Airman1270

20.7

QuoteHow the hell so much good science came out of Alabama is beyond me. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Remember, this was back in the day when they could hire the best qualified people, regardless of what they looked like, who they slept with, or from what country their grandparents emigrated. It was just pure coincidence that this policy resulted in an inordinate percentage of short-haired, straight white males on the payroll. Cheers, Jon S.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You can borrow my old rig with the Strato Cloud. Seven cell F-111, 240 sq. ft. Be prepared for a PLF if you don't flare it just right. Any takers? Cheers, Jon S.

Oops... Thought this might have something to do with John Lennon's old backup band from the early 70's. My friend's Dad owned a beach club/nightclub in Sayville, Long Island back when we were in high school. Saw the band play there once. Anyway, cheers! Jon S.

...Others provided good stuff about what to take with you...well, except the beer joke...maybe... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Huh? That was a joke? Oops... This might be a bad time to reflect upon the two beers I drank to celebrate my 500th jump ten years ago. Calling it a "cross country" is a bit of a stretch, as there was NO wind. We got out at 13,500' straight over the DZ. Popped the second beer at 9000', released the brakes at 3000'. Nice landing despite poor circulation in the legs. Cheers, Jon S.

Anyone remember the Smothers' Brothers rendition of the classic "Chocolate?": "I fell in a vat of chocolate." "I fell in a vat of chocolate." "What'd you do when you feeell into the chocolate?" (Harmony) "La de do, dum, la de do dum daaaayy." Cheers, Jon S.

...I've found over the years that the vast majority of skydivers have this attitude in all facets of their lives. And that attitude means that they stand up for themselves when right, and accept consequences when wrong... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ My wakeup call occurred in the months following my first jump while recovering from my broken ankle. (T-10, "forgot" the PLF.) I was exuberant about the jump and eager to return and try again. During these months I spoke with many people who suggested I sue the DZ. This caught me by surprise. I explained that the accident was my fault. They insisted there was something wrong with the gear, or that I wasn't trained properly. I said "NO! They trained me just fine. The gear worked well. But I failed to follow instructions, that's all." They weren't persuaded. Their determination to fabricate an excuse to hold someone else responsible was frightening. It occurred to me that these are the people who end up on juries. There was another point, as well. While sitting in the field, my useless foot hanging off my ankle, lines and canopy fabric all around, waiting to be found, I KNEW I'd be back someday to jump again. I saw little to gain by suing the guy who'd be packing my parachute. Cheers, Jon S.

In this example, your beef is not with the police, the courts, or the legal system – it's with the state legislature that passed the "open container" statute. The police were simply enforcing the law that was on the books. If the citizens don't like it, they should petition the legislature to repeal the statute. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If "enforcing the law" meant dragging the guy into court to answer the charge, they could have written him a ticket. In theory your point makes sense, but how often have we seen citizens 1) demand that poorly-conceived laws be repealed, or 2) legislatures take them seriously? To my mind, "enforcing the law" meant not allowing a drunk person to drive. Regardless of the circumstances that led to the stop, once the cops determined that the driver was sober they could have allowed him to proceed without filing any charges. This would not have compromised their mission to enforce the law. I believe that "enforcing the law" means carrying out the basic intent of the legislature, which in this case was an attempt to prevent drunk driving. As there was no drunk driving taking place, there was no compelling reason to act like pricks and punish an innocent man. Furthermore, nobody gives a damn whether anyone is carrying an "open container" as long as the driver is sober. Before this law was passed, there was no rising tide of public opinion demanding such a law, They just wanted people to drive sober. The law was another one of those legislative "Hey look at me, I'm doing something" grandstanding events which became impossible to argue against without being portrayed as being FOR drunk driving. Perhaps we can't expect the lawmakers to act with some sober restraint, but I expect my cops to show a propensity for rational, logical thought, coupled with an attitude of trying to resolve a situation in the least-restrictive manner possible. This means that they make an arrest only in extreme cases, rather than contributing to this cycle of dragging a bunch of people into the jail and trying to get them bonded out as fast as possible to make room for the next shift. While doing radio a few years back I spoke with a former police chief who told me the main reason he left the profession was becasue of the pressure to turn police work into a money-making venture. Cheers, Jon

...I wonder if any of you older cops out there rememeber back when the Cops actually were liked by the local citizens and there was mutual trust because you knew them and trusted their character?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EXACTLY! The blame here can be laid at the doorstep of liberalism. Police work used to consist of helping people and chasing bad guys. Now, thanks (mostly) to liberal Democrats, their job description has taken on a third dimension, that of enforcing liberalism and dragging people into court for failing to do what a Democrat told them to do.(*) This puts police in the position of hassling people in ways that would have been unthinkable just 30 years ago. Also, their perfomance is measured according to the number of tickets/arrests they produce. We might think it's neat for a cop to finish a shift without encountering any reason to stop citizens. To us, it means things are going reasonably well in society. To the cop, it means he's under pressure to prove he's doing his job. If things get slow, he'll be more eager to stop passersby on the interestate to just check things out (hoping he'll find anything - drugs, a warrant, no insurance, etc. - anything to produce some paper and keep his superiors off his back.) Or maybe he'll write you up for a minor violation rather than allow you to proceed with a verbal warning. Sure, sometimes they're scumbags, but let's at least understand some of the pressure placed upon them to act like scumbags. Please note the correlation between the enforcement of liberalism and the corresponding erosion of Constitutional rights. (* I'm assigning blame here to Democrats because they provide the muscle for most of these stupid, recently-enacted laws. Yes, some Republicans are to blame for refusing to stand against this idiocy, but the fact is that, as far as personal liberties are concerned, if the Democrats don't want these intrusive laws passed, they don't get passed. It's not the George Bush/Rush Limbaugh/Pat Robertson dimension of U.S. politics that has made it a crime for you to drive alone in the left lane without a seatbelt while carrying a loaded handgun in a gym bag on the car floor.) Cheers, Jon

...prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list because their power is unequaled. Only a prosecutor can ruin an innocent persons life without fear of liability... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I know a guy who was arrested for "open container" back when he was 19. He was not drinking; he was the designated driver for two friends who had been drinking. What purpose was served by arresting him? According to most citizens, he was doing exactly what those stupid, expensive taxpayer-funded PSA's were asking us to do: He was enabling his friends to drink responsibly & thus avoid a threat to public safety. (That's the motivating reason behind ALL police activity, right? Concern for public safety?) The cop should have given him a handshake, not a hassle. If some sort of harsh action was justified, he could have written the guy a ticket. Frankly, I think any cop who would arrest someone over such a minor violation deserves to endure something unfortunate. As far as the prosecutor is concerned, the case was dismissed the next day so I don't know how far this would have traveled through the system. But I did speak a few times with a prosecutor...My mind drifts back... ...to 1997. Was driving a Camaro around 45 in a 40 zone. Cop said I was doing 63. (Later determined the large vehicle behind me caused the radar reading.) First visit to court. Clean record going back more than 20 years. Told the attractive prosecutor lady with nice breasts that I didn't drive like than as a teenager and I sure don't drive that way now. Explained my case. She offered a real nice deal, saying "she" has never lost a radar case. I looked at her funny, almost came right out and asked "What does this have to do with you?" Next appearance. She gave me one last chance to accept the deal before trial. Thanked her, but said I'd like to speak with the judge. While waiting, I saw the cop in the hallway behind the courtroom. They called my name, said the witness against me has not appeared, and that the case was dismissed. I almost said "NO, he's back there, I just saw him..." I don't know, but I ASSume this was their mechanism for dealing with people who had been wrongfully accused without allowing the prosecutor to score a series of acquittals. At times I wonder to what extent justice & common sense are compromised because prosecutor's careers can only be advanced by contradicting these principles. Cheers, Jon

For many years I've been critical of the legal profession's apparent determination to manipulate juries into making their decisions based, not on sober analysis of factual information, but on cheap appeals to emotion. During the recent Andrea Yates trial, I saw a news blurb which mentioned that the jurors were shown photos of the dead kids. My question: Why was this necessary? The woman was on trial for killing her kids. Can we not stipulate that the kids were dead? What purpose was served by showing the photos? If the photos had not been shown, what evidence is there to suggest the jury would not have been able to process the testimony and arrive at a verdict? Over the years I've read reports of newspaper vending boxes at courhouses being covered with cardboard so jurors would not be exposed to the contents. If these people are so superficial, so easily influenced by chance exposure to a news headline, why are they selected as jurors in the first place? Another point: What is the definition of a "fair trial?" According to law school graduates, it seems a "fair trial" is one in which an obviously guilty defendant has a real good chance of going free. Example: The guy who shot up an Atlanta courtroom last year, killing several people. (Sorry, I forget his name.) This is not a situation where they might have caught the wrong guy. This guy did it, period. Nobody has suggested he has been wrongfully accused. How can he be tried, and convicted, without some defense attorney braying that he did not receive a "fair trial?" Just wondering... Cheers, Jon S.

...carol, on the otherhand, is a jump junkie!!! simply amazing... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes! A big high-five to Carol. Had the pleasure of carpooling to Duanesburg several times from Long Island together, back when I had about 90 jumps and she had, oh, 150 one week, 230 a month later, etc. Nice people at ASC, including my first instructor Bob R. Damn shame I couldn't spend more time there. Cheers, Jon

...QuoteIt is not an AFF jump. You are a licensed jumper who needs a currency jump. Yes, that means you'll have to take an a jumpmaster with you... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn, this crap is precisely the reason we're having the whole "jumper retention" debate in the first place! LM, with 89 jumps in 16 months you are far more current than I've ever been as I approach the 24th anniversary of my first jump. For you, a "recurrency" jump means you should probably do a short solo delay. (The Farm interprets a "hop 'n' pop" as anything below 6000-8000'.) You could easily do a 2- or 3-way (with people who are reasonably experienced) without any compromise of safety. The big issue here is that you've come up in the sport during a time when there has been inordinate hand-wringing about currency, AAD's, etc. Everyone around you has persuaded you to be REAL anxious about returning to the sky. Personal Testimony: March 1990, about 150 jumps in more than seven years, hadn't jumped in six months. Returning to the sky with a new used rig I bought from the PARACHUTIST classifieds. "Recurrency" briefing consisted of a quick discussion with an instructor, reviewing emergency procedures, altitude awareness, wind direction, etc. (No extra charge) Made four jumps that day, landed in the peas every time. I was nervous because I always am, but there was no paralyzing fear. This is likely because there was no atmosphere of paranoia warning me that I could easily die if I jumped again without serious formal instruction. I concede you may be required to jump through these stupid hoops, but you don't NEED to. And, while you will be scared, you'll probably notice that you're not as scared as you thought you'd be. Welcome back! Cheers, Jon S.

No. Cheers, Jon S.

Got a laugh at the photos in SKYDIVING magazine of Max Cohn celebrating the tenth anniversary of his first jump at the Ranch, with his original instructors. According to the caption, he's wearing a student jumpsuit & helmet, but "chickened out" of using a student rig. While I've not spend the bulk of my jump career at the Ranch, I do know they have a talented staff and good quality student gear. I'd jump any of their rigs without hesitation. Don't know why Max would be reluctant to trust this stuff. The good news is that most of the people who will use this gear are probably not reading SKYDIVING yet, so this will not influence their confidence. (Personal "hello" to Max: We met during my visit in 2002. You noticed my "Simpson's" cup and we discussed our enjoyment of the program.) What really sucks is that, two months before he made his first jump, I had nearly 500. There was a brief moment in history where he would have looked up to me with awe. Anyway, Congrats. Cheers, Jon S.

I wish I could be there at sunset this evening to share the beer, listen to your description of the jump, and enjoy your newfound confidence. Static line graduates are smiling. My first freefall was jump #8, from 3500'. The plan was a hop 'n' pop, but my instructor said "You can do five seconds, you can even do ten. You have the time. If you do 15, I'm going to be pissed..." With heart pounding, I did a beautiful stable exit and counted off "arch, look, reach, pull..." He told the others on the load it was the best first freefall he'd ever seen. He later told me he was one of those guys who'd popped a pilot chute in his jumpmaster's face. You can do a 15 second delay from 3000' and pull before the Cypres fires. Don't, of course, but you could do it if you had to. Enjoy the jump! Cheers, Jon S.

Nice magazine overall, but I think they turned down the wrong road a dozen or so years ago when they decided to change for the sake of change, messing with the logo and turning the publication into a skydiver version of PEOPLE magazine. Could I do better? Perhaps. But with zero publishing experience and a lack of interest in relocating, I may not be the best man for the job. Cheers, Jon S.

During my stellar radio career I visited the police station daily to check the reports. I once asked the nice lady on duty about a situation where a guy was arrested for DUI, but blew a real low BAC number, well within the legal limit. I asked why he was charged when the evidence indicated he had complied with the law. She gave me some partial bullshit answer about a legal category called "less safe to drive." There comes a point when we must muster the courage to stop blaming alcohol for every unfortunate incident that might occur in its presence. Show me a guy who is a dangerous driver after drinking two beers and I'll show you a dangerous driver. The alcohol is irrelevant. If a drunk guy is stopped at a red light and is rear-ended by a sober driver, was the incident "alcohol related?" Cheersh, Jon S.

By the way, I stopped at a traffic light last week and there weren't any "1-800-SKYDIVE" stickers on any of the nearby signs or fences. Perhaps they have a hotline where people can report such incidents so they can be quickly corrected? Cheers, Jon S.

Quotehow on earth my personal experience has nothing to do with it is beyond me... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Should this conversation continue in Speakers' Corner? I am not being disrespectful. The point here is that we have been conditioned to avoid using perfectly legitimate words because of some people's interpretation of what is or is not "offensive." There is nothing wrong with describing people who suffer physical disabilities as "crippled." It's a valid word that describes a specific set of circumstances. The issue here is that some people long ago decided that the word was disrespectful, and began demanding we use other words that mean the same thing. Since then, certain political forces have decided that the words they themselves decided we should use are now disrespectful, and are demanding we use new words & phrases to replace other words which were never wrong in the first place. A guy who can't use his legs is 1) crippled, 2) disabled, 3) handicapped, 4) physically challenged, 5) all of the above. The correct answer is 5. Cheers, Jon

Found it. It's in the December 1989 issue. The banner is easy to make and flies nice 'n' stable. They recommend wrapping it around your wrist before pulling, but I didn't have to do that. Just held it out in my left hand while pulling. If you're flat and stable it won't interfere with deployment. Hope this helps. Cheers, Jon

I made three freefall banners to announce my kids' births...well, I had my rigger make them. There was an article in PARACHUTIST in 1989 regarding how to make a good banner out of F-111 fabric. I'll try to find it and post more info soon. I still have the banners and corresponding photos on the wall of my basement room. Oh, so cool. Cheers, Jon S.

Quotei need to clear something up here and it seems i may be the only one in this thread qualified to do so. i am a L1 paraplegic and DISABLED!! not crippled.i dont know where you get your info but i dont like being called a cripple... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Take a breath. The use of words such as "disabled" to describe people who fit the definition was an artificial attempt to change society's use of morally neutral terminology. It was thought that people who were crippled would feel better about themselves if they were no longer described as such. So, instead, we came up with a new word which means the same thing. Furthermore, there are people who now claim that "disabled" is a harsh word, and are trying to create even more ridiculous phrases, such as "physically challenged," to describe people who suffer limitations the majority of folks do not have to deal with. Look at the stink created when someone describes black people as "black people." In a few decades we've gone from "negroes" to "colored" to the asinine "African American." It's silly. And its offensive to assign unkind motives to people who refuse to play this game. By the way, your personal experience is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Cheers, Jon

emphasis mine What an IDIOTIC response! It seems in your "41" years you have learned little about other things besides "skydiving". Cripples skydiving ... yeah, next thing you know the darkies and jews will want to skydive. edied to add: I'd love for you to call Dana Bowman (fellow Green Beret) and double amputee he is a "cripple" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ummm... Actually, I thought the use of the word "crpples" was a refreshing use of a legitimate word to describe people who are, in one way or another, crippled. I don't have a dictionary at hand, but I seem to remember the word being used to describe people who, for whatever reasons, were unable to do things most "normal" people could do. Furthermore, last I checked the people in question didn't really have a beef with the terminology. Whatever social outrage has ever been connected with the term was pretty much fabricated by people with political agendas. If you are in the habit of saying things like "he/she", "him/her", "spokesperson", etc., then you have fallen into their trap. Cheers, Jon S.

Thanks Ron. Some more... That I don't agree with... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Perhaps if we try hard enough we'll come up with a "new" rule that makes perfect sense, but I speak from the perspective of someone who did it safely, and watched others do it safely, before these rules were enacted. I do insist, however, that any new regulations less than ten years old should be discarded. ... Chances are the guy would have left anyway... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ True, there were other issues as well. Last we spoke he still wants to get back into it. But being forced to make a static-line dive did not help and was completely unnessesary. These kinds of rules end up setting a tone in which people come to believe that they cannot safely return after a layoff without jumping through a variety of ridiculous hoops. This sport is more dangerous than people think it is... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Maybe so, but is is not quite as dangerous as the AAD nazies, the currency nazies, nor the equipment nazies would lead one to believe. Thats YOU, not EVERYONE... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ That's because everyone did not train on rounds. ...an instructor took me aside for a quick briefing, a discussion of wind direction and a gear check, and I was riding the Cessna. The key word there was EXPENSIVE. Like it or not you did undergo recurrency training..., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ THIS kind of R.T. makes perfect sense. Usually, when the subect come up, we're talking about formal ground school, extra expense, etc. The R.T. I endured took about two minutes, and didn't cost extra. The process enabled the DZO to familiarize himself with me a bit and ensure I understood the process, while affirming in my mind the seriousness of keeping my head up and performing correctly. Seemed like common sense at the time. Thanks, Jon