits for the reasons you stated. If your suggestion is to make the contingency fee mandatory, I'd say that this might cut down on rich people bringing frivolous claims (because they're the only ones who can afford to pay a lawyer hourly), but I'm not sure, statistically, there are that many of those types of cases out there. But I think the main problem is that there are simply too many lawyers out there. Many people go to not-so-good lawyer schools and come out of school $150,000 in debt and no good job prospects. (Many of them don't realize this before entering law school, or think that their situation will be different. The schools, who want their tuition, sure as hell don't tell them this.) So there you are, in massive debt, no experience, no job. Student loans are coming due, and you need to pay rent and buy food. Somebody comes along with a case, a not very good one. What do you do? If you say no, you resume your career of sitting. If you say yes, well, you get some experience, and maybe you force the other side to pay you to go away (e.g. it's cheaper for IBM to pay $10,000 to settle a stupid case than to go to trial). Out of the settlement you get 40% and the ability to continue forward for another month. I'm not saying this is right. But it's what happens.

A loser pays system would cut down on frivolous suits. They do this in England and in other places as well. However, the reason the Americans have decided against it is one of the reasons you note above: "Unfortunately, the reality is that money most often dictates how much persuasion can be exploited." So say you've got a legitimate claim against IBM. IBM has expensive, $500 to $1000 an hour, lawyers. They're going to be very good, and rack up a ton of bills. Now you need to think about, what if my lawyer isn't that good? What if he loses? Not only do I get nothing, I'm going to owe IBM $500,000. Do I want to risk that? However, say you have a stupid claim against IBM. You're far less likely to bring it if you know there's a good chance you'll end up owing IBM $500,000. So the question is whether it's more important to deter the stupid lawsuits at the expense of also possibly deterring legitimate lawsuits, or whether it's more important to encourage legitimate lawsuits at the expense of enduring stupid lawsuits. The American system has decided the latter is more important than the former, which I think is reasonable. But the other way is not without merit, either.

Not sure if this belongs here or in Safety and Training, so sorry if the wrong forum. Last Sunday, I passed my AFF 7 jump, and soon (hopefully this weekend), I hope to pass AFF 8. After which I'll be jumping without an instructor. While I'm excited about this, one thing that has me somewhat worried is when the wind changes direction after we've boarded the plane. In the past, my instructor has simply gotten on the radio and said, okay, the winds have changed, so I'm going to guide you through your new landing pattern. After 8, obviously, there won't be anyone to do that. There will just be me. So I'm looking for tips on how to tell that the wind has changed. I know to look at people who have landed before me, and to emulate them in terms of landing direction. I also know to try to look for wind socks and such (though, for me, by the time I'm able to see them, I'm usually too low for it to matter). Any other tips? I'll ask my instructors too, but figured it couldn't hurt to see what ideas people here had. Thanks!