timmyfitz

It's a bad, bad day for people that actually deserved the award.

Or reduced drag?

Since there is no proof one way or the other, that is quite an assumption. If we have only been sentient for a very short period of time it's possible that life on other planets has not been around even as long as us. We probably will never know.

Wrong.

When people speak of life elsewhere in the universe, why are they(extraterrestrial life) always considered to be more intelligent than us? Couldn't there be other planets with intelligent life just now emerging? Maybe we are the most advanced race in the universe? Everyone has to start at square one. We may never know. Oh, wait, I forgot about Roswell.

How far you walk depends on how accurately you land, not on how many cells your canopy has. Hi kal baby, Howard cosel once said,"'Ya can't argue with ignorance!" (or something very close to that!!) Now, here's the deal. L/D has nothing to do with accuracy!! The bottom line is this," For a given number of square feet, a canopy with a higher aspect ratio [mean wing span/average chord] {holding all else constant; fabric type, airfoil shape, type of lines, suspended weight} will provide more horizontal distance covered per unit of sink. Got that???" Now, if you took a 7 cell, like an old Mike Furry Django "Pegasus" and expanded it to the same wingspan/chord as the "Dragonfly," without adding the additional ribs to make it a 9 cell the airfoil would baloon out and reduce its efficiency. If you took the 7 cell "Pegasus" and a 9 cell "Dragonfly" and with same suspended weights , opening side by side, the Dragonfly will "outglide" the Pegasus, (You can do this same experiment with countless other canopy designs) "SO," if you used the maximum Pegasus spot for both canopys, both canopys will make it to the target , it's just that the Dragonfly will have some extra altitude to burn off before landing. Sorry about that old man. Conversly if you were in the Pegasus on the max Dragonfly spot, "You'd be walking to the target!!" That's all the whiz/bang I'm gonna' get into for you....."GOT THAT???" What have you been drinking? I believe he has been drinking knowledge and correct information. How about you?

Since no one is checking ID's when you fill out your profile, anyone could be anonymous. I like reading the post and judge whether their words have merit or not, whether there is a profile or not.

That's why I wrote "Just for reference" as in I'm not sure what you think a DZO is but here is what it means just for future reference. What is a Dropzone Operator?

Just for reference, DZO=Drop Zone Owner. Stop talking to instructors and talk to the owner.

Your post is gay.

There are two seasons in Elsinore. Brown and green(or slightly less brown).

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

At first I thought a 135 may be a little aggressive for your jump numbers but then I looked at your profile. Really? A 119 loaded at over 1.6 at about 250 jumps? OK.

Sigh. OK, back to the 2nd Grade. 1 "t". 2 "g's". Unless you're turning this into a Bonfire thread. You whin. He mispeled a werd.

i don't know about you - but i find this type of throwaway comment about black people (stereotyping black people as not a success story) racist... Is there anything you don't see as racist? On another note. Here is a paragraph from an article linked earlier in this thread. Just made me chuckle a little. "In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

You posted this on a supposed note? You should have better sources. A "supposed note". Where did you read that? Re-read the article, it's short but I think you missed something or are trying to read between the lines.

It means he is a much more likely to be right than some whuffo that happened to walk onto the DZ. What if the whuffo were a physicist? It would mean that the whuffo physicist knew very little about skydiving in general but he would be overly arrogant and have a undeserved feeling of self importance.

Or maybe because the line stows were to long?

I've never liked any of that "priority" crap. When it's time to pull, PULL! That would be number 2 and 3. It's nice to be stable at pull time, but it doesn't really matter. PULL! That would be a little of 2 and 3 If you're low, and missed your preplanned pull altitude, then IT'S TIME TO PULL! That would be number 1 Pull when it's time to pull, whenever that is. That would be number 2 and 3 That is the only priority. There, I've said my peace.

We could all watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC if you want unbiased reporting.

To me the main reason looks to be the fact that the course was set to a rather strong downwind. Unless you really have practiced swooping downwind, it is very common to end up too low in the end of the recovery since the plane out looks a lot different when going downwind. Could you explain your thinking. Yes, you would be going faster across the ground but why do you think the plane out would look different? And why would a downwind cause you to be low? Just curious. I guess I'm just not getting what you are trying to say.

I guess we're both wrong... Pull, pull at correct altitude, and pull stable. SIM Section 4 Cat. C (I was confusing reserve priorities I guess, which is pull regardless of getting stable or not) No linebckr83 was right. "Pull on time" would be the same as "pull at the correct altitude". 1-Pull 2-pull at the correct altitude/pull on time(regardless of stability) 3-pull at the correct altitude while stable

if you haven't got anything to say - don't dreamdancer, you had to be laughing when you typed that line. Other than cut and paste, you never have anything to say.

I believe it restarted in 1987(1988?). If I recall correctly there was no boogie between 81 to 87. The dates may be a little off but close.