tkhayes

student: "I've been wanting to do this for 50 years" TK: "You should have done it 50 years ago when you were still in good shape" student: "But I really really want to skydive" TK: "I really really want to be an astronaut, but that ain't gonna happen either" student: "I'll be OK" TK: " You have no idea if you will be OK or not, but I most certainly have a point of view based on decades of experience that you just MIGHT NOT be OK"" student: "I don't care if I get hurt" TK: "I do" etc

It has got to be tough in a 182, a rear door 206 would make it somewhat easier, but I made a list of 10 things to cover with tandem students. Of course, this is a Twin Otter dropzone, and it has little to do with 182 exits. But you can add to or modify your own 'checklist' Tough being the only instructor as you are under the pressure of getting people up and out, but there ARE PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT BE JUMPING. And it's Ok to say no. Maybe this helps you to define the criteria a little better.

the $6K I got must have been a mistake too....

you can speculate without typing.....STFU - really - sometimes.....

Knock it off, everyone. tired of the same rhetoric as in the incident thread. Have asked the moderator to lock this one too, due to unknowledgeable and ridiculous assumptions. The press release and the gear post already explained it. this is far simpler that everyone thinks and any speculation beyond that is simply ignorance on the part of the poster. You were not here, you are not part of the investigation and stomping all over it does not actually change any facts.

I have caught several freebags. But I was also jumping a 200+ size canopy then. Not recommended if the wing loading of your reserve is above 1.1 or so - just too many variables. I would never recommend trying to catch a canopy. I don't know if anyone who is 'teaching it', but not like I have not told the stories of how I used to do it....a quick 180 degree turn right after your reserve opens usually puts you right into the path of the your freebag. And not like I also never tell the time I stuffed the fucking freebag into the end cell of my reserve to create a whole new problem.

Do you view teachers the same way? Believe it or not, there is plenty of pedophilia, corruption and scandal in the teaching prosession, as well as such things as unions that operate to protect even those teachers that they try to dismiss. Do you apply the same reasoning to other things or do you limit it to the Church? I absolutely provide the same standard. Are you insinuating then that the public school system as a whole, is involved in a massive coverup of such pedophilia? And to say that it is just as rampant in the school system as in the Catholic Church? I would ask you for the facts to back that up. The Church operates in secrecy for the most part and we allow them to. The school system does not.

http://www.skydivecity.com Weather is still great, still 7 days a week. Twin Otter, huge landing areas. close to the beaches and lots of other vacation stuff to do, etc

In order to be lifted to 'sainthood' as they do in the Catholic Church every so often, one must have performed a confirmed 'miracle. Usually something to do with healing.... While there are plenty of great Catholics out there, the ongoings of corruption and pedophilia pretty much undo any and all respect I might have ever had for an organization like that. The Catholic church is a disease that needs a cure

Let me see, I tell you stories and make up shit, and convince you to give me your money, and that is called fraud. I tell you stories and make up shit in the name of 'god' and convince you to give me your money, and that is called religion. Got it.

what a load of crap. straight parents raise gay kids all the time. Straight parents raise straight kids all the time. Gay and straight parents raise kids with learning disabilities, social problems, as well as kids that go on to be Rhode scholars and Phd's. Alcoholic parents beat their kids sometimes (and sometimes not) and drug-addicted parents manage to raise normal kids some of the time (and sometimes not). Kids turn out the way they do for any number of physical emotion social and cultural reasons, plus thousands more reasons. What you are insinuating is complete bullshit and has absolutely no basis in fact. Knock it off. All we can hope for is that you don't vote.

Lyle's Flexvision goggles available almost everywhere, fit over glasses, very comfortable, last a long long time

FL leading on unemployment numbers. yep, it's a disaster alright.....

Good experienced CEOs that play the ongoing 'game' are a rare breed. I expect there are plenty of good people out there. Again, back to the 'circle-jerk' - you only get in if you are willing to jerk off the guy/gal next to you..... And plenty of people think that athletes get paid too much too. however, I have more respect for the athlete that busts out 60 hours of training each week and goes in front of millions to demonstrate his/her skills. And they negotiate their pay, yes, but when they do not produce, they get put out to pasture.

yes they are subjective, and they are still valid, given that the human race does not rely on purely objective logic for its own survival. And no, I made not suggestion as to what the metric should be, but I maintain that the evidence is NOT there that many CEO's and executives have 'earned' much of anything more than a wage perhaps triple the average worker wage.

I tackle them all, but I only used the ones I used. Watching wall st day-to-day is not one of my hobbies. I know that there are abuses out there, and had one or two examples of it, knowing full well there are many others.

no one said anything about 'forcing anyone' to do anything. The discussion is about whether or not people 'earned' their wages. nice try though. pretty amazing when you try to have a rational discussion and then people take it to the ends of the earth with extreme arguments that are not actually being made.

exactly. so revenues were up by 10 times, and profit doubled, but CEO compensation went up by 100 times? Yep, that makes sense. I bet he 'earned it'. And stock value did not rise with profits so he got a $230M severance package. that makes sense too, I guess he 'earned it'. Doubling revenue for a 8 figure company is no small trick, particularly when you look at the major downturn in the early years of the 2000-2005 period. Put it another way - on average every year he increased the revenue more than the entire revenue of the 1992 company. You probably should pick a better example to be so indignant about. He earned it a hell of a lot more than Chainsaw Al did...why not use him as your example, not a guy that doubled revenue and double'd and a half profits in 5 years. And again, if you ignore the change in compensation, any comparison to early 90s and earlier is going to look egregious to you. no argument from me that doubling revenue is no small trick. But if the profit to the shareholders does not follow suit, then have you really done your job? We simply disagree on what is reasonable and what is earned and what compensation should be set. The CEO of IBM Canada (When i worked there) said directly to me one time "IBM exists to send a dividend to the shareholders" And that is it's ONLY purpose, which was the point of the compensation. Of course, then in 1992 or so, he was making about $900K in salary compensation and package. Now if the Home Depot guy gets to decide his salary (with the help of his friends), his compensation and the compensation of everyone else in the company (which he effectively does), then he is bound to pay himself a little extra and structure a deal that works best for him. After-all, he meets (some of) the goals by reducing cost, including the costs of his staff, which arguably do all (most of) the work. Writing a contract for yourself does not define 'earned' in my book. Many companies have been plundered by their higher execs. Tyco for one. Home Depot for another. Wall st for the most recent stuff, and so on. So if reducing their pay is 'stealing from them', then what if the shareholders, the Board of Directors, the committees and everyone else involved in the decision process all agree to reduce the wages and packages of the top executives, then is that also 'stealing'? Or is that democracy within a corporation at work, the way it should be. I mean if they decide to pay them $1, then I guess that means they earned that dollar. and if they decide to pay them $100T and bankrupt the company, then I guess that means they earned the $100T, right? at least that is the logic I am seeing in this thread.

that's my point, you think he's done something 'significant' and I disagree with your meaning of significant or earning. it's just a line and where do you set it? and who gets to set that line? If you think that power does not corrupt, then.....

I never made any such assumption. YOU made an assumption that is what I was saying. There is a lot of collusion going on in board rooms across large public and private industries. It is a fact. The shareholders of these companies did not and do not get to vote on the compensation packages, they only vote for the people on the Board or whatever part of the company is 'electable'. Large scale shareholders still call most of the shots and are part of the 'club', this leads to uncontrolled 'power grabbing' in some cases and has been well documented. The Home Depot CEO is one of the most prominent in recent times and the Wall St crashes are another example, where people retain their bonuses, their enormous salaries despite the obvious facts that they are not doing their jobs. That apparently is called 'earning' by some in this forum. And that is what I am questioning. Most people, if they could write their own paycheck, will do a reasonable job of it. Some people, if allowed to write their own paycheck, will plunder the company.

And you are the authority on what is "earning" and what is not. Sorry that I failed to recognize that. I never said I was an authority on what earning is, I questioned it and suggested that a definition of it might vary from person to person. And apparently I was correct in that assumption.

exactly. so revenues were up by 10 times, and profit doubled, but CEO compensation went up by 100 times? Yep, that makes sense. I bet he 'earned it'. And stock value did not rise with profits so he got a $230M severance package. that makes sense too, I guess he 'earned it'.

"Earnings" is a noun. "Earning" is a verb. Sorry you cannot tell the difference. And in most large corporations the 'shareholders' with most clout are part of the circle-jerking society themselves. The small shareholder does not have much say. And if you were a shareholder of Skydive City, yes INDEED, you would have a say in what I get paid. But you are not, so the point is moot. But here is what DOES NOT happen in the skydiving world. I do not sit on the board of Skydive Arizona and Larry Hill does not sit on the board of Skydive City. And we are not publicly traded companies, so there is no 'circle-jerk' but on Wall St. there sure is. Take a look at the cross-section on the major banks, the corporations that all work together in similar sectors of industry and tell me that you cannot find collusion amongst the people at the top.

who jumps for free?

"earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. But sitting on a boards of directors, committees and such, of high powered corporations where they give you raises and you give them raises and everyone sits around in a board room circle-jerking each other is not really 'earning'. What exactly did the Home Depot CEO from 8 years ago do to 'earn' the $200M+ severance package? Whereas the Home Depot CEO from 20 years ago only got $2M severance? Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. First you would have to define what 'earning' really means.