Calvin19

Pics or video, or it didn't happen.

One of the top MHS complainers, Tom Zweck, has been seen exposing himself to aircraft as they overfly an area near his farm on the established downwind pattern leg for runway 11. I must admit I was offended to say the least.

SHE LOOKS LIKE A HOOF! -SPACE-

That Bitch Gibbs bought her house in 2006, and lives EIGHT MILES from the airport, I would bet money that she gets more noise from transient airplanes than the mile high and boulder planes. -SPACE-

a photoshop artifact from an overfilled artificial lake used as the base layer. -SPACE-

Both looked like they had 180s. It's not always easy to control opening headings. -SPACE-

I had a psychotic girlfriend in 2005. SUPER sexy model type. 5'8", 105lbs, Bcup 32-22-33. Could hold her own in the sac. on our "3 month anniversary" she told me it is ok if I want to leave and hang out with my friends as she had work early the next day. I made a deposit and left. Did the usual array of bandit loads into Folsom field, then 200' high speed runs at the airport, got out low. great times. She dumped me. I accepted and raised her one. Came back the next night drunk and begging. I let her do her best work with her pants on, but of course she ended up leaving. Flying is more fun -SPACE-

I made mine. be careful. There is more to XRW than risers. -SPACE-

Simply not true. Where do you go to come to this conclusion? yeah... I don't think of any of those as being huge problems of todays gear. Anyone falling out of a harness is a matter of complacency, not harness design. Mini 3 rings work great, increased pull force and all. Here is a good example of how I think Marisan may be a little detached. If/when the Petra is released it will be treated just like any other competition swooping canopy. People flying these canopies are adults, they know and accept the risks they are taking. Flying the canopy became more fun than falling like a rag doll and then guiding a parachute to a square. For better or worse, skydiving changed from thrill seekers falling through the sky to thrill seekers falling from the sky then flying a canopy. Compromises were made, safety was considered and no less than it ever was. Fatalities per jump have decreased and will continue to decrease. The disproportional amount of landing fatalities is being addressed, there exists a USPA canopy proficiency card. This may not be enough and many of the drop zones may ignore it. I tossed out an idea, and we are open to MORE information being MORE available to students. Canopy education will increase. The balance will return. What I think Marisan has not realized is the fulcrum has shifted for the better since his time, though he may not see it that way. I'll say again, It is highly unlikely that the Feds will impose significant further regulation on individual skydivers. The letter from the FAA was dealing mostly if not totally with the rash of canopy collisions and deaths in CA. -SPACE-

A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited]) A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc. B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings, C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without) D-2.5/1 to unlimited All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course. Just my idea, it's incomplete.

I'm gonna lock this thread if you kids don't stay on topic.

Yeah, originally it was banning HP canopies, that by his definition is anything that can flare. Have you read all the threads he has started and attempted to hijack with this opinion? Again, did you read any of his other posts? I won't quote it here because it is pretty long. In short he defines anything that has any ability to "fly" and cause problems for anyone is an HP canopy. He has since agreed that this is not possible and has moved on to pushing harder regulations and training self imposed by the skydivers instead of just throwing all these parachutes in a fire. I have PMd Marisan a few times in an effort to understand his POV better. I have come to believe our (his and most skydivers) motivations and intention are the same, but maybe his communication tactics and ideas are a little drastic. -SPACE-

Most ski helmets have a clip or strap on the back side to hold the goggle strap in place, and the shape of the front of the helmet holds the goggles in place. It does get windy inside the goggles though. I sometimes wore a thin balaclava under the helmet to cover face and nose on high pulls and my breath would leak into the goggles and fog it. just stuff to keep in mind. -SPACE-

I used to use ski goggles and ski helmet, worked great. But I have been using Gatorz sunglasses for the last year or so.

You know, there IS something to be said about that. If the feds are annoyed enough by bad press they get from skydiving, they -can- intervene. You mentioned in another thread that people should "buy big soft canopies" because the feds were going to regulate your parachute choice. I find that very, very far fetched. Marisan, you seem to have a vendetta against anything that can flare. While I AGREE that things need to be done to decrease the landing fatalities, I do not think that you spamming the board with what borders on hateful intolerance will do anything but annoy people like me who spend too much time online. As has beens said a couple times, if you do not like the way things are going (mind you, in something you no longer have any stock in, save nostalgia) then by all means start a canopy clinic organization. Talk to the USPA, build a canopy pilot rating system. But dramatic complaining online is not helping anything. -SPACE-

You may have misunderstood what my point was. I watched this thread from the beginning and read every post pretty much as they were posted. I listened, read the other threads, and waited a long time to reply in this thread to make sure I understood what he was trying to say. Even after I read all his posts on the subject I came to the conclusion that he has a "disconnect" from what is going on here. What I see is an older more experienced skydiver with an illusion of STOPPING canopy landing fatalities. The bottom line is skydiving, especially student skydiving training, NEED more training. Marisan, and maybe i'm wrong here, thinks that some governing body should effectively "ban" high performance canopies to stop this. Seeing the extremely experienced canopy pilots with thousands of HP landings die is just what backs my point. The "HP canopy" cutoff line is so fuzzy it cannot be drawn. Around ~70% of fatalities in the last 10 years were caused by things OTHER than landings. Maybe another 10 percent can be attributed to high-performance canopy use and flight. No one in their right mind would ignore experienced jumpers, or allow darwinism to be an argument against Marisan, so please do not confuse anything I say with that or a chronic disrespect for older or elderly skydiving veterans. And I would not expect you to listen to me, nor do I claim to have the knowledge to teach high performance parachute landings. 100% agree, but I do not think that someone who lacks a significant history of "high performance" canopy flight, after an entire industry becomes based on it, should have any credibility to ban it. I understand that the "banning" part of it is mostly for dramatic impact. But anything more than implementing a moderately weighted (though, more than there is now) canopy flight education and regulation regiment is not possible or desirable.

Two friends of mine go in on landings in the last year , both are not only expert skydivers but respected instructors with many thousands of jumps. Both impressively current and well within their skill range on the canopy they were flying. It's not the fault of the canopy, or the fault of training. Someone pulled a pillar too close and they died. What did you expect to happen? that's what you get when you turn too low. These guys were the EXPERTLY trained F16 pilots that some ancient poundmeintheass round jumper made a metaphor about earlier. I do not deny there is a training issue overall, and that newer pilots need to be given 100x the attention they normally get in the way of canopy flying instruction. I am seeing it every time I go to my local drop zone, more jumps with a canopy coach. and tons of canopy course posters. I think it is a great start. The only loss of control I see is -YOUR- loss of reality. Skydiving changed old man, for better or worse it changed and left your giant slow parachutes behind. This happens in every action sport out there. Someone finds a way to make it safer, faster, stronger, longer, and more fun. Though not always in that order. It seems the people that can make it better are trying. It's getting better every day. New requirements at dropzones and more BS in the BSR. The people that can make the difference are out there making the difference. The first person to notice the change is the one too far removed from it to have any part in making the change BETTER. -SPACE-

collapses on small stuff get nasty really fast for sure. no way out of that one so low without a chop. in PG it really depends on what wing you are flying, some wings will flip you over and eat you, not just spin up. and it's more than just "outside brake" to do coordinated wingovers.

No doubt! I'm no swooper but that wants me to get a skyhook pretty badly. deflations on small wings is really scary. -SPACE-

did you even watch the video? air gremlin.

This, huh. This is just awesome. How many PETA activists does it take to change a lightbulb? -SPACE-

Me too. But we need EOR -AND- bigger rockets. Take Skylab, the largest single module interior volume yet to be in space. 500,000kg from 50 launches means that most of the mass up there is the mass needed to connect 50 parts together. 500,000kg from 10 launches means more fuel, air, and pressurized volume. And the moon is just another parking space. People need to go FARTHER. Even if people went to the moon it would be comparatively boring. We, the people of Earth, need to send people to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter. Or, we need "Jupiter V" rockets. (eight SRBs, Four EFTs [From STS] for fuel and ten J-1 [from SaturnV] or better motors on the main stack. http://www.amcsorley.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htm#Jupiter_%20V

Don't assume anything I wrote was correct. I'm on middle school math here. They tried to teach me math in college but I passed anyway. BUT, ballistics of that scale are really cool. I mean, holy crap. 18 year old kids in a 13 inch gun turret figuring out that the a target 20 miles away is being moved out of the way by the EARTH ROTATING? It's even cool when one would realize that THEY are the ones moving, just as much as the target. Space is pretty cool. [/mindgasm]

From what I did in my head, the rotational speed difference between parallels 30km apart at around 45 degrees south is ~2.2m/sec. So, A battleship 30km due north of it's target will be traveling ~2m/s faster to the east. With a 30second TOF this means the gunner will have to lead (is that the right word for a Coriolis correction?) by 80m. Also, this is worst case scenario. Meaning I assumed the longest range weapons of that time at their longest TOF, as well as a N/S trajectory. I think, and please correct me if i made a mistake, that the story of the big guns being 100m off due to a COS inversion is totally probable.

I'm no physicist, but I want someone who is to do the math. This seems plausible to my lesser brain. the 8-13" guns of WWI used by British battleships had a muzzle velocity of ~800m/sec and a range of ~37km, that means ~40 seconds in the air. Falklands are right around 45/50 degrees latitude (meaning a pretty high differential in rotation speed across a N/S line) The difference in rotation speeds for that alleged story to be accurate or at least possible is less than 2m/s difference. -SPACE-