georgerussia

WOW! I'd LOVE to meet a woman like this :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Usually the problem is with the guy itself, and is either "What am I going to say after 'hi'?" or "What if she turns me away?" First one takes some time to solve, but the second one could be solved with a quick self-training. It is very simple, it helped me and a lot of my buddies. Takes about two hours, and after it you'll never be scared to be turned away again. Of course, that is true if a woman herself looks good, and not like a walking heart attack. In this case the reason should be quite obvious. Well, after talking to a lot of women who had childrern by their side, having sex with a lot of them and marrying one, I would not agree it should be given * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's quite a good argument. However there is a big difference between history and any religion. The historians do not push their theories over everyone. They do not tell you how to live, or that you could change your life because some historic figure said so. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Understand, this is much easier to ignore the facts which could hurt your ego :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's why all DZs I've seen have also students and tandems. However it also depends on the aircraft type, and number of jumpers. If DZ lost money on regular up jumper lift tickets, there would be no reason for boogies - as the boogies attract a lot of up jumpers, while the number of students/tandems stays the same. So, according to your logic, boogie lift tickets should cost more, as there is more up jumpers for the same number of tandems/students. In reality, however, for most boogies jump tickets cost less. For me this means that DZ still could make money on up jumpers. Just not a lot of money. For several reasons. First, it costs more. AFF students need one or two instructors, a longer ground training, and student gear. For tandem instructor you missed the tandem gear usage and repack costs, which could easily add extra $50, as it is more expensive. Which makes $120 per tandem. Second, it is open market. There is no reason to sell something much cheaper than your competitors do. Also, comparing to up jumpers, tandem students treat it as a significant event, and usually just do it once. This explains why the price inflation does not really hurt the business, and allows DZ to make good money. Still some DZs do $100 tandems from 13K - like Parachute Center in Lodi, CA. Most likely it will not kill the business. The question is whether it is good for business or not. And this question obviously depends on h-p price. Because the business has grown up. There should be no problem doing h-p if you have only one aircraft running. However when you have three or more aircrafts running, it requires very careful planning, as you cannot run low altitude pass while other aircrafts are on jump run and people are jumping. This is extra hassle for pilots, who have to deviate from standard flying patterns (I think it should be obvious why your standard flying pattern cannot cross jump run in 4K with multiple aircraft). It requires extra effort from the ground crew to ensure there is nobody in the sky, either in freefall or under canopy. That's why Bryan pointed out that with current setup on SD AZ hop-and-pops should cost the same price as full-altitude jumps, or even more. And he mentioned the reason for having current setup, which is not hop-and-pop friendly: because the number of customers using it is very low. Things might be different if SD AZ had different configuration (like a separate swooper landing area far away of a regular jump run), but again it was mentioned that the number of customers definitely would not offset the setup and maintenance costs for a good separate swoop landing area. Remember this is desert, and watering a big grass area is much more expensive there than, for example, in humid areas like Florida. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

SD AZ is a business - so I would not talk about "greed" here. Could you please show us the information you based your calculation on? I don't know any dropzone in US which charges $40/slot, and they still seem to be viable. And this means that something is wrong with your calculation. Every dropzone has its own priorities. Obviously swooping is not in the top priority list on SD AZ. Bryan explained why, and his explanation seems to be reasonable. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

One of the points raised by Brian (I'm sure you've read it too) was exactly the explanation why having a separate swooping area in SDAZ is not economically viable: * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Their goal seems to be not to eliminate canopy collisions completely, but to reduce their number, and/or cosequences for other jumpers who do not swoop. The goal is to eliminate cases when swoopers take out other people, who fly straight pattern, and do not swoop. That's typical attitude I often see. It is always unknown "those who think otherwise", and nobody knows who he is. So far reading the board it looks like every swooper consider themselves as an experienced, safe and responsible swooper. It is always someone else, who is an asshole doing stupid things and endangering our fellow jumpers. I wonder whether any of those deceased swoopers consider themselves as a safe and experienced swooper as well - who would obviously never take out anyone. So far the current problem seems to come exactly from the turn type. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

They might not be economically viable at current price, so one of the solutions would be to raise the price. If hop-and-pop tickets cost the same amount as standard tickets, I fail to see how they couldn'y be economically liable. Not to mention I haven't seen any confirmation from SDAZ stuff that hop-and-pops will not be done there. And I really doubt it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, it should not happen. But, as we know, it happened. Now, could you please answer the question: who decided to do a 270 approach in traffic - was he a swooper, or maybe an AFF student? Look at his qualifications - could you consider him experienced? Well, this is a good starting point. Now please _read_ the canopy collision incident reports, and you will see WHO in most cases was responsible for "two parachutes trying to occupy the same place". You will see WHO endangered other people below, who by definition have right of way, and took them out. You can classify them whatever you want, but the most accurate classification looks like "people doing 270 appropach in traffic". I don't really care what you think, because it contradicts with what I SEE with my own eyes. The only question I have you is: a lot of people here (including you swoopers) have confirmed that doing 270 in traffic is a bad idea. So why are you mad on SDAZ who banned doing 270 in traffic, which is exactly what you consider a bad idea? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Using those definitions probably even I could qualify as experienced swooper - as I am definitely able to execute a high speed landing even with 270 degrees rotation. The problem is that as a result most likely I will went in, and in the worst case, take someone else with me. And obviously I am responsible, as I decide to say no to those approaches every time I jump. But if you add "safely for other jumpers" to your definitions of "responsible/experienced", it makes it useless. For example, it would reveal that everyone deceased during last several months was "experienced and responsible" - till the jump they create a canopy collision. This way your definition would be useless. Well, it is useless anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you sure? Could you provide the statistic from last three years, so we see how many canopy collisions happened on big ways? At least the latest one was related to HP turn as well. Well, just look on statistics. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you mean that those who do 270 in traffic are "experienced and responsible people", I would strongly disagree with you. I would not agree. Not to mention being there on Holiday boogie I've personally seen a lot of examples of such a "responsibility". People were cutting each other, outswooping each other, landing towards, and so on. I wish I had a camera to show you now several examples of such a "responsibility". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is accepted maneuver YET. If it starts killing other people as well, I'm sure it will be banned as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's good. I know several people (including myself) who would visit Eloy more often if there is no people doing 270 in pattern. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Looks like you didn't understand Phil comments. The point was that with almost all your "evidences" they didn't see it themselves. This makes it hearsay, and therefore invalid evidence. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I watched the video. It does confirm that God is not necessary to prevent physical harm to someone who is run over by a truck if other, non-God related, conditions are met. So we can guess that those condirions were met in the case of Steve's baby. I see no problem with it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, your answer is an unknown entity, claimed to be almighty, which ignores deaths and starvings around the worls, spend His time to save your baby? Doing it, by the way, in a most stupid way; it would be much easier for Almighty just to force your wife to remember there is a baby on the ground. Is it what you're saying? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did YOU watch the video? What's the problem? They do have a big truck running over a man, and then he does stand up with no injuries. So what's are all your insults for? Just because they did not mention Jesus and Lord? The problem with his testimony is that he makes conclusions instead of telling the facts. He would not be allowed to do it in a court, and I see no reason to accept the conclusions as well. If you look just on the facts, you'll see that car driving over a human body sometime is not fatal. That is ALL you both can testify. The rest is just the result of your imagination you have no proof for. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Me neither. Shower + condoms are important anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a conclusion. Steveorino claimed that Peter had said that "it is the Holy Spirit who is the guide who gives correct interpretation". Therefore if you claim that your interpretation is true, this means that it was guided by Holy Spirit. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I can produce this. That is why this is not evidence. Any history book can be claimed to contain much more prophecies being fulfilled, with much more details to make it true. All you need is just to claim the book had been written before anything mentioned in this book happens. 300 years ago if you show the people that you can climb a 1000ft mountain, jump from it, and walk away from it, they would consider it outside the normal as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Oh, there is a lot of reasons why one could lie. For example, in attempt to convince people that the God exists and is looking for them. Like the priests have been lying about the Holy Fire, shroud of Christ and crying icons. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You will not consider any reasonable explanation, as you already said it was a divine miracle. In this position the only thing which might change your opinion is the Christ personally coming to your place and telling you so. Which obviously doesn't happen because its existence is subject to the same belief. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because Myths of Ancient Greek explicitly listed all the Gods - from Zeus to Athena, and there were no Christ. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *