Andy9o8

I agree with your interpretation of para. (a)(3) - but that said, it's poorly drafted, because it arguably leaves the definition of "occupant" ambiguous. IMO, to avoid this ambiguity, it should say something like (for example) "...each occupant, exclusive of required minimum flight crew who are required to use supplemental oxygen, is provided..."

Um, no. But just the opposite of that is true, so you were close. (OK, back to just lurking.)

This is an old memory from the 1970's when we were all trained on 1 & 1/2 shots... I seem to vaguely recall one of the old hands back then saying that it was intended as a safety measure to guard against an immediate riser release in case a cover was inadvertently flipped open. But don't quote me on that...

Generally from Chicago to LA, you should find these: St. Louis and Joplin in Missouri; Oklahoma City; Amarillo TX; Gallup, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Winona and Kingman in Arizona; Barstow and San Bernardino in California.

Yes because we let our students take cellphones on jumps for this exact purpose. More likely the student was a douche nozzle, and despite being told to empty their pockets fully they snuck their phone on to the jump and pulled it out unannounced and unplanned. Would the pilot be in jeopardy of an enforcement action/lawsuit if the phone was dropped and caused injury/damage? "It Depends." (stock answer to just about any legal question, thanks Prof Schaefer) If the DZ has a policy of "empty your pockets, no phones or cameras on the jump", and this "douche nozzle" student violated that policy and snuck the phone on the jump, then probably not. Most lawyers would probably answer: Would the pilot, as well as the TM, the DZO, the S&TA, and the airport owner all be at risk of a lawsuit or enforcement action - even with the best "policy" possible in place? Absolutely yes, because, as the saying goes, "In the US, you can sue anyone for anything. But that doesn't mean you'll necessarily win." Now then: Might they have viable defenses that might eventually get them off the hook? Maybe, maybe not, but even if so, only after a long, aggravating process (maybe multiple processes), and only after spending many thousands of dollars in (often un-recoverable) legal fees. Are the pilot, TM, DZO, etc guaranteed to win based on that defense? No. Why not? Well, if such an incident did occur it arguably means that they failed to search the student well enough pre-jump to effectively enforce their strict policy. (Unless it's stuck up the student's asshole. Or worse.) And for the DZO, even if he wins the case(s), it might still give him future trouble obtaining affordable insurance, and/or it might provoke hostile airport access opposition.

Don't count too hard on that hope. Google the almost identical shit Archbishop Chaput has done in the last 2 dioceses he's run.. He's still doing it, but the boss isn't telling him to back off and be s human being. Mark my words,- these thugs are just marking time until Francis flames out.

I'm getting it too Samsung android Pls fix this, guys

Oh, them. That's the local Chamber of Commerce.

This is the best Fuck You thread I've seen in a long time.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more! Wait, what am I angry about again?

Ooh!! Canadian cat fight! With the ultimate beat-down! Go, bitches, go!

Go for it, man. Remember, I'm some guy on the Internet, so it must be true!

Does your DZ offer tandem jumps? If so, there's no shame in making a tandem jump now, so you'll have nothing to do on the jump but float there and let your brain acclimate to freefall, and then the TI even takes care of flying and landing the canopy. Other students have done that during AFF for exactly the same reason; you can, too. Give it a thought.

Hopefully you and your instructors will hit it off with each other better for your next jump. That said, being a new skydiving student is stressful enough without personalities adding to it. And it works both ways - sometimes instructors aren't as patient as they might be, but sometimes certain students can have particularly "needy" personalities, too. Each can be tough for the other person to deal with. None of us were there at your DZ to see it and judge for ourselves. Every person has his own personality, and every DZ has its own culture and vibe. Sometimes new students quit the sport because of personality or culture issues, when maybe all they needed was a "change of scenery" to stick with it. If you have the same trouble clicking with your instructors the next couple of jumps - whether it's them, or it's you - maybe you might consider switching either to different instructors or to a different DZ. ====== P.S. - huge sensory overload, especially on one's first jump, is very normal. My first jump was a static line jump. I remember the jumpmaster saying "Go!", then I remember a fully-inflated canopy over my head. The 5 seconds in between are a complete blank. Very normal.

Yeah, really. Pretty easily, really. First, explain how Saddam was the belligerent. That's pretty self explanatory, I don't know how to make the question any clearer. Second, find some posts on here with people saying that Saddam wasn't that bad a guy. It should be easy, if you're not making it up. The belligerent, or a belligerent? From what I gather, he was pretty belligerent. Kind of a dick, even.