The111

Isn't "pull force" on risers simply one way of saying how much of your weight should you suspend from that riser? For example, if you weigh 150 lbs and are doing a solo under your own canopy, you can't put more than a constant 150 lb force on the rear risers. And you don't even have to be strong to do this - just strong enough to suspend your own weight from your hands (i.e. hang from a pullup bar), so that all your weight is transfered from the harness (equally distributed toward all risers) to the riser(s) you wish to displace. I could be wrong since I haven't observed exactly what's happening when I do rear riser turns on my canopy, nor have I ever done a tandem, but I know that when newbies have a hard time pulling on their front risers, they're often told to try to pull themselves up rather than the risers down. This was always common sense to me. Anyway, I guess I'm curious how one tandem master couldn't do a rear riser turn when another could, since it's more a matter of weight than strength. The obvious answer (to me, could be wrong) is the ones who can't aren't heavy enough... I think you probably already took this all into account in your original post, so just ignore me, I'm just thinking out loud. No clue about tandem specifics... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but out of curiosity, what do you do in the winter? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'll think about it... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So what's in it for me? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I stopped trusting internet weather last weekend. The "current conditions" (not even FORECAST, but CURRENT CONDITIONS!) listed for Titsuville on skydivingweather.com was a cloud base at 800 feet, with several layers above that. I called the DZ and they said it was perfect blue skies, I drove over and they were right. I can understand if forecasting is somewhat inaccurate, but current conditions being totally wrong?! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

A "quiz question"? Like for a trivia game or something? Sorry, but the simple answer is that there is no simple answer. It's like asking what the speed limit on highways is. It's different depending on where you are, what the highway is like, what the weather is like, and even if there is an upper limit, you may choose to drive slower if you're driving a certain type of vehicle or say, are drunk. Maybe you should start a thread asking for suggestions for a skydiving trivia "quiz question". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

What are these "jump shoes" you speak of? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Boohoo to the fucking weather. Friday 1pm and it still sucks. I think I'll come out tomorrow... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I think you left out a "not" then. You implied that both you and I are "rushing out to get tiny canopies". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You should call the DZ, I've never tried emailing them but Stacey always answers the phone and is very helpful. The bunkhouse is at the end of the road the airport is on, right at the intersection with Garden St. I dunno if camping is gonna be allowed there or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not allowed at the airport. EDIT: I don't even think the DZ has a PC... would explain the unanswered email... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

"And the book says, we may through with the past, but the past ain't through with us..." (or something like that) www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So how is a faster canopy "more intuitive"? The same control inputs provide the same reponses, simply at different speeds. You said in your own reply that intuition involves the lack of conscious thought. Focus IS conscious thought. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

If something requires more focus to fly, it's not more intuitive. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Sarcasm? Typo? All I did was state what my own personal progession is probably going to look like, and that it's conservative compared to most. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So, instead of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, ban the gov't from being involved in marriages at all and let private groups like churches handle it. Then, there is no issue. I think this is the best idea I've heard. As you pointed out subsequently, an amendment is overkill probably. But the idea expressed above, however enacted (amendment, law, whatever), is a good one. A lot of people scoff at the idea of putting so much effort into redefining a word. But words are EXTREMELY important. They're our basis of communication. They shape the way we think, even though that may seem like backwards logic it's true in some respects. Marriage was originally a religious concept, and married couples now receive legal benefits as well. So why not leave marriage as a religious matter and create a new classification - legal union? Married couples (married by religious institutions), under this system, would not automatically receive legal benefits, nor would they automatically be legally bound to each other. They would need to enter into a legal union in addition to their marriage. Does this seem like a ridiculous idea? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For clarification, landing on target means putting your parachute where you want, not knowing where it's taking you. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Fair enough. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I apologize for being off-topic, but that statement is horrendously innaccurate. Both are actually necessary (work and ideas), but the ideas are infinitely more valuable. Anyone can work hard; not anyone can come up with an ingenious idea. Hard work did not bring you the computer screen you're looking at right now. Btw, I'm not trashing the value of hard work. I'm just pointing toward the virtues of the mind. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Way to vote before you post, MORON. Btw, I was the other one who did the same thing. Say hi to me at the Seb boogie.

Yeh, but the carve is done after a HP dive and planeoff, right? I'm thinking coming in steady "full flight", straight-in, to a small backyard, under a 2.0 Velocity, and at 50 feet needing to turn to avoid something. I guess that's where the PLF you mention comes into play. Then again, even straight-in these fast canopies generate a pretty decent swoop, to the best of my understanding, maybe even enough to carve some? Thanks, like I've said before and hinted at above, most of my fears of downsizing come from the possibility of landing off. I'd love to fly a tiny Velocity one day and I'd probably do it a lot sooner if I was guaranteed large fields every jump. But nobody gets that guarantee, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm still jumping this 170 at 1000 jumps. Really not setting a jump # limit though, just not downsizing until I feel as comfortable under canopy as I do behind the wheel of my car. The first time you try to park a normal sized car in a small parking spot it's scary. Now I do the same with my huge truck while eating with one hand and talking on the phone with the other, and it's nothing. I want to set my canopy down in a tiny backyward and be that nonchalant about it (maybe I won't have the burger in hand ) before I downsize. I really do wonder if all the people flying tiny canopies can do that. Unfortunately for me, flight is much more complex than driving (more dimensions and controls), and I get much less exposure time. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I don't think I said I was for a ban on it. I just argued why I felt it was wrong, and 95% of me still feels it, even though there are certain parts that are hard to explain, and I'm a very logical person so when I can't put something into words it makes me doubt why I believe it... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For the record, I'm not sure what I believe anymore. I've been on both sides of the fence on this topic so many times in my life it's ridiculous. For about an hour earlier today I was feeling really strong about one side of it. Now I'm back fucking straddling the fence. I think that's how I'm destined to spend the rest of my life... really there are so many things I can't make up my mind about... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is this just your opinion or do you have some sort of study to back that up? Just my opinion. Do you have studies to back up your opinions? That's half sarcasm, as "studies" can be used to show just about anything when it's something this complex. People are always going to disagree. How do you objectively rate the devlopment of a human being? "On a scale of 1 to 100, children raised by gay couples receive..." So yeh, it's just my opinion. How about you? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I dunno, a couple dozen. Homosexual couples with kids, I'll be honest - zero. I'm sure where you'll take that, and it's fine with me. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No, there's no reason why that wouldn't work. But it's such an unnecessary effort to sidestep the obvious solution to giving a child what he needs - a mom and a dad! It's almost laughable to me how much work is going into coming up with possible ways to make it work when the way it should be is obvious. Boy meets girl, marriage, children, children have mom and dad, happiness. I guess I'm a bit of an idealist, even though I realize that unfortunately we live in a complex world where these complicated "ways to make it work" are becoming viewed as necessary. www.WingsuitPhotos.com