Airman1270

Sigh. That's my letter in the October issue. I was describing the effect the "...equipment nazies, the mandatory AAD nazies, and the currency nazies..." is having on the sport. The editor changed the word "nazies" to "fanatics." I've been published several hundred times in various newspapers and magazines, including a few full-length columns. I'm no stranger to the editing process, and don't take this stuff personally. I understand the need to edit for space and/or clarity. Part of my letter was cut for space purposes. No problem. But my original language was crystal clear, and made the point very well. The final version sort of muddied the water a bit. (What, after all, is an equipment fanatic? Don't we all agree that having equipment is good, especially if we want to make more than one jump?) A fanatic is someone who is enthusiastic about something. A nazi does not just make suggestions; he rules with an iron fist. There is a world of difference between saying "I use an AAD and think you should too" and "You MUST have an AAD to jump at my DZ." The rest of the letter makes the point: These people are hurting, not helping the sport. Sometimes I think the editors are unduly influenced by Washington's overall liberal, feel-good politically-correct climate. It has slowly dawned on me that there seems to be a specific effort to highlight foreign jumpers, events, DZ's, etc. As many of these overseas DZ's require AAD's and ban older rigs, perhaps the leadership is wary of "offending" them by allowing members to use strong words while criticizing their policies. Then again, I might be wrong. Anyway, I appreciate their publishing my stuff, but I wish the magazine did not appear to worship at the altar of "diversity" and take on a PEOPLE magazine aura. Cheers anyway, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Huh? There is no movement to have homosexuals and non-Christians criminalized and arrested simply because they are who they are. We may disagree about basic moral and theological issues, but you won't end up in court for disagreeing, as I will if I drive alone in the left lane in Atlanta or allow customers to smoke in my restaurant. By the way, gays are free to marry. If they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they can marry if they want to. They DON'T have the right to change the definition of a word that has meant a certain thing throughout thousands of years of recorded history. Cheers, Jon

...I can tell you have had a hard time letting that issue go from 1994. The way you write tells me that it still pisses you off... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes! Yes! It certainly does piss me off. There was NO justification for police intervention, let alone an arrest. This sort of thing is precisely my overall point. Some brain dead clerk saw the mom spank the kid. The clerk had swallowed the brainwash about "spanking is violence", etc. and thought this was a criminal act worthy of a 911 call. The cop simply responded to the call. But when he realized what was going on he should have apologized to the mom and perhaps cited the clerk for false report of a crime. The fact that he was willing to make an arrest scares the shit out of me. This sort of "just doing my job" attitude is what led to people being packed into boxcars several dozen years ago. There was no violence, no harmful action on the part of the mom. The charges were dropped almost immediately, indicating there was no evidence to justify the arrest in the first place. In a news interview the kid himself said he didn't understand the fuss, as it was normal to be spanked when he stepped too far over the line of parental authority. I have spanked my kids and it scares me to think a cop might intrude. Not because I'm "out of control" (as many anti-spanking pussies like to characterize the situation) but because I will be so full of anger and indignation at the cop that I might just punch him in the throat, kick him in the balls, take his gun and shoot him. Then I will be in serious trouble. But what else would I have done to defend myself & my family? Call the police? Or submit to this offensive intrusive bullshit? Why must I choose between two bad options, when a third option exists? That is, the police learn when to back down, mind their own damn business and leave us the hell alone. There comes a time when enough is enough! This country was founded by people who fought back against authority when authority overstepped its bounds. You cannot continue to intrude into people's lives just because a bunch of goddamned liberal Democrats don't like what they're doing. There has to be a point at which you place your badge on your supervisor's desk and tell him firmly "No, this is not why I became a cop." ...I still believe the cop should BE SHOOT DEAD in the parking lot" Hopefully you are just saying it is fucked up and do not really wish someone dead... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ True. Strong language designed to illustrate the point. I wish no harm; I just want to be left alone. By the way, I'm sorry for allowing days to pass before responding. I get to the library a couple of times a week. And you're right - very interesting discussion. Cheers, Jon

I think I have a better understanding then civilians walking down the street who think they understand the law... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fair enough. I concede you have a better understanding of what the courts will allow you to get away with. But I question this apparent determination to drag as many people as possible into jail, only to get them bonded out as quickly as possible, often for minor "offenses" that could easily be dealt with by writing a ticket or issuing a warning. There is NO justification for arresting some guy for sleeping in his car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. If it's such a damn offense to society that you must intervene, then just tap on the glass and say "I'm sorry sir, I have to ask you to move on." You can get what you want without being a prick about it. And if your leadership REQUIRES you to treat people this way, I question why you even want this job in the first place. ...I'm just curious, did the police reports you read during your radio career come out of newspapers or are they actually the reports as written by the person making it?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I read the actual reports. My beat would have me stopping by the various agencies, and/or they'd fax us a pile every day. I had built up a nice relationship with the front desk personnel. One day I asked the dispatcher why they make arrests for minor, non-violent violations, rather than just writing tickets. She looked at me very thoughtfully, then said "Actually, I don't know." It was clear she hadn't given the issue much thought. One thing I noticed was the correlation between the use of K-9 units and the vaporization of citizen's basic rights. Most officers would at least explain the circumstances leading to a traffic stop or a subsequent search. But the K-9 guys would frequently begin by stating the time & place of the stop, then proceed with "During the search, I discovered..." It was apparent that they did not think they needed to justify a search as, in their minds, searching automobiles was the sole reason they were sitting on the highway roadside in the first place. And it seemed to stretch the parameters of common sense that nearly every arrest they made involved young men from out of state who happened to commit minor violations that could neither be proven nor refuted. I don't know why every such stop justified a search, but I have trouble believing the county was paying these guys $35,000+ a year because they were so concerned about expired tags, "failure to maintain lane," or window tint violations. Of course, if they didn't find anything they just sent the people on their way and didn't write a report about it. ...Again, I think the world forgets that we are people and have families... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Understood. I have a cop in the family as well. I've never personally been mistreated, except for a few minor instances when I was younger. These did not result in my being ticketed or arrested, but they were completely unjustified and left a bitter taste in my mouth. Whatever attitude problem I have can be traced to 1994, when a woman was arrested in a local supermarket after some brain-dead young clerk called 911 because she spanked her kid. Even after having 12 years to cool down I still believe that cop deserved to be shot dead in the parking lot. Cheers, Jon

Huh??? I'm going to have to think about that one for a while.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It's not difficult to understand if you have been taught basic historic principles of liberty, and have been paying attention to political/cultural events for many years. Liberals do not make suggestions. They demand laws forcing you to behave the way they think you should behave. Think about the long list of things you were free to do 30 years ago which are illegal today. This list would include things like restrictions on gun possession/ownership, anti-smoking restrictions imposed on private businesses, seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, HOV lanes, "open container" laws (What's wrong with an open container as long as the driver is sober?), criminalization of spanking, etc. The list goes on. The common denominator in these instances is that a violation requires the police to intervene, and if you resist they're authorized to shoot you. "Free country" indeed! Conservatives have some strong opinions about how you should live your life, but if you choose not to take them seriously you don't have to worry about being hassled by the cops. The difference between Pat Robertson and Hillary Clinton is that Robertson won't drag you in front of a judge simply because you choose not to follow his advice. Cheers, Jon

...I do not know where you are from cloudseeker but I think you are over doing it a little. Most police officers are not feeling their oats since 9/11... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ True. It's been going on much longer than that... The problem with police/citizen relations is that the cops today routinely do things that were unthinkable 30 years ago. They think they have the right to stop people just to check them out, in the absence of any evidence a crime has been committed. During my glorious radio career I spent over four years reading police reports on a daily basis. You would not believe how often they respond to a minor incident with an iron fist, making arrests when they could write tickets, searching automobiles without cause, and demanding to see ID from someone who is guilty of nothing more than walking along the roadside late at night. Of course, look at it from their perspective: These guys grew up in a world of random locker searches and parking lot drug "sweeps" in high school. They assumed it was perfectly normal to have to take a piss test to join a sports team or get a job. Add to this a minimal amount of education regarding the nation's founding, the Bill of Rights, etc. As they got older and began to pay attention to current events and political discussions, they learned that people like me who speak out about such things are "extremists" who probably have "something to hide" and need not be assigned credibility. They thought nothing unusual about grandstanding legislators passing new laws and inventing new crimes in an effort to prove how much they care about (insert issue du jour here.) It's not that they hold your rights in contempt; more likely they have no clue they're violating them in the first place. Police work, old days: Help people and chase bad guys. Police work, today: Help people, chase bad guys, enforce liberalism, and hassle people for doing things that used to be okay. Cheers, Jon S.

We leave the phone on the table and let the tape play through. This tactic won't stop the calls, but it will slow them down a bit. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteI think so. I know of one spot that does it on thursday nights. Think I can dig up a wed night place. hmmmmm most places I know are in the burbs though, like kennesaw... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I live in Kennesaw, but don't do much karaoke. How about open mike night? Anyone know where this might be taking place anywhere north of Atlanta? Cheers, Jon

...no one suggested that people who jump more or less often are more or less capable...If you don't suffer from that loss of proficiency, I'd say that's quite commendable... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Actually, it's because I'm not so great in the first place. After taking some time off I can jump safely in large groups, but the trade-off is that I cannot guarantee I'll be in my slot when you need me. Even at my personal peak, I can't keep up with Arizona Airspeed. But I can fly like superman & turn a few points without doing anything stupid or dangerous. At my level, maintaining proficiancy is no big deal. Cheers, Jon

How much more ridiculous will this get before people start refusing to tap dance on eggshells? During my most recent radio job my station manager got mad at me because, while writing a news story, I used the phrase "black people" to describe black people. He wanted me to say "African Americans." I said this was stupid, that they were not African, and that political correctness itself is far more offensive than anything I'd ever said on the air. He accepted a compromise in which I was allowed to say "black Americans." If I imitate a white guy, it's satire. If I imitate a black guy, it's racism. Right? We are constantly bombarded with racial commentary. We can't even fill out a federal form without having to provide such information. Yet, if a white guy even acknowledges such differences, he is immediately presumed to harbor unkind attitudes and is under pressure to prove this isn't the case. (Often, the only acceptable "proof" is profession of liberal politics and voting for Democrats.) Me 'n' my homies refuse to accept such diss'n crap in our 'hood. Cheers, Jon S. Celebrating straight white pride since 1958.

..."I am a skydiver."="I am currently engaged in the sport of skydiving." Maybe once a day, once a week, once a month...Anything less than once a month would suggest the person is not current, and therefore not actively engaged in the sport... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Careful here. I've been "actively engaged" in the sport for years, even if only to look at the sky on sunny weekends and anticipate my next opportunity to visit the DZ. Some of us may allow a few weeks/months to go between jumps, but it doesn't necessarily mean we are not "current" according to our personal skill set. (Then again, the use of the word "current" is not unreasonable, but it does not mean that one is not capable of jumping safely.) I have returned after several months off and gone last on a six-way with no evidence of my recent absence. Likewise, even with only a few jumps per year I can routinely land real close to a target. Let's resist the temptation to assume that people who jump less often than (fill in your personal standard here) need to be watched very carefully. Cheers, Jon S.

...Honestly, I'd rather hang out with my wife and son on a Saturday than be at the dz... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ God bless you! (I ASSume you'd be able to jump if you wanted to?) I have fantasized about the day when I realized I just didn't want to do this anymore. Sept. 30th marks the 24th anniversary of my first jump, and I can't wait to get to the DZ again. Meanwhile, I've made about a dozen jumps this year, the last one a few weeks ago. Need reserves repacked, but wife keeps insisting we feed the kids, etc. Wife is irrational, eh? Cheers, Jon S.

This is funny. It's amazing how eager people are to get a computer involved in a process that used to work just fine without one. Pick your favorite example... I've said before that if my parachute had a computer I'd have gone in years ago. Cheers, Jon S.

... Now you wouldn’t have an ax to grind with this rant would you?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wow, Spark - I haven't seen such venom this side of "Speaker's Corner." Furthermore, I'd be interested in understanding what constitutes a "rant." Did you assign such terminology to Law's original essay? (I get this at home sometimes: If an idea takes more than two sentences to explain, she calls it a "lecture"...) The pizza guy scenario is but one example, one which admittedly came to mind because I have some experience here. Do I owe anyone an apology? The main point remains valid: It is immoral to punish someone for somebody else's actions. Holding the company responsible for the actions of an employee may well be a "valid" legal concept as far as current law is concerned, but it is foolish and wrong. It punishes people who had no control over the outcome of (insert specific event here.) Claiming thay they are responsible because they did not aggressively prevent or prohibit (specific event) does not pass the common sense test. In my example, we already determined that the driver was responsible, and that the law's requirement to carry insurance provides for an avenue of restitution. The is no logical reason to drag the driver's employer into the case. The company had NOTHING at all to do with the outcome of the event. Furthermore, I stand by my observation that the reason we have seen such an exponential increase in lawsuits is primarily because we have seen an exponential increase in law school graduates. Without this constant expansion of the lawsuit industry, there would literally be no way many of these people could earn enough money to maintain their lifestyles. If there's evidence I'm wrong, let's see it. If a guy wants to be a carpenter, even though his community already has more than enough carpenters, he should not be surprised to learn that there is little demand for his services, and that he must do something else for a living. This is true of most chosen fields of work. (Especially radio.) A carpenter will not show up at your house one day, build you a $5000 deck you never wanted in the first place, then demand you rearrange your life so as to make this project your top priority. But a lawyer can do this to you. Cheers, Jon

...In today’s litigious atmosphere... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Whose fault is this? Why is such a complicated waiver necessary in the first place? Let's assume an accident occurred, one which could reasonably be determined to be somebody's fault. (Examples might include an impaired tandem instructor, putting out a student at dusk in high winds, etc.) In such a case, a lawsuit might be a reasonable course of action. But why would it be necessary to name a bunch of other ancillary people in the suit? What purpose is served by naming the pilot, the equipment manufacturer, the manifestor, or the owner of the landing field? Many lawyers choose the profession in response to some altruistic desire to pursue what they describe as "social justice." Their efforts frequently result in an increase of lawsuits against businesses or other entities, not because they did a bad thing, but because someone else did a bad thing and they were unable to prevent it from happening. "Sexual harrassment" law is a prime example. If an employee treats another employee in a manner which would have been described not too long ago as "rude behavior," it is now possible for the owner of the company to face the hassle of court action. Businesses are now pressured to waste time, money, and energy on stupid, insulting seminars at which people are treated like children, sitting through presentations of information which everyone already understands anyway. These presentations are not limited to the handful of people who need to be reminded how to behave in the adult world. They are imposed across the board. Why? So the company has a reasonable shot of being found "not guilty" by proving that company policy does not condone rude behavior. But why should they have to fear such action in the first place? I think the reason is because we already have far too many lawyers, with thousands more graduating every year from law school with bills to pay and families to feed. There isn't enough work to keep them all busy, so they have invented new opportunities for legal action & income generation. The legal industry benefits by encouraging the public to accept the premise that "someone" should pay for their accidents, even if "someone" had nothing to do with the event and had absolutely no control over the outcome. After breaking my ankle on my first jump, I spoke with many people whose knee-jerk response was the suggestion that I sue the DZ. They firmly held this position even after I explained that the accident was my fault. If I run a red light and hit somebody, most people would assume the wreck was my fault and that I would be responsible for the other guy's auto repair and/or medical bills. Auto insurance laws exist to ensure I'd be able to meet this requirement. However, if the above-mentioned accident occurred while I was delivering pizza, there's a whole new dimension to this. Now it's no longer good enough that I cover the costs. Now, for some unfathomable reason, the company I'm working for must be dragged into this mess. I'll bet the vast majority of law school graduates, who a moment ago would have agreed that the accident was my fault, will now change their story so as to suggest the company is responsible. They would insist on this point even though the company had no control over the operation of my car. The company must now spend money not only on a legal defense, but now they're using their resources to carefully monitor their employees' driving records and insurance arrangements. This adds to the price of the product. And, of course, the same people who are forcing this kind of situation will react to the price increase by accusing the company of greed and other selfish motives. All of this could have been avoided by using some common sense and not threatening the company with legal action in the first place. It seems to me that a good starting point for this "social justice" crusade would include serious reconsideration of the immoral practice of punishing people for others' actions. Years ago columnist Mona Charen, while discussing this issue, reflected upon her days in law school. She said she kept coming up with valid reasons not to sue, only to be rebuked by her professors who appeared far more concerned about the financial well being of the legal industry, rather than the overall cost to society imposed by this litigious mindset. Cheers, Jon S.

Static line is an effective, time-honored instruction method. Damn shame it's been assigned "Oh, by the way..." status. It's a great way to learn the sport without having to spend over $100 per jump. You'll have fun, you'll learn important stuff, and you won't become a nervous wuss when the they're looking to fill a hop 'n' pop load when the ceiling is at 3000'. Cheers, Jon S.

Game, Set, Match, Mr Airtwardo.

...there are many people who could only afford shitty second hand equipment and can only make enough jumps each season to just stay current... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Point well taken, but I'd reconsider describing older gear as "shitty" unless it really is, in which case it should not be jumped. I've spent many years under my late 1970's rig, and only recently supplemented this with new gear. The rig is well maintained and in excellent shape, with only about 600-700 jumps on the whole system and about 300 on the main. It's kinda like driving a 1976 Ford Pinto with 40,000 miles on it. While not in great demand, it's far from a shitty piece of equipment. Anyone wanna borrow it? Cheers, Jon S.

! A few years back I just about ruined a teenage clerk's life at McDonald's. They offered two sizes of shakes: "medium" and "large." I asked why they didn't just call the smaller size "small." He looked at me very uncomfortably, as I had just done more to challenge his intellect than had the previous two years of public school. He replied "...uh, it's medium." I pressed the issue, noting that the word "medium," by definition, implies a midpoint, and that, when offering a choice of two sizes, it would make infinite more sense to describe them, accurately, as "small" and "large." After summoning the full breadth of his brain power, he responded by reminding me that the size in question was indeed "medium." No further analysis was necessary. As his life unfolds, this guy will, no doubt, have very little trouble being selected for juries. We're screwed. Cheers, Jon S.

...23 years in the sport and ya got THREE demos?? I made 4 demos in the past TWO WEEKS! "MUST Be" because of the rating huh? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Perhaps it's because I've only recently been "noticed?" As a part-time jumper, there are many opportunities for people to spend weekends at the DZ without crossing paths with me. Of the people who have known me for several years or more, most might recall that I always seem to be landing real close to the target. They also know that, while my RW skills won't compromise anyone's safety, if it's a REAL important jump (where everyone needs to be in their slot at the right time) they should invite someone else. Seriously, I spoke with the organizer a few years ago and had him on my radio show to promote a "Santa Claus" jump into town the following weekend. He mentioned back then that maybe he could use me, and has indicated he'll call me again. He also said that, while I don't need a PRO, it wouldn't hurt to eventually get one. How many pre-declared landings do I need before I can qualify? I figure the three demos so far count as three of those jumps. By the way, my "first" demo invitation was in 1997. The organizer liked my accuracy & canopy style (Star Trac.) He invited me to jump an air show near Atlanta. I declined due to a previous commitment, but thanked him and asked him to keep me in mind for any future outings. The following week I had a streamer malfunction & cutaway to my round reserve. It was the pack job I would have jumped at the air show. Of course, I steered that lopo into a small clear spot in a neighbor's yard. (A square would have landed me right on target, but pish tosh...) Cheers, Jon

Pro Rating...and to get to jump air shows! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I get back to the internet and read this two days after making my third demo. (Ho humm... Routine landing right on target.) Damn, I gotta get me a PRO someday, I guess... Cheers, Jon

I've made three night jumps and will probably do it again, but... The biggest fear I have is a cutaway and losing my main. It would be challenging enough to try to get my wife to agree to the cost of replacing my freebag. Losing the main would likely put me out of the sport for good. I believe the real issue is not the requirements for a "D" license, but the requirement that one hold a "D" in order to qualify for various other ratings. One can learn to competently instruct and jumpmaster students without ever having jumped at night, or having ever landed within 200' of a target. Likewise, a jumper who has minimal RW skills can develop an accuracy skill set worthy of a PRO rating. Etc. Requiring a "D" license before one may attempt to earn these ratings is like requiring the candidate to place a piece of cheese in his shoe. It is utterly irrelevant to the task at hand. I suspect the exchange of money plays a strong role in the decision to require a "D". Cheers, Jon S.

At its core, this is not a DZ issue. It's a human issue that happened to occur this time at a DZ. A discrete moment of immoral conduct is perfectly understandable. I'll bet most of the people talking would be willing to participate in similar stuff; perhaps they already have. This is an example of the social stigma which is part of the value system upon which such judgements are based. Still, this same value system frowns upon gossip or any other exchange of words designed to annoy, harass, etc. Teasing among friends is one thing, but pursuing the issue with the knowledge that someone is being made uncomfortable serves no useful purpose. (Can't say that I've never done these things, or won't do them again at some point, but that's an issue for another time...) I think the real issue here is that you are describing people who are older than an average high school junior. Frankly, I can remember a time when such a moment would not have become news at the DZ. But this was back in the days when the people smoking pot after hours didn't have to go off and be discrete about it. Anyone remember those big circles? Cheers, Jon S.

Ummmm.. SEX!! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Perhaps. But I can GET a skydive. Cheers, I guess, Jon S.

NICE! Didn't know anything about a cancer situation, but I'm glad you're doing better and were able to fly again. Nice work on the landing. It WAS very close to your selected target, right? Cheers, Jon