AndyMan

Very cool to see them update this. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Yup, "was". In the 80's, back when AIDS didn't even have a name, never mind did anyone actually know about how it spread - it ran rampant through the gay and IV drug using population. Now is a very different story though, I'm surprised you're so unwilling to acknowledge it. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

These stills were taken from a Minolta D'image 7 mounted to the strut of the Otter. It hat had been wired into the "green light" so that it takes a shot automatically every two seconds when the green light is turned on. During loads, someone from the DZ swaps out the flash card for a second one, and the DZ sells larger prints of the exit to students. It's hit and miss because the camera is taking shots automatically, but some of the results have been spectacular. This weekend was the first run, and the stills were popular. Possible future enhancements will be installing a 802.11 equipped laptop in the otter so that images can be pulled wirelessly inbetween loads. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/gallery/imageFolio.cgi?direct=Personal_Galleries/AndyMan/On_The_Step&img= __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I did, but don't have it available. The nutshell was that it is an issue that they are aware of, and are developing a policy. They gave no indication of what that policy would be. This means that right now is the critical time to make our issues known. Contact your reps and the TSA. You will get a response, and your reps will listen to you. We can not afford to leave this one up to the USPA. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I worry that won't happen. I doubt the owners of these companies are just going to throw out their telecom equipment, pack up and go home. Likewise, the telecom manufacturers aren't going to just walk away from the business, either. I think the number of calls will not change, just the types of calls will change. As the demand for these services declines, so will the price - and these services will become much more affordable to charities, polls, and political campaigns. I suspect the number of charity, political, and statiscal calls will increase rapidly to match the vacuum left from the commercial ones. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

This is why I wrote them this letter. I sent a similar letter to my congressman and senator. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

funny... even the boss laughed! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I was hoping for SO much better. Oh well, back to work I guess.... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

So... you wouldn't care if some straight man takes a little girl and has his way with her?!? Just so I understand what you're trying to say. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I left off CRW for a very different reason then lack of skill, I left it off because generally people are not dieing from canopy colisions. I can think of two this year, and since 2000 there have only been six. Furthermore, in one of the incidents this year, (lake wales) both participants had extensive crw experience. In the other (skydive chicago), I don't believe crw experience would have helped. I don't really think of license requirements as "regulations", but I digress. I prefer the license approach specifically because it is not a hard regulation - there's no "you must take this course to jump X canopy" - rather, it's simply limited to people having certain skills if they want a certain license. Regulations should be targetted to a problem, and the lack adequate canopy control skills is a problem throughout the skydiving community. The problem is not limited to those at a high wingloading. That is exactly my point - most people aren't jumping pocket-rockets. Low turn fatalities seem to be affecting jumpers at all wingloadings. Killing oneself under a perfectly good canopy is not limited to those under pocket-rockets, it's happening to people accross all wingloadings. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Cool! Now, whats wrong with taking some of the basic skills you're teaching them, and putting them as requirements for a 'b' license. Then take some of the more advanced ones, and make it a 'c' requirement. Lastly, take the most challenging ones, like riser turns to final, and make them 'd' license requirement? Why does canopy instruction for 95% of skydivers stop at the end of "student status"? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

The link didn't work... so here it is: __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

In the model where it's tied to the license, well - no. It wouldn't qualify someone for a higher wingloading as no qualification is necesary! People either get the licence or they don't. Those who don't want to demonstrate the skills don't get the license, or if they don't want to demonstrate them they get a exempted license, like night jumps are done now. A good starting point of demonstrated skills would be your own world famous list of "downsize" skills. Add in 90 and 180 degree front riser turns, and you've got a robust high performance canopy course. The manuevers should be done under whatever canopy at whatever wingloading the jumper has then they go for the license. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

People femur at 1.0 -1.2 almost weekly and a few die every year. Is that not enough to warant change? Why limit manditory canopy control courses only to the extreme wingloadings? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Lisa or Carmen could easily crater at their wingloading. I don't know Carmen, but like Lisa I presume she's knows how to pilot her canopy safely close to the ground. A look through the fatalities say that many skydivers don't. I'm inching towards where Kallend is. Let's take wingloading out of it. The assertion that wingloading is the cause of the fatalities is tenuous at best. What is certain is that many people don't know how to fly their canopies close to the ground, wither it be loaded at 1.1 or 2.1. You've put the definition of "high performance" in wingloading. I don't. For this discussion, I think planform is a lot more relevant. If you consider only planform, virtually every canopy sold today is "high performance", even a Spectre is "tapered" and will turn and dive quickly into the ground. The current 'd' licence requirements (except for the changing jump numbers) were put into place where everybody was jumping Ravens and Mantas - they just didn't dive as much during low turns. People COULD bumble their way through learning how to fly them. Times have changed, and under virtually all of the canopies sold today, you can not bumble your way through learning how to fly. Bumbling will kill you. Canopy skills for all licences need to be updated for the realities of the canopies being sold today. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

This is why I propsed training as part of the 'd' licence - it's not just those wishing to swoop who're cratering. Training in the art of piloting high performance canopy (even a safire at 1.2 is a HP canopy...) needs to be taught to everyone, not those who happen to want a certain canopy before a certain number of jumps. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

This is precicely why I drew the comparison to night jumps. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Somewhere inbetween these two is what I had in mind. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I would go one step further, and mandate having a high performance landing requirement for the 'd' license. The 'd' license is the most advanced license we have, it's supposed to mean that the jumper has been trained in, and successfully performed all tasks required to be a safe and profiecent skydiver. Examples of these tasks are night jumps, water training, and canopy accuracy. While at one time high performance canopies were the exception, they are now the rule. It is increasingly becoming ludicrous that you can "earn" a 'd' license without demonstrating the skills of piloting the most common parachutes on the market. Just like water-training was made manditory because people were drowning, we need to make high performance training manditory (for 'd' license holders) because people are femur'ing - and worse. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

How very odd. I'm sure I saw it in there a while ago, but - it isn't. The odd thing is that they show stowing lines in the provided stow - but my jav risers don't have stowes... Perhaps this is a new change. My bad. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Not that I disagree with you, but Javelin does. In their latest manual they recomend against stowing excess brake line. They recomend brake line should be left loose up against the riser. Myself? I switched to RWS risers on my jav partly because of the built in stows.... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Are you sure? I know the messenger service (or something like it) was back in WFW3.11... I thought it came along with the IBM lanman infastructure windows networking was built upon....? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Under XP - Start / Control Panel / Administrative Tools / Services - find "Messenger", double-click, hit 'stop' and set the "startup type" to "disabled". Also, go Start / Control Panel/ Add - Remove software, and look for a program called 'gator' or 'comet cursor'.- remove it. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Bill Booth ownes the patent on hand deployed pilot chutes. It can be found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4039164 He does not charge royalties, nor restricts others from using his design. The patent number printed on Cazer's pilot chute is this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=4,399,969.WKU.&OS=PN/4,399,969&RS=PN/4,399,969 _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

If your canopy is stable, steerable, and flarable, I'd land it. If it's not stable, steerable, or flarable, I'd chop it. I would make sure to practice a few deep flares and stalls just to make sure that nothing odd happens. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.