kilo666

As I see it you have two options here: 1. Admit you have an agenda, apologize, then drop it. Or better yet, just drop it, no apology needed. 2. Take the low road, keep up the facade of being "concerned for everyone's safety" and continue on your pilgrimage to save all of us. Option #2 is the easy choice. You save face. You save the world. It's your call, but whining is so unattractive. I will not post again on the matter. I posted only because I believe that what you did was patently unfair to everyone involved. In all fairness, I thought it was important to shed light on the matter. Peace

Vallerina, It really is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person but I will give it my best shot... You have a long history of trashing dropzones for seemingly inane reasons. It is well known that you refuse to jump at certain dropzones in Florida for some "catty" reasons. It is certainly your right to choose where to jump, but logic doesn't seem to play into that decision. meow. Your quote: "...not brought to the attention of those who deserved to know about it..." : someone posted earlier that the dropzone who was to lease the aircraft does, in fact, know well in advance as to enable them to secure another aircraft. Why do you give a sh*t about that other dropzone unless you were going to be there to jump this "dangerous" aircraft? If the aicraft had a "non-reportable incident" as some of the previous postings have indicated, who "deserves to know?" You state, "there is a long list of safety concerns....": Unless you can substantiate this comment about a dropzone you are at serious risk for a libel or slander or defamation action. Vallerina, you don't seem to have a grasp of the reality of our industry. It's tough. I would guess that most dzs are just hanging on after 9/11. Postings such as yours and others bashing dzs for a personal agenda, whatever that may be, aren't helpful to any of us. Consolidation in any industry is detrimental to the consumer. Decreased competition generally leads to higher prices for the customer. If someone is doing something dangerous, by all means, address the issue. If you are sniping, think twice before you open you mouth about it. As for the bitter comment: 2 hints: 1. Hell hath no fury.... 2. weren't you recently dumped by one of this dz's regular jumpers Hmmm...the dz was perfectly safe for you to jump at until your boyfriend thought he "wasn't missing out on much" without you. If you are truly concerned about safety issues in our industry, perhaps you should apply for a job with the FAA and add something positive to our industry. (I sincerely mean this. DZs need good, capable Feds to work with for safety compliance and a jumper would be perfect for the job). I really don't want to come across by being nasty, Vallerina, I just think that you are being unfair to everyone in the dz business with your agenda. Peace.

care to elaborate on which part is "way right?" Just curious.

Chill. Lots of people know exactly who I am and lots of people know why Vallerina is bitter :) (and it has NOTHING to do with dropzone safety)

Ooohhh...sounds like someone is driving the bitter bus, huh Vallerina? If your true motivation is ensuring the safety of your fellow jumpers then kudos to you. Unfortunately, your postings come across as having an ulterior motive or perhaps a personal agenda. Your snide comment about the dz was a dead giveaway. As for your question about our "rights" as jumpers/customers: We do have a Bill of Rights in the US. Its sole purpose is to protect US citizens from actions by the US government. It does not allow citizens the same protections from private companies. It is up to each of us to determine whether to do business with a particular company. McDonalds burned the crap out of an old lady with their 185 degree coffee. Is McDonalds considered dangerous? Does the public have a right to know about this? Skydiving has been fortunate in that the FAA has not tried to overregulate the sport (not yet, at least). USPA has worked hard to ensure that the FAA doesn't attempt to overstep their bounds. Involving the FAA unnecessarily in our sport (in this case, to report an alleged incident, that, according the the previous posts, is not required to be reported to the NTSB) might lead to further attempts to regulate the industry. If you have issues with a business, any business, I think it would be far more effective to deal with them directly rather than handling your problem in the way you have done so. Peace