jfields

I'd say in a number of ways. First, it goes towards the issue of the continuity of our sport. Second, it is a lesson to be learned about the added danger factor of impaired skydiving. Third, it gives me more information about a particular dropzone. Continued screw-ups of this nature lead skydiving closer and closer to a point where it becomes unfeasible. Honestly, one major incident with a student/tandem going in could shut a dropzone down completely. Waivers or no waivers, an irate family of a dead student could put enough pressure on a DZ to close it. And that is true whether the DZ is a one Cessna weekend place or a huge multi-turbine facility that runs 365 days. All it would take is for the student to be the son/daughter of the wrong person. When the first major DZ gets shut down, with instructors/DZOs going to jail and/or bankruptcy, a lot of people will question whether the liability of owning/working at a DZ is worth it. And the costs will just continue to rise, for the DZs, and for us. I won't jump impaired. I'm a lightweight drinker, and won't go further than that. However, I'm not a jerk about it and don't much care what people do after the beer light goes on, as long as they are safe before getting in the air the next day, and not endangering others on the ground. But I hope the people that are on the fringe of this issue take it to heart and reconsider the urge to jump when they really shouldn't. On to the last issue, and the one most likely to piss some people off. This is my opinion only, and based on events which I haven't witnessed in person. Nonetheless, the number of fatalities trouble me, and they are not disputed. I think SDC has a major problem. To some degree, the drug use there must be accepted. If it weren't, events like this wouldn't be recurring to the degree they have been. Before jumping to conclusions, I am NOT inferring or stating that everyone there has a problem. I'm sure that most people there are both great folks and safety conscious. A large number of you post here, and I'd be happy to jump with you all some day. DiverDriver has even been a pilot there. I have full confidence in his abilities and firmly believe that he does his job safely and with absolute dedication to the lives of his passengers. However, there seems to be a huge disconnect between a stated "no drugs" policy and reality. That happens lots of places. But most of them don't involve life-and-death activities. Does it really matter if a desk jockey (like myself) went to work impaired? Probably not. (So what if my DZ.com posts were a little more incoherent.) Would it if I were, say... an air traffic controller? Absolutely. People with other lives in their hands as part of their jobs should be held to a different standard. It is the difference between individual choice and responsibility to others in your care. It is hard to think of a situation where someone's life is more directly in another's care than that of a AFF or tandem instructor. While this particular incident did not involve a student, it did involve an instructor, and it did show incredibly poor judgement. It is a very small step from doing solo jumps while high to taking students while high. Before you protest that they are totally different, consider the fact that the former is already risking the lives of others, by being in the plane and in the air at the same time. I hope the senior management at SDC makes some changes. First, they need to take a good look at how they run things and what their priorities are. I'm not talking about "spin control" where the only object is adjusting the media's perceptions. I'm talking about a real soul searching where they evaluate whether or not they want to be knowing participants in the deaths of innocent people. If an irresponsible attitude toward drugs and safety is condoned, it is only a matter of time before more accidents happen. People have brought up the whole issue of "Policing ourselves". I think the idea is great. We keep things inside the skydiving family and watch each other's backs. The problem is that it isn't working. Some places are good about keeping impaired people on the ground. Others obviously aren't. I'd be the last one to do anything to curtail the activities people partake in after the beer light goes on, as long as they are relatively safe. Want to drink til you puke? Go ahead. Smoke a pile of pot? Go ahead. Neither will effect me as long as you are clear before you get on the next plane in the morning. There is a point where I draw the line though, even on beer light activities on the ground. Some drugs just shouldn't be on a DZ, no matter what. People doing cocaine, PCP, or other "hard drugs" should just be given the boot. If things go wrong with them, it isn't just puking in a trash can or getting a case of the munchies. The risk of them doing harm to some innocent bystander (or themselves) is just too high. While these weren't a factor in this incident, they were in another relatively recent one. I can't believe that nobody notices substantial drug use. Whether it is a friend who saw it being done or someone in the loading area who smells it, it should be caught before the plane leaves the ground. The impaired people shouldn't be allowed to lift off. Rather than a simple, "Sorry he died, time to move on" approach, I think there are a whole lot of lessons to be learned here. However, I think there is a lot of denial going around. I feel bad for every skydiver that dies. But I also feel badly for everyone around them that had their lives in jeopardy because of a few people's selfishness and/or inaction. We all choose what risk we are willing to take. That is a part of skydiving. It isn't fair for a few people to add unneccesary risk for everyone else without their knowledge or consent. End of rant.

I do. It is called a "job".

I'm an atheist. To me, all religions are kind of the same when you boil the fluff out of them. It is all summed up with two words: "Be Good". The means and the reason are all that differ. The problems are when religious people twist things or use their religion as a justification for doing bad things. Catholics - Be Good, or burn in hell. Buddhists - Be Good, and escape the cycle of rebirth. Jews - Be Good, because we told you to, or we'll make you feel guilty. Quakers - Be Good, can we all agree on that? Etc... I choose to attempt to be good for its own sake, and the hope that people will respond in kind. That is enough for me, without attributing it anything spiritual or supernatural.

Good article on car buying and tricks the dealers try to use. Learn about the process itself, and save on whatever car you end up buying. http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2002/020911.htm?ref=foolwatch

Dave, This is beer, right?

Same here. Ours always manage to dry out the chicken and randomly screw up everything else. Luckily, in the DC area, we have a really good substitute. Very similar idea, except the execution is excellent. http://www.chickenout.com/

Quade, I give Aldrin points for restraint. It was the third encounter between the two. Three strikes, yer out! I'd have socked him too.

I've taken the long version of the MBTI. It is pretty interesting, and can be a useful tool in learning about yourself. I found some reasons I always butted heads with particular people, and worked out ways to deal with them a bit better. In many ways, the descriptions of my category do fit. For what it's worth, I am a strong INTP: Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceptive My polar opposite would be Extroverted Sensing Feeling Judging Sinkster's links take you to good info. Here is a link to a book I have at home about MBTI: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089106074X/qid=1031750889/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1846968-9880923?v=glance&s=books#product-details

After a really long day at work one summer, I took the subway home. It should have been about a 20-minute trip. I fell asleep with my head leaning against the glass. I slept through my stop at the end of the line, the turn-around to go in the other direction, and the entire ride back to the other end of the line. I woke up when someone tapped me on the shoulder and asked if it was my stop. Then I had to ride 45 minutes back to my destination. It sucked, but even I admitted it was funny at the time.

Last night was pork tenderloin. Marinated overnight in lime juice, tequila and Jamaican jerk paste. Then grilled up. I'd be all about a DZ.com cookbook. It would be hilarious. There could be a special section on foods known to "enhance" the ride to altitude. bean soups, refried beans, etc.

1.15 : 1 starting at jump 17 when I bought my own gear. I'm now at 82 jumps, and I plan on jumping the same Sabre 190 for quite awhile longer.

And damned humble. I wonder about the full conversation that went on in this case as well, but if the description is accurate, then the TM did her a great disservice. That would royally piss me off.

31

Earl Grey. 10:50 am.

It is amazing how many of the replies have actually been sentence fragments. Anyway... "I stopped along the way to smell the roses."

In part, that is true. The foriegn cars of that era got better gas mileage because they were lighter and used thinner metal. The safety advances that allowed cars to be both more efficient AND safer didn't come until later. Things like seatbelts with lap and shoulder, air bags, crumple zones, etc. When I was first driving, I drove vehicles built like tanks: '68 Valiant, '72 Volvo & '75 K-5 Blazer. It took awhile for US automakers to start catching up with the efficiency and features of the imports. My old Honda had a more intelligently-designed layout than the domestics I could buy. Levers in the right places, features that made sense and stuff like that. And it got great mileage. It was also sportier and more fun to drive. I'm not comparing it to US sports cars, as it wasn't one. But if you compare it to the small sedans and such, it handled better and had a more reliable engine. The notable place where I think US manufacturers are (and have been) way ahead of foriegn ones is in trucks. Not cutesy little SUVs built on a car chassis. I'm talking about real trucks like pickups, Suburban/Tahoe type utility vehicles, etc. If I were buying one, it would definitely be domestic.

"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire Now that is an ironic quote.

[ parody ] True, Scott, but... Alternatively... [ /parody ] Word games and verbal sparring are fun. Not that quotations truly support opinions, but they do provide an embarassingly geeky entertainment.

While I totally understand the sentiment, I question the effectiveness and real impact of this action. The days of American cars having all-American parts and "Imports" all coming over on boats is long gone. Some foriegn-badged cars are assembled here by American workers using lots of American parts. And some "domestic" car makers get major sections pre-assembled from overseas. As for manufacturer ownership, it takes an accountant to figure out all the corporate parents, alliances and deals. I've never bought a new vehicle, since I see better value in used ones. But if I were to actually buy a new vehicle, I would look for the best compromise between cost, features and reliability without regard to supposed country of origin. Maybe if all else were totally equal, I'd buy American. I wouldn't have stuck to domestics during the 70s-80s "garbage years". Why should I pay more for an inferior product? If anything, it was all the people buying higher-quality imports that finally sent the message to US manufacturers to get their act together or go out of business. My tally of what I've driven to date is 4 American and 4 imports. Right now, I drive a Ford and my wife drives a Toyota.

That and if he can clean a pie tin spotless with his tongue. That would impress the ladies, and maybe stir up some interest for his virginal self...

If he practices a lot and works really hard, maybe one day he will get up to Clay's level. Advanced Pies: Apple-Cranberry - for the indecisive Shepard's Pie - for a change of pace Lemon Meringue Pie - when you want a tangy sensation Moon Pies - when portability matters Clay, care to add to the list from your vast expertise?

And you get recommendations for Mini Coopers, pickup trucks and Harleys, among others. Aren't we spectacularly unhelpful? You looking new or used? Right now, it is very economical to buy an off-lease car. I just got a 3-year old Camry for a good price. You can get one with some remaining factory warranty, and they are over the hump for instant new-car depreciation.

Yes, you did, but we were just discussing Viking, so cherry seemed more appropriate. Later on, he can move onward to more advanced fruits like peach.

Not only that, but he probably pulled one of the spark plugs so it would run more roughly. He likes the extra vibration.

Undoubtedly, a cherry pie.