likearock

Yeah, I should have been clearer myself in the opener that while only a small minority of suicidal people are also homicidal, they all are better off without guns. Not sure if you can justify such a clean distinction. From what I understand, suicide is the ultimate expression of anger turned inward. Murder may in that case be seen as the ultimate expression of anger turned outward. It's the same anger, regardless. How can you be sure which came first?

Granted some people who are not at risk to others would be deprived of guns. On the other hand, since both categories you mention above are of danger to themselves, doesn't it make sense to keep all of them away from guns?

Perhaps. But just because it isn't a category within the DSM-IV, doesn't mean that some people aren't more at risk than others. And any mental health professional of ability should be able to detect which of their patients falls into that category and is at heightened "danger to themselves." In fact, it is often crucial that they be able to distinguish those at higher risk. While I realize that the great majority of people with tendency toward suicide is not a threat to others, it's hard to ignore the other pattern. In both VT and Columbine, the murderers were resigned to suicide when they planned their acts. Much as we all like to believe in the innate of goodness of man, the fact remains that the key deterrent to murder is having to deal with the consequences. However, barring the existence of an afterlife, someone with their mind up on suicide gets a free ride if they want to add murder to the mix. Not a pleasant thought, but that's how it is.

If you're willing to kill yourself, you may just as well be willing to kill others as we've seen in recent event. Of course, there's no way to know if Cho would have obtained a gun illegally but should we be making it easy for people like that?

The amazing thing about this statement is that both gun enthusiasts and gun controllers find it equally accurate.

Only if they show they're not total hypocrites by going after gangster rap with the same enthusiasm they had when they went after a 66 year old has-been. I won't hold my breath. It is too late for that. If by some miracle they go after them tomorrow (they won't) it's way too late to cover their racism. I disagree. America is nothing but about redemption. Everyone gets a second chance. Imus will too over time. It would take a lot of balls for J & S to go after rappers who say much nastier stuff and are much more influential in the culture. But don't worry, they're not even paying lip service yet, and I wouldn't expect much more than that.

Only if they show they're not total hypocrites by going after gangster rap with the same enthusiasm they had when they went after a 66 year old has-been. I won't hold my breath.

Agreed 100%. But a BSR won't make it change either. Much as it pains me to say so, the only thing that will change this is a big fat lawsuit from one of these completely avoidable incidents. Put the fear of God in the DZOs that they could lose everything unless they get responsible and you'll begin to see results.

I prefer option 0). Avoid the situation entirely by being an active canopy pilot who controls my pattern starting as soon as my canopy opens. By doing so, I can be reasonably sure that there won't be somebody setting up their 270 or doing S-turns in front of me while I'm on final. These are great guidelines but are only fully effective when everyone follows them. In Bill's example, the slower straight-in flier is at a distinct disadvantage if the swooper above and in back of him does not follow those guidelines. The fact that the swooper has a much faster canopy means it's difficult if not impossible to know if he'll be in the danger zone substantially ahead of time.

I take it you never skydive near water?

Jesus, Tom, we don't want to encourage the experience, do we?

Another good book on a related topic: Transcending Fear: Relax, Focus and Flow by Brian Germain

If you feel so strongly about it, you might want to talk to the WFFC organizers. Tandems go first as a rule there among thousands of fun jumpers. As far as I know, that hasn't led to any special problems. Regardless, the main point of this thread was that the near collision in freefall had much more to do with exit separation than exit order.

I question whether or not there was no wind at 13,000 feet. There is usually some wind, 10, 15 mph at least. Judging from your description of the original incident, that you waited a full 7 seconds and then almost collided with the preceding tandem, I would say that the winds at 13,000 feet were blowing pretty high. Note that this is completely consistent with a no wind situation on the ground. Bottom line, you should have left more time. It is critically important when deciding how many seconds to leave for separation to factor in the winds at altitude. Skydive Arizona recently posted inside their aircraft a really good set of guidelines to calculate this. I encourage them to make those guidelines public either on their web site or on these forums.

Agreed. However 'conventional' pilots thinking this is a swooper only problem are horribly mistaken. I see a LOT of closer than necessary calls every weekend. What concerns me about this mindset is that be villifying a particular group we are missing the bigger picture. Collisions can happen to anyone....the best prevention is having EVERYONE pay attention to vertical and horizontal seperation under canopy, even with seperate landing areas. That means that the person on the 135 ST should exercise good judgement on when and how to spiral around the sky just as the swooper should exercise good judgement on when and how to do their HP landings. If we start thinking it's only 1 groups responsibililty we are setting ourselves up for failure. IMO anyone not thinking this is EVERYONE's responsibility is one of those people to watch out for under canopy. You have no argument from me in that respect. It's primarily about being predictable in the landing pattern so that others can anticipate your moves and get out of the way if needs be. For example, two pilots coming in a traditional downwind/base/final approach can watch each other and see if they're in danger of colliding. In that case, it only requires one of them to be vigilant to avoid a collision. That changes completely when a swooper is one (or both) of the two. Even on a simple 90 degree approach, it's very difficult if not impossible to tell where the swooper will be when he ultimately planes out. You can't tell until it's too late whether it's best to just keep going the way you were or to make some kind of avoidance maneuver. It pretty much falls completely on the high performance pilot to avoid the collision up front. I'm sorry if you feel that statements like that "vilify" swoopers. I certainly don't feel that way. But it's a fact of life that the presence of swooping injects so much unpredictability into the landing pattern that the traditional mindset of "I'm safe as long as I keep my head on a swivel" just doesn't provide the security it should.

True, but as has been said before, those who choose to swoop voluntarily take on that added risk. A conservative lander shouldn't have to take on that risk just because the only available landing area also has swoopers.

Who cares about that? Just don't give me any Canadian quarters in my change!

Even if that were true, there is still a question of what you do in that case. Suppose you just turned onto the base leg in your normal straight in approach. You happen to notice someone above and in front of you about to perform a 270 . Maybe sees you maybe not. What do you do? What do you do if you are standing in the landing area and someone comes swoopoing right at you at a high rate of speed? The two situations are not equivalent. When you see someone swooping at you on the landing area, they've already committed to their final trajectory. If you see someone setting up for a 270, it's very difficult to tell whether they'll ultimately be screaming directly at you or 50 feet to your right. If you try an avoidance maneuver, it's pretty much a crap shoot whether you'll be "avoiding" right into their path or not. On the other hand, if you wait until the 270 fully completes to see what's what, it's very unlikely you'll have time to both evaluate the situation and make the proper response.

Even if that were true, there is still a question of what you do in that case. Suppose you just turned onto the base leg in your normal straight in approach. You happen to notice someone above and in front of you about to perform a 270 . Maybe sees you maybe not. What do you do?

But they're catching up!

Apart from the statutory definition (and ramifications such as taxes), what makes an illegal immigrant different from a legal one? Is there any difference? Would the difference evaporate if we abolished artificial immigration restrictions? Are you trying to make Lou Dobbs mad? What's the difference where people live anyway? It's a global economy that's becoming more and more location agnostic every year. Whether they're in LA, Bangalore, or Vera Cruz, they'll all be competing for the same jobs in the years that come.

Hardly. Hallibutons stock was trading at around $10.50 per share at the time of the Iraq War. It is currently trading at about $32.80 per share. I wouldn't consider a $22.00 increase in a stocks price over 5 1/2 years a huge success. Good, but not huge. http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=hal;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined Compare that to Apple Computer over the same time frame. http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart1:symbol=aapl;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined Glad I dumped my HAL for AAPL in 2004. - You gotta be kidding. A 200% increase over 5 years (over 40% annual yield) is not a great investment. What are you smoking?

Do you have any evidence of that, or is it pure speculation?

It is kind of shame that we only have the tape of Richards' rant but nothing of what led up to it. I seriously doubt that he got that angry simply because someone said he wasn't funny. Ideally, he should have controlled himself. But unless you know what was said to provoke him, you don't have the full story.