DrewEckhardt

The ground fills your entire field of vision (there's no horizon) and is spreading out _fast_. It's pretty good arround 1000 feet at terminal, a few hundred feet sub-terminal.

They can have a used Cypres just like they have a used car (if they bought a new car, they have chosen it over the Cypres). Used Cypreses are priced on time remaining. An 11 year old Cypres with good batteries isn't worth much over $150: 1/12th what the original owner should have paid (there are people that cell the Cypres at cost because they think it' a good idea) + 1/4 the 4-year + 1/2 the battery. Few American skydivers* CAN'T afford a CYPRES. Especially AFF instructors. They just choose not to buy one. Saying they CAN'T afford it is being dishonest. Someplace there's a club that owns a 182, charges jumpers for Hobbs time only, and hop-and-pops are $5 on club gear. The club doesn't require USPA membership. Broke jumpers who don't pay for reserve repacks can make 30 jumps a year there for what a Cypres costs. Poor jumpers who own their own rigs and can't retrofit a Cypres (for example, there's no TSO'd way to put one in an EOS) can also legitimately claim they can't afford it. Other impoverished jumpers with Cypres ready rigs doing 5 jumps a month at $15/a jump and spending $900 a year + repacks + USPA membership can afford a Cypres by limiting themselves to 4 jumps a month. A Cypres is a cheap insurance policy against certain accidents that does nothing for others. You can choose not to use one although usually "I can't afford it" is really "I'd rather spend my money on something else." Adults are free to make that choice, although claiming poverty is usually a lie.

Free choice. A good number of instructors I know can't afford them. A CYPRES costs about $175 a year - half what cable TV does. Divided into 500 jumps it's fraction of gear depreciation ($.35 cents vs. > $1.00) assuming the instructor isn't getting paid. Instructors who don't buy a Cypres (used if cash is an issue - the per jump cost is the same) can claim they can't afford it although that's an excuse. "I choose not to pay for one" or "I think they're silly" are accurate answers. While those answers don't sound as good as "I can't afford it," those instructors still have the right to make their own decision regarding acceptable risks. The capitalist DZ that employs them is also free to decide they'd rather force instructors (or even all jumpers) to use a cypres than to deal with the aftermath of a fatality even if it means some people will work+jump elsewhere.

Right. Here's a good one-size fits all policy: No one can jump anything smaller than a Manta 288 and Raven IV reserve (282 square feet). Anything smaller is more dangerous and therefore unacceptable.... Or you can take the view that different people have different experience levels, environments, and risk thresholds. As long as they're not taking more than customary risks with other people's lives what they jump is their business. To them, a 21 (with cutaway) or 39 (intentional cutaway or landing) is an acceptable risk. I have about 1500 parachute jumps, weigh 150-155 pounds, live at 5000 feet, usually make 200 jumps a year, and want a reserve that won't suck too much landing while incapacitated. I like a 105 main (same wing loading I've had for the last 800 jumps) and 143 reserve. I'll bump endcells with that main and don't mind people walking across the topskin. I've skysurfed and flow wing suits. I'll freefall 300 feet and static line 200. I wouldn't jump a 3-canopy system using risers with an extra base-ring, or two sets of small rings on one big base ring. I would use a 3-canopy rig or second harness/direct bag with a cutaway handle in the right place. I'd definately try a 60 with an intentional cutaway and think about something much smaller. If I were more current, lived in a desert like eloy, and didn't think some things were worth considering (freefall dislocations/broken bones and unconscious landings after a cypres fire) I'd opt for 90/106 square feet. With more jumps and currency I might opt for a cross-braced 75 main. Other people have different risk thresholds. Dwain Weston liked to swoop fixed objects in a wing suit. That was his choice to make. Flying close enough that he bounced less than 10' from me should not have been a choice he made. Many skydivers won't BASE jump. Some wouldn't tray skysurfing. Many other people won't even skydive. The only problem we might want to address is people taking risks without knowing. People with a year in the sport and 200 jumps under elliptical canopies loaded to 1.5 pounds/square foot fall into this category. Guys with thousands of jumps doing intentional cutaways don't.

People have back-slid into terminal walls (fatally), failed to track sufficiently far from them and then had a wall-strike under canopy (fatally), etc. You might find the fatality list enlightening. Yes. Off-heading openings don't matter, you can open immediately if you have a bad exit (your first jump will be a pilot chute assist) without worrying about a wall strike, it's very difficult to hit anything immovable (people have landed in the rocks near the canyon wall and broken bones after flying into the few trees)...

Jumping an old rig (3-pin container with ripcord on the main lift web, chest mount reserve) was half the fun on my PC jump. Of course that means finding both the gear and an old rigger with a chest rating

Rights are things inherent in our natural state of being that don't conflict with others' rights. For example we can say what we want, but other people don't have to listen. Money to buy consumer goods is not an inherent aspect of our existance. Tax funded welfare is theft.

Public assistance isn't. They can choose to reproduce without limits, or voluntarily trade government money for restrictions.

I'd vote for it. You don't have the right to steal my money to pay for your offspring. Many people feel that indignant children are entitled to charity. The only way to reconcile those points is to disallow breeding among people who choose to pay for their broods through public charity. People can breed all they want at the expense of a lower standard of living they support or can convince other people to supporrt voluntarily. If they want they can also voluntarily give up the right to reproduce in exchange for the financial benefit. It's no different from people who choose to live in communities with HOAs giving up their right to paint their house purple.

Sure although on this side of the pond an older used ZP canopy like a Sabre or Monarch can be found for $300-$400. While it wouldn't open as softly as a Spectre, such a canopy would be perfectly serviceable until some one decided to sell it for about what they paid for it (net cost: $0).

1. Because they have huge budgets at the national and state levels, the resulting politics are about gaining the resulting power. The people drawn to that above all else including money don't tend to be nice people. If they were interested in money, they'd work in private industry where the CEO of a company with a trillion dollar revenue stream wouldn't get a measily $400K. If they wanted a normal life, they wouldn't be politicians. 2. Because they need to promise things to enough selfish people to get and stay in office and do the same with other legislators to keep enough of the resulting promises. Many bills need to reach a few hundred pages of something for everyone to get through. My copy of the 1994 bill which allegedly banned assault weapons bloated to 150,000 words before it passed. A novel should total just 75,000 - 125,000. The founding fathers weren't pessimistic enough. People are lazy. They don't like to research. They don't like to think. Our youth are taught through rote memorization of facts and procedures using politician selected texts. This means that elections get decided based on sound bites, emotional appeals, historic voting practices, and the candidates likeability.

Which usually have a _lot_ less than a claimed 800 jumps (she's not the original owner so we don't know the real number. One canopy I bought probably had over twice the claimed number on it) . I know one other jumper who's said he'll sell his canopies after 100 jumps and buy new ones. A small woman under a PD190 should do fine if the fabric is OK (porosity test) and she can reach the stall point (check at altitude and take wraps if a full stall is not possible). We haven't estalblished whether either of these conditions is true. If the fabric leaks like a sieve a newer 190 would be a better choice. An _appropriate performance_ ZP 190 would be no faster than the PD 190 and not be a bad choice. PD's Navigator student canopy is ZP. Obviously a smaller canopy will be faster and is therefore a bad choice.

Sounds reasonable. Bush 43 premptively invaded one middle-eastern country which posed little threat to us. There are other countries which pose a bigger threat like Iran actually has uranium enrichment facilities. Invading them would be consistant. We're in Afganastan. We're in Iraq. Iran is between the two. An Iranian invasion is probable. Can we and will we fight a war on more than two fronts with an all volunteer force? The sad thing is that he probably got his ideas from sound-bite attack pieces like most other Americans (Democrat and Republican).

I didn't vote on whether or not to retain our judges because the summaries I got didn't say anything about their records on the cases that would interest me and I didn't care enough to find out. Whoever cares more about the judges should decide their fare.

It's a rush, the scenery is great, and waiting for your canopy to open after pitching is as peaceful and in the moment as life gets. There's something inside that just needs it. Skydiving's competiive aspect can ruin the sport for recreational jumpers. It's fun. Both sports are great distractions from troubles at work and in the rest of life. You don't need to quantify them.

It won't help. Some of the fatalities come from unplanned low turns. People react incorrectly to obstacles/traffic and die. Video won't help. Some come from botched high-performance landings. Most of us think we're not going to do anything as stupid as the people we've seen crash. Wait long enough and you'll see more than enough fatalities+serious injuries.

Yup - we filled Mike Mullin's King Air one year at Quincy.

I've skydived with a singlecanopy rig (not in America). Lots of people use them on lots of other jumps. With a conservative canopy and good pack job by me I consider the risk to be acceptable. Reasons not to do it with your skydiving reserve are 1. You didn't pack it and therefore can't know about any equipment and/or rigging problems. 2. You may have problems if you dump low and the spring loaded PC hesitates in your burble. 3. It's likely to get you in trouble. 4. You might loose the freebag. 5. It's not legal in America.

9/11 was a one-off attack because few people are willing to die when you're not occupying their homeland.

Yes. They extort money from bars. A local Irish pub stopped having a friend's band play after the ASCAP threatened to sue if they didn't cough up for a license. Their band plays Celtic music dating back to the 50's. As in _1850s_. Everything in their repertoir is old enough for the copyrights to have lapsed.

Osama was important to us before Iraq and will be again once that's resolved because we need some one to justify our Two Minutes Hate.

I put 600 jumps on a Stiletto 120 with no hard openings. Other people have a _lot_ more with no problems. It opened slower than the squares I've jumped, not quite as slow as a Spectre. The Stiletto and Safire are different types of canopies. The Stiletto is the classic fully-elliptical canopy, implying control sensitivity, some degree of oversteer, and a slower stall speed. The Safire is a more moderate design that won't be as touchy to fly and on openings. If you stay curent and don't jump wing suits you might want something like the Stiletto. The Cross-Fire, Nitron, and Samurai also fit in that class. Which you prefer is largely a matter of personal preference although there's something to be said for used Stilettos selling for $500-$600 with a fresh lineet. If you have lay-offs and/or jump wingsuits you might want something more conservative. Lotus, Omega, Pilot, Sabre 2, Safire, Spectre. Which you prefer is largely a matter of personal preference. I am glad I didn't downsize and change from square to elliptical at the same time. Since you're staying the same size, this shouldn't be an issue.

Airspeed is determined entirely by drag and trim. Parachutes differing only in construction material (ZP, 0-3 CFM, or ZP topskin) will have the same speed. A Sabre 190 will be no faster than a PD 190.

That depends on how worn the canopy is (a worn out F111 canopy does not lhave enough flare to land acceptably with a straight-in approach), wing loading (lower wing loadings mean you're coming down slower and need less of a flare to be comfortable), and density altitude (this increases speed and reduces flare power). One mid-sized woman (wing loading well under 1.0) consistantly pounded in under her ragged out Raven-II (218 square feet) up here at 5000 feet MSL until she sprained her ankle and I loaned her my spare Turbo Z 205. Getting rid of the porosity immediately made her landings comfortable. Many people would consider F111 to be worn-out at 1000 jumps in average conditions. A claimed 800 jumps could be over 1000 actual jumps. Dusty environments can substantially reduce lifespan. With jumps in places like Eloy the PD190 could be done at 800 real jumps. Having the porosity checked would be a fine idea. Talk to your rigger about having that done in England.

Maine and Nebraska allocate electors based on congressional districts, with the state's overall winner taking the 2 senate seat electoral votes. So far this has not yet resulted in a split electoral vote.