davelepka

No, he doesn't. He wants to hide behind a blank profile and make inflamatory remarks. Unlike many other forums online, this one is different because of the small number of people, and the fact that we all have to go to an even smaller number of DZs to jump. The end result is that it's not hard for everyone to 'know' everyone else within two or three degrees of seperation. I'm not even talking about internet conenctions, but there's a good chance that everyone here has at least one friend or aqquiantance in common with everyone else (at least within a given country). It's not like the GSXR motorcycle forum, where there are 50,000 GSXRs out there, and people can ride them wherver they want, there's very little expectation that any of those folks will have contact away from the internet. The end result is this, when a guy won't be forthcoming about who he is, it usualyl means one of two things - either they're a non-jummper who doesn't have the qualifications they claim and are tying to hide that fact, or they're an asshole planning to act like an asshole and want to hide their identity. In either case, it's generally a waste of time to listen to, or reply to, anything they have to say.

As previously discussed in this thread, the toggles are not the way to go for an avoidance manuver right after opening. If the brakes are stowed, leave them that way and use the risers. It takes time to get a secure grip on both toggles, and you don't have that time. If you rush, you increase your chances for having a problem with the unstowing the brakes, creating more problems for you. Even if you get a quick, solid grab, you might have an unrealted problem unstowing the brakes, and again, this just adds to your troubles. In terms of front or rear riser, 100% of the time the rear risers are the way to go. Even on a highly loaded canopy, the response from the rear risers will be considerably quicker than the fronts. Enacting change with the front riser requires the canopy to first accelerate and dive down in front of you before your weight can swing the canopy into a turn. The rear risers work the other way. Pulling a rear riser slows the canopy and lets the forward momentum of your body carry it forward and swing out to effect change. The main difference is that your weight is already moving forward, and you simply stop the canopy to get youself out from under it, while the front riser manuver requires the canopy to first accelerate in front of you to get your weight out from under the canopy. For every reason, the rear risers are the way to go when avoiding a collision while the brakes are still stowed. They are the quickest, easiest, sure-est grab, and they provide the quickest response to input.

Really? While tandems might be the exception to the rule, you really don't understand the concept of being good at what you want to film before you try to film it? Again, tandems aside, you realize that in order to film something you have to be able to stay with it in the air, and the best way to do that is (for the most part) to mimic what the flyers are doing. Want to film freefly? You better be good at freeflying. Want to film RW? Ditto, you need to be able to stay with the formation and maintain proximity. Even AFF, even though getting a rating and AFF experience is a big hurdle, being an AFF I is a definite asset to anyone trying to film AFF. When the dive flow is second nature, and you can learn to 'read' the student and the situation, your chances of shooting a clean video go up considerably.

Something to keep in mind, even the controlability check is not 100% accurate. I broke a line (or two) on my canopy once, and it passed the controlability check, which I expanded (because I had plenty of altitude) to include some prolonged slow-flight and slow-flight manuvering, just to avoid any low altitude 'surprise' stalls or collapses if I needed to make any last-minute corrections or avoidance manuvers. The canopy felt good and remained inflated the whole time. It also felt solid and remained inflated during the falre, it just didn't slow down very much at all. It slowed down somewhat, and I felt it slow down when I checked it at altitude, but it turns out that it wasn't slowing down all that much, and I found out when I pounded into the ground. Just because a damaged canopy is open and flying straight doesn't mean you can relax. You still only have until your hard deck to make the call to land it or cutaway, and you better make the right choice. Keep in mind that there's a very slim window if impacts that we as humans can endure uninjured. If the canopy cannot do 80% or 90% of what it was designed to do, that's going to be a substantial impact and you might not walk away from it. There's not a 'ton' of difference between a landing you can walk away from, and one that will snap an ankle or tib/fib you right into the ER. A canopy that 'seems pretty good' just might not be enough to get you down safe.

Don't expect a reply, I've asked that direct question several times (including in this thread) and have yet to recieve a straight answer. I got some bullshit, run-around, list of 'maybe I'm this', or, 'maybe I'm that', but never a straight answer. Come to your own conclusions as to why that is, and then regard his opinions accordingly.

I've owned a handful of Flite Suits, and 99% of my jumps have been in Flite Suits. I've always been happy with the quality and durability of the suits, along with the customer service. I'll order from them again in the future.

There are plenty of people doing the same in the US. This topic is different, this is about having Atmo recognized as a competition discipline, and he's put forth a set of degreee based measurements with which to classify Atmo from different types fo flight. How popular would those boggies or jumps be if you were 'disqualified' because the video revaled your body to be outside of the approved angles? Does that sound like something that 'many people are going to enjoy'? I'm not against Atmo, or calling it whatever you want, but when you have to measure the angle of your body to determine exactly what you're doing, I feel that's going a bit far, and takes some of the fun out of it.

Unless you plan to get out a protactor and measure angles, you're using too precise of a definition. When the orientation went from flat (RW) to upright (freefly) that was a clear and significant change. It was a full 90 degrees off, and easy to tell one from the other. You're trying to take a 45 degree slice of the rotation, and split it three ways to make your thing seem 'unique', but it's not. Take a look at any freefly routine in competition today, every one of them has broken the mold and incorporated flat flying into the routine. So clearly anything in between (like Atmo) is fair game. If your thing is really that great, build a routine around it and enter a freefly competition. The reason that freefly can exist is that it's different enough than flat flying to clearly be 'something esle', and that's it's 'free' in the sense that it covers a wide range of flying, styles and techniques. If you want to shove Atmo down everyone's throat so bad that you have to micro-define it to such a fine point that it creates limitations, who's going to be interested in that? Even with every axis available to them, the freeflyers got tired of that limiation, and began to flat fly as part of their routines. Don't expect much support, or long-term interest if you're going to put such strict limitations on the definition.

Really giving any control input 'the beans' is ill adivised unless you ahve practiced it in controlled conditions. Over doing just about any input can lead to problems at any time in the jump. And if you toggle yourself into line twists, that's an even bigger problem than being 'locked' into a turn that just requires you to unstow the brakes. I'm not even sure you can 'lock' yourself into any turn, short of line twists that physically lock the lines into an asymetical configuration. The fact remains that the rear risers are quicker to access, more reliable as they don't require a specific grip or to be unstowed, and a safer option in that even if you get 'locked' into a turn, the remedy is simply unstowing the brakes. If you use toggles, and only grab one, or only one unstows, you can spin yourself into line twists where the only remedy is a cutaway (yes, you could kick out of some twists, but some you cannot). Many years ago, when skydiving canopies were more similar to BASE canopies, the toggles were the preferred method of control. The canopies, and the way they reacted, made the rear risers less effective, and the toggles less of a risk in an emergency scenario. With the higher loaded, higher performance canopies jumpers are using these days, the rear riser is very effective, quick, and a safer option for a quick evasive manuver during or just after inflation. Keep in mind that even the newset jumpers are on gear that was unheard of 20 years ago. A Sabre2 170 loaded at 1.2 is considered a 'common' canopy you might find in a newer jumpers rig, but that canopy and WL is years ahead of any F-111 canopy from back in the day.

I'll agree with the premise, but not the execution. Being ready to react to a situation is a good idea, but using the toggles on a skydiving canopy is not. An asymetrical release of the brakes, or premature application of too much input can lead to a skydiving canopy spinning itself into line twists. Keep in mind that skydiving canopies and BASE canopies are made for two different things, and loaded at two very different wing loadings. On a skydiving canopy, the rear risers are the preferred control method right after opening. Leaving the toggles stowed helps to control the airspeed you enter and exit from any manuvers, and that helps to reduce the possibility of over-controling the canopy during deployment/inflation. Also, missing one toggle, or even the time it takes to grab a toggle is going to lead to trouble. Again, BASE gear is specific, and the toggles are designed to stand proud of the risers for an easy grab. Skydiving toggles are designed to fit narrow risers and tuck into slim riser covers on the rig. In the skydiving environment, the better move is to have your hands up and in place, but ready to grab the rear risers, and use them to make evasive manuvers. The other benefit it that when the jumper does want to stow their slider, and-or play with their chest strap or camera, they can do so with the brakes still stowed, which is the preffered method anyway. It provides a slower canopy speed and decsent rate while you do your 'house keeping', and having the brakes unstowed leads to complications if you want to pull your slider past your toggles.

I can, and while the numbers don't lie, don't forget that the devil is in the details. 42 lbs lighter? Yes, but also with half of the cylinders, valves, pistons, injectors and head pipes. 2 hp and 15 lbs of torque? Sure, but again, that's with a 20% bump in displacement. Could Ducati have done the trick with 1000cc? Like I said, in the end the numbers are what will push it down the track, so the above points are moot. I'm a much bigger fan of the Duc than the Bimmer, but those numbers do have some caveats to them. One of my buddies has a 996 with a list of engine mods as long as your arm. It's not even close to that light or that powerful, and it's scary fast. The torque off the bottom is huge, like you expect from a twin, but it never stops pulling like most twins do, it just pulls harder. I can't even imagine what the new one has got to be like. I wonder what all the $60k Desmodeccii guys are think now that the Panigale is out for less than half that price?

OK, but you get that it wasn't a concern about the fashion, it was more function. Black webbing through black hardware makes it hard to visually check that your straps are properly threaded. Balck webbing through silver hardwarde is easy to see that it goes under the friction bar, and not around it as-in a mis-thread. Black on black will mask the mis-thread, that's where it might be a 'problem'. I'm sure the grey risers will look sharp, but as there's nothing for them to thread through, it doesn't address the concern. Not that you have to address the concern at all, I just want to make sure you understand it before moving forward.

The Crossfire is a good one, but I'm planning to return to the Stiletto when my old age kicks in. I put 1000's of jumps on it, and had no complaints about the canopy. Once I jumped a Velo, and took a ride down the big hill of that steep recovery arc, then I had a complaint about the Stiletto and it's short recovery arc, but up until that point I had 1000's of satisfied jumps with most ending in a nice 180 and swoop. For a lot of reasons, I still think the Stiletto is a better canopy, it's just doesn't have that dive. I never had a comlaint about the openings, and I would think that with a fresh reline, a Stiletto would be a great wing for your old age.

I don't get the gist that your post, or the line above was a joke, so I'll reply as such. I'm not sure how you see the presence of a hook knife to be any more relevant than the issue of the Go-Pro. It's simply another aspect that may or may not have been a factor, and in the end comes down to bad equipment choices and something he should do differently next time. Just like it's speculation that wearing a camera might have added to the problem, it's specualtion that a hook knife would have subtracted from the problems. I saw no evidence of an entanglement that would have prevented a cutaway, so how does a hook knife become the 'real' question here? It all comes back to 'making a list'. There are some huge, obvious problems we can see here, from a poorly planned (or executed) freefall, to poor speration on opening, to a lack of response to canopy damage and electing to land a clearly comprimised wing without a complete controlability check/inspection. Those points are easy to see, and jumpers at any experience level could easily spot those. Then there are some 'finer' point that may not be apparent to all right off the bat. You bring up a good point with a hook knife. There's little evidence to support the notion that a hook knife was required, but there have been many canopy collisions/wraps where a hook knife was of use, and you'd be crying if you didn't have one. The guy lucked out this time and didn't need the knife, but just because he dodged a bullet this tim doesn't mean he will next time. He should put a hook knife on his shopping list before his main canopy repairs are complete. The camera is the same thing. Did it play a role in this instance? Hard to say, some think so, some think no. Was it present on a jumper who clearly lacks the decision making ability to handle the extra work load of jumping a camera? Yes it was, and much like the hook knife, the idea is to recognize that it was a bad choice and to correct it before it does become the main player in a future incident. On top of that, this video is a prime example of there needs to be some regualtion of cameras for the new guys. Here we can see 4 jumpers, with 3 of them wearing cameras. Without being sure what the exit plan was, none of them appear to be very skilled in freefall, to the point that it leads to a very close opening and canopy collision. For everyone who claims that 'X' number of jumps is plenty for jumping a camera, we can see the type of choices people are making, and that it's not good. On the subject of Saecex250 (or whatever it is), it's not that non-jumpers aren't welcome to comment, that poster has gone beyond commenting from the prepsective of a non-jumper, and he's over-stepping his bounds. He was chastising real jumpers because he didn't like the direction of the thread, and in general the majority of his posts are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. With no jump experience, there's no way to state a contrary opinion other than speculation as you don't know one thing or the other with any certaincy, it's all based on 'what you read'. That's fine to a degree, but when you forget that you're a 'visitor' sitting in on discussions about jumping with actual jumpers, it just turns into excess noise that muddies the waters here. Case in point, you also didn't like the angle of the thread, but I didn't call out your credibility or try to knock you down a few pegs, I gave you a reasonable and polite explanation of my view. As a fellow jumper, you have a place from which to speak, and your thought/comments were well within what would be 'appropriate' for someone of your status. The problem with guys like him (and there have been others) is that it makes it hard for people like me to try and get quality information up on the board. My feeling is that if people are going to read this shit in an attempt to learn, I'm going to do my best to post accurate, quality information. That doesn't mean I'm always 100% right, there's a huge value in the point/counter point of two jumpers with different view points on a subject. It allows the reader to see two angles, two opinions, and work out their own answer. However, when one of them is not a jumper, and just pulling opinions out of their ass, it turns into more of a fight just to post accurate/quality info. I think the 'last straw' was that I recieved a PM from another jumper with a link to a google search. If you google that guys screen name, you get several pages of posts from various forums all over the web, and they all have the same flavor as what you see here. The guy is a professional post-whore, and I'm just sick of hsi shit. Since his post was deleted, I'll let you know that he never answered my question. I said 'simple questions, simple answers', and he replied with a lenghty post of 'what ifs' such as, 'What if I'm planning to make a jump', and 'what if I am a jumper and just don't want to tell you', and so forth. In the end, his reply was anything but simple, and he never actually answered the question. You tell me why you think that is?

Krip made a fair point about black webbing and black hardware. If anyone bothered to give your gear a visual once-over, the black on black would make it tough to see that the webbing was threaded properly. Of course, you would be visually and physically checking your own gear, and if someone cared enough to visually check your stuff I would hope that they would simply take a closer look if they couldn't tell the webbing from the hardaware, but it is something to think about, along the same lines as having your cutaway handle the same color as your jumpsuit.

I'll admit that I cannot recall you specifically claiming to be a skydver, so you may correct on that point. That does not, however, eliminate the possibility that you are not indeed a skydiver, just that you have never claimed to be one. Please, for the record, let's put this issue to bed - Have you ever completed a skydive of any kind? If so, have you ever completed a solo skydive? If so, have you ever earned a USPA (or equivilant) skydiving license? Simple, basic questions, and simple, basic answers will help to establish your credibility.

Not for awhile. There are two other choices in the area. Aerohio is down just west of Akron. It's about 40 min from downtown Cleveland, and 20 min from downtown Akron. Open every weekend and 'somtimes' during the week, call ahead for weekday hours. Canton Airsports is the other. It's about 1 hour 15 min from Cleveland, and (I guess) about 45 min from Akron. Pretty much the same deal as Aerohio, open weekends with some weekdays, depending on what's going on. Call before you come out during the week. I jump at both, but spend more time at Aero. It's way closer to my house and I'm on the video staff. We run a Caravan, and it's generally a fun and safe DZ. Canton is also a fun and safe DZ, I shoot out there for weekday jumps and a change of pace. The rumor is they'll have a Super Otter for next season, but that might still be a 'rumor'. They also bring in a Skyvan a couple times per year. Again, call ahead to confirm that they have a plane and they'll be jumping before making the dirve out there.

At first I thought for sure the guy was faking the patina, which is the highest degree of douche-bag. Not that I'm even into patina all that much, but to fake it is just absurd, like buying jeans with holes already in place. Not faking patina, +1 for the guy. Then he starts talking about a dye code for an old Hermes briefcase that was custom made for JFK, and the douche-bag meter starts to tick again. Getting too excited about Hermes anything, -1. Now he startes talking about the running gear, and that it's not a track car, but it's a 'sleeper' and nobody will ever see you coming. So he's buildign sleepers, but never 'wakes them up' in any part of the video. No burnouts, no exhaust note, no full throttle anything. Douche-bag, -1. So he talks about 'over restoring' a car, and not wanting to use it, and then turns around and builds other cars that he doesn't want to use for other reasons (careful, that's original pantina, ya know). Now I'm not a 'chopper' guy, but I have to give credit to Jesse James. Back when he had his TV show, there was nothing that came out of, or even close to, his shop that he wouldn't take out in the street and beat on it for the cameras. Burn outs, fish tailing, full throttle, almost wrecking it, good-times. His bike, customer bike, his cars, customer cars, friends cars, whatever. At least he was willing to 'put up, or shut up'. Again, not a fan of the guy, but in that sense he was right on the money, and I'm pretty sure Hermes had nothing to do with any of it.

I still believe you have no jump experience, and just hang out here parroting shit you read from other posts, but I don't try to banish you to SC, do I? The fact that this jumper was wearing a camera could have been a contributing factor, and as such, it will be discussed. Even if it wasn't a contributing factor, it doesn't appear to be a good equipment choice, and as such, it will be discussed. You tell me, what's the better scenario - We ignore a possible aspect and confirmed poor equipment choice because we don't want to offend 'some' posters who don't like to hear about it, or we confront the reality of the situation, and call it what it is? I don't expect you to know this, but you don't make it very far in this sport by ignoring things that aren't right. Not every 'possibility' actually manifests itself into an incident or injury, but sometimes they do, so the plan is to eliminate as many of them as you can beforehand. and leave yourself only to deal with situations you have no control over. For the record, I believe that's exactly what happened here. The way the jumper paid zero attention to anything but staring straight ahead, at least to me, smacks of straight up fear and denial. There's no question that there was a problem due to the broken suspension lines visible on the video. If you notice, it's not that he doesn't check the canopy, but he doesn't look around at all or check for traffic or anything, so I get the impression that the guy is just ignoring the problem and hoping for the best. So to all those who think we should ignore problems and hope for the best, this is what happens. I'm sorry if we offend your delicate sensibilites (I'm really not), but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....it's probably a guy with no jumps who likes to post on DZ.com and pretend he's a skydiver.

Those were my assertions about the program, but of course they don't apply to everyone. You have far more than 100 jumps, and have been in the sport longer than most coaches have been alive. You're past the point of looking for validation or status on the DZ. For a new guy with 100 jumps, who can't swoop or fly a small canopy, who doesn't get invited on all the 'cool' jumps just yet, and who doesn't fly like a hero when he does, the coach program certainly a cure for all of those. Suddenly that same jumper is a 'staff member', and is getting paid to jump. Thay have 'official business' when they walk to the plane and have been granted formal authority over a student jumper. There are a variety of benefits to the coach program, and the money, free jumps and ego stroke cannot be denied and are probably a bigger draw to the newer jumpers than the opportunity to teach.

More important than altitude awareness? I'd love to know what that is.... This is not a good myth to spread around. Maybe at your home DZ, or a few DZ where have a bunch of jumps, and maybe from the altituded you usually jump, but to assert that as a 'rule' which everyone should be able to follow is just wrong. Different types of jumps (freefly, RW, tracking) and from different altitudes will screw with even the most finely tuned internal clock. Add in differences in environment, such as going from hilly wooded terrian to flat barren desert, and it get's even worse. Claiming that people should be able to count on their eyeballs 100% of the time to a 99% reliability is bad advice. Should you keep an eye on the ground? Sure. Should you reference your alti against the ground every chance you get in order to train your eye as best as possible? Sure. Should you concinvce yourself you can spot the ground to within +/- 100ft anywhere on any jump? Nope. The real solution is to keep an eye on the ground, and your visual altitmeter. If there's a big difference, or you can tell that your alti has stopped working, then you shift toward referencing the alti of another jumper on your load. If you're doing a solo, shift your focus from your planned dive, and put it 100% on altitude awareness, and consider just pulling high, just to be safe. Ground rush is called that because the ground does rush up at you. It's called the doppler effect, and the closer you get, the faster the ground appears to move at you. The end result is that the ground may seem further away, and the rate you're approaching it may seem slow until you get too close, at which point it rushes up to all at once. Yes, train your eyeballs. In the event of an equipment failure, use your #1 instrument, your brain, and be smarter than your situation. Use all the resources available to you, cross reference them with each other, and chnage your expectations of the accuracy of any of them to err on the side of caution.

Sure. Neither of those skills are required for making a safe parachute descent from an airplane. If you had not isolated my quote, it would have shown that my suggestion was to take the $150-ish the student spends on those two coach jumps, and dedicate it towards a canopy control course. That amount could pay for 5/6 hop n pops and an instructor to teach the course. You tell me, don't level control and center point turns seem useless in comparison to the skills one would pick up doing 5 or 6 hop n pops during a canopy control course? Yet those are the types of things we have students focusing on (and coaches 'teaching') but there's little to no attention paid to canopy control, and none of it on dedicated jumps, it's all as an afterthought to a freefall skills jump.

The DZ isn't any different from any other place when it comes to these type of things. If someone looks busy, and what you need to ask them can wait, then let it wait. If it's more urgent, politely interject, and state your business. Another idea would be to pull them aside for just a second and say, 'I'd like to talk to you about X, Y and Z sometime today if possible, let me know when you have some time for me'. In terms of thanking them, try saying, 'Thanks for your help'. Bringing food or drinks to share never hurts either, but in the end instructors are paid for the jumps they do, and have all generally made the connection between getting paid and helping students, even if it's beyond making the jumps with them. It's part of the job, and most of the time they're just happy to see you stick with the sport and continue learning. But yeah, food and drinks are always good.

Thanks. However I do want to make a clarification. I'm not suggesting that nobody like to teach. Working a student through a problem, and seeing the results in freefall can be very rewarding. Educating an eager and dedicated student isn't the worst thing out there, but again, the payoff is seeing the results of your efforts in freefall. In terms of the coach program, and coach level jumps, it's not the same. By the time a student is to that level, they should have most of their 'problems' worked out. They are, after all, cleared to self-supervise, and should be all set to jump on their own with no problem. What the coach does is less 'teach' and more 'observe'. Coaches 'train' students for the jump they are about to do, and then obsereve. Beyond the debrief, that's generally the end of the process. It's rare to 'fail' a coach jump, and if that dioes occur, it's also rare that the same coach hwo was on that jump will be adminstering the corrective training and doing the rejump. If a coach level student fails a jump, often times an I will be brought in to handle the scenario. The point is that the teaching involved at the instructor level, and the teaching involved at the coach level are two different things. Even then, there are a ton of I's out there who don't give two shits about teaching, and just want to make the jumps and earn the cash. There's no way to eliminate that, it's human nature, but at least with an I there are some realistic prerequisites to becoming an I. You might be shallow and a dick, but at least you're qualifed to make the jumps. When the coach program relies on the good naute of people, and them wanting to learn to teach, and be part of the program for a 'higher purpose' as a replacement for experience and qualifications, you open yourself up to trouble.

Here's a fun thought, what if you chaged the structure of the program, so at 100 jumps you could take only the ground school portion of the coach course, and in turn, only exercise the ground-based privledges of a coach? Then, once you had 200 jumps, you could add-on the air skills portion, and begin to jump with students. Jumper content to wait until 200 jumps could simply take the complete course all at once. How many 100 jump candidates do you think you'll lose? Whatever the number is, those are the ones who don't give two shits about coaching, and are 100% interested in getting paid to jump, or jumping for free, or having the 'prestige' of walking the plane as an 'instructor' with their very own 'student'. As much talk as there is about what the program is supposed to be, we all know what it's turned into. It's simply become the entry-way to working in the air. It's the first paid in-air job you can get at the DZ, and between the money, the free jumps, and the status of being an in-air staff member, the 'ideals' of the program get lost. That's why you'll see a sharp decline in sub 200 jump candidates if the progarm were changed in the way I outlined above. If you made it just 'teaching', you see that most jumpers don't give a crap about teaching. Case in point - who teaches the FJC on a busy weekend day at your DZ? A mutli rated instructor? A dedicated, hard core jumper? They want to spend 6 or 8 hours in the classroom listening the plane take off and land all day? Not hardly. All things being equal, jumpers want to jump, and that's what they would choose to do with their day if given the choice. To add to that, all the talk about 'supervision' is also mostly non-sense. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of coaches are unsupervised, and are simply handed a student and told them which level they are on. Think about it, if an I was available, the I would be doing the work, not a coach. So when the I's are all busy with AFFs or tandems, the coaches pcik up all the coach jumps, and they're unsupervised because the I's are all busy. Nothing about the program makes sense the way it's structured. There's every opportunity for the coaches to make some easy money with only 100 jumps, for the DZOs to increase the cost of the A license program, and for the students to suffer based on hgiher costs and potentially waiting for coaches to jump with, and all for what? So someone can watch them demonstrate useless freefall skills? Level control and center point turns? Who the fuck needs that? How about cut those two jumps out of the program, and take the $150 the student saves and put them through a canopy ocontrol course. $150 could get them 6 hop n pops and have $30+ to pay the guy giving the course. Like I said, if they really wanted the coach program to 'honor' the stated purposes, they could have structured it differently and included some 'checks and balances' to keep it honest. They didn't.