RackJR

Skyride offering tandems. Stumbled across this on ebay last night. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220557662481&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123 Say what you mean. Do what you say.

well said.... Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Money is no object? build your own tunnel, buy a caravan. hire many coaches. start with jason peters, if you can find time that he has available. spend a good chunk of time with him. when he's finished with you, you'd be ready for anything. hiring more coaches would give you a more rounded understanding of different coaching styles, different ways of teaching, different ways of communicating. from there, the list is pretty big. thomas hughes would be great, he can teach you an elite level of belly flying as well, something too many people overlook (belly flying in general). as to how many hours or jumps it would take, you'll have to answer that. there's no formula. some people learn faster than others. some parts of the progression make more sense to some than others. if you are trying to actually get a real handle on where and with whom, eloy is a great place to look. the list of coaches is huge. the last i heard, jason peters was booked about 6 months in advance, but i really don't know for sure. there are so many coaches there, you won't go 5 minutes without someone who can teach you. East coast? raeford has a great tunnel. the coaches may not be as well known as eloy (although some are), but you can hook up with the tunnel rats there, who will also accompany you into the sky. west coast? ifly SF bay is great. ask for kris reynolds or mx. jumps at lodi are cheap. tunnel in the morning, jumps during the day, tunnel at night. sing yourself to sleep watching the video as many times as you can. play the powerball. :) Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I read the entire thread before i watched the video. i'm confused. Olav is the guy in white/green i'm assuming? watching the video convinced me that you have no idea what you're talking about. from the posts of others, i take it you have some tunnel time, which normally would lead me to believe that you understand the kind of commitment it takes to get to the level of flying that he's doing. that didn't happen here, obviously. others have already commented on your possible motives. i have no idea what they are. i have seen better tunnel flyers. i've seen Olav in the sky, and i can say i've seen better skydivers. which is not to say that he's a "commodore 64" in the tunnel or the sky. far from it. if he were flying like a muppet in there, his accomplishments within, and contributions to skydiving would still deserve more respect than to mock him in a forum that he will likely never read. if he were flying like a muppet, those experiences would still make him a better coach than 90% of the people out there coaching. he's not flying like a muppet. he's flying very well. cartwheeling to his head, backflips and frontflips to his head, clean transitions back to sit, flying with multiple flyers. and he's pushing himself, trying to do things that may not be comfortable. as a tunnel rat, i've seen people coach head down who could not fly on their heads themselves. i've seen belly coaches teach people to pull with the wrong hand. standing in the door, i've watched coaches teach things that i believe to be completely wrong. But the student didn't hire me, and it's therefore not my place to correct anything, unless it becomes unsafe. maybe i don't know exactly what he's trying to teach. and worst of all, IMO, i've seen people like you, who mock others for trying to teach. i didn't actually see him do any coaching in that video, so i can't comment on his ability to coach. but certainly nothing about his flying would make me think his coaching was anything but top notch. i think we should also add that he's forgotten more about skydiving than you and i will ever know. i wish everyone who tried to coach in the tunnel was as qualified as he is. i wonder how much i could have learned, if he had been coaching where i was an instructor. Also, although i think it's unlikely (based on what i read) that Olav is actually the guy in black/white at the end of the video.... if that IS him, you're [PA removed by slotperfect. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

You are absolutely entitled to that opinion, and the feeling that 90's are the only solution. Now, please move your discussion to the bonfire, and let those of us who would like to continue swooping, and honor this deceased stranger (in probably the only way we can) by learning from this event, do that. your continued discussion of the abolition of swooping, in this thread, is a solipsistic distraction to that learning. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

It seems like every time there is an incident, someone is ready to attack the idea of swooping, or these crazy people that do it. Look at the world... it is human nature that once we've figured out how to do something, someone is going to want to do it better, or faster, or go farther. without getting too deep into a philosophical discussion on the nature of humanity, i think it's easy to say that swooping is here to stay. I think the relevant issue here is how does someone with 7000 skydives, and competition experience, hook into the water and die. As a swooper, I would like to understand how an error of this magnitude can be made. I'd like to hear all the information I can, so that this incident can make more sense to me. This forum is for the discussion of incidents, and the way we can learn from them. This thread is supposed to be about how others might avoid that same fate. John's idea is to eliminate (I assume via more rules and penalties?) swooping itself. As I already stated, i don't think that's a viable idea. So, if you're not here to learn about swooping, or how to make it safer, I think your comments, and John's, would be better suited in a forum such as the bonfire. If John is not alone in his thoughts, join him, as he posts them there. Posting things, like John did, creates a distraction, to what I think is the laudable and realistic goal of this forum. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i'm constantly amazed at what these forums can generate from a simple question. some of the guys on the red bull team offer coaching. Mike Swanson comes to mind in particular, he lives in california. all of them travel extensively, so booking time is something you typically have to do far in advance. most of them are booked out around 6 months in advance. they are all professional coaches, and their rates are not cheap. so there is some validity to what someone else posted, that you can get coaching that might suit you better at this point in your career, from someone who costs less. if you live near a tunnel, just about any tunnel coach can get you started freeflying, at a rate that's usually easier to handle. in the sky, you should probably be more selective. start by trying to filter the things that the 300 jump-wonders tell you. that's the reason people do go to coaches like the red bull guys. their coaching is always going to be correct (they won't teach you any wrong things), and they will also give you the right instruction after only a few jumps, or probably only one jump. their video debrief will be very good, and they won't miss anything. as far as what someone said about not having met the guys, i'm wondering if he has. i've met those guys, i've gotten coaching from several of them. they are great guys. considering the things they've accomplished in this sport, and how they've progressed the entire concept of freelfying, they don't carry around big egos the way others in this sport do. and their coaching is first rate. if you PM me with your area, maybe i can try to hook you up with someone who can help you out. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i'm a regular skyventure tunnel instructor. and although i do skydive, there are several instructors at SVCO who do not skydive. the 3 that come to mind would outfly anyone but perhaps the very, very top of the skydiving community. they did not get there through skydiving. they got there in the tunnel. they're also excellent coaches, and communicate skills better than most skydiving coaches i've seen. one of them is currently coaching a brother/sister team of kids at around (i believe) a 17 point average, belly flying. Mike Swanson was my freefly coach when i started. When he wanted coaching, he went to Joe Winters. i don't know how many jumps Joe has, around 80 i think, but Joe suggested belly flying, and coached Mike on that. so, if you mean that it's possible to find a bad coach/tunnel instructor, then yeah, it can happen. i think it's a lot easier to find a bad skydiving instructor. but that is why i said "a good coach". i think even average skyventure instructors are very good coaches. his question was about freeflying, not belly. however, since you mentioned it.....even our newest instructors can help the vast majority of belly flyers to improve their skills. ask an aff instructor if they'd rather jump with someone who's just showed up to the dz, with no tunnel, for level 3, or someone who did their first 15 minutes this morning, warming up for level 3. as for freeflying, and it's ability to help, Derek Cox used to work for SVCO, and he jumped on the 69 way record with around 400 jumps. Steph Strange currently works at SVCO. she did the womens 20 way record with 228 jumps. there are more examples of how the tunnel helps than you could come up with about how it doesn't, or find ways to say that it might be "a waste of time". but to anyone that's still not sure, don't take my word for it. find a good coach, and give it a try yourself. you won't be disappointed. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i can't believe there's a person who voted that the tunnel may hinder your abilities in freefall. to me, that means the person has not experienced the tunnel, or perhaps did a couple minutes without coaching, didn't do very well, and then dismissed it as a tool for learning. the tunnel will absolutely help your skills in freefall, for a variety of reasons, many of which are listed already. but like most other things, experience is probably the best teacher. so give the tunnel an honest try. do a 15 minutes session with a qualified coach, and see what you think. try to keep in mind how long it would take you to learn the same things in the sky, 45 seconds at a time, with each 45 second learning opportunity separated from the next by however much time it takes you to pack and go back up on the next load. how expensive would 15 minutes worth of skydives be, with a qualified coach? 15 minutes of coached time in colorado is around $200. my freefly coach when i started jumping was $75/jump. i've answered this question before, and i'm sure it will come up again. but once you start flying in a tunnel, you won't need to ask it any more. the answer will be so obvious that you'll wonder how it can keep being asked!! Say what you mean. Do what you say.

if you're in vegas, you really have to give it a try. it is different than a SV tunnel, but definitely worth the experience. it's still bodyflight, it's still fun, and there really is a ton of shit you can do in there that you can't do in a SV tunnel. i wouldn't choose that as my only option, but when i went there, it was a blast. as to it being a waste of time or money...... the whole crew from flyaway came to the colorado tunnel last year. i think they were actually touring several tunnels. super nice guys and girls, and VERY GOOD FLIERS. they clearly flew a different style, but they were all very, very good fliers. one of their former instructors, Mike Silva, recently joined our team at colorado. i think it took him about 10 minutes to pass half the instructors in flight skills. it's bodyflight, and you will learn tons. have fun. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Nate Gilbert was an incredibly experienced canopy pilot/swoop competitor. i don't know exactly how many jumps he had, but i'll venture a guess of around 12000. catching a cutaway is incredibly dangerous. if a guy like him can die doing it, the rest of us have no business near a cutaway. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

blue skies DanO. I'm so sorry to see you go. thank you for sharing some of your time with us. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

let him speak for himself. she didn't hijack anything. she made a couple comments. ease down. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

the aircraft listed as hitting the towers was a 767-200. 3 different models of 767-200, but the lightest had a mtow of 315,000 lbs, heaviest 395,000 lbs. i have not seen a separate manifest as of yet for how many people were on each plane individually, but i have seen the total of 157 including crew from both planes, so neither plane was at or near capacity. the lightest model 767-200 has 181 seats, the heaviest 255 seats. i did not see in the citing of the White report whether the 707 used to model the impact was fully loaded with passengers. again, i am going to assume that they would use the worst case scenario, but i'll freely admit that's only my assumption. wikipedia states each 767 dispursed 38 cubic meters of jet fuel into the towers, and the White report indicated the 707 dispursed 87 cubic meters (model). Say what you mean. Do what you say.

sorry that's correct. mtow 333.6k lbs for the 707, 450k lbs mtow for the 767. actual weight for the aircraft that hit the towers i have not yet found. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

according to wikipedia, it was two boeing 767's that struck the two towers, not 757, as you listed. everything that follows is also from wikipedia. those planes (767's) have a fuel capacity of either 62.2 or 91 cubic meters of fuel, and also depending on model, a weight of 176,000 lbs to 229,000 lbs. max speed of 568 mph, but at a 35,000ft altitude. the 707, first produced in the 50's and continued service through the 70's, had model weights ranging from 222,000lbs to 333,600 lbs. (that's heavier, right?), and only listed cruising speed of around 600mph (altitude not specified). plane struck tower 1 going 440mph. tower 2 540mph. FEMA modeled the crash with a plane weighing 263k lbs and flying at 180 mph. also cited was the White paper, published Feb 3 1964, a 21000 page study using a Boeing 707 with 83 cubic meters of fuel flying at 600 mph (faster than either plane hit the towers), which concluded the plane impact could not bring down the tower, although they did not study the effects of the jet fuel fire or fire from the building contents. the pancake theory of collapse, accepted by most engineers, has also been criticized for not taking into account the reistance from the lower floors, which could have slowed or even prevented total collapse. instead what was observed was very little, if any, resistance and a near freefall collapse. building 7 has still not had any study published in any scientific journal concerning the reasons for it's collapse. NIST admitted that their findings were limited due to scarcity of physical evidence. they do conclude the pancake theory is what triggered the collapse of the impacted floors, but their model was static rather than dynamic, and therefore did not talk about events after the initial collapse of the impacted floors. their conclusions have been criticized by peers even at the time of publishing, including one professor of fire protection from the university of maryland who called their spoilation of steel theory (from the jet fuel burning) a "gross error" that NIST should have themselves openly criticized. the neutrality of the article has been challenged, and that debate is ongoing. so gee, i guess that was an enormous error on my part. the plane they modeled was heavier and flew faster. experts in the field cannot agree. keep calling me a moron dude. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

good job, ignoring the rest. an enormous lack of knowledge. hmm. yes i don't know the specific dates. but i do know we had big aircraft. is that enormous? or maybe you being a little over dramatic, so that your point seems more important? and i still don't see you listing the dates. or citing any of the research that you might have done. but i guess it's easier to ignore that, and insult everyone else, huh? it's amazing to me the amount of insulting people are willing to do, when their belief systems are threatened. maybe it brings them back to balance, or restores their faith, or makes them feel like they have the answers again. gotta get back to that comfortable, safe place where things make sense. we don't want the thought police coming by. a simple post about a movie that proposes alternate possibilities, designed IMO to challenge mainstream thought, can generate so much emotion. i'd rather stick with the monty python guys. i started doing some research. i will continue to do that. a friend introduced me to the movie, and i found it compelling. i tried to do the same. how that bothers you so deeply is beyond me. how it inspires so much criticism is also beyond me. i guess fear is a powerful thing. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

jesus dude we weren't getting around in horse and carriage when they built the towers. large planes have existed for a while now. i'm sure they didn't do their calculations with a 206 hitting the side. i'll get back to you on exactly when the 757 hit the air, and when the towers were constructed, but maybe you can allow that although that specific plane was (perhaps, i don't know for sure) not in existence then, we still had some big aircraft out there. i'm sure you'd like me to believe you when you say that it didn't exist, but you're not offering production or erection dates, either. they weren't asking themselves if the building could withstand being hit by a swallow (african or european). I'M NOT SAYING I ACCEPT ANY OF THE THEORY'S. i'm saying it made me question what i do believe, or what is possible. it made me think about whether i had simply accepted what was put in front of me, or thought about it on my own. nowhere have i claimed to do any research on my own. i will now, for the first time, say that i have read the bible, the epic of gilgamesh, and many many other books involving religious mythology, and knew many of the religious aspects of the movie before i watched it. the fact that the movie was, IMO, spot on with that subject, did lend credence, IMO, for the rest of the film. since watching it, i have done some very simple research. for instance, googling "plane crash pentagon" will get you many videos and still picture options. i couldn't find ONE that didn't make an attempt to denounce the 9/11 report. ( i only looked for about 45 minutes, and maybe 15 different links). lemme know what research you've done, instead of just insulting me for being tragic. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

wow man. i guess you really, really don't want to question anything. because if it's not layed out in exactly the right way, then it's not worth asking questions about what might have happened. right? i said the movie made me think about what i believed about those events and ideas. what it didn't make me do was to find any miniscule reason to immediately disregard an alternate idea, so that i could keep touting those promulgated by the central authority. maybe in the interests of keeping the movie, already something you download and watch sitting at your computer for 2 hours, from being 4 hours long, they left out those parts. the conclusion that ANYONE can get to given simple facts. if the designers planned for planes striking the building, they accounted for that in their design, i'm going to guess that they did it with "fully laden 757's" (carrying coconuts, obviously, although we may not know where they got the coconuts) since most of the time they do those kinds of tests with the worst case scenario. do i need to hear, explicitly, "the ensuing fire would not be enough to bring them down"? i don't. i'm also going to guess that they took into account that the fully laden, fast moving, 757 would burst into flames when it struck the building. so yes, i did in fact hear the designer of the building disagree with the findings of the 9/11 commission, even though those explicit words did not grace the film. creative editing? or simply saving the time of not treating people like the dullards they usually are? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

maybe we watched different movies. the one i saw interviewed the engineer who designed the towers, who explained that their design allowed for the structures to withstand multiple airplane crashes into them, and still survive. you're right, i'm not an engineer. but he was, he designed the tower, and then i don't feel compelled to listen to billvon, speedracer or kallend about something i just heard the designer of the building talk about. the use of common sense simply led them to question the conclusions others came to, and then they did more research. things like "no steel building before or since 9/11 has come down from fire" kinda makes you want to ask a couple more questions about the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. again, did we see the same film? i felt like they were making statements, not asking leading questions. most of what i saw in that movie was simply alternate interpretations of the facts, in several different areas. i think when you watch the movie, you can agree or disagree with the statements, but by doing so, you neccessarily re-think what your belief is, as you weigh new evidence or theory. isn't that the scientific method? to form a hypothesis, see if it fits the facts of the real world, and it's strength is then based on how well it predicts future outcomes. if one hypothesis does not account for facts in the real world, then it needs to be modified, or thrown out, in favor of something that better fits with the known facts. i'm sure you're going to attack my use of "facts", since you seem to think the 9/11 commission contained all the facts. i think there are some that it doesn't account for, but that's the crux of this anyway. i felt the movie had 3 parts. religion as the first, is it your contention that their alternate presentation of religious mythology was an attempt to blame the government for something? parts 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, linked together, with responsibililty for several military actions resting at high levels of the government as well as the banking institutions. if the leading question you speak of goes like this "since officials inside the US government and the US banking institutions shared responsibility for the unlawful injection of the US military into previous armed conflicts, is it out of the question that those same entities might now be responsible for the same kind of action?", then yeah i guess they're asking leading questions. what IS an acceptable question man? is it just not ok to question what comes from the government? is that anti-patriotic? hmmm. well, i might have gotten what you were going for here, but you're certainly not keeping it clear. except the incredibly eloquent "shit for brains" comment, which i got loud and clear. 1. i guess i just don't agree that the creators of this movie were coming out of left field, no research done, no evidence cited, no experts interviewed, no eyewitnesses, etc. etc. they did all of that stuff. have YOU been to ground zero? read The Epic Of Gilgamesh? studied anything about Horus or the zodiac or the origins of religious mythology? done any research into the federal banking institutions? read the 9/11 commission report? to sum up, have you simply swallowed the governments version of what happened, and now sit back and criticize people who actually have gone out and done independent research? 2. ridiculous. discipline. it's easy to insult people about their lack of intelligence on an issue, but usually goes over better if you're not mispelling a bunch of shit in your attack. as for the flower stuck up somebody's ass and it's relation to art, you won't be getting my vote for the National Endowment for the Arts board of directors. open minds, pleeeeeeeease......... Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i guess i don't understand your reasoning. everyone can simply believe the report put out by the 9/11 commission. that's not independent thought, that is taking on faith what someone else has come up with. independent thought, to me, questions everything. a lot of what i got out of the movie was simply stating that some of it doesn't make common sense. if nothing else, i would think an idea that questions the mainstream belief would foster thought, either shaking your beliefs, or possibly reaffirming them. but at least when presented with an alternative veiwpoint, it asks you to think about what you believe. do the producers want me to think like them? i don't know, but that's not what i got out of the movie. but i do think that a repeated theme from the movie is to question what the central authority tells you, whether that's religion or government. i'm curious what does constitute independent thought for you? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

an interesting set of posts. a friend introduced me to this movie a few days ago. i found it compelling enough to think about sharing the idea. whoever suggested a post search is right, i didn't do that. it is interesting to me that those of you familiar with the idea have only posted in an effort to belittle anyone not already familiar with the movie. kudos to you. next time i'll be a little more pointed in my assertion that it's an open minded discussion. you must be really bored if that's all you can think to contribute. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

zeitgeistmovie.com. well, open minds preferred. religion, politics, and money, presented in the most interesting way you could imagine. it's a free movie, just cut and paste (sorry i don't know how to make a clicky), and click on the play icon under the picture. some things have to be seen to understand. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

way to go, getting in there Joe. come fly in colorado. I don't think we've fired anyone lately. although i might be next, any day now........ Say what you mean. Do what you say.

we have tunnel leagues as SVCO. two days during the week for adults, two for kids. we struggled a little bit with the coaching, instructors were volunteering the coaching and that led to a couple misunderstandings about the value of the coaching. Chris Gray or Derek Cox can give you the whole story on that one. otherwise it's been great. lots of happy return flyers who's skill sets have skyrocketed. hopefully this season we'll have a day at the DZ loosely devoted to organizing the regular tunnel flyers. most of these people have less than 100 jumps, (including one woman who has not finished AFF but is flying solid head down in the tube), but the quality of the jumps should be exceptional. i don't deal with the front desk much, so i'm not sure if the pricing was a big issue, but i do think it changed a couple times, which i assume means it went up a little. leagues have been a great program for us. good luck with it. Say what you mean. Do what you say.