steve1

Under the old round canopies this sort of thing happened quite often. I remember when Fred Sands went through two power lines under a round reserve, he touched one line but not the other. Then things shorted out somehow, and all the power went off on that side of town. I met another jumper who hit the power lines under a ram air canopy. He almost died. He went blind for a while, with numerous other physical problems. He has a big round scarr where his wrist watch burned a hole into his wrist. His nick-name was Sparky after that....

There was a similiar incident in Montana, years ago. There were no Swatt trained people then. This was a small town and the local sheriff tried to handle things. A bad guy had a pistol pointing at a pilot of a small plane. They were preparing to take off. The sheriff had his hunting rifle and he decided to take this guy out. He made a bad shot wounding the kidnapper. At the same moment, the bad guys pistol went off wounding the pilot. The sheriff lost re-election over that fiasco. I think it all depends on the situation. I feel only competent people, with a lot of training, should be allowed to pull this off......

I don't recall ever seeing a twill reserve. I started in 73. We had one member of our club that blew a bunch of holes in his reserve, going terminal. I wonder if that could have been twill. (Around 73.) That same guy survived a mid-air collision and he was later killed in another plane crash. He just ran out of luck. His name was Jim Ledbetter.

There's a photo somewhere of Hod Sanders and a bunch of his friends hanging onto the top of a twin beech. Hod is holding up a can of beer in that picture. Anyone ever seen that photo? It might have been taken at Ghoulidge. Hod made a lot of jumps there....His son B.J. told me about the picture....

I was just wondering if Cosmobuddy is over 60 yet?

That's a good point. A tent that goes up or down easily is a plus. I'm thinking about a triangular tent that has one pole in the middle. You can even tie the peak to an over-hanging limb, and skip the pole. Four stakes would hold it down. This is a very old tent design, but it might just might work well, due to the simplisity of things. It sure would be easier than plugging multiple poles together and then trying to thread them the right way through the right hole. Doing this several times, till you have it right.....Then breaking a pole, just to find out you don't have an extra one. Been there, done that! Some dome tents are way too complicated, and take a long time, and a lot of patience to set up....

If you are backpacking you would need a tent that is light weight, durable, and compact. For five people, I'd suggest three smaller two man, dome tents. They make some bigger tents that will sleep five. They are usually much bigger and heavier. I had a big four man dome tent, that would hold my wife and I, and two daughters. It worked okay. Sometimes the wind would threaten to blow it over. If size and weight doesn't matter, there is nothing better than a good wall tent. I have a bigger one with five foot walls on it. Sometimes we use it in below zero weather. We use a wood stove that throws out a lot of heat. It's usually warm as toast inside. There's nothing better after a long day out in cold weather. It takes a horse just to pack this one tent and stove though. A lot of weight, and bulk. Another thing to consider is condensation on the inside of your tent, (from you own breath). The newer tents are vented better, but this can still be a real problem. In cold weather you can end up with a thick layer of frost on everything in the morning....just from condensation. After several days this will end up soaking your sleeping bag. Many years ago, we hiked into the Bob Marshal, for nine days, on snow shoes. What a miserable time. A lot of what made that trip miserable was this build up of condensation on the inside of our tent, and on our sleeping bags. Part of what made that trip miserable, was our low tech. gear. I had a down bag. There are better sleeping bags out there now.... Does anyone have any ideas on how to combat condensation. I'm sure a lot of it depends on the tent you use. I wonder if keeping the door open, might be smart, as long as it wasn't snowing....

The army has a swing land trainer, that they use to teach PLF's. You are suspended by a block and tackle, and a Black Hat instructor held the end of the rope. You stepped off of about a six foot foot platform and swung back and forth a couple times before your instructor let you loose into the ground. Usually there was a fair amount of speed built up, (comparable to a wind jump). You did this forward, side-ways, and backwards until you could do a PLF in every direction. After three weeks of practicing PLF's, you got pretty good at them. In the 70's we would spend an hour or so practicing PLF's with first jump skydivers. This just wasn't enough practice. There were still a lot of broken legs, ankles, etc. because of that. I've forgotten all the times that a good PLF saved me back in the 70's. But even today, they are worth practicing. I know I wouldn't have limped away from the last low turn I made a few years ago, without doing a good PLF. It literally ripped the booty loose from my jump suit, on impact.....I'm getting too old for this shit!

It might be good to remember that what most people carry for concealed carry may not work very well on bigger animals like a grizzly. I've packed my little 9mm in places that have black bear, mountain lion, and wolves, but I'd want something much bigger for big bears. Even a 357 is marginal on Grizzly. We picked up some back packers, several years back, in Denali Park in Alaska. All of them were unarmed. It was against the law to pack a weapon. They had one bear encounter after another. I'd never try something like that without some kind of gun..... I think I'd be tempted to put a 44 magnum in with my gear and not tell anyone.....I wonder how often that is done.... I've been in bear country a lot. Never had any real problems, but it sure can happen. I'm not willing to risk being lunch for a bear. We had our camp raided once by a wolverine. He came back late at night for more food. Our dog chased it off. That's about the only incident that I've had. My Dad had his camped raided by a grizzly when he was back in the Bob Marshal. He lost all of his food, that afternoon. He was out fishing when it happened. He always carried a Winchester 30/30 as a saddle gun. This would be a marginal grizzly gun, but it would be a whole lot better than nothing.....It pays to keep a clean camp. Bears can smell food a long ways off.

. Being able to "slide in" on your side and perform a PLF-like landing with significant forward speed is certainly different than jumping off a 4' platform and being able to roll to five points of contact. I've got video of a young woman doing a "by the book" PLF while landing downwind. She rolled onto her shoulder which in turn put her feet into the air, she bounced on to her head and consequently put out a hand. And broke her wrist. Had she slid in on her thigh rolling to the side she'd have been much better off. This doesn't sound like a classic PLF at all. You are trained to keep your arms, elbows, and wrists in, not out. If you have your head tucked in, it should protect your head also. I wonder if she had done a better PLF, if she would have been hurt at all. I don't think the PLF was ever designed for coming straight down. I made a bunch of wind jumps on rounds. Sometimes they were completely unmodified. Many times it was a rear PLF, but many times it was with a lot of forward speed, or to the side. A proper PLF really worked well for that. I don't see a lot wrong with sliding in on a modern ram air. I do that myself. But I still think there are times when there is nothing better than a good PLF. I made a low turn a few years back. I think the reason I limped off with only a badly sprained ankle was because I did the best PLF I could muster. I thank the Army for drilling that into my head.....

.................................................................. It sounds like rank is harder to get these days. It probably too depends on which unit you are in. Back in 1970 I saw a lot of E-7's out pushing a broom. There was a lot of rank in Special Forces. When you completed S.F. training everyone was given E-5. If you were in the top 2% of your class you were given E-6. Then there were the NCO academies. You could attend one of these and come out of it with E-5. We called these people Shake and Bakes. Many of them ended up as squad leaders in Vietnam. I was up for E-7 after six years. Yes, times were different back then. If I was more gun-ho, I probably could have got it. I had a terrible attitude after serving six years in the National Guard. Most of them were a joke back then. We had one real idiot in our unit who was an E-8. It just goes to show that rank doesn't always mean much.....

That's a horrific and stupid misapplication of statistics. ........................................................................... I agree. Theories that are testable are worth studying. Creationism should be kept out of the schools in my opinion. It's like saying magic is a possibility. Kazam!....and the heavens and earth were created. How can anyone who thinks rationally swallow that? As long as I'm gettting up on my soap box I thought I might add a little more. Are politicians really the right people to decide on what is taught in our schools? Sometimes I think they play too big of a role in this. The "No Child Left Behind Act" is an example of what can happen when too many idiots get together. A group of politicians, with nothing better to do, drafted that. Any educator could see from the start that it was ridiculous to set standards that were unreachable, and then say, "If you don't reach those goals your ass is grass." Maybe here too magical, emotional, thinking was involved, just like religion. All we need is more politicians deciding on things of this nature...... "If we just set the bar high enough, if we just punish enough teachers and principals, if everyone just tries hard enough, we can achieve the inmpossible!"...... "After all things like that happen on TV and the movies......Maybe we should just ignore what all the trained professionals have to say. After all politicians are smarter than underpaid educators. Maybe we should just draft something into law and the problem will be taken care of. Then we can sit back and feel good about ourselves"...... This seems to be the only in depth thinking that was behind this "The No Child Left Behind Act". It has proven to be a huge waste of tax payer dollars.....

I jumped with Pat Works in Oregon, several years back. I guess I didn't notice the zipper scarr on his head. He actually appeared quite normal, for someone who had just been reprogrammed and all. He did have a wild look in his eye when someone mentioned "Sport Death". But other than that you really couldn't tell. Actually the scariest part of the whole jump was when I tried to go into a sit, and I then turned into a human helicopter. I realized then that my true calling in life was definitely not free flying, and I went back to something safe like R.W. Maybe it was those damn aluminum foil underware that were throwing me off balance that day.....

I'm going to add three extra layers of aluminum foil to the walls of my bunker and my helmet (which I never take off) reply] .................I've started wearing aluminum foil underware. I don't want to go sterile.....for Christ Sakes! I thought of using lead, but that doesn't sound very comfortable..... Is this too much information??

Yes.... ...................................................................... Maybe I should have researched Hugo Chavez, before I said yes. I'm not familiar with his history. This does seem kind of like renting a house to someone. If a renter trashed your house and then tried to sell it wouldn't you be P.O.'d. Plum Creek raped this land for the timber, now they are trying to sell it. I'd like the government to take a long hard look at all this. Secret agreements with the Forest Service aren't right either. If some Plum Creek employees lose their jobs, maybe that would be bad. There would still be people needed to manage this land after the government took it back. So, this might not mean a loss in the number of jobs at all. Giving this land back to the Native Americans sounds like a terrible idea to me. I work on an Indian Reservation. You wouldn't believe the amount of mismanagement, and corruption that exists here. A good example would be the Bison Range north of Missoula. The Feds. gave it back to the Salish Indian Reservation to manage. A short time later, the Government took it back because of mismanagement. I'm not sure if that was Hugo Chavez style or not. That's what they did.....

reply] And so, what would you say to the 2100 employees of Plum Creek and investors that just saw an asset seized without recourse? That could easily cost half of them their jobs for the long term...sounds like a winning plan you have there! Why don't you take a trip to Venezuela and report back how well Chavez's nationalization is working...production is down, inflation is way up, and he doesn't get it. .......................................... Holy shit! Maybe you should try to take some deep breaths and try to relax a little. I'm not saying we should overthrow the government and kill all the bad people. All I'm saying is that possibly Plum Creek isn't entitled to this land. It should be looked at.....

I've owned a lot of dogs. They all enjoyed eating grass at times. I wouldn't worry about it. It's probably like salad to them....

As far as I know the only land sale that has taken place so far, is the deal for a Nature Conservancy North of Missoula. I don't think even that has been finalized yet. I think Plum Creek is testing the waters with all this. I don't think the government has given them the green light yet to start selling this land for private ownership. If they can, it would mean zillions of dollars in Plum Creek's pockets. Then there is still the question of how people will access this land if it is surrounded by forest service land. This is not a small chunk of land. It is like half of the land in most of Northern Idaho and parts of Western Montana. I think the government needs to look long and hard at the original agreement with Plum Creek. I'm no lawyer, but if Plum Creek has not lived up to their terms of this agreement the government should take this land back. They've already raped this land for whatever timber that was available. I doubt if that was part of the original agreement. Again this land was meant to be used for railroad ties only. I suspect, that most of this legal maneuvering has already been done on both sides. It will be interesting to see what happens. Some people say you can't stop progress, but then again, you sure don't have to like it.....

Yes....

. It may be sad, but I still think the owner should have the right to burn it all down and piss on the ashes if they want. I am for landowner rights too, but I don't agree with this. The terms of the agreement was for Plum Creek to use this land for railroad ties. Since they are not using it for that, I think the government ought to take it back. Apparently this was not in the contract, so I guess there is no way to get it back now. Greed wins again! But on a second note, I understand your sentiment. I own about twenty acres of land, with a creek running through it. My dream has been to build a house on that land next to the creek, when I retire. So I've been working like a dog all these years, paying off this land and saving my money. This was open farm land with plenty of open space. Then hoardes of people started moving in. My beautiful valley became the fastest growin place in the state. Housing developments were everywhere. They were even building houses right next to my fences to get closer to the creek. Then all these do gooders got together and decided we want to keep Montana open. That there shouldn't be any houses within 300 feet of any body of water. It just wasn't pretty having a house next to a stream. (It wasn't for safety reasons). I had a few months before this new law went into affect. I was under the gun. I quickly put in a foundation, well, and septic. I didn't want to build right next to my neighbors like the new law would dictate. Then enough other land owners got together and said this law was bull shit. People ought to be able to build where they want, if safety isn't an issue. It was put to a vote, and property rights won. So, I went to a lot of trouble and worry getting all this in. My next step is to get my shack built before zoning goes any further.....

One other issue that I didn't say much about, is that the Forest Service made a secret agreement with Plum Creek land owners. It stated that they could travel across Forest Service land to reach their newly bought land by using Forest Service roads. This is what outraged politicians. Apparently the sale of this land is perfectly legal.

............................................................... Even though Plum Creek technically owned this land it has always been open for public use. If you wanted to hike, camp, hunt, or fish, you could on this land. Again this is millions of acres. Under private ownership this will all change. I hate to see this land locked up with no tresspassing signs on it. If a person doesn't care about doing things in the outdoors this may not be a loss. If you live in a state where there is no public land you may not realize what a loss this really s. In Montana and Northern Idaho there are vast areas of public land that are still free to use by the general public. (Forest Service Land, BLM land, state land, school trust land, and the list goes on.) That is why I live in Montana..... For years now many politicians have had the grand idea that maybe we should sell off all our public land and pay for our national debt. Most citizens are smart enough not to let that happen. The sale of Plum Creek land is similiar to that. The first thing most people will do, when they buy a chunk of Plum Creek land, is to build a big fence around what they own, and keep everyone out. Rich people seem to buying up Montana. Jane Fonda and her hubby did that here. There are many many other examples of rich folk doing the same thing. I just hate to see more of it. The sad thing is there may not be a damn thing you can do about it. Several thousand acres have been bought from Plum Creek for a Nature Conservantcy North of Missoula. That is about the only good thing that is coming out of this in my opinion....

In Montana, Northern Idaho, and is some other states there are millions of acres of land owned by Plum Creek International. Their main office is in Seattle. This land is now for sale. Long ago, vast holdings of land were given to the railroad to cut ties on by the government. In places every other section of land belongs to Plum Creek. For many years it was used for commercial timber purposes. When I worked as a logger the land was called Burlington Northern (BN) land. I wish I could say that good logging practices were used on that land. Just the opposite was true. The land was being raped so this company could make a fortune. Little thought was given to regrowth. A zillion miles of road were built. The more road, the cheaper the cost to harvest the timber. Some of this land was stripped of all merchantable timber. So now, logging is not a priority for this company any more. Real-estate is. The company plans to sell off this land for staggering profits. Some of this land is accessible only by traveling first over Forest Service land. So, the Forest Service had a secret meeting with the Plum Creek folks allowing access. Obama and several other government officials through a fit over this a year ago, but I have heard little since. As far as I know these land sales are taking place. Has Anybody heard anything more on this. It seems to me that this land should be handed back to the government if it is not being used for it's original purpose. I don't think it should be sold for a huge profit by this company.... Please set me straight if I am off on any of this....

Savage have the reputation of being deadly accurate. I just don't like the look and feel of them too well. A lot of this is personal preference. I'm really picky about little things. There's probably nothing at all wrong with them. the price is really good on Savage rifles.

Winchester had some pretty rough years when they were making total crap. reply] .................................................................... I saved all my money and bought a Winchester Model 70, 30/06 back in about 66. Winchester had made "great" rifles prior to 64 or so. I was young and didn't know much about guns when I bought this one. It came with a plastic butt plate, stamped checkering, and a floating barrel that you could slide a thick piece of cardboard under. (Truly a cheaply made rifle!) I didn't like it. I sold it and bought a Remington 700 BDL. This started my love affair with Remington. Then Winchester started building rifles that looked better in quality. I bought a Winchester Model 70 in featherlight. It didn't shoot tool well. I floated the barrel and this didn't help much at all. I put a shim under the fore-end, and it will now drive tacks. My wife uses it now for hunting. So then I bought another Winchester rifle. A 300 Winchester in stainless, with a synthetic stock and a claw extractor on the bolt. I loved the looks and feel of that rifle. So, I took it to the range. It didn't shoot good at all. I tried various hand loads, floated the barrel, bedded the action, adjusted the trigger, and nothing seemed to help much. I just plain ran out of ideas that might improve it's accuracy. So, I traded it at a gun show for a Remington BDL out of Remington's custom shop. It had a 26 inch barrel. Right out of the box it would shoot better than the Winchester. With the right handload it will now shoot close to 3/4 of an inch with a four shot group at 100 yards. That's really good for a magnum. At any rate, I've heard tell that Winchester has improved the quality their rifles since then. I wouldn't mind trying another one. I've heard that they should shoot better now that the company is under new management. If the army is using them for their sniper rifle, that says a lot. They must be accurate.....