winsor

We, as usual, are talking at cross-purposes here. In the examples I used to determine what is "sufficient separation," my point was to show that separation is but one part of the equation. If you used ground speed for your calculations, *with the caveat that the minimum delay is based on true airspeed*, your standpoint would be defensible. Using ground speed as your sole criterion allows for circumstances where groups at deployment altitude are right on top of each other. Using ground speed to determine an appropriate delay is not much more defensible than is using the 45 degree rule. That you usually don't fly into each other is great, but the concept is still terminally flawed. Being easy enough that it can be used without comprehension is hardly a recommendation. A true airspeed minimum with a multiplier for uppers is pretty simple. If people were to lay off counting fleas, checking their protractor, and verifying progress over real estate they might use something valid. Blue skies, Winsor

QuoteOk, your opinion is noted. However, I will ask you for a third time, if you do not agree with the methods described in this thread WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? We can go on and on dancing around this but I have yet to see you post anything that provides a solution better than the chart. So please share some of your "conceptual grasp" with the rest of us and show us how to do it right.*** This is a link to the notes I put together for a seminar on the subject. If you read it through, you may see what I am trying to point out. The information has been out there, from a variety of sources, for quite some time. If you understand the concept, you can generally figure out an appropriate procedure and work with its limitations. The response I gave elsewhere in this thread provides a Cliff's Notes version of a workable procedure that has a legitimate basis. Blue skies, Winsor

Do you have that clue? If so, could you get a dum-dum like me to understand it so I can teach it in a simplified manner? Is it really important to understand it like Einstein or can an uneducated half-breed South Texas beaner like me be able to grasp it? First off, it is airspeed and exit interval that establishes distance between groups. Second, the distance between groups can become less by the time you open if there is a significant difference between winds at altitude and winds at opening altitude. Third, ground speed, in and of itself, has precisely nothing to do with separation in the air. Thus, you can use air speed on jumprun to gauge the delay that gives you the desired separation between groups at altitude. Multiply knots by 1.66 to get feet per second. Separation = airspeed * delay Example: 8 seconds delay at 90 knots TAS gives around 1,200 some-odd feet between group centers. (8 seconds) * (90 knots) * (1.66 feet/second-knot)= (1195.2 feet) If the winds at altitude are significant, you can subtract most or all of the headwind from the airspeed in your calculation. This is the part that has ground speed adherents convinced that they have "the solution." Use a multiplier to account for the difference between airspeed and speed with regard to air at opening altitude. Note: The delay that gives you your minimum desired separation at exit (airspeed * delay = separation) is the minimum delay you should take. Example: 90 knots airspeed, 50 knots effective headwind. Multiplier: 90/(90-50) = 90/40 = 2.25 2.25 * 8 seconds = 18 seconds So the 8 second minimum delay from our first example becomes an 18 second delay if you have a 50 knot difference between winds at exit altitude and winds at opening altitude. Since separation is achieved by canopy flight once the parachute opens, we are only concerned with separation between groups between exit and opening. For people on the ground, the simplest approximation is to use airspeed minus the headwind at altitude, so long as the result is not less than the minimum delay. This value is, of course, groundspeed. Here I stress that this is an inaccurate approximation, that is valuable only so long as it does not result in an exit separation less than the minimum - a circumstance that can happen all too often if one does not recognize the limitations of this approximation. If the pilot is watching the GPS, he can come up with the difference between headwinds at opening altitude and headwinds at exit altitude, and use this value for the delay he announces before exit. Thus, it is ideal if the pilot determines the exit delay for each load, and each group knows how much of a delay they need before boarding. The steps are as follows: 1) Pick a minimum distance between groups with which you can live. 1,000 feet is a good start, and more is better than less in general. 2) Find out the jumprun true airspeed of the airplane. This can vary greatly from airplane to airplane, and from pilot to pilot. 3) Figure out your minimum (no wind) delay. (true airspeed in knots)*(1.66) = (feet per second) (minimum distance in feet)/(feet per second) = (minimum delay in seconds) 4) Throw in a multiplier for headwind. The minimum multiplier should be 1. (true airspeed)/(true airspeed-headwind) = (multiplier) (minimum delay in seconds)*(multiplier) = (delay in seconds) This is a fast an dirty treatment, but it keeps you out of the problems one encounters when using ground speed as a basis if air speed is less than ground speed. Blue skies, Winsor

FWIW, my point here is that the pilot should be tasked to: A) Learn the fundamentals of separation and spotting and B) Include the evaluation of minimum separation in their scope of work. The pilot should then annouce the minimum delay between groups before takeoff on each load. I did not mean to imply that simply holding a Commercial ticket guaranteed comprehension of the four-dimensional problem that freefall separation entails. A pilot, however, may be expected to grasp the subject after appropriate instruction, and is in an ideal postition to do a more detailed evaluation than could any of the jumpers. Trust me, there is more to it than you appear to have considered. If you are refering to doglegs or incompatable winds then I agree. I have delt with both before as well as jumped out of many a chinook.While not common ,they do happen on occassion. So again, if you don't agree with the chart what is your solution to this issue? Quit relying on comic book physics, for one. Though we all agree that, if someone waits long enough because they are counting fleas on their dog, using their protractor to estimate 45 degrees, or trying to relate ground speed to how far apart they will be at opening altitude, the goal of achieving sufficient separation is met. However, to say that one has a good conceptual grasp of the subject because they have an accurate flea tally, 45 degrees nailed, or their relationship to real estate nailed is rubbish. The chart is bullshit. Somewhat useful bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless. I recommend that the fundamentals of spotting and separation should be a requisite for S&TA as well as jump pilot qualification. There should be SOMEBODY on hand that has a clue; it just is not that hard. Blue skies, Winsor

Yup. Ask the pilot. You only need to have one person at a DZ who is intimately familiar with how to maintain separation in the air. The pilot, who has a lot at stake regarding the safe execution of jump operations, and is the one person with all the instruments in front of him all the way up, might as well be the person who lays down the law regarding delay between groups. The "90% solution" works to the extent that you're flying into the wind and the velocity profile with altituude is typical. If those two conditions are not met, all bets are off. In the same sense that working on Carnot cycle equipment does not qualify one as a thermodynamicist, making a bunch of skydives does not make one a specialist in continuum mechanics theory. If you threw in a disclaimer that your approach was a rule of thumb that could be used safely most of the time, I'd buy it. However, to start with a diatribe about peoples' lack of understanding and then put forth that spreadsheet as a "solution" is a bit more than I can stomach. I agree that your procedure is better than nothing most of the time. Other times it is on a par with trying to gauge 45 degrees. Blue skies, Winsor

I have included a excel spreadsheet that breaks what time to use down based on aircraft ground speed, Though it is better than the "45 degree rule" from the standpoint of exit separation, the dependence upon ground speed to achieve separation is only marginally so. A rigorous treatment includes ground speed minus winds at opening altitude, which gives the speed of the aircraft with regard to the air mass at opening altitude. In this calculation ground speed cancels out, and is thus not a factor either way. Using the straight "ground speed" approach with stiff uppers out of a very slow aircraft (say a Chinook making just a few knots of airspeed) on a downwind jump run, you could put out successive groups over a long stretch of real estate, but they would be right on top of each other in the air. The point is not what piece of ground you're over - that's spotting. Where you are with regard to other groups in the air is separation, and it is a function of airmass only. Quite what you are or are not doing with regard to the ground is immaterial to the issue of staying apart in the air. Having taught Physics I am quite used to how people do not grasp why the "45 degree rule" does not work. I am also used to how people do not comprehend how ground speed is irrelevant to separation in the air. From a practical standpoint, I am just as happy with someone who achieves sufficient separation with 45 degrees or ground speed as I am with someone who understands the physics involved. On the other hand, if you claim that 45 degrees or groundspeed has anything directly to do with why, I am more than happy to point out exactly how and why you are quite wrong. Blue skies, Winsor

Nope. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/otw.htm

There are rather a few aircraft that had a presence in the sport, whose flight characteristics left something to be desired under the wrong circumstances. Typically they were affordable - for good reason - after becoming too long in the tooth for their intended purpose. The LoadStall comes to mind as down-home bad news if it has too far aft a cg. Spending the last moments of my life looking at a door I can't reach because of the Gs is not a prospect I relish. Any of the GSIO Beech twins you can have. I qualify for the caterpillar club from two Twin-Bos that muched engines, and can think of all too many Twin-Bos and QueenAirs that couldn't continue to fly when one fan quit turning. If Nick Christian couldn't keep one aloft, I am not sure who could. The Cessna 411 has earned a reputation for danger because of its lack of rudder authority. After takeoff there is all too big a window during which, if you lose an engine, you're screwed. There are some aircraft that require a sure hand on the stick, but I'll still jump. The ones where NOBODY is good enough you can have. Blue skies, Winsor

IIRC, condom-type gizmos were issued to keep water out of the barrel of one's rifle when carried slung. The results of shooting a rifle with a barrel full of water can be quite spectacular, and the use of condoms to avoid that eventuality was commonplace in some venues. An M-16 would require a condom appropriate for a poodle, but an M-1 Garand would take a condom sized for a stallion. There were stories to the effect that opposition forces, unaware of the true purpose of the Garand-specific condoms, concluded that Americans had mutant genitalia. Of course, there is the possibility that someone in the bowels of the Pentagon was a die-hard Boy Scout who, given the reputed moral caliber of airmen, figured that after ejection the first goal would be to get lucky and that aircrew should Be Prepared. Given the fundamentally insane nature of warfare, much more bizarre things have turned out to be true. Blue skies, Winsor

I would love a copy of a UT-15 manual. I have one I picked up in Serbia a couple of years back, and I can't figure out quite how it should be packed. The sleeve, unlike most with which I have worked, has no line reefing/canopy retention setup. It simply has an elastic skirt at the bottom, which looks like it is intended to (hopefully) keep the canopy in until line stretch. The container has none of the usual rubber-band type line reefing stows either. It does have what looks like a place to free-stow the lines, but I would hate to guess wrong as to quite what is the preferred approach. The hardware is classic Soviet (read "utilitarian and peculiar"), and not well mated to such things as U.S. style reserves. In any event, I could wade through the Russian enough to discern what is the intended sequence of packing this thing. I would not bank on the accuracy of my guesses in the meantime. Blue skies, Winsor

Pretty close. I jumped balloons at Barre Buddon Range, just South of Dundee, in 1972. At the time I thought it was because the Brits were too cheap to use real aircraft. Then I read Simon Jakeman's book "Ground Rush," in which he set the record straight. It turns out that these days Airborne training is not used so much to prepare troops for insertion into combat as it is to weed out those afflicted with an excess of common sense. It seems that, regardless of how much training you provide, some people just can't lose track of their desire for self-preservation. Thus, the ones who will step out of an airplane at pattern altitude while burdened with all sorts of lethal cargo are likely the ones who will be dumb enough to keep on going when things start going "bang" around them. The Brits, after a lot of experience, concluded that by comparison you could get just about anybody to jump out of an airplane, but BASE jumping seemed to really separate the marginal from the completely unhinged. The kind of person who would voluntarily jump out of a tethered balloon at 800 feet was the kind of person they wanted to send over the top. We (A 1/509) had a number of people who, when the balloon got to 800 feet, said "fuck this" and rode it down. Some of these people had combat jumps to their credit. I was so impressed with how terrifying it was that I made a second jump to see if it was as scary the second time. It was. As an aside, a Spec. 4 was in the process of lighting a cigarette when he was hit with the most beautiful flying tackle I have ever seen, courtesy of the Scottish Sergeant Major. It was then pointed out that all the red cylinders in the back of the lorry said "hydrogen," and that open flames were a bad idea. It seems that helium was not as available as in the US of A at that time. Since I went through jump school in Wiesbaden, I never had the opportunity to jump the 250 foot towers at Benning. The balloons in Scotland made for a pretty cool substitute. If there was an operation in the US similar to the Brit setup, I'd pay retail to patronize it. It is not likely to ever get boring. Blue skies, Winsor

On one jump, I scratched on the way to the plane because of wind conditions. One of the people on the load wound up in the hospital after getting slammed. On another load, someone wound up in the morgue. A bad spot for the howling winds led to landing off, and this guy apparently realized he was going downwind (fast) too late. If the odds of getting hurt are too high, I bag it. I have been hurt badly before, and it sucked out loud. Blue skies, Winsor

Since this forum is for discussion and learning, could you please let us know which parts you feel to be dangerously incorrect? I am genuinely interested in learning becomig safer. In rereading all the posts from you and Winsor in this thread, the only points I see Winsor arguing are: * A 180 has the potential to be safer than a 270 in traffic, but neither are safe (I don't think Ray was saying either of these should be done in traffic) * Swoopers and fun jumpers should have clearly defined and separated air spaces (again, I don' think Ray was saying otherwise). Other than those two points, the only thing I got out of either of your posts was that since Ray does not have a degree in physics and has not studied the physics of canopy collisions that his post is completely devoid of merit. I highly respect the knowledge and education you both have and would like to know specifically what is so incorrect and dangerous from Ray's post, and what would you both suggest? Right off the top: "Swoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness." Trying to "share the air" is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to swoop, it behooves you to do so where there is precisely zero sharing of the air. I am all for designating airspace where ONLY high-performance flight is allowed, and other airspace where flying the pattern is mandatory. As far as education goes, it overlooks the turnover rate in the sport. You can have 100% comprehension of a concept throughout the sport today and be at 50% in a handful of years due to the change in population. As an educational example, at a University where the graduates are very sharp, the student body is well over half underclassmen. Many Freshmen and Sophomores are clueless and will catch on later, while others are due to drop out because the are doomed to cluelessness. The discussion of 180 vs 270 and which one is more "safe" is nonsense. We lost two jumpers at Cross Keys where the 270 turned into the 90 that was below and behind on setup - what part of dead is "safe?" I applaud those who are pushing the limits of the sport, and am happy to benefit from their hard-won experience. Those who think the "old rules" don't apply to them remind me of the dotcom wizards who claimed that the economic models upon which a smokestack economy was based had no place in the brave new world of electronics. I was not above an "I told you so" or two when that market tanked. In any event, what gives me pause is that much of the back-and-forth on the issue of canopy collisions ranges from ambiguous to poorly conceived. Rdutch's post is both. Blue skies, Winsor

Let's see. John and I each have thousands of hours flying airplanes. John and I each have thousands of skydives. John and I have experienced canopy collisions and survived. John and I have advanced technical degrees and have made a living teaching Physics. John and I have taken the time to analyze the Physics of canopy collision. There is some merit to raw experience, but it has a limit. If experience was the only yardstick that mattered, a great-grandma who has been driving since she was 16 would be a better driver than Jeff Gordon. Thus, when someone cites their "experience" to me as credentials regarding a physics issue, it is often like being a Nutrition Physiology researcher trying to decide whether to engage in a discussion with someone who holds the record for eating McDonalds hamburgers. One of the problems in this sport is that ignorance can kill, and ignorance is often bolstered by arrogance (trust me, I know from arrogance). What we are trying to do is establish parameters whereby canopy collisions are not quite as inevitable as they now are. Just because you don't die most of the time, the free-for-all approach is not quite optimal. Insanity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results. We are somehow expecting things to work differently with parachutes than airplanes, and the lessons were learned in airplanes a long, long time ago. I have landed an airliner right after a Cessna Skyhawk, and have landed a Cherokee ahead of a MiG, with no problems. Landing disparate types is no great feat, but there are ways to approach it that routinely result in disaster. I can land one of my cross-braced Class VI canopies among students under Mantas with no problem. If, however, I insist on doing a High Performance Landing because I am under a High Performance Canopy, all bets are off. If someone chooses to put forth an argument that is devoid of merit, one must decide quite how much time to waste addressing the fallacies contained therein. When they put forth a "solution" that has been tried and found wanting every time, it does not warrant a lot of discussion in and of itself. Giving someone credit for being able to figure out the fundamentals is often unjustified. Blue skies, Winsor Blue skies, Winsor

I absolutely guarentee you that you are not able to watch for the traffic you are flying directly TOWARDS for a 180 and perform your turn safely. Most, if not all, pilots will be focusing on the ground since that's where the perceived (and rightly so) danger is. A 180 will never, ever be any less dangerous than a 270 with regards to traffic. Blues, Ian "Directly towards" at which part of the turn? You are going a different direction at the beginning and the finish. A 180 and a 270 have similar issues with regard to increased danger, but a 270 has the added problem of being an OUTSIDE turn. A 180 is an INSIDE turn. From the standpoint of safety (or lack thereof) in the pattern, both suck, but a 270 is more dangerous by virtue of having much more significant blind spots (you have your back to traffic while executing the maneuver). Blue skies, Winsor

Turn debate: there is a debate that turns are safer or more dangerous, in reality there isn’t much difference between a 180 or a 270. Your still flying blind until you reach your desired heading, the only difference and possibly what makes a 270 safer is you have a good view of where your going to go, your looking at your final heading before you even start your turn, and a great view of your left and right of your flight path. With a 180 you’re doing a blind turn where your heading is directly behind you. Also 270 turns are usually carving turns and you’re leading with your eyes, so you have a greater chance of seeing any traffic and with the carving turn a greater chance of avoiding it. I know you can do a 180 carving turn, but that isn’t the normal case. Flying a good landing pattern greatly decreases the risk in doing a turn landing, this gives you a good view who or what is around you, if someone is below you or inside your pattern while flying your pattern and you cant see they are clear of you before your turn, don’t do a high performance landing. If you are set up for a 270 its fairly easy to just do a 90 turn onto your heading. One of the major problems with a 270 is that you are flying away from the pattern during the execution of the turn. If someone is flying below and behind you on a similar canopy with the intention of making a 90 degree turn to final, they are very hard to see, and they are in a perfect position to get blindsided by you when making the 270. When doing a 180 there is no analogue to the massive blind spot that is unavoidable with a 270 or greater. In a hard turn, the canopy can block your view of an important sector of sky, but it is possible to clear your airspace much more effectively in advance (assuming you can locate all traffic of concern - not always as easy as it would seem). The bottom line is that I can keep a visual on the target at all times while doing a 180, though I don't recommend a 180 in traffic. With a 270, you would be hard pressed to keep a visual with your eventual direction of flight if you had a neck like Linda Blair in the Exorcist. While 180s are bad news in traffic, 270s are an order of magnitude worse. Not a chance in hell. Swoopers and fun jumpers should have clearly defined - and entirely separate - airspace. Sharing the air together was, is and will be a recipe for disaster. Blue skies, Winsor

Clearing turns are fine if you are going to execute maneuvers at or near a particular altitude. Traffic is not as hard to spot when you only have two dimensions to consider - you scan the horizon and hope you did not miss anything. With the third dimension in the mix, it becomes much more difficult. You have to visualize every direction from which a canoypy can come that might be a problem, you have to be able to spot ALL of the problem canopies, and you have to adapt your flight path so that avoidance is likely. Designated airspace, where NOBODY should be there if they are not engaged in clearly predefined high-performance maneuvers, is the kind of sterile environment that reduces the potential for conflict to a manageable level. Trying to mix such disparate flight regimes in common airspace is an exercise in futility. Blue skies, Winsor

Sterile airspace is airspace that is cleared of stray traffic. An airshow takes place in sterile airspace; this does not mean that no more than one aircraft can be aloft at a time. Your statement that everyone in this airspace was on the same page is precisely what I am talking about. The limited intent of landing in one piece somewhere on the DZ may constitute "no real plan" to you, but poses a problem only if someone intends to make blind approaches with no outs in the same airspace. The purpose of a pattern is to understand what others are doing. If people in the pattern have little understanding of what you might be doing, the fault does not lie with them. Blue skies, Winsor

The blind spots that are getting us killed are both physical and psychological. From a physical standpoint, there is all too often a complete lack of understanding of how all four dimensions come together, particularly as it relates to landing. From the psychological standpoint, there is the luck-based denial mechanism that has some of the most clueless among us firmly convinced that they have a complete understanding of spatial awareness - by virtue of the fact that they are not dead yet. I have spent an awful lot of time trying to spot traffic from the cockpit and under canopy and, while better at it than most, have a solid appreciation for how hard it can be. There are times that TCAS is nice to have. I have interviewed people who survived canopy collisions that I witnessed, and they were generally looking in the wrong direction to spot the other person. In some cases, by the time the other jumper came into view there was no way to avoid collision. "I have nothing against swoopers, why some of my best friends are swoopers." Having got that out of the way, I am very concerned by the people who staunchly defend their right to fly blind in traffic. There is a big difference between someone who executes a radical landing in sterile airspace and some numbnuts who dials in a blind high speed setup in the pattern. I don't care WHO you are, anything over a 180 or so requires taking your eyes off your intended direction of flight. The person you are going to hit is likely to be below and behind you before the turn, and a bitch to see even if you know they are there. A 180 is not necessarily a better choice than a 270 from the standpoint of controlled flight through traffic; the radical turn can put your canopy between you and your line of flight for part of the maneuver, making it every bit as blind an approach (depending on canopy and setup). When executing radical aerobatics, one had best focus on a very short list of aiming points. The Thunderbirds disaster, wherein the whole formation flew into the ground after the flight leader's elevators jammed, is a case where the best in the business died because maintaining global awareness was not an option while executing comples manuevers. Thus, doing the 270s or greater that are dear to the heart of swoop aficianados everywhere is ill-advised in anything but the most sterile of airspace. If there is any significant chance of traffic in the pattern, you can either look for traffic or swoop - you can't have both. I really don't give a rat's ass if people want to swoop, so long as they maim or kill only themselves when things don't go quite as planned. The suggestion that there is any merit to flying blind at the edge of the envelope in traffic is absurd. Anyone who would speak of 270s as "safe" would do well to take (and pass...) a basic course of study in Physics. Pay attention to that fourth dimension. If you want to swoop, get yourself some sterile airspace. You do NOT have the right to swoop in traffic, period. Blue skies, Winsor

In this world where people's self-evaluation is viewed as sacrosanct ("I am an excellent driver..."), counting on judgment to address the issue is a bad plan. Often the people who have the worst judgment are those with no clue regarding the pitfalls of their actions. Thus we have the following: 1) Doing 270s on approach to landing in traffic shows Very Bad Judgment. 2) Doing anything greater than a 180 on approach to landing in traffic is henceforth forbidden. You can't ban bad judgment per se, but you can forbid its expression by specific actions. This dictum does just that. Blue skies, Winsor

If you pack it yourself, you have control of the packjob. If you want to pack for a snivel, I can tell you how to do so (I can also tell you how to get a "docile" canopy to slam the snot out of you). If you have someone else do it, I am not sure that I am all that sympathetic. You pays your money, and you takes your chances. Blue skies, Winsor

If your idea of fun jumps involves blind high speed descents into congested traffic (a 270 is a blind, descending approach), then I certainly hope you are never jumping where I am. Of course, with your brilliant skills I'm sure you will be okay - I just don't want you to kill me. Deland and Eloy are different animals; one size does not fit all. If you are on a team, I should hope you have the canopy skills necessary to land using whatever pattern is necessary to be close, and thus make back to backs. If you can't land without a doing corkscrew approach, you should get some basic canopy flight instruction. If you think banning blind, descending high-speed approaches to landing in a congested area is a stupid idea, I would love to know what you consider "smart." I am sometimes appalled by the ignorance of fundamental Physics demonstrated by people engaged in aviation-related pursuits; I have found it is usually compensated by a surfeit of arrogance. Pilots and skydivers tend to mistake luck for ability. With the "big sky theory" on your side, you can usually get away with it. When you don't get away with it, you are all too often dead before you can do anything about it. Having watched all too many people get killed or maimed from canopy collisions and botched swoops, I am not at all sympathetic to your having to travel to get your fix of blind approaches. Though a 180 is still a descending high-speed approach into traffic, at least you can maintain eye-contact with your intended direction of flight. I'm with Bob and Mike with this one. Blue skies, Winsor

In my travels I have run into people who were the real McCoy, and had a good old time swapping anecdotes. It usually takes less than a minute to realize that someone knows about what and whom they are talking. I have shown up at an unfamiliar DZ in midweek, chatted for 15 minutes with the guy working on an airplane (who turned out to be the DZO), and was then told "you want to make a skydive? Grab a rig." When I later realized that I had not shown any credentials at all beforehand, he said that the fact that I knew so many details about people he knew well told him I was an upjumper. There are people who really did jump to a very limited extent, but do not have much against which to compare. I have had people who described their experience as a student, - where they were clearly the student from hell - and were miffed that they got "the talk." I did not break it to them that I have been the one detailed to give "the talk" on more than one occasion, and that I think someone did them a favor. There are the "skydivers" that have a skydiving screen saver, skydiving paraphernalia all over - and one tandem to their credit. Sometimes I just tell them that I was a paratrooper with 19 military jumps when Nixon was president, and they explain how what they did was so much more sophisticated than a static line equipment drop. I agree with them and let it go. Other times I let on that I have a few civilian jumps, as well. Then you have the skygod that knows nothing. My guess is that, since they know zip about the subject, they assume that nobody within earshot does either. This can vary from the GI Joe that made all kinds of jumps in Vietnam ("Junction City? Where's that?") to the upjumper who may or may not have discovered those newfangled ParaFoils. Once someone does not know with what Battalion they served, or how the DZO's dog is doing (if you jumped there, you'd know...), I try to change the subject. If anything, I think it is more fun to be a ringer. I have heard plans to sign up for AFF-1 as an unknown, just to be able to go head-down out the door and get away from the jumpmasters. The 8-way team that suckered Bill von Novak into thinking they were neophytes had the right idea. The closest I came to pulling off the "I'm new at this" act was blown when people I know showed up right as I was talking to the DZO. "Winsor? Great! Grab your rig, you make it an eight-way!" "You know this guy? He hasn't filled out a waiver yet." "He's fine, he'll fill it out when he gets down. Right now we have to dirt dive." In any event, this sport is not one where one can get away with much in the way of bullshitting. It's hard to make a claim without having someone present that could contest inaccuracies, intentional or not. Blue skies, Winsor

Oh, I thought you said he is a meteorologist. Gee, I'd a thought that someone who studied meteors would know a lot about objects falling through the atmosphere. Or something like that.

For the record, I have my issues with Stuart's business, but just to attempt to be unbiased, I'll correct a number of things you said: 1) The name of the site is "Skydive4Free.com," and there is nothing free about it. You pay a higher than retail price for the jump, give them $45 for the privilege of making an overpriced jump - at their convenience - and give them another $250 to send to a charity. It's free, to the person making the jump. They don't pay a dime to make their tandem. The dropzone gets its regular price of a tandem...they get to jump...and Stuart gets his "finder's fee." I can see as how it could be interpreted as deceptive, since Stu's making money off of it...but then again, all advertising is deceptive. By saying "Skydive for free", he's distilling the whole concept to a short, marketable, zinger. If he was to say, "Skydive without paying a dime out of your own pocket; the dropzone gets paid, I get paid, and everything else goes to a charity.com", it would be a little tougher to fit on a business card. That's advertising. That's the world we live in. Should we take issue with Budweiser commercials because every time we pop a beer, the hot girls in bikinis don't show up? Or should we take issue with the word "skydiving," because we don't necessarily always "dive" into the "sky"? You see where I'm going with this. It's semantics. 2) If the DZ donated the jump and these people did the work in their spare time, just so that people would make a minimum $500 donation to a worthy cause, then you could say that the skydive was free. That's akin to arguing that the office staff of a non-profit theatre company shouldn't be paid. Or that the person leading the Salvation Army shouldn't take a dime. Charity is giving, yes...but there's never a free lunch. There's always costs. (But if that cost is part of the money raised, then so be it. It still seems 'free' to you.) 3) The charity part of the deal is a red herring... I actually think the charity part of the deal is integral to it. It's an incentive. Again, see organizations like Team in Training. Sure, a lot of those orgs are volunteer-based...but the charity is the incentive for someone to go run a marathon. Everybody wins, because ultimately, money is donated to the cause (after expenses, such as flying the participant to the marathon), and the person participates in an experience they might not have already done. Do the expenses make it less valid that money is being given to charity? I don't think so. I think in cases like this, the end justifies the means. 4) Skydive4Free is no more or less legitimate than Skyride. With Skyride you do get to make a skydive, arranged by people that have nothing to do with the actual skydiving process, at a dropzone located conveniently 20 minutes away from wherever you are - and a portion of the proceeds go to the Orphan Ferrari Fund. - With Skyride you don't necessarily get to make a skydive. Let's not forget the "you didn't pay for weather insurance" bit, expiration dates, sending customers to DZs that aren't affiliated with Skyride (or DZs that are 400 miles away), etc, etc. If Stu is up front about the DZs he uses the fees he charges, and all terms & conditions, then he's being infinitely more legit than Skyride. --------------- In Stuart's case, I think as long as he's up front about what he gets out of it, more power to him. Think about it this way - do you know how tough it is to organize an event like this by yourself? How to get tax write-off letters to all the people who give through you? There was actually a Skydive Radio discussion about how someone at LSPC was trying to do 60 jumps in a day (or something similar) to raise money for charity, and several charities turned him down, because they were worried about liability stuff. He ultimately managed to deliver the check to them...but they absolutely didn't make it easy. If Stuart finds a way to secure deals with charities & DZs and automate the process, he's doing a service. Some people would consider that worth $45. At $20/hour, you'd probably spend more time on the phone with the charities, trying to figure out which paperwork they needed from you. Anyway, apologies for being long-winded, but busy work today leaves little time for editing. The few charities I consider legitimate would have nothing to do with an operation like "Skydive4Free.com. Neither will I. Blue skies, Winsor