robinheid

I don't think it's that good. It's more like sticking a band aid on the easiest place you can, because you saw blood on the floor. I stand corrected. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Thanks for the nod -- and you just hit another nail on the head. By pandering to the instant gratification crowd, we are populating our sport with people who like to rush into things -- the consequences of which have given rise to this thread and others like it. I had never thought about it until you brought it up, but in addition to creating more knowledgeable and capable parachute pilots, transitioning to a parachute-only-no-freefall basic course would filter out at least some of the instant gratification crowd and pre-select for people with a propensity for patience and learning a solid theoretical and practical foundation before "jumping" ahead to activities and equipment for which they are not yet prepared. BTW, I wanted to clarify my response to ozzy13 re S/L, IAD, hop-n-pop jumps for the parachute pilot course. What I propose is not a return to static line "progression." I think one- and two-jumpmaster freefall training has proven itself to be a safe and effective method for freefall training, and far superior to the "progression" I went through back in the day. The parachute pilot basic course would use S/L, IAD or hop'n'pop jumps, but when the jumper graduated from the basic course, s/he would then either go to basic freefall training (one or two freefall jumpmasters from 12,500 or wherever), or continue on the "parachute track," during which they would continue to do S/L, IAD or hop'n'pops until they decided to do the basic freefall course. A quick aside here too: When Roger Nelson went to ZP Sabres for his students, he noticed an immediate improvement in their freefall performance because... the rigs were smaller and thus did not hang over the student torsos and affect their ability to fly their bodies. That is another advantage of a basic parachute course before freefall; part of the "graduation" requirements would be to downsize to a wing loading reasonable for their weight and experience, probably somewhere in the 0.8 range or thereabouts. That way when they do go to their freefall training, they are jumping gear that doesn't interfere with their freefall maneuvering, thus creating more success, less frustration and greater jumper retention. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

SO... how's that strategy working out for you? LOL Just kidding... couldn't resist. Actually, it could also be that it was stolen by a whuffo who had no idea of its value compared to other rigs.... compounded by easy availability since the owner might have reasoned that no one would steal a Dolphin with a Triathlon and Argus in it... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That was my home DZ at the time and in addition to losing a good friend on the jump plane I was involved in counteracting the spin the airline company tried to put on it that the jump plane was at fault. Turns out the twin engine commuter's pilot had their heads in the cockpit and just flew right up the ass of the jump plane -- when it was directly over the open-NOTAM/chart-marked DZ. Chewed the tail off, chopped the heads off the two jumpers in the back and sliced the foot of one other jumper. Commuter crashed, all aboard KIA. The jump pilot and three (?) other jumpers all survived by bailing out of the 206. In addition to calling reporers that I knew and providing the facts, I actually went to the home of the airline's PR person and explained to her gently but firmly that she was getting very bad information and that it was in her company's best interest that she cease and desist because both the radar record and the wreckage itself provided irrefutable evidence that the commuter pilots blew it. She was not happy that I tracked her down, but to her credit she listened and from that day forward, the airline basically said "tragedy for all involved. no further comment while it's under investigation" and that was the end of that. As usual, an uptick in first-jump students followed. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Wonder when she'll start bitching about the noise from this low-flying airplane yesterday. Oh wait, never mind. No skydivers on board. No problem.* 44 * Condolences to the families of those who came out on the short end of this collision stick. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

sorry about the green... all i could find was one in black and white. 44 Well, now we know why dear Emma is in such a snit. I found a picture of her husband: 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Could be S/L, IAD, or hop-and-pops... and guess what? It's already been proof-tested by the US Air Force. Academy cadets do hop-and-pop freefalls for their first jumps... anywhere from 5-20 last time I checked. Then they go to freefall training. Dan and Amy Goriesky used to go out to CO every year and train the cadets in AFF-type freefall and they said it was amazing how fast the kids picked up the freefall part after already having 5-20 parachute-only jumps in their logbooks. Think about it: The hardest part to jumping is getting out of the plane and landing -- and being comfortable with and confident of your gear. That is the foundation upon which you build. This is absolutely not rocket science and you're already on track -- you just have it out of sequence. START with the ground school/basic flight course. After successfully graduating from that, then you go into more specialized training along one of two tracks: freefall or parachute. (I deleted wingsuit as a separate track, as it's part of the freefall track.) Check out the attached rough draft training pyramid of an idea of what I mean. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Just to be clear, B Germain's WL chart, which many use as an example of how to structure these things does include adjustments for DZ/density altitude and for lighter weight jumpers who might otherwise end up on 120 or 135sq ft canopies right after student status. It was recognized, considered, and accounted for. Funny thing is, about your position on this, is that you always come back to education and then make the comparison to private-pilot level aerodynamics. At the same time, you resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications, even though that's the example set by general aviation. You need specialized training and instruction to be involved in the more complex areas of general aviation, both in terms of equipment and it's use. Some of those areas don't have a minimum experience required, and some do, however, the ones that don't are designed as such that it takes a fair measure of skill to achieve them, so the experience 'requirement' is built-in. If learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that. On top of that, you lose the ability to provide dual instruction on a canopy like you could in an aircraft. To sum it up, with extensive classroom and book study to go along with actual dual training, general aviation still sees fit to structure the movement of a pilot up the ladder of performance and complexity. With a MUCH lower level of classroom and book training, and no dual instruction possible, you still think that education is the only thing we need? Not education and structure for the advancement of pilots? An excellent set of points, Dave. My premise is that all the canopy chart/restrictions blah-blah is meaningless without a private pilot-level ground school in aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight. First you have to build a foundation and we do not currently have that, USPA's Rube Goldberg training system notwithstanding... a system that, BTW, is analogous to teaching aerobatics from the first training flight and adding in takeoffs, landing and navigation as "oh-by-the-way" elements. All the freefall-focused training from the get-go is heuristically insane -- and the excuse for persisting in such an approach is even worse -- "well, that's what the customer wants." Yeah, right... so imagine if the "customer" who goes to a GA flight school says he wants to focus on aerobatics and doesn't want to be bothered with learning to first take off, land, navigate and understand basic aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight. Yet that is percisely what we do now, and all the blah-blah about the charts simply enables the continuation of this heuristically insane training structure. It's like proposing to put a bandaid on a severed artery and then feeling smug because "we are doing something" about the problem. So, bottom line, Dave: I do not resist the idea of canopy classification and requirements for flying within those classifications; they are part and parcel of a complete flight training system. What I resist is doing that without first changing the entire focus of our basic parachuting training from freefall first to freefall after. The whole thing is economically insane too, both for customers and DZOs. First, learning how to become a parachutist is crazy expensive because the customer pays for three slots to 12,500 feet -- along with instructor time for hours of superfluous "AFF" training that has no bearing on learning to fly, navigate and understand the aerodynamics and fundamentals of flying. This reduces the number of people who will take up the sport in the first place. Second, DZOs make a lot more money per slot dropping peeps from 4K than they do 13K -- and when they do parachute training loads, they can get in more loads per hour. It would be silly simple to do: 1) Introductory tandems for a taste of freefall AND some of the dual instruction you say cannot be done with parachutes. 2) A parachute-focused training system, the graduation from which is followed by different learning tracks: a) freefall b) parachute c) wingsuits Pick your track, then follow a curriculum specifically focused on that customer-chosen track. But everyone FIRST goes through a parachute-training-only basic flight and ground school. and earns a basic-level parachutist (not "skydiving") license. Then and only then do you branch out to the specific areas. As you outlined with GA, Dave: Everyone learns the basics of flight and aerodynamics, then they branch off into the direction of their real desire and goal: aerobatics, multi-engine, instrument, whatever. We pattern so much of what we do after what has proven to work in the general aviation field except for one glaring exception: basic training, skill development, higher-performance system qualification and currency maintenance. And therein lies the heart of the problem. You said "if learning to fly a parachute involved the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, that would be one thing, but even the most zealous canopy control nazi isn't suggesting anything close to that." Well, as this thread and its ancestors make clear, learning to fly a parachute does now involve the same level of dedication and study as learning to fly a plane, and until we understand that, all the blah-blah about charts and restrictions is just spitting into the wind. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The silence is deafening, isn't it, Jay? Ten thousand words of blah-blah since you posed your questions and not a breath about about this major fatal flaw of this whole thread.* And the answers are simple: They have no idea. It never occurred to them to consider it. Further, the related equation is very simple: The higher the density or actual altitude, the less useful and more dangerous those precious charts will be. What's LOL funniest about it is that the proposer of these limits jumps at a DZ that has some of the widest in density altitude variations of any DZ anywhere in the world -- and yet not a word about any of that from him. 44 * Along, of course, with the relentless refusal to address the need for a private pilot-level ground school on aerodynamics and the fundamentals of flight. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked: "Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? " No answer received. Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done. Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings. 44 LOL confuse such folks lol ok high and mighty. This website is a joke. One more week and you wont see me until i get bored next winter. So flame on!!! I took your comment as a insult. I am the only one that has shown any kind of stat in all of these proposal WL threads. Again 45% on fatalities were from people with 2000 plus jumps killing themselves. So all these charts would not helped any of them There are three or four of them on this site right now. Your so smart show me different. No insult intended. especially since you say you do NOT support the charting process being discussed. My point is simply that there's a lot of blah-blah without any kind of research. Yours is limited only to fatalities, and in fact, I totally agree with you: This whole discussion is pretty silly because the majority of the action taking place these days happens to people who are far beyond the reach of the proposed restrictions. That is why I keep beating the basic aerodynamics horse and the private-pilot-level ground school horse: If you don't get them dialed into the fundamentals of flight -- ANY kind of flight -- early on, then no amount of bandaids in the form of the proposed charts and restictions is going to change anything. So if I understand your last post correctly, we be on the same page, so chill, my brothuh from anothuh mothuh. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

WELL, in post #2 of this thread I asked: "Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in each of these experience levels in the past, say, 3 years, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed limits? " No answer received. Before imposing any rules on the community, the proposers need to make a very clear analysis of the scope of the problem and the likely impact of the proposed "solution". That has not been done. Imposing rules without research is SOP these days, Perfesser. Please don't further confuse these peeps by asking them to apply something as quaintly archaic as scientific method to their musings. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Edited for clarity. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

sorry aobut the green... all i could find was one in black and white. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

OMG! 44 Talks the talk but walk the walk "Wait, I can hear that annoying twin otter, can you hear it." R. it gets better... here's another one: Pasco County needs to keep the floodplain clear, clean Editor: Pasco County is endangering lives, squandering tax dollars and jeopardizing flood management by allowing developers to build in the floodplain. Last year alone, Pasco County spent hundreds of thousands of dollars pumping water to prevent dangerous flooding of homes that were built in the floodplain. Unbelievably, the county is still issuing permits for floodplain development. Floodplains provide immense ecological benefits. They filter and trap sediments and pollutants. They store water, which reduces the velocity of the floodwater. Also, periodic flooding rejuvenates and sustains floodplain vegetation, preventing erosion. This vegetation produces shade which reduces harmful warm water temperatures, and provides habitat for fish and wildlife. Pasco County has a lot of beautiful high and dry land. There is no need to put our residents at risk and disturb an important resource by altering the natural characteristics of our floodway. Allowing development in the floodplain is irresponsible and shortsighted, and wastes dollars that could be used on roads and schools. -- Emma Withers, Dade City And ANOTHER: Debt ceiling cuts mean more lost jobs I have been bewildered as to why Republicans would insist on huge spending cuts at a time of high unemployment. Spending cuts will inevitably lead to even greater unemployment. Why would they do that? Then, a thought occurred to me like a thunderbolt. Could it be that the Republicans want to maximize unemployment? What could that possibly accomplish? Well, it would accomplish three things: 1) Those who have jobs, fearing they could lose them, would become even more productive. 2) Unemployed workers looking for jobs would have lower salary expectations. 3) President Barack Obama would get the blame, and his chances for re-election would be diminished. What a boon for business! The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that this may be a part of the Republican leadership's agenda, though I don't think it's what the average voter had in mind when he or she voted Republican. Emma Withers, Dade City 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

OMG! 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

AS usual, the most important element is overlooked: AERODYNAMICS KNOWLEDGE. The FIRST thing all of these approaches need is the equivalent of a private pilot ground school, which is a training curriculum independent of and separate from flight training (although the two training paths are often done concurrently). You can make all the wing loading-to-exit weight divided by chord times span calculations, rules and restrictions you want, but until the training system teaches to parachutists the same level of basic aerodynamics that private pilots receive, it's all just peeing in the wind. Literally nothing you listed above makes any sense whatever if the person executing the list items has no clear how it all works in terms of basic aerodynamics. I personally saved myself several times when I was learning how to swoop because, as a pilot, I understood what was happening to my wing before the sight picture told me -- thus I was already taking action before the sight picture resolved into usable data, which would have been too late. And in just the last couple of years, there was a great wingsuit video of a guy in Norway setting up to buzz the switchback road and when he made his left approach turn from his launch point, he turned too sharply and gave himself an accelerated stall -- and before he actually started falling from the sky he pitched his pilot chute and opened about five FEET above the rocks (and then outflew the slope under canopy with no problem). In so doing, he demonstrated, as I did, that knowing the aerodynamics involved gives you an edge that can save your life because,as I did, he KNEW he had made a mistake and that the consequences would be fatal and thus he was able to take action before the sight picture told him, which, as in my case, would have been too late. It mystifies me that someone with your experience, knowledge and generally sound judgment would be so incredibly off-base about the most fundamental thing we need to do differently -- and that is to teach people how to fly their wings as if they were actually pilots. I mean, really, what good is knowing what your wing loading can be for your experience/weight/canopy when you have no clue as to WHY? It's all the fashion now to call ourselves canopy pilots, but you know, calling yourself a pilot doesn't mean you really are one. You gotta put in the time, both in the cockpit and IN THE CLASSROOM. Try again, guys. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Yes, it's a DC-9, and it has a Stage III kit on it so it's not so loud any more, but still a good deal noisier than anything else that flies out of Longmont. The best choice for returning the favor would be a C-123. They're pretty much the loudest twin-engine airplane ever made and noisier than most with four. An H-53 chopper boogie would be good, too, and of course it would be great to have some warbirds visit... B-17s, B-24s... after a week of that, little sweet cheeks at the end of the runway would be too deaf to ever again hear a Twin Otter, much less complain about it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

LOL If you think Longmont is open space and beautiful vistas, I have some secluded property I'd like to sell you in downtown Denver. Go back to Florida and all your droning mosquito friends. Oh wait... there are skydivers there, too... many many MANY more than there are in CO... Funny how you never shot your mouth off about THEM, but then I guess there's no moron flapping her jaws down there about how noisy those bad old airplanes are. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

These are the premises upon which this thread is based. One is a provably false statement; the other is an unprovable speculation. That's why this thread is a GIGOfest. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I would rather give the customer another jump free of charge, complete with video. Better customer service, imho. We have a winner! Any other answer flunks Customer Service 101. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

You won't get any crap from me about this. Yes, we have to share the sky, and the more socialistic the government under which jumpers must live, the more at risk they are for having their activity restricted or prohibited "for the greater good." So of course parachuting must be regulated so that it can peacefully and unobtrusively co-exist with other airspace users and with the larger society in which it exists. The continuing problem, however, is that people confuse "regulation" with "rules" and they are not the same thing. Here's the definition of regulate: reg·u·late verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. Notice that only one definition even includes the word "rule" and then only as one option among several. That is key to my remarks on this subject: Instead of regulating by making more rules that essentially become bandaids on a severed artery, we should instead look more to principles and methods and less to rules to accomplish the necessary regulation. Such a course takes more and better thinking than to just impose more rules, but it will yield better results. It's kinda like the old saying: Catch a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Telling jumpers what canopy they can or cannot fly and when they can or cannot fly it may keep them safe while they fall within the proposed rules, but if you teach them how to fly you will help them stay safe for their entire career. 44 p.s. good on ya for starting this discussion. hopefully some of this input will find its way to the Norwegian powers that be and help them come up with the best possible solution. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

LOL Good one, Brits! Reminds me of a similar-but-completely-different version done in the USA at Denver General Hospital about 30 years ago. This was during a time when studies kept coming out claiming that pretty much everything caused cancer. So these two researchers did a straight-up investigation based on the hypothesis: Does money cause cancer? Then they inserted brand-new dimes into the abdomens of mice and, then, along with a no-dimes-in-their-bellies control group, fed and cared for the mice identically for a given period -- during which time a significant number of the dime-bearers developed cancerous tumors. So their conclusion was that money did, in fact, cause cancer, based on the results of their meticulously executed study. The funniest part was the number of cancer researchers who did not think it was funny at all to make light of such a serious subject as making crazy studies to get the results you want so you can make a point. Real scientists never do such thing. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Don't post here, check it out there. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

You don't need new rules. You need new THINKING. As in: Spend less time forcing more laws of man on your jumpers and more time helping them learn the laws of nature. You know, like Newton's laws of motion generally and how to fly an aircraft specifically. Instead of worrying about what wing they're flying, how about paying more attention to how they're flying it? In the US there is this basically psychotic notion that parachutists must focus on learning fun freefall skills before they learn survival parachuting skills. New thinking requires going back to the future. No rides "to the top of Fun Mountain" until they have graduated from Basic Flight Training consisting of static line and/or hop and pop freefalls for 20-30-50-however many jumps it takes them to learn how to fly their inflatable aircraft -- and understand private pilot-level aerodynamics and flight control techniques. Some of this is being taught in the US and elsewhere, but only in bits and pieces and as a side dish to the main coourse, which is playing in freefall. Learn to fly your wings first, then learn how to fly your body because playing in the sky is fantasy; coming back to earth is reality. Instead, you and your association are following the tired old and provably unproductive path of imposing more rules that make ever more demands not just on the jumpers who are doing this for FUN but on the association that allegedly serves to encourage said fun. Seriously, your association is proposing to embark on a path of creating a complicated clusterfink of largely unenforcible rules that will not change anything for the better because you're targeting the parachute, not the pilot, If you instead took all of the time, treasure and brain cells you're proposing to burn through on this many-times-proven useless exercise and invested it in helping your jumpers to learn how to fly better, this would all go a lot better. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

------------------------- Okay, someone's got to bump this thread back to the top. Have we had no 'challenged' students since the last post?! I'll reboot it with a story of my own. Oh, BTW, you know I was an awesome student! Oh, sure.... At Ft. Lewis Washington in summer of '82 I was ready for my first clear and pull from a Chinook Helicopter, CH-47. I get the go and bunny hopped off the tailgate. I actually did a good hop and pop. The fun starts under 300 feet. As I'm drifting under my MC-1B, 35 foot round with steering toggles, I'm still holding my ripchord. As I drift over the windsock at about 100', I dropped my ripchord (in reality, I was tired of holding it and thought I could try a little impact accuracy with it) and almost hit the windsock. Oh no, the newby fun is not over. I drifted past the LZ and into the biggest fucking christmas tree I've ever seen. I hit it ass first about 20 feet up. The tree collasped into a slide and I slid down it to a perfect standup landing. So, Pvt. Garrison was on the hook for 3 cases of beer. First freefall, Dropping the ripchord and First standup landing. I ponyied up (how the hell do you spell Pony+ed) with a small keg and just smiled. Okay, there are several years of stupidity missing here. Pony Up!! Same jump except completely different. First freefall, June 1972, Raeford, NC, hop and pop, 28-foot 7-TU round. Didn't drop the ripcord, but drifted past the landing area into pine trees. Small trees, parachute hung in four of them, I did a standup landing in between. Three cases of beer: first freefall, first tree landing, first standup. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."