ghost47

I believe a horseshoe malfunction is when the closing pin is pulled (or the closing loop breaks), but the pilot chute is still in its pouch. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ-F4wXH7vg at 0:18.

I think the difference is that in other things, you don't need the most experienced people teaching you first, because not mastering the basics won't kill you as easily. So, say you were teaching race car driving to someone who doesn't know how to drive. There would be two stages: First, the student just needs someone to show him the basics of driving: how to accelerate slowly, break smoothly, change lanes, etc. As long as the student starts off slow, and somewhere like a parking lot, mistakes are rarely going to cause injuries or death. Then, as the student is able to drive around without much issue, and things like looking over his shoulder before he changes lanes becomes second nature, a more experienced and skilled teacher can show him how to take turns faster, how to use different gears, etc. So you go from reasonably knowledgeable teacher to very knowledgeable teacher. In skydiving, however, there are three stages: the two stages described above still happen, but first there is the "how not to kill yourself" stage. For the first phase of your skydiving career, you know nothing. You don't know what will kill you, or what is just an annoyance. You don't know what to do when things go wrong. And neither you nor your instructors know how you'll perform in the air -- will you flail around? Will you remember to pull? Will you go into a head down position all of a sudden? So you want the most knowledgeable, most experienced people training and jumping with you. When things go wrong, they can help you save your life, or save your life for you. Also, they may notice little things that a coach might not, and correct them before they kill you. When you get off AFF, the second phase begins, which is similar to the first phase described above for race car driving. You should know how to fall stable (more or less), how to pull, how to land. You don't need those extremely experienced, knowledgeable people anymore to hold your hand, because you can do the basics. Enter coaches who can teach you other skills besides those necessary to keep you alive. They may not be as skilled as AFF-Is, but they don't need to be. They can teach you stuff like tracking, taking docks, controlling your fall rate. Then, as you get better and better, you move into the third phase, similar to the second phase of learning to drive a race car -- you can be coached by the more knowledgeable coaches out there, those who have thousands instead of hundreds of jumps, who have competed and won gold medals. They can fine-tune things like your body position, teach you what to think about when you're putting out a 4-way chunk, things like that. Right now, at 7 jumps, you've only experienced the first two phases. If you continue in skydiving, and continue to get coaching, think about this again about 150 jumps later, and see if you still think the same way.

I have no good medical information regarding what the heightened risks are for you. But (while I don't have video), I did want to mention that over a year ago, I had a hard enough opening to compress a vertebra. Prior to that incident, I had no known spinal injuries. So hard openings are definitely nothing to sneeze at.

My new Tony Suit cost me something like $400 a couple years ago. Skydive = approximately $25. 16 skydives = approximately $400. Don't skydive for one or two months. (Or just make one or two jumps to keep current.) Boom, new suit money. Sky is still there when you get back. And a custom suit will (hopefully) fit you perfectly.

While it may not be on an A license card, if you don't know how to PLF, I certainly hope an AFFI wouldn't even let you make that first jump.

Um, ya. That was sorta the point of my post . . .

I assume you realize that the USPA does not have hard and fast rules for many things which are very dangerous. For example, post-A license, at jump 26, if the winds are gusting at 30mph, and changing direction every 5 seconds, there is no hard and fast rule that you cannot jump. I've flown a 190 for the past 350 jumps or so -- I could, theoretically, buy a 135 tomorrow and be jumping it this weekend. No rule against that. Each of these things is, I believe, more dangerous than wearing a camera at 60 jumps. Yet there is no hard and fast rule against them. So any line of thought that goes: "well, if it were that dangerous, the USPA would have made a rule against it", I do not think will serve you well in this sport.

Have you felt any difference in whether the opening was harder or softer? Or has it been the same?

Can you (or someone) explain what you mean by this? I do see that packing with the lines to the back pad (I assume what you mean by this is a 90 degree rotation from what you're doing now) is not what Vector recommends, but I don't understand how it puts a greater amount of stress on the closing loop, and am not sure what you mean that it exposes the closing grommets. Thanks!

Though this is the Bonfire, I'm going to give a slightly different response: This is YOUR decision, guineapiggie, and yours alone. Do not let anyone pressure you into going back, with the siren call of how close you may have been to getting a license, or how much you've accomplished. Both things are true, but it's also true that your next jump may kill or maim you. I was out over six months because of an injury to my spine. I chose to return. And I'm glad I did. But I realize, now more than ever, how one little thing can leave a person dead, paralyzed, brain damaged, or a host of other things. Obviously I think the risk is worth it, because I still jump. But that's a decision you need to make for yourself, eyes wide open. Which it sounds like you are. But you'll probably get (and have already gotten) a lot of cheerleading to get back into the air. Ignore them. Make your own decision based on a rational assessment of your experiences, your own abilities, and the joy you get from being in the air. Good luck!

I'm going to have to question that a bit. In the beginning, yes. Gunslinger, Drawing of the Three, Wastelands. I felt it started going downhill in book four. And, can you really be happy about the ending to the series? (I do recognize that he sort of wrote himself into a corner -- when you characterize the Dark Tower as the nexus of all existence, and leave vague what happens when Roland gets there, there's an almost inevitable letdown when he DOES get there.) I think the problem with Stephen King these days can be summed up by reading From a Buick 8. There is no more rhyme or reason to his stories -- things just happen. Characters just know things, because they feel true. Even his short stories feel that way.

Bravo. To me, this is a very important lesson, perhaps even as important as knowing when to cut away. You're right, no one likes to admit that they fucked up, and skydivers have egos just like everyone else. But the ability to admit that what you did was not ideal, to learn from that and change your ways, to accept the information given by more knowledgeable jumpers -- that will serve you very well in your new sport.

The reason is because of the waiver that jumpers sign. We all know the waiver makes us waive all negligence of anyone at the DZ. The DZ also knows that, in spite of the waivers, it will probably be sued. So it wants to make those waivers as bulletproof as possible. In certain states, such as California, one way to invalidate a waiver is to claim that the waiver is against public policy. If a waiver of your right to sue over negligence is found to be against public policy, a California court will likely invalidate it and let you sue. (An example is, if you had to sign an agreement to waive your right to sue negligent doctors just to gain admission to a hospital, a California court likely would not uphold that waiver.) One issue regarding whether a waiver is against public policy is whether what you do has any sort of redeeming social value. So the DZ is trying to make it harder for you to make that argument, because when you sign the waiver, you agree that what you're doing has no redeeming social value. So it makes it a little harder to argue later that you suddenly DO think it has redeeming social value (not impossible, just harder).

The AAD was perfectly functional. The closing loop was improperly rigged. All of this boils down to a very simple difference of premises: What is the function of the AAD? 1. The function of the AAD is to fire when it's at a certain altitude and speed. (Yes, I know it's pressure, this is a short-cut analogy.) 2. The function of the AAD is to cut the reserve closing loop when it's at a certain altitude and speed as long as it's installed in the rig in some way where it's not readily apparent that it's installed improperly. If you believe 1, then the AAD functioned perfectly. If you believe 2, then the AAD did not function at all. Most skydivers (myself included) believe 1. Some apparently believe 2. But until you convince the person in the other camp to switch premises, you are never going to convince them that you are right.

Robert Blake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZLQW2qr5Hs Skip to 2:18 if you are impatient

I think a better analogy is, let's say you're planning a big party. You hire a catering company, the vans are loaded and ready to go, and it rains, so THE CATERING COMPANY cancels, because their vans cannot drive through the rain. Should they give you back the money?

Of course. But you know what's more of a pain? Eight months, because you need ankle surgery.

CAN you? Probably. Is it a good idea at your level (and will instructors even let you)? Probably not. The problem probably isn't the soft cast (though I don't know what it looks like -- will it withstand 120 mph winds? Will it unravel? If it does, will it tangle with stuff?). The problem is you're injured. What happens when someone steps on your foot in the plane? When there's a mess out the door and your foot kicks the plane or one of your instructors? What happens if you don't flare right and land, hard, on your hurt foot? You might decide it's worth the risk if your doctor told you your foot would never get better. But you've been given a timeframe -- two months. That seems like a long time, but it's really not. Yes, you're likely going to have to be repeat everything. But hopefully it will go smoother this time, because you can draw on your previous experiences. So, deep breath, get it in your mind that you're not jumping for another two months, and then learn what you can on the ground. The sky will be there when you return.

I think the reason that Skyride has such a bad rep is that they try to screw over other DZs in a dishonest way. It would be the equivalent of me ordering a Sabre 2 190 from PD, having them take my money, and then tell me, we don't actually have a Sabre 2 190, we've got a Spectre 170, here you go. And when I say, wait, that's not what I paid for, they would say too bad, and refuse to give me my money back. I'm a relative newbie in the sport, so maybe other companies do this too. But Skyride is the only one I'm aware of.

Watch Firefly!

I don't want to argue about it. But I wouldn't mind discussing it. So it depends on what you mean, and how we discuss it, I guess. It appears that what you are saying is that it is NOT okay to lie to car rental companies, because you have lots of choices, and one of the choices is bound to fit your needs. But it IS okay to lie to health insurance companies, because it might be too difficult, or too expensive, to get health insurance that covers skydiving. Additionally, you appear to be saying that health insurance companies should be forced to cover all people doing all activities, and that they should not be allowed to exclude things, or charge significantly higher rates for people who engage in higher risk activities. If I have misunderstood, please correct me. So let me ask you this: 1. Can a car insurance company charge a person who has had several speeding tickets more than it charges someone who has not? 2. Can a home or renter's insurance company charge a person more if their home is in a high-crime area? 3. Can a life insurance company charge a first time buyer who is old and dying a higher premium than a first time buyer who is young and healthy? In other words, can an insurance company take risk into account when figuring out premiums? Let me further ask this: Say your teenager gets his license and wants to drive. Your insurer says, okay, but the premiums are going to triple. Why, you ask? Because teenage boys are more prone to get into accidents, he says. So either agree that he won't drive your car, or you'll need to triple your premiums. But I don't have enough money to pay triple, but I want my kid to drive, you say. He likes it, and I want him to be happy. Well, those are your choices, the insurer says. You're welcome to check around, but I assure you, everyone charges a lot for teenage boys. Would it be right to agree that your kid won't drive the car so your premium stays low, and then, when your kid drives and gets into an accident, you switch seats and say you were driving? If that is okay, why? If it's not, why not, and how is it different than lying to your health insurer about how you got hurt?

So, say you have a car you want to rent out to people. If they want to drive it around town, you charge them $20 a day. If they want to drive it out of town, you charge them $30 a day. If they want to drive it out of state, you charge them $40 a day. If they want to drive to Mexico, you tell them, no deal, you can't rent my car. Because if something goes wrong with the car in town, it's easier to deal with. Out of town, a little harder. Out of state, a little harder still. Out of the country, a nightmare. So you want to be compensated extra for the extra risks, or in some cases, don't want to incur the risk at all. That okay? If so, why are you restricting your renters' perfectly legal activities? Some company has a health insurance plan. They make you a deal: pay us $100 a month, and if you get hurt doing anything except for X, Y, and Z, we'll pay for your medical bills up to $100,000. You can say, that's ridiculous, I refuse to give you $100 if you won't let me do X, Y, and Z. In which case maybe they say, okay, give me $250 a month, and you can do X, Y, and Z. Or maybe they say, okay, well, thanks for looking, but looks like we don't agree on terms, so don't pay me, and I won't cover you. But why is it right to say okay, I agree to your terms, and then lie about doing X, Y, or Z?

Ah, I see. But if the student or whoever else were unconscious, would you pull reserve, even if the main and reserve were equally docile?

How come? It seems to me that in the situation where a jumper is unconscious and you're in a position to either pull main or reserve, the point is to pull the handle that is most likely to result in a greater chance of survival. So the way I see it is: If you pull the main, say 98% of the time it deploys fine, 2% of the time it doesn't. Say further that in that 2%, half the time (1%) the jumper wakes up, and takes the appropriate action and half the time (s)he doesn't (1%). So that means 99% of the time, when you pull the main, things work out. 1% of the time (call that X) it doesn't work out. If you pull the reserve, say 99.5% of the time it deploys fine. 0.5% of the time (call that Y) it doesn't. So if X is greater than Y (i.e. pulling main is likelier to mess up than pulling reserve), then you pull reserve. If Y is greater than X (i.e. pulling reserve is likelier to mess up than pulling main), you pull main. Now, obviously I made all those numbers up, but being that: X is the chance of the main messing up AND the jumper not waking up to cut away and pull reserve and: Y is the chance of the reserve not deploying correctly, it would seem to me that X is greater than Y, and therefore one should pull reserve. Or am I missing something?

This is not a zero sum game. I agree that it would be great if more experienced skydivers were nicer or more positive in their presentations. As a newer skydiver, I appreciate it much better when someone says, "Hey, I saw that last thing you did, and maybe you want to consider doing this other thing instead, because if X happens, you may find yourself in a lot of trouble." rather than "Hey asshole, that last idiot thing you did is going to kill you or kill me. Shape up or get out of my sport." But on the flipside, I'd hope that no matter how the advice is given to me, I'd think about it and consider it and not discount it just because it wasn't given to me nicely. Ultimately, facts are facts, good advice is good advice, and the ground doesn't care whether the advice was delivered nicely or not, the ground will kill me either way. So I'd say the takeaway is twofold: experienced jumpers -- if you're nicer, your message might get through better. Less experienced jumpers -- try to listen to the content of the message, not the delivery.