MakeItHappen

The angle to target pattern is not angle to landmark. It's angle to target. You look at the place you want to land and determine what angle it is from you. Based on what that angle is, you determine when to turn. The angle changes with various factors: wind, DA, WL, traffic etc. You'll have a steeper angle in higher winds, as compared to no winds. If you fly the same landmark pattern in higher winds, you will always land short. If you fly the same landmark pattern at a higher WL you will always land long. The silly 45 degree exit rule has nothing to do with this discussion. I completely agree with you here. At first, use the landmark pattern. As jumpers do this repeatedly they can observe the angle to target. Then you have them use the angle to target method exclusively. That will be transferable to a new DZ, changing winds, changing WLs, traffic etc. This is precisely the point. At medium winds the angle to target at each turn point is such-n-such an angle. At no winds it is such-n-such angle. At high winds it is such-n-such angle. That technique is transferable to a new DZ or an off site landing. You don't need to know where the church, alligator farm or hanger is. With traffic, the angle to target pattern will allow you to change the length of legs so that you can still land where you want to. For example, you may make the base leg longer and the final leg shorter to avoid other canopies. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Bump Can't believe that all those CC folks with lots of opinions haven't commented on this....????? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Yes A substantial portion of their current assets or future earnings may be directed to compensation to an injured student jumper or a student that dies under their supervision. Criminal charges have been pursued too. [Research Ted Mayfield.] USPA would be the last of their concerns. USPA can only revoke memberships or ratings. Of course, if they do not have an I rating, there is no I rating to revoke. But USPA may state that they may never be eligible for an I rating. The Coach rating would probably be revoked, as well as their USPA membership. Coaches should have learned about the liabilities in their coach course. Perhaps these Coaches need to re-read Section 2 of the Coach IRM. USPA's rules and doctrine are not law, but they are considered 'industry standards' in a court of law and by the FAA. Legally, you do not need any USPA membership or rating to teach students. It's when you have to go to court that the appropriate USPA training and credentials may save you from financial ruin or criminal negligence. In a nutshell, USPA could revoke all the memberships and ratings and they could continue to do what they are doing. If something 'bad' happens, then they'd be in a bad position to defend their actions. If the airport authority requires GM, then the DZ would not be able to operate out of that airport if USPA revoked its GM. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Al-righty. Let's get to some discussion. One of the things I have observed is that a large number of people with many jumps fly a landmark pattern. Another thing I have observed is that people that use an angle to target pattern include classic accuracy jumpers, swoopers and us regular folk with lots of jumps. The landmark pattern is harder to transfer to a new situation, say an off field landing, high winds, congested traffic pattern, etc. The angle to target pattern is easily transferable and adjustable for winds, density altitude, traffic, off site landing or WL. The angle to target pattern also requires, among other things, an understanding of projected landing point, approach angle and how these change with conditions. The ISP teaches the landmark pattern. This is fine and a great technique for someone's first few jumps. The ISP also states "Visually transfer the intended landing pattern to the new landing area." for off site landings. If a jumper was using a landmark pattern, this task may be monumental. You have to find landmarks that are spaced appropriately and have the correct orientation to the wind line. This task (transfer your pattern to a new location) is easy if you use an angle to target pattern. I think that part of the CC problems are because people are using a landmark pattern and not an angle to target pattern. I also think that students should be converted to an angle to target pattern by the time they get their A license. What do you think? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Thanks for the replies. I am going to rename the 'Approach Angle Pattern' to 'Angle to Target Pattern'. Landmark Pattern (draft definition): General - Fly over such-n-such landmark at pattern entry of x many feet. Fly downwind until over such-n-such landmark at such-n-such altitude. Turn 90 degrees to Base Fly the base leg until over such-n-such landmark at such-n-such altitude. Turn 90 degrees into the wind. Fly towards the target and flare before landing. Specific - (This is for a student scenario, low WL and low winds) Fly over the church at pattern entry of 1000 feet. Fly downwind until over the alligator farm at 600 feet. Turn 90 degrees to Base Fly the base leg until over the hanger at 300 feet. Turn 90 degrees into the wind. Fly towards the target and flare before landing. Angle to Target Pattern (draft definition): General - Enter the downwind leg. Turn onto the base leg when the angle to the target is such-n-such. (You'll have to look to one side and slightly behind you.) Fly the base leg until the angle to the target is such-n-such. Turn onto final and flare for landing. Specific - (This is for a student scenario, low WL and low winds) Enter the downwind leg. Turn onto the base leg when the angle to the target is 45 degrees, behind you and off to the side. (You'll have to look to one side and slightly behind you.) Fly the base leg until the angle to the target is off to your side (aka abeam of the target) and at a 45 degree angle. Turn onto final and flare for landing. These are only draft definitions and have not been cleaned up to account for 'corrections' that may have to be done to the pattern. I am going somewhere with this, but I want to be able to make sure I can clearly convey the difference between these two types of patterns. Thanks for more comments. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Landing Patterns If I used the terms 'landmark pattern' and 'approach angle pattern' would you understand the difference between the patterns? IOW, do the names convey the technique without a formal definition? Should I give a formal definition? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The Study Guide for USPA License Exams is a convenience and educational product. Instead of rifling through pages, the user gets the appropriate sections displayed immediately. Users read the same material and then some. It is in a much more convenient form. That's what they are buying - the convenience. They get the same education as they would flipping through pages of a manual. Also this is not a great invention of mine. It is done for many other standard exams, from MS cert exams, GRE, CLEP, SAT, ACT exams to FAA certificate exams. Besides, Dave, you have never even used or seen my product. How can you say it does not have benefit? You can see a sample at Words, Words, Words I am also working on making the exams more comprehensive and having several versions of each exam. This is part of my volunteer service to USPA and jumpers. I want jumpers to learn more, read more and be better educated because that will enhance the safety of jumpers. I am tired of reading about people not executing proper EPs, doing low turns, going too far downwind, etc, etc etc. I want to educate them. I do that on several fronts. In this area, I change the exams through the S&T Comm. I also provide a educational assistant, in much the same way, tunnel time, RW coaches, CRW coaches, FF coaches or CC coaches provide additional instruction and guide instruction for an additional fee. The only reason you 'complain' about it, is because the exams are 'easy'. People everywhere are saying 'more education - more education' will prevent mishaps. A harder set of exams will provide more education. Congrats on passing the D exam. Did you know that most of the questions on that exam are repeats from the B & C exams? But that won't last for long. A recent quote from a new jumper is: Study Guide for USPA License Exams is a great way to avoid this frustration, at least for the topics covered on the exams. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

COMPLETE TANGENT, but... What do the titles mean? I remember seeing a job posting for some type of IT job that said "bottle washer" and I think it referred to debugging code or something. It means Kate is inviting you over for dinner and will do the dishes. Kate knows nothing about IT. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I don't quite follow that part where you say you triple checked the order and it was still Square1's fault that the order was wrong??? Most people like it when a web site is updated with the latest, greatest information. The part where your browser reads, downloads or ignores a PDF file is set by the end user. How is Square1 responsible for your browser settings? I could go on, but what I really don't get is how Square1 lost your job for you?? That's a totally awesome power that they must have. As far as Square1's rubberbands. I think all of them eventually broke. Somehow I think that's what wearing out means. I think if the rubberbands did not break I might have had some nasty baglocks. Maybe, I'll save all the broken rubberbands and ask for replacements. I'll threaten a nastygram post if I don't get replacements. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You might ask the jumper when (or if) he knew he had a two situation. I know of one downplane landing where the jumper had no idea that the reserve was out. It was a CYPRES fire at 800 ft. The main was out in front of the jumper, diving to the ground. The jumper did not know the reserve was out. The jumper did not cutaway because she knew she was very low. She couldn't figure out why the main was diving as it was. This jumper lived, but with a lot of broken bones. Since this accident, I've added in to my plans when things look bleak, a look-see check over my back to see if I can determine if the reserve is out. IOW, I do not think it is totally obvious to a jumper in the air that the reserve is out and in a downplane configuration with the main. It's obvious to people on the ground. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

It is a shell game. Chuting Star applied for its GM earlier this year. Around April or May it was granted. Before that time all the students went thru ASC. ASC is a GM until whatever date was sent to them, probably Sept 2, 2005. The purchase of the GM by Chuting Star was in anticipation that ASC would lose its GM status. What Mike, Ben and Cary did not realize was that Chuting Star's GM status depends upon an affiliated GM DZ. So now they are trying to retain Chuting Star's status as a GM. According to Marks, a DZ at the Cedartown airport needs to be a USPA GM in order to operate. So you see Ben, Cary and Mike scrambling to retain Chuting Star's GM status or maybe they might be looking into moving to a different airport that would not require USPA GM status. If I was a DZO in the Atlanta area, I'd check with my local airport authority folks to see if Ben/Cary/Mike/Skyride/ aka whatever else name are asking for a contract with the airport. There's no rule that says you can't have more than one DZ at an airport. If they are contacting other local Atlanta airports, then ask me how to prevent them from obtaining a lease. The answer, of course, is not public information. It is possible to prevent them from obtaining a lease at another airport. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Jumpers that want to downsize should learn more about CC. Student status is not the place to teach jumpers about HP landings. This is similar to every other discipline. You want to get on +100-ways, go get more training. You want to do large CRW stacks, go get more training. You want to jump a camera or birdsuit, go get more training. You want to do vRW, go get more training. Last summer, Jim Crouch did write up a syllabus for CC that was proposed for SIM publication. It was modeled after several of the CC courses he attended over the preceding year. This syllabus was sent to Scott Miller, Ian Bobo, Jim Slaton and others. They came back and said 'Please do not publish this.' The reason was that there are no controls to prevent a jumper that might think they know how to do these maneuvers and go up with some trainee. They could end up killing each other. Other disciplines have seen similar situations. It happened in CRW in the 80s, and even last year. It happened with vRW in the 90s. It happened with RW in the 70s. USPA is not the only agency to certify instructors. Tandem mfgs certify instructors. There is at least one birdsuit mfgr that certifies instructors. SDU certifies coaches. There are a plethora of self-appointed RW, CRW, vRW, CC, Demo coaches that get paid to train jumpers. The commercialization of discipline specific instructors/coaches can fulfill the instructor gap. In CC, it is ramping up. The difference between canopy progression and progression in other disciplines is the presence of a 'gatekeeper'. For instance, in RW there are organizers that meter the progression of jumpers. Organizers won't put some 50 jump wonder with 100 hours of tunnel time on a 100-way. In canopy progression, there are few gatekeepers. Sometimes a DZ may be a gatekeeper. At large DZs, this is nearly impossible to control. There are too many ways around any type of rule that may exist. I think most everyone realizes this, except maybe the new jumpers that claim to be better than the rest of us. You mean like this or that or this? If you email me I'll send you a draft article that was 'inspired' by the CK double fatality. If you want, I'll point out SIM changes that I influenced or precipitated. The S&T Comm really makes the changes, so it's really not just me. But I brought up a lot of changes. And I have a slew for the next mtg too. This is where I tend to see the skydiving world a bit differently. I think the skydiving culture has changed so much that the message we (collectively) say to new jumpers is 'downsize, downsize, downsize'. Not every jumper needs to downsize. Today, it's sort of a bragging right to claim xyz WL. 'My WL is higher than yours therefore I'm a better jumper than you - neener, neener.' The WL chart adds to this perception. Indirectly, that chart says that if you jump a 1.0 WL you are just a beginner. Did you know that most Accuracy jumpers jump a WL under 1? Can you see some new hot-shot telling Cheryl Stearns that she doesn't know jack about CC because her WL is .8 or .9? Yet, we see comments like this on DZ.com. Sort of like 'When you get more experience, you'll want to downsize.' It's kind of like saying 'Well, when Cheryl Stearns learns more about CC and gains more experience, she'll downsize to a 2.0 WL'. This attitude in our sport is so stupid. WL does not equate to CC expertise. That's what we need to change the most. We need to say 'Hey, it's ok to jump at low WLs. If you want to do HP landings, get more education.' Not really, USPA is not my mother. I do not like the large number of injuries and fatalities from bad canopy control any more than anyone else. I think it is more of a social problem that has social solutions than it is a technical problem. If we could change the constant message of 'downsize, downsize, downsize' to something that says 'jump something you can put down on a postage stamp surrounded by tall trees on every jump' then maybe we'd get somewhere. I also think that there is not enough emphasis on approach angle and projected landing point. Instead overflying landmarks at such-n-such altitude is stressed. That does not account for wind speed, density altitude or WL. When the new SIM or the minutes from the summer mtg come out I can point you to the specific changes in these areas. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I think you are misinterpreting the NL. Look at the back cover of August Parachutist. That is part of the 'Femur is not a verb' campaign. If you can create an advertisement with more detail that might drive home these points better, then make one and submit it to HQ. Cmon, get realistic here. There are commercial operators that teach canopy control and swooping. 'Learn new skills with a parachute suitable for your skill level' definitely suggests a metered progression. Each jumper will have a different progression. Each jumper is responsible to determine what is suitable. No one can make blanket statements of 'Jumpers with x many jumps can start using the Acme 107. Jumpers with z many jumps can use the Acme 97 and start in on 360 degree swoops.' It's a case by case situation, just like progression in any other discipline. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I've read the book and even sell it on my website. I only get 3-5 sales per year. The book is everything everyone else has said. Rita does have an 'attitude' that prevents her from learning and gaining the knowledge that may save her from injury. What I liked about the book is that the attitudes could be generalized to the new jumpers that down-size too quickly. Generalizing Rita's perspective has value in understanding why new jumpers get into situations over their heads - even when all those around them are trying to help them get their head out of their ass. Rita was a prolific poster on r.s when she was jumping. She dispensed advice left and right that was most often incorrect, but she felt some compulsion to advise those that did not know something. I was living in N. Cal at the time. Several of us had what The Ranch calls Bounce Bingo going on her. We just KNEW that she was an accident waiting to happen. We did not actually bet money, but kept saying that she was a crater in waiting. Then one day, a post was made about her double femur. It did not surprise us in the least. What did surprise us, was the book she wrote. In some ways, the book is a good education to experienced jumpers trying to help cocky jumpers. It provides insights into how they (the cocky jumpers) see the skydiving world. There were times I just wanted to toss the book across the room because of the attitude Rita had towards her instructors. As Martin Evans would say, you just wanted to slap her up-side-of-the-head to get some common sense into her. The book is more valuable to people that want to prevent cocky jumpers from killing themselves, than providing some inspiration of accomplishment to new jumpers. DZ.com has the cocky-Rita types that post. The most recent one is the Ranch's Bounce Bingo guy. A little bit of insight into how they think can be gleaned from Rita's book. I suppose that if the cocky jumpers read this book, they might see themselves in it and that might precipitate an internal change on how they see skydiving. It is worth a read if you want to get inside the heads of cocky jumpers. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The SNM report also says "…malfunctioned main by pulling his cutaway handle at about 1500 feet and deploying his reserve almost immediately…." This corroborates what the poster said. Where, in what report, does it say that John struggled first with the hungup main for several seconds and then pulled the reserve? The point is that John cutaway and pulled reserve as a punch-punch type of procedure. If he had checked to see that the main cleared, there MIGHT have been a possibility of clearing it, maybe not. With a punch-punch procedure you eliminate the possibility of escaping from an entangled main. That is the point of this Goldilocks discussion. If you do not use an RSL or a punch-punch procedure, you have a several-second window of opportunity to clear an entangled main. If you use the punch-punch procedure and under some RSL conditions you give up that window of opportunity. This is what jumpers ought to consider. There are two fatalities, just this year, that are on opposite ends of this spectrum. One person pulls the reserve too quickly and dies. One person waits too long and dies. Is there a balance point? Or is it a trade-off among several scenarios? . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Don't know about the french lady, but from all acounts John did try to clear his main. It was the fact that the main lines where wrapped around his main flap that caused it not to clear. Then he did what he had to. His was not a result of pullinghis reserve to fast. He cut away, tried to clear it and then pulled his reserve. I cold be wrong about his but..... this is what has been found in the investigation and from eye witnesses. So It think using John is a bad example. You must have read some entirely different thread than I did. (Besides one of the jumpers on John's load emailed directly) I rechecked John's thread. post 19: "....He cut away at about 1500 feet, but only the right riser released. Quickly there after his reserve was deployed (not sure of the altitude). The reserve pilot shoot entangled w/ the main....." post 42 "...John's AAD did not deploy his reserve, he did. The main never fully separated it remained attatched at the left riser. The reserve was deployed immediately and I mean immediately as the right main riser separated. The reserve pilotchute never cleared the main, it launched directly into it....'' post 52 "...I can not express how important it is make absolutely sure that you have fully released your main parachute. Clear those cables from the housing. Also emergency procedures must be two seperate actions. This means pull or punch and clear the cutaway handle and cables from the housing. Then do the same thing w/ your reserve handle. This means that these actions can not happen at the same time or too quickly from cutaway to reserve deployment or you are at high risk of an entanglement... Give adequate time!! What does adequate time mean? Enough time to see the main seperate, then fire the reserve. Body position is of the least importance..." . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Goldilocks and the Three Rings Goldilocks and the Three Rings is a child's story about how to find the right timing sequence of emergency procedures. Not too fast, not too slow, but just right. This refers to the sequence of cutaway - pull reserve. One may wonder if it is possible to cutaway and pull reserve 'too fast'. You only have to look at recent fatalities to say yes there is a possibility that a too quick pull of the reserve can make matters worse. A main temporarily hung up on the container entangles with the deploying reserve. CRW jumpers, photographers and surfboard jumpers have a built in delay between a cutaway and the reserve pull. This is to ensure the main is not hung up on their additional equipment or to clear another canopy from them. One may wonder if it is possible to cutaway and pull reserve 'too slowly'. You only have to look at recent fatalities to see that too slow of a reserve pull can kill you too. The ground keeps coming up, no matter how many jumps you have. One may wonder if there is a 'just right' timing between the cutaway and pulling the reserve. You only have to look at the malfunction stories to see that there is a 'just right' timing of the cutaway-pull reserve sequence. The big question or controversy is what is 'just right'. Some jumpers have a procedure to punch-punch: one hand on each handle. Pull the cutaway, pull the reserve immediately. A friend and I were discussing John Appleton's accident. We both said we never had this punch-punch procedure. Cutaway, make sure you are clear of the main and then pull reserve. Getting stable had nothing to do with the procedure. The delay was to make sure the main was clear. We both acknowledged that many new jumpers do have a punch-punch procedure. Of course, we are both old timers, so maybe that's where the difference lies. One can speculate that maybe John's and the French woman's fatalities might not have been if they took a second or two to clear the entangled main before pulling the reserve. Some jumpers use an RSL. The RSL will pull the reserve immediately, IF the main separates far enough. An RSL has saved many jumpers, but it also has created worse situations. The punch-punch or RSL may sometimes, under some circumstances be 'too fast'. A delay between the cutaway and pull reserve may also be 'too slow' under some circumstances. The dilemma of what is 'just right' remains. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

People grieve in many different ways. This is your way. I think your grief is part of a cumulative effect, i.e. many fatalities or injuries close together in time. The more of these people you knew, the greater the cumulative effect. Also, anger is a part of the grieving process. It is ok to be mad at someone that went in for a dumb (aka totally avoidable) reason. Your sentiments are valid for you. I do not think they represent sentiments held by jumpers that have been jumping for longer periods of time. If you jump long enough, there will be many times that there are a series of fatalities or very, serious injuries that cumulatively have a greater effect than if they happened over a much longer time period. There was a two year period where I lost 16 of my friends. People I had known for years and years died in the sport within a very short time period. All accidents were unrelated. They just happened very close together in time. I think you have displaced anger about specific situations onto what the alive and well jumpers are doing and are trying to blame them for someone else's mishap. I do not use an RSL. I do not use an AAD when it gets sent back to the shop for re-calibration (I've only had the AAD for a short while). I do not always use an altimeter. I do not always use an audible. I do not always use a helmet. I have never had anyone say to me that I endanger others because I do not use these devices. I have had people give me the 'Mommy talk' about how much they'd miss me or how bad they would feel if something happened to me that one of these devices could have mitigated or prevented. All I can say to that is 'Tough Tomatoes, I jump to have fun. If hot days mean not wearing a helmet and feeling cool (temperature-wise), then that's what I'll do.' The part about your post that strikes me as the most dissonant is: "I pray that the newbies listen and learn from all of this unnecessary loss." From where I stand, you are one of the newbies. I see this sentiment from many new jumpers that have a bit of experience, yet in the big picture are newbies themselves. Your words convey the message that 'All the advice, all the lessons learned are for those newbie people'. The plain fact is that the advice applies to all jumpers. The unintentional arrogance that your statement and others similar to it conveys pisses me off just as much as the jumpers that go in doing something stupid. If you really want to do something that may change the future of some jumper somewhere, try writing articles, teaching, coaching, organizing or making posts that offer substance and solutions. I have done all of these things. I started with SPSJ as a print journal in the late 80s, articles in Parachutist over the years (including this year), organizing, teaching and various other sundry tasks to my participation on today's USPA BOD and S&T Comm. If you want to change what jumpers think and do, then do something concrete about it. Lamenting here does not do anything. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Dave, I did not just fall off the turnip truck. DZOs have been asking for a centralized site to promote them for years. Some DZOs expect USPA to pick this up. USPA is under-staffed as it is. They do not have the techno expertise to do this. Just look at the USPA web site. Same title on all pages. Rampant 'click here's. The kicker, that I think is just too outrageous, is that USPA staff thinks that an email link that does not have the email addy displayed prevents spammers from farming the email addy that is directly written in a mailto link. That's another story in and of itself. DZOs have said time and time again, from every part of the country 'I take SkyRide because they send me customers I would not have otherwise.' This is so absurd. DZOs can get the customers. They have to understand internet marketing. Most do not know the how tos about internet marketing. One aspect is paid ads. Another aspect is their web site. We agree that there are DZ web sites that turn-off a potential customer. I think we can also agree that SR sites turn on potential customers. I've even said to Ben Butler that SR could have been a GREAT thing for skydiving. If they had asked for photo use permission and they did not lie to customers they would be millionaires today. SR sites are good marketing. SR sites target first time jumpers. Rarely do you see that with a REAL DZ web site. I've heard stories from DZOs that start with 'Yeah I took SR', then 'They low-balled me saying a competitor had a lower wholesale price.', then 'Fuck them - I can get the customers.' DZOs start out with SR and for some reason do not realize that they pay about $35 or more PER CUSTOMER for advertising. (ad cost ~= $200 - $165) I know of DZOs that have a tandem wholesale price of $125. That's at least $75 per customer they are paying to SR. As to the boycotting of DZ that take SR: The way I look at this is that you have to be on the field and take your turn at bat. I am not going to eschew someone for taking SR. I will talk their ear off and show them the money. As to the collective advertising: I'll go off on a tangent here. John Nash was a brilliant Nobel Prize winner in mathematics. He came up with a game theory that postulates that in some cases COOPERATION among competitors will lead to the best overall winning status. In the DVD, A Beautiful Mind, there is a scene that shows John and several of his buddies in a pub outside of Cambridge. There is a drop-dead, gorgeous woman that all of them are 'ga-ga' over. Nash's game theory states that they will all lose if they all pursue the gorgeous woman. The gorgeous woman would only pick one man. That makes all the other men losers. It also says that the losers that pursue 'the next best pick' are taking up their 'second choice'. Any woman that realizes they are 'left-overs' will rebuff the advances. Check out the dvd because it clearly illustrates the games going on here. Another thing about internet advertising: The key words that customers use are 'skydive' and 'skydiving'. They do not use 'skydive mystate' or 'skydiving mystate' that often( or my city). DZs all buying 'skydive' and 'skydiving' key words are driving up the cost. COOPERATE and the cost will be lower. The catch is that you have to let the customer decide upon the DZ. They do that by looking at the DZ web site or calling the DZ. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Well I'll give you the Jan's first come first served response. I'll put your money into a campaign targeted towards 'skydive, skydiving, skydive arizona, skydive phoenix, skydive tucson' keywords, until I get my second customer. I'll have it metered thoughout the month of August. I can turn on your Gold ad immediately. . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You know, I expected this type of reply. I have talked to many, many DZOs over the past few years about this issue of SR and internet marketing. I have heard the same f&#@king story over and over. I have looked at DZOs' web sites that ought to be shot to put them out of their misery. I have helped DZOs improve their web site, often without any compensation. SkydiveOhio.com did send me $50 without me even asking. That's the dream of doing what you like to do and want to do and the money will come to you. I have recently talked with a small LA DZ that paid over $200 last month in internet ads. Trey mentions that his bills are excessive. Another KS DZO controls his bills at $20 per month. I cannot control what DZOs do. All I can do is provide a way for DZOs to know up front what their internet ad bill will be. I can run internet ad campaigns on the expensive keywords 'skydive' and 'skydiving' at a lower cost than what DZs are currently paying. It costs about $10 to $20 per day to get the number 1 or 2 slot for these keywords. SR can afford that. Most other DZs cannot. If the money is pooled then the internet ad campaign can work for the benefit of the real DZs. DZs would not be pricing themselves out against each other. Customers end up selecting the place they want to go to. Look at it this way, say 4 DZs in some state pay $200 per month now, they can reduce their cost to $95 per month and still get the same exposure and traffic. BTW, I do log impressions and Click Thrus on each DZ. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

SkyRide folks were tossed out of USPA. Cool. A small victory. Onto the next phase, what can we do to beat SkyRide at their own game? Well, my answer is Where To Jump This web site has two major user groups: search engines and prospective first time jumpers. The part that experienced jumpers can play in this web site, is to link it from their web site. You can even do that discreetly if you want to. Just ask me how to do that, if you don’t know. You can find my contact info at MakeItHappen My FunJumper/skyride page shows up in Google searches frequently and on the first page of many 'skydive Some City' or 'skydive Some State'. My Deceptive DZ Tactics shows up on the first page of a 'skydive georgia' search. This is an orphan page to boot! So, I figure a web site targeted for the search engines will have even better search results - even without paid advertising. Time will tell, I guess. Add in some targeted internet ad campaigns and SR will fall off the sponsor list. There is power in numbers. There are more DZOs not taking SR than those that accept them. If those DZS pool their money and fight collectively, SR will go out of business. Then we will be onto the third stage, Fix Your Pages! Stop me before I rant too much……… BTW, photographers that want some of their photos added to Where To Jump should contact me asap. Google hasn't crawled the site yet, so get in there before they do. It's a FREE link to YOUR web site. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

They told me they had over 400 dropzones. Did they wean it down to 50? Judy What she means is that if you go to say MT and then google the names of the people Google 1 Google 2 Google 3 you get a number of other SR sites with the same testimonial. For your entertainment pleasure you can Google the other names, add in skydive to the Google search to find the SR sites. There are over 900 domains registered to CASC, Inc or Cary Q. I realize there are people that do not understand what SR is doing. It is a geek-techno thing after all. see SR sites . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I can make my notes public, but they are not the official record. BOD Members that voted for the removal of Ben Butler and Cary Quattrochi were: Jan Meyer, Madolyn Murdock, BJ Worth, DJan Stewart, Chris Welker, Chris Quaintance, Scott Smith, MaryLou Laughlin, and Tony Thacker Against were Gary Peek, Richard Schatner and John DeSantis BOD members not allowed to vote (because they are owners of a DZ) were: Larry Hill, Jessie Farrington, Sherry Butcher, Mike Mullins and Dr. Lee Max Cohn and Mike Perry also declined to vote for other reasons. John Goswitz had left the meeting to catch his plane back home when this came up. Jim Jenkins was at home with an illness and did not attend this BOD mtg. My notes show that Gary Peek voted to remove the GM of the DZs and that Max Cohn voted no on the GM removal. This is definitely an unofficial accounting and may be subject to change. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

The effect is that a world-wide recognizable organization, such an USPA, does not want these people as members. This may or may not carry weight when a Skyride fronted business applies for CSPA or APF memberships. The effect in the US would be detrimental in that they cannot 'pledge' to up hold the USPA BSRs or recommendations. Bottom line is that they can and probably will continue doing what they have been doing. They can also recreate themselves under a new business name. USPA has added stronger language to the Group Membership that supposedly will prevent these people from reapplying under a different name. USPA has not changed their business practices. USPA has severed a social endorsement of their operations. I would like to mention that the motions were passed without the support of any DZO[*]. Any drop zone owner on the BOD was not allowed to vote on these motions. The vote was 9-3 for removing individual memberships and 10-3 for removing GM. [*] meaning that the DZO could not vote. There are many DZOs that do support this action. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker