chuckakers

Not always true - mental capacity. I don't think that comes into play. A law that makes a waiver unenforceable for a minor wouldn't be different just because the person is competent in the activity. That would be akin to saying a minor can enter into a contract as long as they are smart enough to understand all the implications of it. The legal age of majority doesn't change because of circumstances. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Interesting - USPA will still issue licenses to 16 year old members jumping outside the U.S. "For skydivers jumping outside of the U.S., USPA will issue licenses only to those 16 or older." So would the minor then not be legal to jump in the U.S. at a DZ that would allow it, or would that minor fall under the exemption for licensed jumpers? If they could jump under the exemption - as crazy as it sounds - a minor could get trained in some 3rd world backwards ass country and then jump in the U.S. without a problem. This thing just keeps getting sillier. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yes they are, as are those who have already made a jump as long as they get a license by an arbitrary cut-off date. That's something else that seems weird. According to one BOD member, this is mostly about liability. If that's the case why would anyone be grandfathered? If a minor with a license sues, the waiver would be no less enforceable than if a non-licensed minor sued. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What other donors have contributed more money than this? I stand corrected. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

A 16 year old can get a pilot's license but not skydive????? Does anyone know what prompted this? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That's the finest act of skydiving philanthropy I've seen in years! Thanks, and blue skies, Mike!! We'll see you over there. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I have a Stiletto 135/PD126 in a Vc1 and it's a perfect fit. A 150 of just about any kind will be a pretty tight squeeze. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

From the same exit point, in the same direction, the higher path will inherently be flatter, at least for a period of time. Look at the attached very-scientific paint file. The steep path (1) is in contrast to the flatter path (2). The only way to get the same glide angle at a higher altitude is to fly flatter for a period of time before going steep again (3). My point is that sometimes what you are saying is right. That is, that you can be higher and still fly steeper from some exits. But not always. Exits only affect the big picture for a short period of time. After that your attached very scientific graphic and it's varied glide paths are for the most part a matter of choice. Once sufficient airspeed is achieved the flyer can vary altitude along a glide path gradually with minor inputs and minimal sacrifice of lift-generating speed. Are there jumps that are safest flown with a high-speed, steep angle entry into to the run? I'm sure there are, but that's not the conversation here. We are talking about the big picture, not the exit and initial freefall. In your attached graphic, routes number 2 and 3 could have been flown exactly like number 1 but at a higher altitude with the exception of the earliest part of the freefall when speed must be achieved to produce lift. Beyond that the altitude of the line has no bearing on the the angle. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The margin he's talking about is the ability to climb relative to your current flight path. So a higher but flatter line gives you less ability to climb, a close, steep and fast line gives huge and almost instant ability to climb. You make it sound like a higher path is somehow going to be inherently flatter than a lower one and that's not true. If the flyer can have a particular glide angle at treetop level that same glide angle can be flown 20, 50, or 100 feet higher. Two identical glide angles flown at different altitudes will result in identical capabilities to climb. Once again, speed may equal safety, but speed with distance gives bigger margins than speed without it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I get the science of it. My contention isn't about that. It is with the statement that flying closer to the ground creates a bigger margin than flying higher. I don't think the author was really trying to say that all other things being equal flying closer to the terrain is inherently safer, but his description could certainly leave the reader with that impression. So what are you looking for? Just an answer. As I asked in my first post, "I am getting this wrong thinking that flying a line close to the terrain would have a smaller margin than flying the exact same line further from the terrain?" Not being a wingsuiter I didn't know if there was something I was missing about proximity vs margins. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I get the science of it. My contention isn't about that. It is with the statement that flying closer to the ground creates a bigger margin than flying higher. I don't think the author was really trying to say that all other things being equal flying closer to the terrain is inherently safer, but his description could certainly leave the reader with that impression. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Hey wingsuiters, got a question for you... In an article in Skydiving Mag (http://www.skydivemag.com/article/wingsuit-base-myths), author Matt Gerdes said... "...the closer that we get to the mountain slope, and the more margin that we have. I repeat: the closer you get to the steep mountain face, and the more you stretch that rubber band, the more margin you have. The more you dive, and the faster you go, and the steeper you fly (past your angle of ‘best glide’), the MORE margin you have. ...." I understand that the steeper and faster the glide angle the greater the ability to pull up, but it seems to me that flying close to the terrain has nothing to do with creating a margin and is in fact more dangerous than keeping more distance between the flyer and ground. I am getting this wrong thinking that flying a line close to the terrain would have a smaller margin than flying the exact same line further from the terrain? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There's no good answer to that. Every DZO runs his/her DZ differently with different business models, so it's impossible to say what is best as an outsider looking in. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Jumpers don't mind signing off on logbooks just because you are young in the sport. Just ask - and have a pen ready too. Most people typically ask in batch form when they finish jumping for the day. Makes it quicker to scratch our 5 or 6 at once. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue! Hey Strat - aren't unintended off-target landings typically exempt from tresspass under the provision that the airman had to land on said property for safety? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

My thoughts exactly. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

No room? That looks like a pretty densely-packed airport property. https://goo.gl/maps/7NJkb Ouch. I would be looking for alternatives. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The lawsuit has two plaintiffs, CQS and Kim Gibbs. The attorney also said the plaintiffs who are other members of CQS. I understand that if the monies stay within the organization it would not be personal gain. I think that's the reason she was named a second plaintiff so that she could receive a settlement as well as a settlement for CQS. In essence she has already benefitted financially, she admitted on her fb that she didn't have the money to bring the lawsuit and from the donations now she does. Im not trying to start any arguments just want this woman stopped. I have to assume there isn't a more skydiver friendly airport within a reasonable distance. If so, I'd bag it and go where we're wanted. The problem with groups like CQS is that they will never stop. Even if you beat them in court they will just find other ways to get at you or will file additional lawsuits with different claims from different angles. Anyone know why the jumpers aren't allowed to land on the airport? Seems strange that the complaint is supposed to be about noise, yet the city now restricts jumping by denying access to a skydiver landing area - something that has nothing to do with noise issues. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If the plaintiff is the organization and any paid damages stay within the organization it would not be personal gain. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Sounds like you're speaking from experience. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Top, this is about a landing zone away from the airport. That has nothing to do with our protection in using federally funded airports under Congressional classification as an aeronautical activity. I didn't read too closely, but I got the impression that the landing area in question is city owned. If so, use of the land would be controlled by the municipality but would not fall under those federal discrimination restrictions. Am I getting that right? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Without regard to the honesty of the OP or the incidents vs incidents approach, I'm suggesting that if a person wants to "check out" a drop zone or several, just ask skydivers their thoughts on the overall culture on the DZ. Trouble drop zones usually earn a rep pretty quickly and there's never a shortage of skydivers who will gladly point it out. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What, no time for cocktails? Seriously, take reviews with a bit of skepticism. The "clearly intoxicated" instructor may have just had whiskey breath from the sunset-thirty bonfire the night before. Not good to have booze breath around the customers, but it's not the same as being impaired. Reviews are also routinely written by disgruntled ex-staffers, nearby competitors, and an assortment of other questionable sources. If you want honest input you are in the right place. I'm sure if you mention the area you're in folks would willingly give you their opinions of the DZ's in that area. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You're using the word "retarded" as a put down or in a negative connotation. For those with children or family members who are mentally disabled its an insult. Exactly what did I say that was a put down? I guess maybe you think using a direct quote from the dictionary within the context of this conversation is insulting? It's called retardation. People who have it are called retarded. It is not an insult. What next? Diabetic becomes "pancreatically challenged"? Butch up Sally. By the way, you used the term "disabled" to describe the people you say I'm insulting. I think that's pretty insulting. Retarded people are not disabled at all. They are as capable of reaching their potential as you are of reaching yours. Maybe more. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I doubt Scotch Guard will protect against UV degradation. I have a friend that used to put a zero-P coating on F-111 canopies and gave them a second life. Still, it didn't do anything to protect the fabric from UV's. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX