Pubwoof

The truth is that they're both passengers and students, however you slice it. Customers of giant tandem mills will still learn something, even if it is little more than how to arch, what it's like to exit, or just how fast it feels out there. And, unless we give the "front seater" access to chicken handles and reachable toggles, they're ultimately still just a passenger too. Plain and simple. What's the point of this whole debate? Really? This misses the point entirely. If we're really interested in growing the sport, it means selling the first jump course. Or, so it would seem to me. If it is true, we should be thinking of tandem customers as prospects instead of worrying about the whole passenger-vs-student distraction. That first tandem shouldn't be regarded as a ride or a lesson, but rather a sales pitch. They need to learn that their ride/lesson up front can never compare to the things they can experience as a licensed skydiver in the air or in the lifestyle. I'm still surprised how often "being a skydiver" seems to be an entirely new concept to my 1st-time tandem customers, who too often think of us as glorified roller coasters. If you want someone to show up for your FJC, what they need to learn on that first tandem is how fun this is to do, who we are as skydivers, and why they should want to be one too. If they don't learn those things, who gives a damn whether they've been briefed on altitude awareness before they never return again? Bowling is a wonderful sport, right? Same thing when a new skydiver is born on the first tandem. Twenty-five jumps (or more) later, who in the hell cares whether our new brother/sister learned about holding areas on that first jump or in the classroom before their second one? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

For the most part, I like these logbooks we've been using where Peek jumps. They are set up to be used for the first couple of jumps, at which time the student would be encouraged to buy a more traditional logbook. It is also worth noting that the space in which free form comments go is quite large, leaving instructors with plenty of freedom to include as many narrative comments as they wish. I think of this style of logbook more as being "pre-formatted" than "pre-filled" as it mostly, to me, serves as a handy debrief checklist. Seeing all of the standard POs/skills listed on the card itself can help remind an instructor of anything they might have forgotten if otherwise staring at a blank page instead. It also standardizes some of the basic information the next instructor should be using to plan that student's next jump. We've only been using them for a couple months now (if that long), but my impression is that they provide a higher-resolution picture of the jump it purports to describe since fewer details get overlooked. Since I don't have a natural ability to speak while writing, the fill-the-boxes part of the card helps the debrief go more smoothly since the student spends less time watching me scribble. While it's never cool to short change a student on a debrief, I don't see anything wrong with it taking less time to complete one if it is the result of a more efficient flow of information. Less meandering and "dead air" in a debrief makes it more effective too, in my humble opinion. A bad instructor can short change a student just as easily with a blank logbook page as they can using this format. There are some aspects to these cards for which I feel less enthusiasm. One would be the cookie-cutter look of it. Even using the "other comments" section and/or drawing smiley faces doesn't make it look any less so. It's hard to tell how much of this is perceived by the student, but it's hard not to think of this as a bad impression to give however mild it may be. Also, when you're debriefing a student with multiple areas of concern, the traditional blank page makes it much easier to pare down the more minor gripes and focus on the most important stuff. I don't like the idea of a student feeling worse about a jump than they should because their formatted page contains multiple unchecked boxes. Maybe I could try drawing a line through any uncheckable items on which the student shouldn't be dwelling so much. Or maybe the card should include an "N/A" box next to the ones for yes and no to get back some of that flexibility. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center will be hosting its second CASA boogie of the season the weekend of July 12 and 13. Archway is located in Vandalia, IL about an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indianapolis, and a few hours south of Chicago. Free camping at airport, free organizing, indoor packing, and nearby eats. Further details will be posted when available (such as festivities, rates, and whatnot). Visit www.archwayskydiving.com and use the icon on the left to log on to the forums. This will be the best place to keep up to date on the tailgate. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center in Vandalia, IL will be hosting a CASA May 10 and 11. Archway is located in mid-southern Illinois about an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indy, and 3 to 4 hours south of the Chicago area. Archway offers free on-site camping, and skydiver discounts are available at the local Day's Inn. This could be the place to be if you don't want to wait for the summer heat to get your boogie on. There will be load organizing, barbecue, beverages, and a bonfire all on site. If you need more info about the DZ, visit www.archwayskydiving.com or feel free to message me. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Is it a given that canopy collisions are more likely based on bigger geometry alone? I really don't know whether the presumption that they are is accurate or not, but most arguments I've heard in favor of banning bigger turns seem to use this idea as an unarticulated premise. I'd like to hear some opinions as to why 270s (or greater) are inherently less safe than 180s (or less) as it relates to viewing other canopies in the vicinity. On one hand, it seems logical that 360+ swoops involve traffic along any radial of your turn leaving your field of view at least temporarily. It also seems more plausible that a swooper might be less likely to account for traffic that happens to be just behind them until after they have committed. On the other hand, it seems like 270s provide for a profile view of the swoop lane prior to committing the dive, which I'd think to be advantageous. Or, could a failure to account for traffic directly behind the beginning of a 270 be even more likely to produce a collision assuming everyone is flying the same L/R-handed pattern? I would like to hear some truly experienced people describe whatever correlation that may exist between the radial size of the swoop vs. the chances of a collision. Thank you in advance. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Your profile names Eloy as a home DZ. Would you prefer landing on a cactus? What'd corn ever do to you anyway??? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Indeed, after a vote was taken on our message board, Corn Freaks became the official name. It was loved so much, someone even got a little carried away with it (see attachments). You should show up now to take all the credit. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center is located at Vandalia Municipal Airport in Vandalia, IL. About an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indianapolis, and just a few hours south of the Chicago area. The airport is a short drive from town, where you'll find several motels and eateries if DZ camping isn't your thing. Students are welcome, but you'll need an A-license or better to get you on the specialty jumps. Observer rides should be available on the Caravan, the balloon, and the bi-plane for non-jumpers. For those of you not familiar with Archway, you'll find a fairly even mix of belly and freeflyers. Coaching and organizing will be available for all skill levels. There is a huge landing area with outs in every direction and a great pea pit for accuracy. If you're looking to get your "convention" groove on in the midwest this summer, this one is worth checking out. Read Archway's reviews on this site or visit archwayskydiving.com for more info on the dropzone. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway is in Vandalia IL along highway 70 about an hour east of St. Louis, a few hours south of Chicago, and a few hours west of Indianapolis. Forecast calls for sunny skies and temps in the lower 40s. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Wouldn't all the Hillary haters feel a bit left out? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I doubt there will be much of a push for new gun legislation, assault weapons or otherwise. Too many of the new dems are blue dogs from conservative areas and the liberal dems have lost the stomach for it after 9/11. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

How does it serve US interests? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, it just seems our lives might be a bit less complicated and/or under threat if we weren't protecting them. Anyone have an opinion about this? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Futility. People of all political stripes perceive that their vote won't actually change anything for the better. Populists see two corporate parties, libertarians see two big-goverment parties, fundamentalists see two heathen parties, NAMBLAites (or whatever the hell they are) see two oppressor parties, and middle-of-the-road people see two parties of politicians. Just an opinion that might make some sense. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

In case you didn't notice, this wasn't a source that I posted, somebody else did. Also, I wasn't making any points about the facts presented other than they were indeed facts. To say that Cheney oversaw the awarding of a contract to a company from which he was still receiving pay is simply not an attack. Now, had the link said that Cheney was an evil son of a bitch whose Mr. Magoo-like eye sight made him a sad choice for a hunting buddy, that would be an attack. I may understand more about how government works, including the awarding of contracts, than you would ever suspect. I also fully understand the concept of deferred compensation, which in Cheney's case, does not refute the notion that a conflict of interest existed. Between political jobs, Cheney spent his time with Halliburton helping them get the inside poop on how to get a greater share of taxpayer money by taking advantage of the procurement process and his personal rolodex. As vice president, nobody disputes that he was involved in their being awarded a contract without having to compete with other firms. The ostensible propriety of this no-bid award was Halliburton's expertise in fighting oil well fires. Nobody disputes the procurement process was circumvented on this basis or that the resulting "value added" contract was larger in scope than their expertise in oil well fires by an order of magnitude. The extent of Halliburton's abuse of this contract has yet to accounted for because the Republican congress was conveniently disregarding their oversight duties. I receive information from a wide variety of sources including FOX, the WSJ, and the Standard (if only to be familiar with all points of view). What I don't do, is to avoid dealing with someone else's argument simply by claiming that their source is biased and then declaring victory as you seem to do. If you disagree with something, try telling us why. To say all of my points come from Soros is presumptious and untrue, especially when you consider I made no points at all based on this sourcing. Bias manifests itself in opinion. Facts do not constitute attacks, even if you don't like them. If you're ever looking to convince me or any of the other posters with whom you seem to disagree, you're just gonna have to do better than dodging points by declaring bias and moving on. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Evidently, you haven't made any reply as to how you feel about CPA order #39 and the morality behind it (or about 90% of my last post). Should I take your silence as a concession to my being right? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

These are all publicly acknowledged FACTS. It is true that Cheney is still getting paid by Halliburton. It is true that Cheney was instrumental in the awarding of contracts to his former employer without them having to bid on jack shit. It is true that neither Cheney nor anybody else in the administration has stated that they believe this represents a conflict of interest. Even Tony Snow wouldn't refute these facts, he'd argue that no conflict of interest actually exists (an argument which strains the limits of credulity). The only part of that statement which can't be substantiated is the "taking dictation" part. Of course, the only reason this can't be proven is because of the unprecedented secrecy involved. No, it is a page of facts about Cheney. They have pages "attacking" a wide host of people including democrats. You really don't know what Times represents on your ticker? Nice! Anyway, are you saying that these are sources that are not biased? Let's say that you're entirely right. Everything on those pages was put there on account of bias. What's your point? Are you suggesting that they can't be trusted? Surely, you'd agree that many true facts are promulgated for reasons of bias, that many untrue facts have been made by people who lack bias, and that facts are either true or not true regardless of where they're found. Would you not? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I think it'd be refreshing for the rest of us if you tell us how a source is biased for a change. How about you hit the link and then indicate whatever fact you believe is wrong on account of bias. Just because there are other sources of information besides the Roger Ailes news network (you probably know them as FOX), it doesn't mean they are biased. Better yet, I'd be curious to see you post any news source other than FOX and WSJ that isn't biased. This posted link is a series of quotes and other links. How is this bias? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

World Church of the Creator: Whoever does it the fastest (they're afraid of the dark). The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Wouldn't he just hold onto the bulb and let the world revolve around him? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

A question for those on the left. Is it really a good idea to impeach Bush? I'm thinking two words; President Cheney. Unless, of course, we can get a two for one special. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I'm glad that you finally responded, even if you never really answered any of the points I made. Just to get this part out of the way, why did you feel a need to mention that jcd was a student? If your reason in doing so was to imply that his argument is less true/valid, then you are straight up guilty of logical fallacy as I pointed out in my earlier post. If this wasn't your intent, then you're just wasting pixels, in which case you should really stop doing that. In regards to your bleeding-heart concern for the starving children of oil company executives, I must say, I am deeply touched. Maybe we should have a telethon for these poor bastards since it's just a crying shame that their daddys' record quarterly profits (profits meaning what's leftover after costs are subtracted from revenues) since Q3 or Q4 (depending if we're talking calendar year or fiscal year) of '05 are only in the several billions of dollars and not into the trillions. So, I argue that #39 is morally wrong because it takes from the poor and gives to rich profit-takers, and you respond by telling me that profits are not revenue? Believe me, had I meant to say revenue, I would have said revenue. I presume all that condescending bullshit about upstream and downstream costs was meant to imply that these 100% foreign corporations have actually built the Iraqi oil industry. Unfortunately, if this is to be a fact-based discussion, then it pains me to point out that this isn't actually the case. The corporate world finds itself in ownership of Iraqi industry not because they bought it or even leased it for a while, but because it was given to them by the Bush administration. I'll ask you again. Is it moral for us to rewrite the rules so that all the money ends up in the hands of outside corporations who have done nothing to earn it? If it is moral, what did the Iraqi people do to deserve the reality that they are verboten from having any substantial ownership in the industries that generate profits from their fellow citizens? Was it because they failed to welcome us as liberators as prophesied by the idiot star chamber running our government? Exactly. That's what is so wrong about #39. The Iraqis just don't agree that they should just give it away. First of all, I didn't see you debunking anything. You just asserted that it was debunked. Disregarding facts because they don't fit into your pre-conceived notions is a fool's errand. The word for it is truthiness. If these financial institutions know more about the market than you do, how do you know enough to conclude that they've debunked anything. Believing things you don't understand is called superstition. Wisdom dictates that conclusions should flow from the facts, not the other way around. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts (especially if you don't get it). The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

How about this for an argument; if it was not about the oil, Bush wouldn't have just said that it was. The point about oil isn't what the going wholesale price is going to be at any given time, but rather who gets to be the middle-men (read profit makers) and who gets to control the oil in such an arrangement. Under Saddam, the Iraqi oil system was entirely nationalized. Part of what was dictated to the Iraqis by the Paul Bremer provisional authority was a Saudi-style arrangement whereby the oilfields themselves remained Iraqi, but only under what were called "production sharing agreements" where everything was to be run by international oil companies (all the big names you've heard of) who all get to take a fat cut of the profits that used to stay with Iraq and their business partners. For those of you who never understood why Russia in particular, and also China, seemed to be so unthrilled with our invasion, it has a lot to do with the above. This doesn't only extend to oil, which happens to be the biggest chunk of booty being looted by Bush and friends, but to virtually all Iraqi industries. The port facilities in Um Qasr initially went to a British corporation (at least until it was re-no-bidded to another corporate supporter of Bush), and some smaller bits and pieces went to some of our less involved coalition partners (part of their payoff for being amongst the "willing"). Of course, these new custodians of Iraqi wealth insisted on doing so to line their own pockets, which led to US-style "cost cutting" firings across the country which further added to the numbers of pissed-off Iraqis with nothing better to do than to learn the ways of the IED. I don't mean to blaspheme by suggesting that our being greedy bastards has anything to do with our current suffering, but all of these Iraqis trying to kill us once had jobs under Saddam whether you like hearing that or not. Bush himself has repeatedly said that one of our main goals in the rebuilding of Iraq was to turn it into a "free-market" economy, which pretty much means corporations calling all the shots. If you don't believe this, look up CPA order #39. In violation of international and US law, it required the following: full privatization of all that which used to be owned/ran by the Iraqi government, 100% foreign ownership of virtually everything aside from the underlying mineral rights of Iraqi oil, that none of the profits made by these foreign corporations could be taxed (ie. at all shared with Iraq), AND that this arrangement would last for forty years unless these corporations decided to "renew" their interests. If you add it all together, it is nothing other than neo-colonial pillaging for the benefit of rich foreign corporations (mostly US supporters of Bush). Is this at all moral? Why does Bush think we have the right to do this? To insist that we have to own the underlying oil for this to be anything about oil is laughably fallacious, as was calling another poster a student. To say "you're just a student" commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial, which means to claim that a certain argument is either valid or not valid based upon who advances the argument. The validity of any argument entirely rests upon the premises and construction found within said argument, never who makes it. If only Bush had been a better student of Islam, Iraq, the limitations of military might, or really almost anything for that matter, we might not be so shit out of luck right now. I was also amused (thanks Scoob) by your protest about another poster referring to something as nefarious as "data" to support his point of view. Do all the right-wing supermen around here get so upset when a non neo con shows up to the conversation with some factynite? Or am I too not in the real world? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Back to your original question, you can probably surmise that neither method is the end all be all. That half of the posters in this thread advocate one while the other half advocate the opposite should be proof enough of that fact. You've probably also surmised that each method has it's advantages and disadvantages. As a coach who jumps with students fresh off of each progression, there do seem to be a few consistent differences between the two methods. S/L students, at least initially, are focused exclusively on canopy skills before adding freefall a little bit at a time. This more narrow focus tends to result in students who better understand canopy flight, landing patterns, and, as Ron has stated, better spotting skills. I personally don't see how S/L would make anyone a better packer, but this might be an anomoly at some DZs. Where I jump, learning to pack is most directly correlated to the student's desire to learn to pack. The downside is that learning freefall skills is more belated, which isn't necessarily a downside if that belatedness is a better match for how you learn. S/L, from my too brief experience, does tend to generate more spinners and tumblers than does AFF. AFF students (which was how I learned) tend to have better free fall skills than the S/L students with comparable jump numbers. This isn't an absolute rule, but a consistent probability which happens to make sense. If you really think about it, an AFF student is learning two new sports at the same time, body flight and canopy flight. For most AFF students, learning the same canopy skills will take a little extra time, if only because they're so busy trying to learn freefall skills on the same jumps. Another potential downside to AFF might be getting so accustomed to jumping from full altitude that 3.5k hop'n'pops can be a little scary. Ultimately, I think the most sage advice that could be applied to your question comes from one of your fellow countrymen, a one Mr. Keith Richards. He once said that, "If you're going to mess around with dope, know yourself and know your dope." Do what is most comfortable for you. I think someone mentioned that your tunnel time means you should go AFF because you already have a head start on freefall. However, if it makes more sense to you to focus on canopy skills in a S/L program for that very same reason, you should do that instead. You may end up making a decision after you get out there based on the instructor from whom you'll be most comfortable learning. Nobody posting here can possibly know what will be best for you, even if they have a strong opinion about how they became a skygod (I hope you noticed that little recurring theme). Have fun no matter which route you take, and keep an open mind. Blue skies! The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

My guess would be Madame and Mr. President. Even after presidents (senators and congressman too) leave office, it is still proper to address them as Mr. President, Senator, Mr./Madame Secretary, etc. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Maybe you should read what's been posted too. The example in question, which was not posted by me, names only two names. Am I wrong about that? This very same example also shows that the two individuals were hung out to dry by the party apparatus, which would seem to undermine any claim that this was a Democratic party conspiracy. I also never said that there were no smears being made against Republicans, only that these smears were limited in scope to official conduct and public positions taken. My point is that unlike Democrats, Republicans are willing to engage in officially endorsed smears that are personal, racist, and/or have already been proven to be untrue. I'm sorry that this may cause dissonance for you guys who might believe that Republicans are every bit as moral and upstanding as they portray themselves to be, but their highly questionable actions bely this sham of an image. Even you guys trying to argue with me here, so far, have been unable or unwilling to do so without disregarding something that's actually been written, deliberately mischaracterizing something that has been written, or just outright making shit up. I'll happily give you a friggin' break as soon as someone provides an example which answers my challenge. Also, please point out to me where I said that everything bad done by the hands of Republicans was a Rovian plot. Again, so sorry you got this wrong too, but I was talking about actual ads placed and identified as being Republican party ads. It is undisputed public knowledge that Karl Rove, and Ken Mehlman to a lesser extent, are the 'deciders' of what ads go out, how much money is put behind each of them, and where they get placed. This is what their jobs are. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.