DrewGPM

Meet #3 of the Illinois CPC was held this past Sunday at Skyknights, in East Troy, WI. The weather provided the guys with flashbacks of meet 1, strong winds! The course was set up with a 15 knot crosswind, complete with gusts and lulls. The approaches were tough, and the scores reflect that. First up was the distance course. Round one ended with Matty Wright in the lead by 12'. Dan Raymond got off to rough start, but was still in the thick of things in third. In round two Nick Batsch showed why he is the number 1 competitor in the district. He stepped up his game with a run of 184' and took the win in Distance. Next up was Accuracy. As the 184' run in the distance round tells you, the conditions were not favorable for this event. Matty Wright had the only scoring round, it took everything had to get that canopy into zone 1, but he did it! Dan and Nick each got close, but couldn't get based the dead zone. The final event was the Speed carve. All three competitors missed the gate in the first run, the strong cross wind made it difficult to set up for the gate. The second run, we decided to change the name from speed carve to speed kiting! Nobody flew through the course clean, Nick proved to have the better kiting technique and earned the win. The Overall results for the competition were: 1. Nick Batsch 2. Matty Wright 3. Dan Raymond Special thanks to Joey Cook, the pilots and the staff at Skyknights for making this event happen. Next stop, August 20-21 at Skydive Chicago. With any luck, we'll get to run this one over the pond...keep your fingers crossed!

QuoteSo this was a skydiving incident? Quote If it was, I hope someone will post about it in the incident forum. Hopefully there is something to be learned from this.

viewing this from an athletic stand point is the wrong angle...as evidence by the debate over whether golf is an athletic activity. a more appropriate questions might be: "Which example of domination of his sport is more impressive...Lance or Tiger?" The fact that both can be recognized by first name alone indicates that both have achieved greatness...so hats off to both. Lance dominated one race, on the same course every year. an incredible feat, no question about it. Especially doing 7 years in a row. Tiger had to win on 4 different courses, with different conditions each time. He has also played in other events in between each major...and has won a lot of those too. Tiger Woods' record of 142 consecutive tournaments making the cut also goes toward his domination. The next longest streak is 113. In terms of dominating the sport, Tiger is more impressive. Had Lance won other events, he might prove to be more dominant. Had he won a more stages in the tour, he might prove more dominant. how many times could tiger the US Open if that was the time he played? For domination of a sport...I think niether of these guys come close to Edwin Moses... 122 consecutive wins over a 10 year period. THAT is total domination of your sport!

"Hinckley's Skydiving Center, with around 25,000 to 30,000 jumps a year, has had no fatalities since it was purchased by Doug Smith and Todd Davis five years ago." Sad to say, but this is not true. There was a fatality at CSC last year.

"I am looking to have a good time, jump from as many different aircraft as possible" Good times are easily had at both....which one is more fun is debatable and depends on your personal taste. Different aircraft...no contest...go to WFFC! Helicopter, hot air balloon, Bi-Plane, CASA, skyvan, PAC750, Twin Otter...plus whatever else they can get! Rumors abound of the Perris jet being there, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Meet #2 of the Illinois CPC was held this past Sunday at Chicagoland Skydiving. Unlike meet 1, the weather was perfect! We we're able to run all 6 rounds and all three courses this time, much to delight of the competitors. Last month the distance were almost all of the 24 runs under 200'. This time around, none of the runs was under 200'! Most were very close to the 300' mark. The results for the competition were: 1. Nick Batsch 2. Matty Wright 3. Dan Raymond 4. Peter Piotrowski Nick and Matty had tight battles in accuracy and distance, but the home field advantange was not enough to help Matty. Nick took both events by the slimmest of margins. The speed rounds had never been run in this district, so nobody knew what to expect. Nick and Dan were neck and neck after the first run. As has been his trademark, consistency helped Nick take the win...his 2nd run was identical to the first! Peter Piotrowski made his CPC debut and showed some impressive skills for his first time out. Peter made the gates on 4 of the 6 rounds and showed great consistency in his runs. He has a lot to learn about competitive canopy piloting, but he's a fast learner, so watch out for him next month. We look forward to seeing all the competitors at Skyknights next months. Thanks to the staff at Chicagoland for helping this event run so smooth.

http://www.skoda-auto.com/global

The portion you postd from the competitors manual could be interpreted two way. The 3,500' break is the lowest any team can break off OR All teams must break off at 3,500'...no higher, no lower. For safety sake, it would make sense to ask everyone to use the same breakoff altitude. I wish I had saved his PM. He was pretty specific that the staff told the teams they had to break off 3,500. Hopefully he'll read this thread again and help clarify this.

I stand corrected. I was PM'd by a friend who tells me that the USPA competition manual states that 4-way break off should be no higher that 3,500. He said at Eloy a few years ago the teams were warned that breaking this rule twice during the competition could result in disqualification. I assume other country's have similar rules for the Championships. As long as you are not planning to attend the championships, then I say go with 4,500 as break off.

What kind of tutor would quit because you, for safety reasons, prefer to break off at 4.5k? That's insane! He can't be that good of a coach that you'd sacrifice safety just keep him happy.

I've never heard that you had to break off at 4k during competition...is that a real rule? If that is an official rule, then I agree with your tutor...break off at 4k. If it's not a rule, then change the breakoff altitude....it's your team, not his. Several years ago I was told that one of the top teams in the US was breaking off training jumps at 4,500'. Since then I break almost all of my jumps at that altitude. The extra 500 feet isn't going to add to your scores, and it gives everyone time to track and pull at 3k. I'm a huge fan of separation at pull time. A common number being thrown out is that you should breakoff at pull altutide + 1,500'. If you are pulling at 3,000 then 4,500 is the time for breakoff.

over the death of Eddie Albert? I loved that guy...my world won't be the same without him. On a positive note, I look forward to inevitable tribute to Eddie...that's right, some channel will have a Green Acres marathon! But tonight I mourn the loss of a legend

There hasn't been a rookie winner at the 500 since 1913, so i'd say no. It is tough to win at Indy on your first try. Lots of hype, anxiety, etc that throws you off your game. She did have one of the fastest cars during qualifying, so you can't count her out. I'm pulling for Buddy Rice to win again. Buddy got his first ride from a friends dad. Super nice guy. If I remember correctly, Buddy called him the day after he won last year to say thanks. GO BUDDY!!!!

Sorry, but your statement about cars is kind of racist. You said 9 out of 10 cars like that are driven by blacks...but out of all the blacks you see on the road, how many have that kind of car? Maybe you're just not noticing the blacks who drive nice cars with normal stereo systems. If only 1 in 10 blacks have cars like that, then your statement that black people have those thudding cars is inaccurate. Not to mention the fact that your sample is limited to your home area. To make a generalization like that based on what you see in your home area is generally gonna raise the racism flag. The statement that "black don't do that kind of thing" seems to be supported by the facts. There are not many blacks in skydiving, no matter where you go. So that's not really a racist statement.

The Illinois CPC is officially under way...and what a great competition! Meet 1 Final Results 1. Nicholas Batsch, Xaos-27 78 2. Dan Raymond, Velocity 103 3. Mike Macino, Samurai 120 4. John Zagoda, Crossfire 2 129 The winds were stronger and from a steeper angle for each round. Due to the 15+ mph winds, we limited the competition to the distance course. Dan started off the season with a 142 footer, but upon video review, he was too high as he passed the entrance gate. John Zagoda had the lead after round 1. Nick Batsch had a nice run in round 2 to take the lead. Mike Macino used consistent runs in round 2 and 3 to take the lead after round 3. Nick took the lead back with a 142' run in round 4. Things were really exciting when Dan moved into first place with a 139' run in round 5. His 47' lead wasn't enough though, Nick hit an amazing 218 feet run to win the event. The winds were nearing 20mph and almost 90 degrees crosswind....making it even more impressive! Next month we'll be at Chicagoland. We'll have all the kinks worked out by then. Hopefully the weather will give us a chance to try all three of the CPC course layouts.

That's what i thought at first. Then Melissa (it's not Missy anymore) Nelson set me straight. If you can't pass the pond qualifier, you probably shouldn't be competing in the CPC...we'll set you up with a coach who will help improve. THAT is what the CPC is all about. The qualifier is less intense that I expected. You have to swoop through a 10 foot entry gate(on the grass) on three jumps in a row. We're gonna run qualifier jumps friday and saturday. If you can't qualify for the pond, there is no way you're ready to compete...make sense?

I wasn't commenting on whether people should have pre-marital sex. I assume couples are having sex before they get to the co-habitating stage. My comment was more about the fact you assumed "test drive" meant sex. Too much emphasis on the quality of the sex seems like it would be detrimental to the relationship. I've never seen a study that shows sex before marriage to be a common theme among failed marriages. I would thing there has to be some relations there. Since I haven't seen such a report, I don't really focus on the sex before marriage thing.

interesting that you equate the test drive with sex. In the context of the rest of this discussion, I assume FeebleMind was equating the test drive with living together.

If you wouldn't mind sharing, i'd be interested in hearing: What you thought marriage was before you got married? When do realize that was wrong? What do think marriage is all about now?

This is not directed at any one person...the comment above is a recurring theme in the "live together" group. People say you should live together to find out about those little habits, like leaving the toilet up. Marriage is about loving someone for better or worse. If you're afraid she might not rinse her dishes off after eating, and you just couldn't be with someone like that. If those little habits make it impossible for you to live with someone, then you were'nt ready for a room mate, much a spouse. Moving in together is one of the exciting things about that you get to do after you get married. That's part of the excitement of starting your new life together. You've lost that excitement if you live together first. I agree with the post above...I don't have a moral problem with living together. Do whatever you want, I'm not judging anyone. My point is that if you have thoughts of marriage, then moving in together seems be setting up that marriage for failure. I hate that so many people are getting divorced...it messes up so many lives. Why set yourself up for failure?

if you didn't care for that one, you're gonna hate this list: http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/facts.htm

"Living together before marriage: Now common but still risky Even though more than half of couples now do it, compared with only 10 percent 30 years ago, living together before marriage still is linked to higher rates of troubled unions, divorce and separation, Penn State researchers have found. The Penn State team compared data on 1425 people married between 1964 and 1980 when cohabitation was less common and between 1981 and 1997 when cohabitation was more common. They found that, in both groups, cohabiters reported less happiness and more marital conflict than noncohabiters. Also, in both groups, couples who lived together before marriage were more likely to divorce. Claire M. Kamp Dush, doctoral candidate in human development and family studies, is first author of the study. She says, "It had been consistently shown in the past that, contrary to the popular belief that living together will improve a person's ability to choose a marriage partner and stay married, the opposite is actually the case." The study, "The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts?," was published this month in the Journal of Marriage and the Family. Dush's co-authors are Dr. Catherine Cohan, research scientist, and Dr. Paul Amato, professor of sociology and demography. Although all the reasons why cohabitation and troubled unions are related remains unknown, the researchers report that their data and a review of the literature suggest that both personal characteristics and the experience of cohabitation play important roles. The Penn State team notes that research indicates that people choose riskier partners when cohabiting because they think cohabitation will be easier to break up than marriage. However, once a couple is living together, the fact that they share possessions, pets, and children and have invested time in their relationship may propel them to marry. Research has also shown that living together in an unconventional relationship can make people less religious and may encourage them to develop problematic relationship skills and to spend less time resolving problems or providing support to their partners. They write, "A weak commitment to lifelong marriage and less attention to communication skills during cohabitation may carry over into marriage and make couples more vulnerable to the inevitable challenges that couples face over time." The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Aging and by the Penn State Population Research Institute with core support from a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant. "

This weekend is our first competition. Just heard from the SDC staff, looks like we are gonna set up the courses over the brand new pond. That means we need to get guys qualified on Saturday. If you are PST qualified, you are already qualified. We're setting up the course friday afternoon...so come out and help....PLEASE!

I think we've hijacked this thread long enough. This was supposed to be about warping the canopy. After rereading our posts, we are not on the same page. You are focusing your discussion on upwind(short spots) and I am was focusing on downwind (long spots). I have stated a couple times that brakes will not work if you are into a wind that is too strong. I can tell you that I have used half brakes to get back from a short spot...but only because the winds were low enough. I have also been short and used front risers a few times...I did not find them useful in getting back to the airport, but they were good at building speed so i had forward drive on landing. I find them too exhausting on my Sabre 210. I have a HUGE open area to choose a suitable off field landing, i don't fight strong winds any more...i'm ok with landing off the airport. More importantly, i try not to exit the plane if i'm too far down wind. I'm done with this thread unless someone else has a comment or question about warping the canopy...but i think that is pretty well done too.

guess I wasn't clear when I said "The only time half brakes doesn't work is when the winds are too high." What I meant to say was that if you have fly into a head wind and the winds are too high, half brakes will not get you back from a long spot. Half brakes makes you lose SOME forward speed, and almost ALL of your descent. You will cover more ground per foot of altitude. If the wind speed is greater than the resulting forward speed, then you can't use this technique. Is that more clear? The front riser input makes you dive toward the earth, speeding up your altitude loss. When you release that pressure, the extra speed will help give you more drive into the wind. You gain some forward distance. Once the energy bleeds off, you are back to getting no drive. It's a great technique if the winds are pushing you away from your landing area. Front risers are MUCH tougher to use. It takes a lot of strength. Half the people I jump say they are not strong enough to use them. If they find themselves going backwards or in a long spot and flying in to high winds, they pick a safe off-field spot to land. Forget trying to get back to the landing area. Golden Rule is to land safe, not close. As for the "depends on what canopy"...i don't think it does. All parachutes plane out at half and full brakes. That's why the flare works on landing. The flares means you lose all altitude loss, and you only go forward. You can't sustain that for long, because the canopy will run out of energy. Since the brakes work on the same concept on all of these canopies, i don't know why there would be a difference. Yes, some canopies have a deeper flare than others...but half brakes is ALWAYS somewhere near the half way point of full flight and full flare.