shaark

We might have to rethink conservation of energy. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate, contrary to human logic. WHAT? Human logic is what enabled us to discover that the rate of expansion is increasing. Humans have got far beyond attributing things we don't yet understand to invisible supernatural beings. Well, the smart ones have. I apologize if I was not clear. In our general frames of reference we expect any expansion, without any further input of energy, to either continue in a steady state or slow up due to frictional or gravitic effects. We can relate to these concepts. That was the human logic to which I was referring. I fully agree that human logic also allows us to go much further. Physics lets us theorize unimaginable things. And many such theories allow us manipulate our environment to our advantage: I'm thinking specifically about quantum physics. Our modern electronic world is based on such physics. Can we relate to quantum concepts? I doubt it. Our everyday 'logic', what I was referring to in my post, is no longer useful. Scientific logic (i.e. mathematics, etc.) is now necessary. We theorize about quantum mechanics; we can describe quantum effects; we can make practical use of our theoretical knowledge; but not even our greatest thinkers claim to 'understand' the quantum world. Many experimental results are 'illogical'. Before the discovery that the rate of expansion was increasing, if anyone had postulated such, even scientists would have said that that would not be 'logical'. None of this means that we must introduce a god to explain 'x'. As I indicated before, I consider that doing so generally stifles learning/exploration. Our frames of reference change/evolve. We now have new data. In a scientific sense conservation of energy will likely need to be re-addressed. It might still hold true multi-dimensionally, and what we are seeing is a bleedover from dimensions outside our familiar 4. Ain't science wonderful? tanstaafl

We might have to rethink conservation of energy. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate, contrary to human logic. Maybe dark energy bleeding over from other dimensions? Maybe spontaneous creation of energy? We have a lot to learn. I like that. If there is a god I think he must have a wicked sense of humour. tanstaafl

Squeak, I agree. Good science is open-minded. I was trying to relate this attitude to religious attitudes. Belief systems by definition limit inquiry, and ultimately limit understanding. I think religions are in many ways a disservice to humanity. tanstaafl

Not believing in a human-created god does not equal closing one's mind to possibilities. One could even say that is does exactly the opposite Humans do themselves a disservice with regard to science when they accept a particular theory as fact. Any theory may allow us practical benefits, yet a 'now we know it all' attitude causes stagnation. An open questioning attitude seems to be much more productive. In a like manner --- The quest to understand the meaning of life and the why/how of the origin of everything is very strong in humanity. It seems to me that subscribing to any one religious 'theory' is self limiting in this regard. Belief of itself proves nothing. And the rigidity inherent in any 'belief' system precludes further inquiry. What a shame. I like to think that I have the humility to be an agnostic, that I can accept that I do not know the answers. I like to think that I can therefore continue my personal quest with an open, inquiring mind, knowing that I will almost certainly never arrive at verifiable conclusions. I understand that if I gave myself wholeheartedly to a belief system that I might feel a temporary (or even permanent) fulfillment, but I would also probably feel somewhat ashamed. TANSTAAFL

If there is a God I would hesitate to be so rigid in thinking as to ascribe the human concept of 'love' to such an unknowable entity. I do not have any belief either for or against the possible existence of a god. I think this is the most honest position for a thinking, critical person to take. Righteousness of god? So many different religions, so many different cultures. What is right, or righteousness? Very slippery concepts, and most definitely not absolutes. I don't get what you mean re 'hope'. Hope for life after death? Secret of life is to find life? Don't think there is any 'secret'. Live, experience, learn, try to understand as much as possible, question, think, enjoy. Maybe favour more a Buddhist-style philosophy --- respect everything, and try not to let your living be negative for anything/anyone. Sure this is a challenge, but challenge makes life worth living. A belief in a god is not a prerequisite, and I do not see why a non-belief should make it more of a challenge, and if so, why, then striving with this challenge should be even more fulfilling. Want to get into science more? I 'believe' in our subjective universe. I 'believe' that the ground is solid, and if I bounce it will hurt. I also 'believe' the ground is a macro representation of quantum effects, vis. force fields. I 'believe' force fields are a manifestation of vibrating strings (never mind what particular flavour of string theory). When I skydive my reality is the macro world. When I sit and ponder about a rock, I am gratified that present day physics allows me to sort of understand on a much deeper level. I also can include the Indian (native American) concept of "only the rocks live forever". I can also touch, taste, see and feel the rock. The totality gives me a partially satisfying appreciation of a little bit of the universe, of life. More science. We can somewhat grasp Relativity. We cannot relate to Quantum physics, though we make use of many quantum effects. The quest to understand the origin of the universe seems to require the integration of both scales of 'reality'. Again I say How Cool. That critical human intellect can tackle such questions, such concepts. With a basis in verifiable 'facts'. Science is a credit to humanity, and vice versa.

What is spirituality? (That's also a question for you. Language can be so limiting in communication.) Maybe: an awareness of self, and a quest to try and grasp some sense of the meaning of life. A joy in consciousness, and for many a need to hope that individual consciousness continues after the death of the body. As a spiritual person I experience great joy of life. I dearly hope my consciousness will continue, and hopefully will even expand. Don't know if it will. God may exist, but if so by definition is unknowable. And not humanly understandable. An entity may or may not have created the universe. (I prefer 'multiverse'. Universe is too parochial.) Unknowable. Given such an entity, it may or may not be self aware. Probably such a human concept means nothing. Such an entity may no longer exist. Maybe the entity became the multiverse. Who's to know? Big bang? Most recent and most favoured origin theory. Even this does not quite get us to it's singularity, and we have no comprehension of the singularity itself, or anything before. Isn't it great that there is so much to explore? For religious and non-religious alike the origin of the universe question, no matter how far back one can or wants to take it, seems to be a fantastically exciting quest, a spiritual quest. I would say --- Be in awe that you are an aware part of everything. We are, at least in a small way, the consciousness of the universe. And, if there is awareness after death, a consciousness of a realm we know nothing about yet, or maybe just a different consciousness of the universe we now inhabit. How cool. I'm excited. Glad I live today and not in any time/place that let religion block thought.

I'm on your page, but in the opposite sense. I'm from an average religious background and was educated in religious run schools. Religion was taught in religion class, and evolution, big bang,etc. were taught in science class (mostly by clerics). Didn't faze anyone. Now I'm agnostic, but appreciate the big bang 'theory' as our best grasp of the start of the universe. What is really cool is that humans can tackle such concepts, especially the weirdness of quantum physics. I don't know that a god gave us the intellect to think/understand like this, because I don't know that there is a god. No proof either way. Just philosophical leanings. I do think that all human gods are of necessity anthropomorphic, which makes them suspect, especially with no factual evidence.

Hi Derek, With regard to pilot qualifications re flying skydivers: You are right. In the US the FAA makes the rules. And, of course, if one is caught breaking them there can be penalties. The further question, though, is are the rules appropriate or not? Are the FAA requirements too lax, just right, or too stringent? The FAA requires a Private Pilots license in order to be legal when flying skydivers. Is this enough? The FAA believes that it is. What do you think? I would hazard that some jump flying specific training would be appropriate. If so, should this be regulated, and how? Do we want the FAA involved, or do we want to keep this in house? Bear in mind that the FAA civil servants are generally not skydivers, not jump pilots, and not DZOs. Do we want these bureaucrats to formulate a jump pilot training program? Maybe so. Maybe the FAA in conjunction with the USPA should develop a training program? What do you think? Now going further. When money enters the picture, i.e. skydivers pay for the ride up, the rules change. The pilot must have a Commercial License. There is still no requirement for specific jump pilot training. Questions. Is this rule too lax, just right, or too stringent? And should the introduction of money make a difference? In a club type DZ, skydivers paying for their jumps hardly makes the operation 'commercial'. A non club DZ could also argue that regular jumpers are break even financially at best. Again, hardly a 'commercial' scenario. (I am talking about Cessna DZs, though turbine DZs could maybe make the same case.) And so to the general public. First time jumpers! The real commercial end of things. What is the appropriate license? Private, commercial, or ATP? I'm just asking. As in my last post, other countries have different pilot license requirements. They have a different 'line' then the FAA 'line'. Yet there does not seem to be any great difference in the results. People still commit skydiving. Planes still fly. Pilots do good, and then sometimes screw up. Planes sometimes crash. People sometimes die. Same as here. Could we do better? Sure! WRT my 'choice' question. Presented because of a specific scenario I am familiar with. Some very experienced old-time jump pilots with Private licenses are going to be barred from flying jumpers. Some have neither the time nor money to get Commercial licenses. (And these pilots do not get paid for flying.) Some have virtually no chance of passing the written tests. These writtens make the FAA tests look like a kindergarten joke. No multiple choice take a chance there. And these tests are totally geared towards airline type flying; almost nothing relevant to VFR day jump flying. But the new laws must be followed. I suppose to make it safer. So my 'choice' maybe makes no sense, but in this case it is a real 'choice' taken from real life. Really. I would prefer 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', but politicians and bureaucrats hate that concept. Every jump pilot has to fly his/her first load. You have to start somewhere. Other things being equal, a pilot with a Commercial should be better than one with a Private; and more hours should mean better also. But often it is not so. In my experience, quality of pilot has little to do with type of license, and sometimes even the number of hours flown. Same with skydiving ratings. And jump numbers. Sometimes you wonder. So I come back to jump flying specific training as maybe the best way to go. (Which of course happens informally, with varying results.) Just my opinion. See you in the sky.

One reason, possibly the main one, for DZs to pay to be in the Group Member 'program' has to do with aircraft insurance. Falcon Insurance is the only provider. Their underwriter requires that a DZ be a Group Member, otherwise no aircraft insurance! No insurance, apart from the financial risk, mostly means no public airport access. Bullshit, of course, as being a Group Member guarantees nothing. Most jump plane crashes happen at Group Member DZs. You could say it is required. (Most airports require $1,000,000 liability coverage, with the airport and city/owner named. The liability coverage for C-182s, C-206s, etc. only provides $300,000 coverage. I suppose most airport owners overlook this.) It would probably be best if small DZs tried to get rid of the Group Member program, then the underwriter could not require this, and the money saved could be used for something worthwhile like aircraft maintenance. Pilot license requirements: The FAA regulations require that a pilot holds a Private Pilot's license, with a current 3rd class medical in order to fly skydivers. That's it. (Same for towing gliders, except here an authorized instructor must endorse the pilot's logbook certifying required ground and flight training. Might be a case made for similar for jump flying?) Anyway, this is deemed sufficient. Should this be? Is this safe enough? Should the FAA be more concerned? If money enters the picture, then the flying falls under commercial rules, and a commercial license is required. Period! The real question now is why? Does this make sense? Does it make it safer? Should the FAA be concerned? Maybe this is what the discussion should be about. Other countries have different rules. Some European countries do not require a commercial license. DZs have operated there for 50 years with similar safety statistics as the USA. Unfortunately the EU bureaucrats are now mandating that all EU member states follow the most stringent regulations, vis. now all jump pilots must have a commercial license. This includes experienced jump pilots, some with decades of jump flying. And getting a commercial license in Europe is a lot more difficult than in the US, and very much more expensive. You visit Europe. Who would you rather have fly the jump plane? The PPL with 30 years experience, who really does not want to go through the hassle and expense of getting a commercial, or a 20-something fresh commercial pilot who needs hours? TANSTAAFL

It's really pretty simple. If you can afford a big SUV you can afford the gas, no matter what it costs. And if you can afford all that, you can afford to own shares in oil companies, so you can get the kick-back of dividends and share price increase. At least a wash, and maybe profit. And it will pay to burn up finite oil at an excessive rate because it will put poorer people off the road, and definitely stop poor nations using what could be enjoyed in the developed world. Result: more oil for those who can afford to pay. And less traffic on the roads, so there is a fuel saving. (Stop and go is a real killer on fuel economy.) Now if we could just get out of Iraq we could use the military to get rid of Chavez. I mean, who does he think he is, wanting to keep most of the profits for his country? Pure chance that his country sits on huge deposits of oil. It doesn't mean it belongs to them. The oil companies can't be pushed aside. They have the ears of our politicians. And they can pay them off well. Our oil companies. Remember, you own shares in them, don't you? (I presume you own shares in many of the military-industrial corporations, also. Don't miss out.) And it's a whole lot closer than Iraq. Nice climate, too. Good place for a vacation home. And if we can stop the locals from getting a share of the oil, we can have affordable wages. I'm sure they would be happy at maybe $1/hr. Maybe less. Damn it. I don't know what to do about jump prices. Maybe we can get a government subsidy for fuel. Oh, I forgot. I own oil company shares. Well, actually, I meant to buy some a while ago, but I didn't, and now I can't afford to. Guess I better get a tandem rating. Or base. Got to be some decent antennae within walking distance -------

Itllclear, I'm usually pretty comfortable in aircraft, though a fresh jump pilot can sometimes be interesting. After they are through a basic check-out and are flying loads, stuff not critical to safety on any particular flight means bite your tongue and wait to de-brief on the ground. I can get antsy, mostly trying to get into their heads, trying to figure them out, judging if they trying to learn and improve, and judging if they will handle situations if and when they occur. Got to give them some room to be responsible. When I'm flying myself, sure, I'm comfortable, but I also fly scared. (Not really the right word, but close. Healthy respect, yes, but that is probably not strong enough.) I put a lot of effort into covering my ass, with regard to as many negative scenarios as I can imagine for any particular flight. I like to be prepared. Minor example: I dislike anr headsets. I much prefer hearing my engine. By the way, I love flying. I've had my share of shit over the years. Couple of control issues --- ass pucker time. One engine failure. No sweat, 7,000' near the airport. 1,000hrs on the engine, internal failure --- lifter housing cracked off. Electrical short --- smell of burnt wiring, real ass pucker time. One crash, not skydiving related. Aircraft was demolished. Really, really demolished. Ended inverted in a gully with the cockpit crushed. I was the right seat, the owner/operator/week-end warrior was in the left. He tried his best to kill us, I managed a little corrective input, but still very fortunate to survive. Hell of a ride, though. I'd definitely go again if I had a survival guarantee. It's been fun, and I still have a lot of flying to do. Blue Skies

Hey Sttucker13, Sounds like you are in a great place in your skydiving career. As Itdiver comments, sticking with it is cool. Although I assume you are addicted so sticking is a given. Go with the flow re training at your DZ. Whatever interpretation, well, so be it. While the A license is a worthwhile goal, what is most important for you is that you are jumping. Your first dozens of jumps overall will most likely be your most memorable, most challenging, most satisfying, most mind expanding. Cherish them all. (Not a bad idea to make your log book into more of a scrap book, including thoughts, comments, photos, etc. You can only do each jump once, but memories can be forever.) I would pay a lot to re-live my first year/ first 60 jumps. Even including so very many week-ends at the DZ grounded by weather. Blue skies

Hi JohanW, Sounds like you are a skydiver. Jump numbers are a crude, but maybe necessary yardstick. Proficiency card is pretty good. The latest iteration of the USPA ISP is overall a lot better than what was there before. I always figured the goal, no matter what training method/combination of training methods, is to produce a novice jumper who is able to take care of himself/herself, not be a hazard to anyone else, and absolutely realize that learning never ceases. Who is a skydiver? A very good friend, different country, different time, just could not hack freefall. Loved flinging himself from a plane, though. He was THE MAN in the military for rigging, and also in the sport world. Had hundreds of jumps, mostly civilian on s/l rounds, some square, some other. He would jump anything so long as the rope was there. He did a few clear and pulls, and a couple of harness hold jumps, but freefall was not for him. Unique? Somewhat. But most definitely a skydiver, as anyone there would insist. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck ------ quack!

What a fun thread. It really deserves lubrication with lots of beers. (With all due respect to Sstucker13.) Lets see ---- So you do a s/l, but you have a mal, and the rsl fails --- The group Mister Bills with the large s/l cargo 'chute --- I'd love to do that --- ( and is it r/w if you hold hands?) And what about those poor WW2 Russian s.o.b.s that sat in straw lined boxes and got chucked into snow drifts. The WW2 tail gunner. He absolutely intended to jump. The aircraft was on fire. So was his parachute when he went to get it. He jumped anyway from the best part of 18,000'. Survived with only a broken arm. The Germans were very impressed. And what is "an aircraft in flight"? Can I log the jump if the aircraft was stalled when I left? Do rockets count? What about kites? Base jump holding a paper 'plane? Remember to let it go before pitching or it's not a skydive. I know. We need the FAA to help figure this out.

I read the forums but seldom post as I feel frustrated by the poor understanding shown by most contributors. A "reply" would often need an essay to try and clarify/agree on basic (and not so basic) facts. And then so often individuals have their own agenda which may not allow valid, practical resolutions/solutions. This topic is a very important one, and thankfully most of the bulls**t is missing. Just on one element --- pilot quality. When a wannabe jump pilot arrives I expect that they can basically fly. They have a few hundred hours and a commercial, right? Trained by FAA qualified instructors and passed by FAA examiners. All the requirements met, all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Regulations have been followed and the bureaucrats are happy. In my real world I politely allow way more than half these aircraft drivers to try somewhere else. Generally: they have a vague understanding of aerodynamics, so I am concerned about their ability to remain in control of an aircraft, especially if shit happens, and especially in that they can be the cause of shit happening; almost no understanding of engines, so I cringe at the financial risk, and most especially the safety risk; and, skipping lots of other things, their attitudes, probably the most critical area. So many are bulletproof. Nothing bad can ever happen, so who needs to be aware, who needs to operate in a manner that minimizes risk? And those pretty terms such as situational awareness, resource management, decision making --- well, they are pretty terms, but to so many that is all they are, something in a book. And so many know just about all there is to know about flying light aircraft, and not in a superior way, just that they have a commercial, and they have been trained. They do not know how much they do not know, and they really don't feel this in their gut. I do. So, while it might be possible to change their mindsets, I don't have the time. Happily there are enough others. They want to fly. They want to learn. They want to improve, to study, to practice, to ask, to listen, to THINK, to challenge themselves. As an industry, how can we produce better pilots? At least start with pilots who have open, questioning minds. More regulation? Well, the FAA is already doing a great job in supplying me with pilots I cannot in good conscience use. 'Nuff for now.

Slightly off topic, but similar. And apologies if I am politically incorrect. A couple in their 30's came to the D.Z. Both pretty scraggy looking. Husband thin and scrawny. Wife very unappealing. Anyway, she did a first tandem jump. Jump done, they left. Thirty minutes later he returned, foaming at the mouth, yelling, aggressive ---- His wife had been sexually molested by the TM! Whatever on the day, but by the start of the week there were lawyers involved, and informational/threatening letters sent to the airport manager, the city, USPA, the gear manufacturer, etc. Knee-jerk reaction by the manufacturer --- the (fulltime) TM's rating was pulled, without any investigation. There were plenty of witnesses against the student, and an extensive video of the airplane ride, the freefall and most of the canopy ride from pretty close range. Nothing untoward happened. Lots of ado for the next 4-6 weeks, and then it all went away. The husband related that his wife thought he was playing around, so she made up the story to make him jealous. So I suppose allegations need to be looked into, but from every end; and evidence is crucial, though lack of same may still leave questions. Sometimes unfortunately a can of worms. By the way, the woman suffered no repercussions. LOLQuote

Blue Skies, Gus. My thoughts are with the entire family at Deland. Bill, know that you have the support of everyone that knows you, Gus included. Des