DrewEckhardt

It's the seller's responsibility to refund the buyer's money and deal with the issue. Always shipping with tracking + delivery confirmation, getting sufficient insurance, and not listing a contradictory value on customs forms will mean that's a hassle but not a financial pain. IIRC it took me about 60 days between refunding a European buyer's money and getting USPS to pay off on my insurance (declared value plus all shipping fees) on a Global Express package that was last recorded as going through US customs on its way out.

Relatively speaking it's not a big deal. At the rate we're going it's going to take a thousand years to kill as many people as Germans did when they had the chance with disarmed populations last century. And there it ended for the 9 or 10 million disarmed civilians Germany killed - some whose guns were registered to comply with laws passed by the Weimar government and collected later, some in Eastern Europe that complied with their governments laws and were then slaughtered.

It depends. Somewhat low you have a lot of latitude to adjust turn rate and space used. With less altitude fly a normal non-swooping pattern and land normally. Very low it means flat and perhaps flaring. The simplest and using the least altitude + distance is pulling both toggles down to 3/4 brakes to kill your descent rate + forward drive; lifting the outside one part way to get a nice balance between flat and a quick pivot; and being prepared to PLF if you're not proficient at flaring from braked approaches and don't have enough altitude left to get back to full flight for a regular flare. This works on every canopy I own - Samurai 105 elliptical, Stiletto 120 elliptical, Monarch 135 square, 244 Dagger F111 seven cell, 245 Fox F111 seven cell. With more skill and altitude you can turn with a toggle adding opposite toggle to keep the canopy at trim speed as you turn (add some harness to get a higher turn rate). When you run out of altitude you can flare harder and faster than you normally would in the turn and maintain it until you get to your desired heading or are getting short of lift at which point you get the canopy back over your head and finish flaring + landing in whatever cross-wind direction you were headed.

The law usually doesn't treat illegal aliens any different from the rest of us and you're welcome to follow their lead. While EMTALA requires the emergency room to get you to a stable state without any remaining life/limb/or organ threatening conditions, it doesn't require them to fix you so you can do sports like skydiving and still lets them bill you for the total without the insurance company's negotiated discounts. If you're judgement proof due to having no assets like a stereotypical illegal immigrant who may be working under the table for less than minimum wage that doesn't matter. OTOH, with cars, houses, etc. it matters. Similarly, where your housing conditions aren't better than jail being arrested for driving without a license too many times might be a step up in the world. When your house is nicer you want a driver's license. Finally, with enough assets to be worth protecting but not enough to self-insure for a potential seven figure payout you need car insurance more than that guy does.

Skydivers can't consistently close each others main-flaps protecting their pins. I don't know why this is, but quit getting pin checks from other skydivers after I noticed that video footage following one was likely to show the main-flap with the tuck tab flapping in the breeze while video without a preceding pin check didn't yield that problem. Lots of skydivers rely on brute strength to close their rigs instead of trying for mechanical advantage. When they're short on upper body strength they compensate with loose closing loops. Lots of skydivers these days are building vertical formations and flying around each other like ferris wheels where the lower head-up flyers have wind blowing up their backs past their bridle. All together that's a perfect storm for premature deployments at 140+ MPH below another jumper and fine argument for pin checks to remain optional.

A bad workaround for stupid drug laws. People like to alter their consciousness and others want to profit from that. Things that have been around a while, are well understood, and although not good for you not that bad in the grand scheme of things like marijuana are illegal so that's not an option. New substances aren't yet illegal to buy (as long as you don't plan to misuse them to get high) and sell (as long as they're not for human consumption). So you get mephedrone sold by headshops as "bath salts."

Colorado allows spending to increase at the rate of inflation multiplied by population growth. Why isn't that enough? It's actually relatively generous in a world where real wages are dropping.

No. Public school in a fun state where you can live by yourself, "get an education" (instead of being stifled by your parents), and maybe slap a brand name on yourself costs that much. In-state tuition and fees someplace like CU Boulder is about $11,000 a year. Other schools are similar but more likely to be surrounded by cornfields not mountains. Of course your degree still says "CU Boulder" when you get core classes out of the way first at Front Range Community college which runs only $105 per credit hour or about $3150 a year. Doing so doesn't even preclude graduating summa cum laude. 2 x 3,150 + 2 x $11000 = 28,300. Fees add a few hundred more to the community college tab so you might round to $30K. Living with house mates you can get by on well under $1000/month living by yourself, or $24K for 2 years. Divide by 4 years and you're looking at $13,500 a year for a "university" degree which you could pay for working summers and half-time during the school year if that was available. Or you could just finish at community college and spend under $3,500 a year. America is _NOT_ about making a stable society. It's about serving corporatist interests which are many and varied. For instance we exempt student loan debt from bankruptcy so the financial industry can write and profit on loans that otherwise would not make sense. More money chasing the same number of college slots does cause tuition to rise which hurts students; but they can't afford their own lobbyists so they don't count. We let professors teach just 9-15 hours a week versus 30 for high school teachers and give them teams of assistants for menial chores like grading papers. Obviously more professors means higher tuition which hurts students; but unlike professors students don't have unions looking after their interests. I have a great solution: Don't spend more money than you can afford to. When it comes to college that means attending schools that you and your parents can cover with assets or _realistically_ expect to pay back with earnings from your degree. Obviously, community college at $3500/year fits in with a lot more profession + family wealth combinations than private schools running $50K/year for tuition alone. Some places give job candidates credit for going to expensive schools. I don't because where peoples' parents could afford to send them (or how much debt they were willing to accept) has little to do with how well they'll do their job or even perform in the interview process. More expensive schools may even count as a negative because of the incentive to game the system to make more profits, like graduating more students that aren't capable enough to survive in the real world. My favorite professor got in trouble for failing too many students (who couldn't handle engineering, but did bring valuable out of state tuition payments to the college and department) and was no longer allowed to teach a core class. Her replacement didn't fail so many people and there was a significant increase in my company's reject rate interviewing graduates.

Do you have a link to this? PD lists maximum weight for combinations of experience level and canopy size on their web site. Katana: http://www.performancedesigns.com/products.asp?product=ka You can do the math to get wingloading. 107 expert limit 192 pounds, 192/107 = 1.8 pounds/square foot. PD Reserve : http://www.performancedesigns.com/products.asp?product=pr 143 expert limit 200 pounds, 192/143 = 1.4. PIA's TS-104 attachment 1 has the measurements of various PD143 reserves with the smallest 148 square feet and the largest 154. http://www.pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/TS-104CanopyVolume.pdf Throwing out the high, low, and rounding to 150 square feet seems reasonable (149, 150, 151 square feet). 200/150 = 1.3. Legal and smart are separate issues.

If a person can safely jump a main of x sq ft, they should be totally fine under a 7-cell square reserve if x or more sq ft. Hardly. 1. The pilot may be in substantially worse shape when landing the reserve than his main. With an AAD the parachutist needn't even be conscious. Obviously landing without flaring is likely to produce fewer injuries under a bigger canopy. 2. More modern non-rectangular designs provide acceptable stall speeds at _substantially_ higher wing loadings than squares in particular and seven cell reserves specifically. For instance, although PD recommends "expert" skydivers not exceed 1.8 pounds/square foot under their Katana they limit "experts" to just 1.4 pounds per square foot (or 1.3 PSF how other companies measure). That's in-line with the wing loadings where I've experienced noticeably degraded performance similar canopies at high elevations (I used to jump at Mile Hi, which is about 5280 feet above sea level with density altitude exceeding 9000 feet on hot summer days). While I agree that people shouldn't jump parachutes loaded more than 1.3 pounds per square foot (that seems to be where parachute grow "teeth" at high density altitudes), lots of us feel the added fun from smaller mains is worth the increased risk. Doing that within (or slightly beyond) the manufacturer's recommendations when you're current and everything is going well should be totally separate from deciding to far exceed the manufacturer's recommendations when you may or may not be current (it's a lot easier to swap a larger main in a rig than a bigger reserve), may or may not be physically impaired, and won't be gaining as much (a smaller, sexier rig versus more fun on every jump) in return.

It's not a problem for newer jumpers who've yet to progress to mains where a like sized reserve does not make sense, and once some one gets to 1000 jumps they'd do well to put more mileage on their current canopy and put off down-sizing until they can afford a safe sized rig. PD gives 1.4 pounds/square foot as the recommended "expert" wingloading on their reserves the way they measure; or about 1.3 pounds/square foot the way other people do. That puts an average 175-180 pound guy with 20-25 pounds of gear with a 200 pound exit weight under a 150 (or 143 measured the way PD does) with a 150/150 container as the last where matching sizes makes sense. Most containers with the closing loop on the reserve compartment wall or main pack tray bottom seem to be good for about two down-sizes. Starting with a 150 that gets you to a 120 with a 1.7 pound/square foot wingloading where the next down-size would be to a 105-109 square foot conventional canopy loaded at 1.8-1.9 pounds per square foot. Disregarding Brian Germain's adjustments for small canopies and density elevations beyond sea level that doesn't make sense until a jumper has 800-900 jumps which we can round up to 1000 as the point where they should have a bigger reserve container to go with a smaller main container. This disregards low-bulk reserves where matching container sizes allow for a reserve one size bigger and cross-bracing.

Safety should come before brand loyalty. Where UPT or Sunpath won't make some one a container mixing a fun-sized main and safe-sized reserve they should take their business to Sunrise, Mirage, Jump Shack, or some one else that will do the deed.

Right. Taking a second look at the long video it also appears that he flew back to the dropzone in full-flight. With the tail-wind deep brakes to minimize his descent rate and flatten his glide would have gotten him back to the landing area with a lot more altitude to work with. It's important to be a pilot and fly all the way from deployment to your destination instead of just a passenger along for the ride as an unguided meat missile.

Nearly every place I've visited and every place I've worked building software (perhaps packaged as a hardware appliance) has been dress-code free. Some engineers (me included) wear shorts, t-shirts, and sandals with socks plus black fleece so I don't freeze. Some prefer slacks or jeans. Some prefer running shoes or hiking boots. A few wear hats. Suspenders are rare. Male executives, board members, sales staff, and managers generally choose a shirt and slacks. A few of the grey-haired crowd wear ties. I think that's how it should be. I want my co-workers dressed however they'll be most comfortable and therefore productive with exceptions for full and partial nudity that would offend my American puritanical sensibilities.

It's very understandable: Testosterone poisoning and maybe Kodak Courage leading to carnage. He decided at a low altitude to (still) turn right to provide a more exciting landing, better video (perhaps subconsciously; I bought a second helmet without a camera mount after I noticed I didn't complete as many points as when I didn't bring a camera and was presumably putting some of my limited effort into making better video), and land in front of the ground crew. Fortunately he succeeded and made a lot of excitement! Unfortunately he failed in many ways: If the approach was planned he didn't spot well enough or open high enough to get to where he was going with enough altitude to fly a predictable pattern to turn at an appropriate altitude and he screwed up by going with his plan anyways. If it was unplanned he screwed up by not planning. He screwed up by committing to a turn (right, where he needed to clear the trailer) which had _no_ outs instead of carving around the trailer in a left turn where failure would mean not landing as close to the ground crew and perhaps a cross-wind situation leading to a stumble and stains. He screwed up by stopping his turn when he got close to the ground and flying right into the trailer instead of switching to a zero-descent flare turn which would have cleared the trailer and let him land gracefully with success or with dirt stains on failure. Before this jump he down sized too quickly without learning how to _instinctively_ (this implies muscle memory from enough practice) flare turn where necessary. Most likely that was because he was bored, wanted to go faster, and flying his canopy straight into a wide-open field wasn't challenging enough to discourage him from trying the next size (which is all entirely rational but based on incomplete information). If he'd actually tried to make 90 degree turns from tree top height or 45 degrees after starting to flare (maybe 15 degrees would have saved him) he'd have known that controlling parachutes in other situations isn't as monotonous. He also failed by swooping. There are some parachuting disciplines (swooping and BASE are the popular ones) which are inherently unsafe. Having done that, joined the heavy metal (metaphorically; titanium is pretty light) club, and seen death I advise people don't. Some people have the disposition and are going to do that anyways whether they planned to or not (I swore I'd never hook turn (a few hundred jumps) or BASE (800-900)); although when that happens following accepted best practices maximizes their chances of avoiding death, life changing injuries, and/or just getting a personal orthopedic surgeon. Having/using cajones bigger than average metaphorically doesn't mean you need to shrink your brain and loose your judgement to compensate for your other "gifts." Willful ignorance is _not_ good for your health in high-speed sports. After getting too close to the ground turning instead of freezing I'd have pulled my right toggle (harder? I didn't look too closely), applied enough left toggle at the same time to keep me off the ground, and lifted my left leg and leaned right in my harness to get a faster turn rate instead of leveling out straight ahead and running into the trailer. Nearly all the time I'd have pulled off a graceful landing and the rest I might have needed to wash my (black and white - you do _not_ want white leg straps no matter how good they look on video) rig at the next repack. This ignores having the judgement to avoid the situation in the first place (left turn around the trailer so failing is less likely to hurt or kill you, not turning because you're too low...). It's completely understandable. Just skydiving is doing something which "normal" people tell you is "crazy". "normal" skydivers telling you what you're doing is "crazy" sounds exactly the same. Maybe you're being totally sensible (jumping ZP canopies with under 100 jumps when I started was considered crazy at some dropzones; or squares not rounds before that). Maybe you're being crazy for your experience level (only landing a canopy straight ahead even 1000 times in a row doesn't prepare you for flying around or over obstacles). Maybe you've definitely stepped past some line (I don't think turning like that with no outs is fundamentally different from Jeb Corliss's recent misadventure and I say that having seen Dwain Weston kill himself flying into a bridge from about 10' away with my future wife. Dying and ruining peoples' weekend like that is very rude and inconsiderate of your fellow jumpers). Unfortunately without enough of the right experience (I think Brian Germain's 1.0 wingloading + .1/100 jumps allows for it provided that you're actually doing things like 45+ degree flare turns into the wind) you don't have enough information to make that decision rationally and too many people fall back to emotion which lumps the people being reasonable ("That's crazy!") in with the people who aren't ("That's crazy!") that sound exactly alike. That may have been a contributing factor but it's not that simple. Going fast is very fun. Tight landings are very fun. Flying around obstacles at low altitude is very fun. I'd swoop or make classic accuracy landings with a few feet of clearance with no one watching because it was _very_ _fun_. That's plenty of motivation to land near a trailer without people. The big problem is figuring out where what you're doing is a bad idea, a bad idea for your experience level, or just something people think is a bad idea. This ignores that sometimes broken bones are a good thing. I only know one jumper who continued being stupid enough to earn a return visit to the orthopedic surgeon and conclude that people who hurt themselves early generally wise up enough to not kill themselves or get hurt worse (I can't think of anybody who died except in a plane crash who'd spent time in a hospital before that). Lots of people (10) on my dropzone plane died in a crash returning from a boogie that my wife would have encouraged me to attend if I wasn't broken and getting around in a wheel chair at the time. This guy was on a sure path to death or worse; and was lucky enough to get off minus only one arm. Speaking from personal experience, it's _very_ hard to identify and avoid things you shouldn't do because they're logically past your risk tolerance from things boring people (some won't even skydive!) think you should not. The sad thing is that if you keep jumping you're likely to become a grumpy old person after seeing enough other people do stupid avoidable things and/or being one of them.

Your first instinct was correct - they ARE sincere. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=i+love+airplane+noise It's a popular phrase for pilots, emblazoned on bumper stickers, t-shirts and coffee cups. Mile-Hi just took what was already out there, and put it to a different purpose. I like the C130s finishing their down-wind leg over my house when the pilots are keeping their type ratings up-to-date with three take-offs and landings in a row.

I'm surprised I'm the first to reference Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, part 7 "Death". (NSFW for execution by bouncing boobies) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ

Other options include getting good job, continuing to live like a college student after actually starting a career (pick and choose : cable TV or 3 more jumps a month. New car, or 12 more jumps a month. Living alone or having a roomate and 20 more jumps a month), selling bodily fluids like plasma or semen, and finding a sugar daddy/momma.

That's just the down payment on the lease and you're overlooking the severe penalties for trading her in before the contractual end (when you die or she dies). Although like most graduates you've yet to figure out how to apply your new found knowledge to real life, even with some relevant first hand experience. Consider what she gets if she's not happy with how you're supporting her with cars (maybe that BMW you bought her wasn't an M series) - half of everything you got since starting your lease plus whatever it takes to maintain the life style you shared while married. I'd joke that's half of everything, although lots of places she's entitled to the same life style (especially if she reproduces with or without your consent) you shared even when that requires more than an equal share.

Absolutely. Netflix has it available for watch instantly (which I did whilst drinking beer) [URL]http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/How_Beer_Saved_the_World/70222666?trkid=2361637[/URL]

Exclude him. Depending on employer contributions, plan costs, how many other children you have to insure (our plan costs the same regardless of how many children I have while individual plans are priced per person), your tax rates, and his insurability in the individual market that might be a fine idea. I'd be paying $400/month in pre-tax money to have one of the kids on my plan at work which is $207 in take-home pay. I was paying $80/month on an individual policy for our son before the market shake-up and am paying $140/month after. The co-pays and deductibles aren't as good although at $1524/year then and $804 a year less expensive now that doesn't matter much, especially when predictable costs can be paid out of an FSA using pre-tax dollars.

You're doing at least three things wrong: 1. Working for the government. In private industry you have a _lot_ of latitude to negotiate job description and pay for an opening based on above average experience. In government you get the job and pay that's advertised perhaps with minor adjustments for more advanced degrees. 2. Working someplace not known for having a lot of engineering jobs to choose from. 3. Being the wrong sort of engineer. The maximums vary a lot more than the median. Fifteen years into a software engineering career can yield total compensation where the first digit is not one especially if you don't mind working for big companies. New graduates with zero experience are starting past $100K at the big silicon valley companies.

Call me stupid and unimaginative. I can't think of a productive motive for it. The only one I could come up with was if he was hoping to get asked to leave the airport and could negotiate a lease contract settlement on his way out like Larry Hill did at Coolidge. Vance Brand is the closest airport to the front range cities between Boulder and Denver which is out of DIA's air space so you can get 12,500 AGL without permission from air traffic control. Moving would be a pretty dumb business move. I can easily picture Jeff Sands sending out the bumper stickers; maybe Frank was channeling his spirit.

While you or I wouldn't do that other kids would. When I was riding the light rail the other day a kid (late teens, maybe early 20s at the oldest) jumped across the aisle and punched an old man in the face (the old man might have looked funny at the kid but didn't say anything). The old man just changed seats. A little while later the same kid jumped out of his seat and just started pounding on the old guy. That was _without_ any words exchanged. A more violent attack wouldn't be surprising if the victim had done more to upset the attacker like saying he didn't recognize the kid, was concerned that he was casing the neighborhood to rob it later, and had already called the police.

Analog. As soon as you've down-sized to 1 pound per square foot (a 220 to 230 for you). I had my own rig for lucky jump #13 and at the rental rates charged by the DZ would have broken even financially if I threw it in a dumpster after 70 jumps (instead I made a few more jumps, sold the main and bought a smaller one, made 150 more jumps, and sold the reserve + container with total sales price a few hundred dollars less than I'd paid or $1-$2 a jump). Used mains and containers each depreciate about $1/jump. Reserves and AADs depreciate based on age. If you do a reasonable job shopping you'll spend a couple dollars a jump on gear regardless of how many times you change it. If you do a good job shopping and making deals you'll make money on the equipment which you can then spend on jump tickets and beer. Buying something smaller "you'll grow into" because "you'll get bored" is a bad idea since you're not ready for it, more likely to hurt yourself, and won't save any money in the long run even if you don't miss any work due to injury and/or pay insurance deductibles and co-insurance. Brian Germain agrees. He as over 14,000 jumps, designs and builds parachutes, and teaches canopy flight professionally around the world. Here's his chart http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf Add 25 pounds of gear (at least) to 195 pounds and you get an exit weight of 220 pounds. At 20 jumps Brian recommends a 230 at sea level (see the document for the larger sizes required above sea level) and says to never go smaller than a 220. By 100 jumps he recommends a 230 but allows a 198. At that time you'll have more experience, could sell your 230, and start jumping a 210. Some countries mandate following a similar chart. While not required here it's a very prudent idea. Your instructors probably have not watched you make low turns to down-wind landings on concrete off the dropzone on the sunset load and are therefore in no position to make a recommendation. Thats the sort of situation you're sizing the canopy for (not landings facing the wind in the middle of a big grassy field) - the cute chicks flash the pilot for extra altitude, some one in your group gets hypoxic and gets their foot caught on the seatbelt so you take forever to climb out, have a long spot, don't see power lines until late, and make a low 90 degree turn to avoid them. Being able to land cross-wind, up-hill, down-hill, and with post-planeout turns are all important too. If they have seen that they probably lack the experience to make good recomendations, like 14,000 jumps each and decades in the sport and you're better off ignoring them unless they're telling you to be more conservative than Brian (maybe you have flaring problems or bad knees that suggest more time on a bigger canopy). More wrong but a good third step once you've made 150-200 jumps. You will not get your money back if you down-size and sell it with low jump numbers. Yes. Skydiving by yourself is like sex with yourself. While better than nothing it's not what most people would choose. A jumpsuit will give you a neutral fall rate similar to other people so you work less maintaining their fall rate and have plenty of range left to move around. Low. Most IPAs. Right now I'm especially fond of the Stone and Racer 5.