LyraM45

I don't think he was trying to argue that people don't like to watch wingsuits, because they obviously do-- just as they like to watch the Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, Snowbirds, Red Arrows, etc. And yes, I'm sure there is a high demand for pilots to join those teams as I am sure there is a high demand for wingsuit pilots who want to make a sponsored team or some other bad ass team, but that is totally besides his point. I'm not a wingsuiter but I'm going to chime in on Simon's back here-- I have to agree with him somewhat on this. I've been stalking these "grid" threads for a while and vicariously through Matt living the "record" jumps and all. To go a little OT and get in to my opinion real quick on the whole grid thing-- there is no possible way to judge it IMO without seeing it in ALL dimensions. Not just one shot from the bottom. Just one shot from the bottom doesn't show if everybody is on level with each other vertically. And what really got me about this years formation is the fact that a few people were 90% of the way out of their grid and yet because they had their fingertips in their grid it counted. Just imagine if every single one of the flyers were 90% out of their grids. The formation would look like crap, right? I think what Simon is saying here is there is no room for stuff like that on an actual record jump. You don't see belly fliers, crew, or freefly record formations with room to look like crap and still get accepted. The formation is already allowed to be flawed and, other disciplines that leave no room for flaw, have a hard time taking that as seriously if you want to consider it just as much a record as theirs without their flaws. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Just a quick question-- what DZ was in the area first? ASC or The Farm?? I'm just asking because if The Farm was around first and coined their website name and registered that name, then I don't see where your argument holds. I'm asking in all honesty because I don't know which DZ was around first. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Oh no!!! I'm about to move to Pleasanton in two weeks!! Been some crappy wx in Houston too, and between all of my tooth problems and wx I haven't gotten a jump in since November. But somebody already stated what I was doing to say-- at least there is a tunnel in the area out there. I can't wait to get back on some tunnel crack. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Awesome!! If you look in my profile pictures you'll see my colors-- keep an eye out for me and if I'm out in Lodi that time in Feb we'll have to get a jump in together... or go hit the tunnel. I love me some tunnel crack!!

Yes, camping WILL be allowed. Also, I checked with the Hyatt. I got a rate for $165.00 a night with continental breakfast included, free water and soda, free parking and no hidden fees. There are 20 rooms available. I will post the contact info soon cause the manager of the hotel asked for a meeting before giving this rate out. It was 220 a night and she lowered the rate to $165.00. This is one of the nicest hotels around the Dorado area, if not, the second best in Dorado. The best being the embassy suites. Let me know if anyone is interested, send me a PM. I got a studio room at the Hyatt for avg $153 per night at the normal web rate. It has one bed and one fold out sofa bed. Still a little more than I'd like to spend, but at least it was easy to do. I called several of the numbers in this thread and got no reply and at one of them somebody kept picking up the phone and not saying anything. At least the Hyatt is easy to deal with, even if it is a class up from my usual accommodations. I would say its 50 classes up from our accomodations last year-- and now you're at the Hyatt when I'm not going!! WTF?? I see how it is.... Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I wanted to bump this and say thanks to every one who gave me a heads up on what all of my work was going to be like. I'm still waiting on one more permanent crown to come in and my wisdom teeth are coming out on Tuesday. After the suggestions here and from a few other friends I am getting put out, so hopefully that all goes well. Anywho-- thanks again guys!!

If I remember correctly there was a girl I once met who was not a small woman and she told me they had her under a tandem size canopy for her AFF. I don't know for sure if that was true or even if it's actually doable since that is way outside of my area of knowledge, but check into it just in case-- worst case scenario you are right back to square one wondering how you're going to get going. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

If you are looking to have a crowd to do fun jumps and hang out afterwards for bonfire, beer, and food, then I would head up to Skydive Houston..... definitely more fun jumpers out there. Majority of my visits to Spaceland I was one of the very few fun jumpers even there-- the rest were teams and students. Might be different now since I haven't been there in 8 months, but that was the jist when I was there. Just my .02 Cali would also offer a few different things that you wouldn't have in TX-- if it's crappy weather you can always head over and fly in the tunnel (same for SoCal and AZ), and in Cali you can always do other things in the area like catch some good waves, do some hiking, wine tasting, and just take in the beautiful area around there. I'm about to move to the bay area at the end of the month so I'll be exploring my new home DZ of Lodi myself! Maybe I'll see you around if you are up that way.

I've done a huge chunk of work/study on SWA for my masters degree. Years ago I despised them. I hated being hurded into that huge group like sheep into the free for all boarding; having to stand up for hours before your flight to make sure you're first in line for a good seat. Now, my opinion is changed and has changed even more for the better after my research into the company for a business aviation class I took last year. SWA believes the success of their business hinges on their employees. By making a happy work place for people to look forward to coming to will in turn create happy customers when they meet the gate or flight attendant who has a big smile on their face and obviously like the job they're doing. Being in a good mood is sometimes contagious. They realize that they are in the people business, not the airline business. Their slogan they started off with was about fun, even from day one when they were founded in the late 60's-- "We'll get you from point A to point B and make sure you have a darn good time doing it." It's why their employees are more casually dressed, and can even be found rapping or making jokes during your preflight brief before you take off. They also are smart with their business model. They don't have to route each flight through a hub, wasting fuel and time. Instead they use a point to point route system that allows them to maximize profits off of one single trip, like when they make a quick stop to let some passengers off and pick up others before departing again. They use Boeing 737's that are work horses and don't require as much maitenance as some other aircraft models. They are also some of the more fuel efficient planes and are great for non long haul trips that they do. Their quick t urn around times (about 15 minutes) also keep's the props turning and profits coming in. They were also VERY smart in hedging their fuel at market prices from the early 2000's. All of these things has made it possible for them to be the ONLY airline to turn a profit consecutively for the past 30 years, hence why you do not have to pay for your baggage with SWA. They are not bleeding money, in the red, and scrambling for every dime they can like other airlines that are looking to charge you for going to the bathroom so they can get their business out of the hole they are in. Why fly SWA? Like I stated above I love the fact that they are in the people business and not the airline business. Employees are usually easy going and comical. I don't have to pay for my bags, and I like supporting a company that believes their success starts with their employees and goes out of their way to make sure they are happy. (I hear google has the same mentality... bravo for them!) Sorry for the long post, but I have a lot of info in my head about SWA since I've done so much research on them. OK, I'm done my little southwest rant now. PS-- edited to add. The reason some of their flight attendants have such great personalities is because their HR "hires for personality and trains for skill." You can teach somebody to hand out peanuts or do emergency procedures, but you can't take a very quiet uncofident person and teach them how to have a personality. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect. So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays?? Ask Matt, it's his analogy, not mine. I've explained why it is a poor analogy. This has nothing to do with his analogy and has everything to do with your answer as to WHY it was a bad analogy. You said the reason it was bad was because "nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks." So, with that reasoning you're saying that gays are denied marriage in the U.S constitution. I'd like you to link me to the section that says gays aren't allowed to marry. I don't think it's in there, which makes your reasoning wrong because BOTH of those things aren't in there, making them EQUAL and useful for an analogy. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect. So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays?? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

See.... this is where you are both right and wrong. Yes, marriage has been around for centuries and has been used to describe something that is not a homosexual relationship and you are correct in that statement IF YOU ARE USING IT RELIGIOUSLY. In legal standards it describes a union between two people who are now LEGALLY married-- not religiously married. So, in legal standards it still means the same thing. NOTHING has changed or will be changed and the only thing we care about here is how it applies to law (which technically separation of church and state should provide that this should be a non issue when it comes to law). Let the churches do whatever they want with it. They don't have to let gays marry in their church, but as long as it's LEGALLY recognized, then there are no issues I think. Changing the established meaning of words to achieve a goal, however worthy, is inappropriate. As you correctly point out, the trouble started when governments got into the marriage business. Yes, I agree that the government should just get out of the marrying business all together, but unfortunately it's not going to happen and we need to concentrate on improving something that is here to stay. Again, with "established" definition..... You are assuming there is only one established definition, and as I've already said, there is an established legal definition: "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife," and an established religious definition: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." It is a social instituion, established by the church, so let the church keep doing what they're doing and let the legal definition keep doing what they're doing and utilize the same word since it is in fact established to cover both meanings. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

See.... this is where you are both right and wrong. Yes, marriage has been around for centuries and has been used to describe something that is not a homosexual relationship and you are correct in that statement IF YOU ARE USING IT RELIGIOUSLY. In legal standards it describes a union between two people who are now LEGALLY married-- not religiously married. So, in legal standards it still means the same thing. NOTHING has changed or will be changed and the only thing we care about here is how it applies to law (which technically separation of church and state should provide that this should be a non issue when it comes to law). Let the churches do whatever they want with it. They don't have to let gays marry in their church, but as long as it's LEGALLY recognized, then there are no issues I think. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What's the difference in the water the negroes get from their water fountains? Could be quite a lot, it certainly could be described. Now, how about answering my question. Many insurance companies do not afford the same right to people who are not "married". That, and the whole Negro water thing. Is that something that can be fixed without changing the meaning of a word? We didn't start calling blacks "white" to eliminate discrimination, did we? We don't call women "men" to eliminate gender discrimination. No, we don't and we didn't have to because we made the legal rights equal across the board without having to change anything. We can make equal rights across the board with gays without changing anything, but again like I mentioned above in a previous post, staunch conservatives are going out of their way to make sure their religious belief behind marriage has power as a law. If they weren't doing what they're doing and just let the religion stay out of law, then we too could now be extended the rights to gays just as we did to women without having to call them men. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason. I'm talking about the meaning of an existing word. A word is not a right, so your reply is irrelevant. Here we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. If we arbitrarily allow any group to change the meaning of words to its own liking, then language will become meaningless. It wouldn't have to be changed if bible thumping conservatives insisted on their beliefs having to do with law. I think you're harping on the wrong special interest group, IMO. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

We just got a heads up on this at my work. Funny thing is I'm about to move to San Fran area to forecast with the NWS at the end of the month-- looks like I'll miss out on the fun! Here is an email I got this morning: This is a message from the Dean, College of Natural Science and Mathematics at Cal State Fullerton. Subject: Rainfall coming In some parts of Southern California, a whole seasons worth of rain could fall over the course of 5-10 days. This is what the emergency response community is saying (by way of our county emergency response group): Currently, the strong El Nino is reaching its peak in the Eastern Pacific, and now finally appears to be exerting an influence on our weather. The strong jet has been apparent for quite some time out over the open water, but the persistent block had prevented it from reaching the coast. Now that the block has dissolved completely, a 200+ kt jet is barreling towards us. Multiple large and powerful storm systems are expected to slam into CA from the west and northwest over the coming two weeks, all riding this extremely powerful jet stream directly into the state. The jet will itself provide tremendous dynamic lift, in addition to directing numerous disturbances right at the state and supplying them with an ample oceanic moisture source. The jet will be at quite a low latitude over much of the Pacific, so these storms will be quite cold, at least initially. Very heavy rainfall and strong to potentially very strong winds will impact the lower elevations beginning late Sunday and continuing through at least the following Sunday. This will be the case for the entire state, from (and south of) the Mexican border all the way up to Oregon. Above 3000-4000 feet, precipitation will be all snow, and since temperatures will be unusually cold for a precipitation event of this magnitude, a truly prodigious amount of snowfall is likely to occur in the mountains, possibly measured in the tens of feet in the Sierra after its all said and done. But theres a big and rather threatening caveat to that (discussed below).Individual storm events are going to be hard to time for at least few more days, since this jet is just about as powerful as they come (on this planet, anyway). Between this Sunday and the following Sunday, I expect categorical statewide rainfall totals in excess of 3-4 inches. That is likely to be a huge underestimate for most areas. Much of NorCal is likely to see 5-10 inches in the lowlands, with 10-20 inches in orographically-favored areas. Most of SoCal will see 3-6 inches at lower elevations, with perhaps triple that amount in favored areas. This is where things get even more interesting, though. The models are virtually unanimous in reloading the powerful jet stream and forming an additional persistent kink 2000-3000 miles to our southwest after next Sunday. This is a truly ominous pattern, because it implies the potential for a strong Pineapple-type connection to develop. Indeed, the 12z GFS now shows copious warm rains falling between days 12 and 16 across the entire state. Normally, such as scenario out beyond day seven would be dubious at best. Since the models are in such truly remarkable agreement, however, and because of the extremely high potential impact of such an event, its worth mentioning now. Since there will be a massive volume of freshly-fallen snow (even at relatively low elevations between 3000-5000 feet), even a moderately warm storm event would cause very serious flooding. This situation will have to monitored closely. Even if the tropical connection does not develop, expected rains in the coming 7-10 days will likely be sufficient to cause flooding in and of themselves (even in spite of dry antecedent conditions). In addition to very heavy precipitation, powerful winds may result from very steep pressure gradients associated with the large and deep low pressure centers expect ed to begin approaching the coast by early next week. Though its not clear at the moment just how powerful these winds may be, there is certainly the potential for a widespread damaging wind event at some point, and the high Sierra peaks are likely to see gusts in the 100-200 mph range (since the 200kt jet at 200-300 mb will essentially run directly into the mountains at some point). The details of this will have to be hashed out as the event(s) draw closer. In short, the next 2-3 weeks (at least) are likely to be more active across California than any other 2-3 week period in recent memory. The potential exists for a dangerous flood scenario to arise at some point during this interval, especially with the possibility of a heavy rain-on-snow event during late week 2. In some parts of Southern California, a whole seasons worth of rain could fall over the course of 5-10 days. This is likely to be a rather memorable event. Stay tuned Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I know my fiance made one of his helmet. He bought directions from Wes a few years back and did it from that. I don't know what has happened since Wes's death, if any of his children still have those directions for sale, but you might want to try and get in touch with Matt and see if he knows the latest because I think he had talked to Wes's son about it a few months ago to see if he was still going to keep that going. Maybe he has his info still and you can try to get in touch with him to get directions if you're interested in making one. It is a lot of work, but if you follow the directions you can definitely get the same quality out of the design. You can check out the video from Matt doing his composite and everything on his website: http://matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-videos/ Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Really??? My fiance and I, both scientists, get this deep all the time.... as well as some of our friends (most of which are all scientists) on many many occasions. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

You don't think guys aren't superficial?? I think I almost just fell out of my chair laughing, dude!! The stereotypical guy always wants the blonde skinny cheerleader, size 2, with huge boobs. Definitely don't play the "only girls are superficial" card. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Managers? Managers with the DZO's permission? Almost all of the dropzones I've considered my home over the years has done so. Right now my home DZ is skydive Houston and DZO's there are always having kegs, beer in the fridge, etc, etc. Hate to burst your bubble but it sounds like you don't get around too often if you think your DZ is the only one doing stuff for the jumpers on a weekend. And just to think my home DZ does all of that AND aren't a bunch of frauds!!! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

First of all, take it from me , weather is definitely an imperfect science. I write aviation TAF's every day and I try my hardest to hit hourly predictions throughout the forecast, but sometimes it just isn't going to happen. Some weather events more than others will really nail a forecaster; fog is the biggest offender. (and I am about to start my new job with the NWS in the San Fran area.... I better buck up on the fog forecasting, eh? ) I have never been to usairnet.com but I will tell you what I have said in many wx threads already on this website: The National Weather Service is your best source for information. They are the end all be all scientists behind the forecasts from scratch. Right now I work for private sector doing general aviation and business jet forecasting. I can always reference government TAF's when I am issuing my personal TAF for an area. These guys do the actual science and do not have other TAF's to look off of or reference to make sure they are on the right track. They really are the best of the best when it comes to forecasters and their information is usually the most accurate out of any weather sources you may get your information from. Another good place for hourly forecasts is a MOS product: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/mdl/synop/products/bullform.met.php#bottom Find the airport you're looking for in the list and it spits out a nice grid of wx data that is pretty good use towards aviation. It will give you the vis, cigs, precip, and anything else you need to see if it's jumpable at that location. As for filing flight plans-- I'm sure that is up to the pilot flying, if he's 91 or 135, if he's filing his own flight plan, and if he's VFR or not. At my work the forecasters work directly across from the flight planners and for a part 91 we can file the guy anywhere no matter what the forecast (but our SOP is even if the alternate is bad on a 91 we will still find suitable wx before we file.), and for 135 the flight planners really have to work with the weather people and find alternates and ETP's that are usable based on good weather. It's illegal to file a flight plan with a forecasted alternate that is going to be socked in. If the forecaster can not come up with anything above minimums in the area that he can get to on legal reserve minimums then we call the captain and advise him he might have to delay the trip due to bad wx. I am not sure what goes on at other companies, but the flight planning and wx are done to ensure a safe and uneventful flight. (including departure, enroute, and destination turbulence and weather.) Anywho... if you ever have any weather related questions you can always pop me a PM! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I think that depends on which state the civil union is in, which is why this needs to be taken to a federal level and make it one way or another across the board. I like what was referenced in the article that these are basic rights given to everybody through the constitution as U.S citizens, not people who reside in one state or another. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Ditto on everything Bill said. And sure, it was voted on and some feel that should be the end of it, but there is a reason we have the federal process here where things like this can be appealed. The courts will have a final say in this matter because the law defends the minority in a vote where the majority can vote against something like human rights being extended to the minority. Like Bill said, if we let the vote speak then blacks would still be sitting in segregated school and not able to marry whites. I am also glad those "loud mouthed trouble makers" spoke up back then and fought for equal rights. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)