dudeman17

I mean no disrespect whatsoever by the following... And how long have you had an AFF rating? I've had one since '90. I'm not an IE, but that's because I have no interest whatsoever in that job. I have, however, mentored and advised many freshly minted instructors over the years, as they come out of the courses and into the real world. I've read a lot of your posts over time. It is clear that you are truly interested and concerned, and that you mean well. But you often try to speak authoritatively on issues where you have no experience. I've seen you say, "It ought to be done THIS way!", on issues where, actually it IS done that way. I've seen you say, "It ought to be done THIS way!", on issues where it should NOT be done that way. I've thought about explaining the why's on a few of those, but what would be the point? More than once I've almost suggested to you that you should go to your dropzone, find some of the instructors that you respect, and shadow them as they do their job. I think you would find it interesting and informative. I stand by what I said in the previous post, and I would regardless of what the latest USPA official might have scribbled in the latest version of the IRM or the SIM. Sure, assisting with an FJC helps you learn the format. But they'll be doing that as they go through the course, and as they get back to their dz's and work their way into real-world coaching and instructing. But there is more to it than that. There is a lot to be said for sport psychology in an environment such as this. Students - some are totally clueless and ill-prepared, while others have spent way too much time on youtube and think they are know-it-alls. There are differing levels of fear (and there should be), especially as jump time nears. Coach/Instructor candidates should learn how to deal with those issues. And an experienced jumper 'playing student' would be hard-pressed to accurately portray that, and for that to be accurately addressed. Ain't nuthin' like the real world. That's why I suggest that they should assist in a real FJC with real students, and the more the better. I hope that helps.

I'm not sure what the problem here is. An FJC is simply the first class that an entry-level AFF student takes. Any dropzone, including the one you jump at, probably does them every weekend if not most days. If you're at a dz that closes for the winter, I guess that might be the issue, but whichever is the closest one that is open should work. If nothing else, if you got to wherever you're taking the coach course a day or two early, they might be able to help you with that. I'm not really a fan of hiring an experienced jumper to 'play student'. I don't think the idea is just to get familiar with the FJC format, you'll have plenty of time to do that. I think it's also more a matter of getting used to working with actual students, and their questions, concerns, and hesitations.

Yes I'm old enough to remember that place. That picture is BS! Actually, two BS's - the Bomb Shelter and a Brick Shithouse! What's "Frisby launch"? Putting a spin on the formation so it stays flat in the high airspeed? Or trying to do the whole thing successfully so that Al wouldn't have to get involved in the aftermath? Ha!! - tacos and hobbits!

Aww geez, c'mon man!! Two would be 'a couple'. 'A few' would be three. Four or more would be 'some'. What are ya, a.... ah, never mind! (I'm sorry, I'm sorry, hehehe)

That does seem odd. In normal operations, it would fall on somebody else to open and close it for boarding, and even in an emergency landing situation where they'd need emergency egress, the stews would likely get to it first. But as R99 said, they'd surely be briefed on it, and most of them would likely do a walk-through and get familiar with everything like that. Maybe over time and routine they'd sort of forget about it, but a lot of pilots pride themselves on authority and control, and would keep up on all potential emergency procedures.

Any pilot worth their salt would know how to operate anything on any aircraft they're rated to fly. The doors would be a given.

I've got an old 24' RWPC in the closet...

Well I am happy to report that Meso saw my message and fixed the problem. My account now works normally. So thanks to Meso! Yay!

Just saw a thing on the news... Treat Williams, who played Cooper in the '81 'Pursuit of...' movie with Robert Duvall, was killed today in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle near his home in Vermont. He was 71. Sad...

I would hope that one of the perks of living in a shack in the woods would be NOT wearing a tie!

Here's the full incident, not shown on the news due to time constraints... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZw65gsesw

I think it's possible/likely that you are not mistaken. When you included that quote in your post, it made me recall the early quotes, so I posted about it for general interest. The early Booth quote was particular to a certain time and context. When that moment had passed, and tandems did become commonplace, it was outdated. Part of my intent was to give Don Balch credit for his quote. Bill Booth is extremely safety/survival minded. His many contributions to the sport over the years show that. If you remember him saying that, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

I gave this a couple days to see if anyone else remembered this. I thought Rob might chime in, as he generally remembers the details of early developments like this. And we all know what time and aging brains can do to memories, so as always, if I'm wrong somebody can correct me. But this is how I seem to remember it... The quick answers are that Bill Booth said "It's just another skydive", and it was Don Balch who said 'It's NOT just another skydive". Who was right? Well that's the 'trick' part of the question. They both were. The difference was in the timing and context. To flesh that out... As with many things in our sport, there were earlier precursors to tandems. I think some of those have been described in these forums, and wasn't there an article in Parachutist not long ago? One that I don't recall seeing mentioned was, sometime in the 70's Jim Handbury made a tandem rig. He wasn't trying to invent anything or revolutionize student training, he just had a young handicapped family member that he wanted to take up, so he built a rig and did that. Anyway, when modern tandems were being developed, it was Ted Strong and Bill Booth who were designing, testing and refining, discovering the need for drogues, and what-not. They got it dialed in, and it was time to build rigs, issue TM ratings, and bring it on-line. Well, there was some hesitancy among jumpers. That's when Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive". He wasn't promoting complacency or downplaying the need for training and diligence, he was just saying that there was no reason that tandems should not become a common occurrence and mainstay of student training. And he was right. Well, build rigs and issue ratings they did. And tandems quickly became popular with the customers, and it took off. Well, jumpers started noticing that their TM buddies were making lots of student jumps and making decent money, not to mention 'the Lois Lane effect', and there came a surge of interest in the TM rating. That's when Don Balch said, "It's NOT just another skydive". He was not just reiterating the need for proper training and due diligence, but also noting that the proper motivation was required to make an appropriate TM. And he, too, was correct. It would not surprise me if Mr. Booth updated to the newer saying, because clearly it became the correct view.

Just as an isolated bit of historical trivia... And pardon me if I'm having a senior moment, but I remember something differently. I believe that is not correct. As I remember it, Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive", as in it IS just another skydive. It was someone else who said "It's NOT just another skydive". So the trivia question is, who was it that made the other quote, and which one of them was right. (Hint - it's sort of a trick question.) And if Mr. Booth (or the other person) happens to read this, no fair your answering, unless I have this wrong.

I hadn't thought of that in a long time, haha. "Trippin' the edge, casually..." -------

I'm guessing his shorts may not have washed out either.

Oh, geez, this hurts. From the earliest days when he was just a gangly kid, too young to jump, running around Perris because his mom Lou worked at the school... Such a unique light, unique soul, always so much fun to be around. Ed was actually where I got this stupid user name from. Back in the day he used to call me dudeman, hell he used to call a lot of people dudeman, but when I got my D license and he noted that the last two digits of it were the same as my base number... That made me laugh and it stuck in my head, I ended up making an email out of it and using it here. The world's a bit darker...

Curious why you come to this conclusion. Assuming that each of those represent either an at least somewhat intimate relationship, or a presumably fun, consensual encounter, are there any of them that you would take back, that you wish you hadn't done?

I'm curious why you would say that. One, there is a crew member saying that indeed it was in there, and as someone who routinely flies in aircraft with open doors or open tailgates, I can say that air from outside does come in. You are correct in that... is precisely the time it would happen. (How long of a time frame was that?)

I agree with that. My point was in reference to the spectator who shows up at the drop zone and decides to check out the swoop area, which was a scenario earlier in the discussion. I think that was also readily apparent. I agree that swoops should not occur at demos and most certainly not on tandems. ... Wingsuits are a whole different animal. Yeah, with wingsuits people maintain 'terminal freefall' for extended periods of time mere feet off of the ground. Again, clearly apparent, not what was being discussed. I've said this before in general, and I think I've said it to you in particular, some of you people just like to argue for the sake of argument, arguing against points that were not being made, to the point where it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Oh well, such is the state of the internet...

I disagree. To the average person of reasonable intellect looking at skydiving, it is readily apparent what the potential outcomes might be. Indeed, many whuffos regard skydiving as more dangerous than it actually is. Watching a swoop landing, it is blatantly apparent that it is low, it's fast, and if someone screws it up it's going to be ugly. To regard these people as innocent deer-in-the-headlight types who have no clue what they might see is an insult to the intelligence of the general population.

I am not here to advocate for (intentionally) pulling low, but you clearly have no idea why it occurs. Very few BASE jumps result in being at terminal.

Yah. As in the other thread, not THE reason, AN influence. And other people's reaction to an act does not determine the reason for that act. Anyway, incidental point, carry on. For the record, I believe in a person's right to choose, and that includes DZO's. I also believe people should shoulder the responsibility for their choices, and that includes spectators. I realize neither of those are popular.

I hadn't taken you for a ghoul.

My thought process was along the lines of... He writes books about finance and investment. Was he successful at that? Did he need money from what he might have thought would be a popular book about a (at the time) current interest? Would he be worried about it damaging his credibility? Did he have FU money, where he wouldn't care about any of that, and write the book out of personal interest? Does the answers to all of that inform whether he might make it all up, or support the idea that he was in fact actually contacted by somebody? Questions, questions...