AndyMan

One thing I've seen is the notion of certain users getting flagged as "topical experts", or something. Simply a group of people who're said to know what they're talking about - and manufacturers, plus known experts in their field (like Kate for big way) would have this flag set. Moderators could choose to canonize people who've shown good judgement... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I've just gone into my dz.com email for the first time in monthes and found a few emails I never new existed. I don't use my dz.com email, so I assume nobody sends to it. I'd rather not have to check it. Can we have one of: 1) notification of new messages, similar to PM's. 2) ability to "turn off" email with a .vacation style message or similar. 3) ability to forward dz.com email to my normal email address. I don't care which one, but one of them should be done. It seems to me 2) or 3) would be relatively simple to implement. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Yup, time for an upgrade. Go here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/player.aspx _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Your first jump course should have been very clear on how to correctly identify and deal with a basic malfunction. Most people teach a simple formula, but that formula is frequently a little bit different. Exactly what that formular is isn't terribly important, as long as its generally inline with the other ones. The one that I teach is the "3 S's". Is your canopy Square, Stable, and Steerable? If so, then thats the canopy you're going to land. A step-through is most likely going to satisfy this rule. Given a simple step through, I would evaluate if its square (probably), if its stable (probably), and if its steerable (probably. If this is the case I would land it. I would certainly not try to "correct" a Square, Steerable, and Stable canopy just for the fun of it. If the canopy is not Square, Steerable, or Stable I would make no more then two attempts to fix it, then cut away and deploy my reserve. That said, I would most definately NOT try to flip myself through the lines to correct a step-through. Since by definition we've got a canopy that isn't square, stable, or steerable - the odds of success here seem incredibly small. Actually, the likelihood of things getting really ugly really quickly seem quite high... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

What do you like so much about the pop-top? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think Condolesa Rice has to be considered, as well. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

For the record, I didn't say it was close enough, I said it sounded like a problem of nomenclature, and that it sounds like they're actually the same. That said, it'd be stupid to order the wrong part from your camera. Order whatever the manual specifies. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

So... because I've done a single jump without one, I don't rely on it, but if I hadn't done that single jump I do? I'm a safer skydiver because I've done a single jump? I don't think so. It sounds like it is a right of passage. That's not healthy. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Thanks. This is the first explanation of "negative recovery arc" I've ever seen that actually makes sense. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

If we're talking a descrepancy of .5 mm - then I think we just have a problem of nomenclature. .5mm is easily the difference between measuring to the bottom of the gaps in the threadings, vs measuring to the peaks in the threading. .5mm is approx the width of 5 human hairs. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I don't think I would drive on an expressway if my seatbelt was broken. I don't think I would drive 20mph over the speed limit without ABS or SRS. I know I don't drive my SUV like it was my sportscar. I adjust what I do based on what equipment I have available. Likewise, I have jumped without a Cypres. It was a solo hop and pop from 6K. I chose to leave the unit turned off because we were landing at a different airfield then we took off from, and I wasn't confident in how to adjust it properly. I am now. The risk of the jump was pretty much as low as they get, so I felt comfortable doing it. In piloting aircraft, the first solo a pilot does is a huge right of passing. There is no similarity to a Cypres. There is no right of passing where we tell our students "ok, now its time to do your first jump without a cypres". We don't tell our students "OK, you're good enough - you don't need a Cypres anymore". Jumping without one is not a recommended step in the SIM. There is nothing that says "good skydivers don't need cypres's". Indeed quite the opposite is true - history has shown that very experienced skydivers have been saved by them, and have gone in because due to the lack of them. They're good things. I don't think anyone believes they're infaliable, just as nobody believes a seatbelt will save them in every crash. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use one on every jump, or wear one on every car trip. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

You may think thats bad, I disagree. I think thats reality. For me, the Cypres is nearly singularly responsible for reducing skydiving fatalities to a point that I'm comfortable with. Remembering back to when I did my first jump - even the tandem - the reasurances that the Cypres provided was a big part of what compelled me to do it. Without the Cypres, I probably would have never made my first jump. Continueing in the sport, its still the assurances of a relatively failsafe device that lowers the bar to a level where I'm comfortable. Thats reality for me, and for most newer jumpers. I think the only reason you don't understand this is because you started before they were common. Your arguments against them come accross as nothing more then bravado. I'm getting tired of the intructor comparison. It ISN'T an instructor. It's not like I refuse to jump without an AFFI at my side, or I refuse to go beyond tandems. I choose to use a electronic device, just like I choose to jump with a reserve (ie, I don't do BASE). NO DIFFERENCE. It might be comparable to a pilot who refuses to fly without a colision avoidance system, or without windshear warnings. Indeed, either the FAA or airlines require these systems on most commercial flights. Even this comparison falls through, because these systems are not standard on every "student" plane, nor are they the default configuration on 95% of planes on the market. The only comparison that I can think of that works is someone who refuses to drive without a seatbelt. Put me in that category, too. I do rely on a seatbelt to save me if I or someone near me screws up while driving. Seatbelts come on almost every car, we're taught from day one to use them. Advanced seatbelts (5 point) allow drivers to engage in sports they otherwise couldn't. Sounds a lot like a Cypres to me. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I've never heard of anyone who can not, I only hear of people who choose not. To them, I applaud. I look forward to the day when people who choose an additional safety margin are not ridiculed. Flying with a backup in the right-seat may not always be feasable. Having a relatively innexpensive piece of hardware is. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It did make me think of them, but for the most part it simply reminded me that currency is key. I haven't jumped in 4 monthes because it's still winter in a good half of the country. The second time I ran through it, I went through as if it were now the 1st week in May instead of the 1st weekn in March. I scored considerably better. I'm so glad that 4 weeks of jumping makes me "safe". It's a relief to know I'm not a danger to those around me any more. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Its no more a problem then those who won't jump without a reserve (ie, BASE). Any criticism of people who insist upon the device is nothing more then arogant bravado by people who think they've been around the block. I have jumped without one, I'll avoid doing so again whenever possible. Likewise, I'll avoid jumping without a reserve whenever possible - that's why i don't do BASE. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I went through that last night... I could only think its a load of crap. My first time through it, it put me in the highest category. Scary, I think it was. Aparently I'm a danger to myself and everyone else on the DZ. So I'm scary, despite that fact that I jump at a 1.6 wingloading with over 500 jumps, have been in the sport for 4 years, and expect to do over two hundred jumps this season, rarely go a week without jumping, and have a coach rating. Scary my ass. The only thing scary was that clasification system. Did anyone notice that the article didn't have a by-line? That article was horseshit. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Have you correctly identified your dominant eye? You might have the site mounted on the wrong side. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

My first thoughts are that if you are taking a long final because the ideal of a low turn scares you, then you have more important things to be learning then how to be aggresive in your landings. It's critical that you build skills in how to fly at low altitudes BEFORE you start to add performance to your landings. Learn to walk before you run, etc. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think there's a reason that pretty much everyone who ownes a Porter is trying to sell it. I supose that's also the reason that they're relatively inexpensive to buy.... There are better jump planes. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think the idea of a zero pollution car is compelling. Sure, it might not work, and it might be a falacy based on the notion that manufacturing the hydrogen will be poluting itself, but these are theoretical. The idea of hundreds of thousands of cars driving around emiiting zero polutants is really quite nice, and certainly worth investigating. It seems like every increase in efficiency and cleanliness of cars has corresponded to an equally large increase in the use of them. It seems like each incremental step is in effect a net-zero change because people just drive further. I certainly support more incremental improvements, but I don't think they're the final answer. The final answer is something that will be revolutionary - a zero emisions car that uses a renewable energy supply. To that effect, hydrogen, fuel cell, or some sort of electric battery system is the only final answer. The industry seem to be currently betting on fuel cell. Sounds good to me if they can make it work. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Am i the only one who thinks the trend towards wider and wider wide angle lenses is just leading to crappier and crappier video? Every time I download somebodies video, all I see is yet another countless example of seriously distorded images, degraded video, and absolutely no depth. I only jump with a .5, but I think this year I'm going to focus on jumping without a wide angle lens at all. Am I alone here? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

This post Has a links to the manufacturers of the different textiles. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

This is exactly why the good lord invented the Dremel. No geek shall be caught without one. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Two words: Ben & Jerry's. Well, I guess I've got more then two words. Served with the absolute best chocolate chip cookies, Presidents Choice Decadent Chocolate Chip. Makes for a nummy sammich... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I will never criticize someone for choosing an additional safety margin in skydiving. Among the people that I jump with, I honestly don't think I know anyone who doesn't have one, except in exceptional situations - like a decicated CRW rig. If a DZ wants to further minimise their exposure while pissing off virtually nobody....? Sounds like a good choice to me. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.