chuckakers

Does your God love the agnostics too? He's not sure. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

...especially our atheist friends. God loves you, too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The evaluators and course driectors ARE the system. If slop gets through there, it manifests itself on the DZ with real students. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If I was a TI that only did poised exits, I'd be insulted by that remark. To assume that TI's that do poised exits "tend to be the ones that are not comfortable with what they are doing" is a big leap. My guess is the TI's that only do poised exits do so for the most part because they have always done them that way and don't see any need to do anything else. I don't see anything there that calls a TI's skills or comfort level into question. Neither do the manufacturers. I bet there are as many TI's doing only poised exits that are "uncomfortable with what they are doing" as there are TI's that experiment because of poor overall judgment. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

While I condemn the actions of the terrorists on that fateful day, I think it's unfair to condemn the entire faith for it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You left out one of the best examples of what is happening behind closed doors at the White House. Van Jones. He was forced out as the "Green Jobs Czar" after America learned of his radical background (thanks to Glenn Beck), but you can bet he's only gone in title and paycheck. He's still very much a part of the steering mechanism of the administration. Fact: This is the most radical administration in our lifetimes, with a mission to move America as far left as they can as fast as they can. Need proof? Read the headlines. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hey, he's half white too, ya know. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

We've done the "Jumpmaster" thing. I'll ask you the same question I asked the poster in the link above. Are you aware of a specific problem involving recently rated Instructors? We have a path to a full-fledged Instructor and one that does ease people into the most challenging position in the sport. It's called Coach. Adding layers doesn't help. Keeping every rating holder on the same page and demanding a higher skill level than the job requires works every time it's tried. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

In a word, Performance Designs. OK, that's two words but their customer service is awesome anyway. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If it ain't broke... Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's not what's being suggested. The JM rating would apply to AFF certification course graduates for a one year period (and I'm sure some min. number of AFF jumps), and it would limit them to only doing AFF jumps with two instructors, with the other being a full fledged AFF I. As it sits now, a course graduate can literally be paired one-on-one with a student 24 hrs after passing the course. They have no jumps with actual students, but now they are going to be the sole instructor in the air with a student who may have as few as three jumps. The idea is to pair them with a more experienced instructor and let them build their experiecne with actual students with the assitance and guidance of said instructor. Sorry - when you said AFFCC, my brain said "coaches course". Now that I understand, I still don't agree. AFF rating holders have always been able to do one-on-one ground and air instuction with students as soon as they get their ratings - even back when there were "Jumpmasters" and Instructors". As far as I know that has never been a safety or educational quality issue. AFF rating holders should be capable of doing solo jumps with students or they shouldn't get the rating. We already have a coaches rating to give wannabe AFF holders an entry point to the training process. What you are suggesting are 2 levels of restricted insrtructional ratings. If AFF candidates are held to an adequate standard, there's no need for a restricted rating. Just out of curiosity, are you aware of AFF rating holders that you don't trust in the air alone with a student? If so, why not address that instead of reinventing the system to accommodtae those that don't make the grade? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I would also be ok with an activity minimum over a time-based minimum for people with a lot of years in the sport. As for the quality of the rating holders, there has indeed been a decline in the skill level of some candidates allowed to make it through some courses. I've known people that got AFF ratings that have trouble with anything tougher than basic RW. That didn't happen in the early days of AFF. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Time in the sport is different than time as a teacher of new skydivers. I know people with a zillion jumps that couldn't teach a rock to fall. I don't know about 2 years, but I believe rating holders should have to hold a rating for some period of time before "moving up" on the instructional totem pole. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What's the purpose behind calling coaches jumpmasters? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Tell him if the canopy wasn't safe to land AND you don't have enough altitude to cut away, you would perfrom a canopy transfer. See what he thinks of that. He'd say "what internet smartarse have you been talking to?" Yeah, I probably would too. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

" ...................................................................... I sure hope you were joking ... because I thought canopy transfers fell out of fashion at the same time that round reserves fell out of fashion. I don't take staying alive as being fashionable or not. Please note that I said "if your main wasn't safe to land" AND "you don't have enough altitude to cut away. If what you have over your head is going to kill you and you are sure you are too low to cut away, throwing a reserve into the mix is certainly better than doing nothing and burning in because of it. Assuming the reserve clears the main, the "transfer' part of that process - cutting away the main - would of course be a different decision based solely on the situation as it unfolds - excuse the pun. A friend of mine is alive today becasue he chunked his reserve into a malfunctioning intenional-cutaway canopy that wouldn't release on one side. Broke everything, but lived. Dumping a reserve into a malfunctioning main is about the worst possible move - right up until it's the only one you've got. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Tell him if the canopy wasn't safe to land AND you don't have enough altitude to cut away, you would perfrom a canopy transfer. See what he thinks of that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You're right. Of course it was still pretty f*cking stupid. So is jumping out of an airplane. Whatever. Get a profile if you want to be taken seriously. Whatever skycop. Learn to admit when you're wrong if you want to be taken seriously. Learn to read, my man. I said "you're right" in my original reply. Not sure what more of an admission you want. Now what were you saying, Mr. blank profile? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's some damn fine flyn'. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe you just don't know what my cause is. Antagonistic issue dodging alert!!!!!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Really doesn't matter. Just some examples to illustrate that regardless of anything, guns (legal and illegal) can and do endanger their owners as well as others. Using that argument, so can parachutes. Oops, time to sell your gear. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Me? You? Why should I? Because I like making points in the form of a question? Who would do such a thing? You have to ask? Who knows? Don't you? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If he gets mugged tomorrow, he'll be sorry he didn't start carrying today. If he doesn't get mugged at all he'll be happy he didn't waste money on a gun. A gun is no more a waste of money if not used than insurance is. Unless, of course, you view gun owners as people who would be disappointed if they don't get to blow someone away with their evil, deadly weapon. OK, from your perspective, you're right. It's all about evaluation of risk. Different people living different lifestyles have different risk factors. You are correct. And for the sake of completeness in said evaluation, you would also be correct if you pointed out that anyone living any lifestyle stands a greater chance of living another day if armed during an attack by a member of the criminal element. Geez, I could do this all day. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If he gets mugged tomorrow, he'll be sorry he didn't start carrying today. If he doesn't get mugged at all he'll be happy he didn't waste money on a gun. A gun is no more a waste of money if not used than insurance is. Unless, of course, you view gun owners as people who would be disappointed if they don't get to blow someone away with their evil, deadly weapon. OK, from your perspective, you're right. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If he gets mugged tomorrow, he'll be sorry he didn't start carrying today. Its what I call living on the edge. Extreme breathing. Lawbreaker. BWWWWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO! Give yourself a beer for that one! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX