SBS

um.........I can' t leave my desk now lest anyone see the large bulge --------------------- ah, don't worry...it'll hardly be noticable. :-)

that's cool.

Maybe I do have it all wrong and I am the negative one. -------------- Don't be hard on yourself. I think it might be a function of not getting on here much, not being familiar with the tones that many people take when they are serious vs. joking vs. sarcastic, insulting, etc. I think this really does resemble a family or a dropzone. Difference is, like someone pointed out, we're jumping at the dropzone, not sitting at work looking for something to do or to bitch about. Also, though, it's a difference in interpersonal communication...there is a mountain of information about someone's attitude that you can get from looking at their face. They may say something that, when written, would come off extremely harsh. I am finding that in learning sign language, that their expressions and wording are so different from English, that a lot of times, they can be misconstrued as harsh and/or rude. I think that looking past that comes, in a big part, from being familiar with different people's personalities and writing styles. Anyway, point is, I totally see where you are coming from, but I enjoy the interactions (even though everyone thinks I'm a dick). :-) Steve

Considering the fact that it is the job of the person above to pay attention to those below and make the adjustments, I think it would take horrible negligence on the part of the person below for it to be "their fault". Although, there would be many cases where there would be a strict talking to upon landing about the low person's actions, if they were incorrect. I think it would be hard to approach someone and ask or tell them to pay for the damages. As such, I think that someone should be responsible, and if they can't prove beyond any doubt that they could not avoid the accident, even if it was their responsibility to do so, they should make the offer to pay for the damage. Unfortunately, as the "rules" are accepted now, that burden of proof will be on the shoulders of the high man. Now, say that the high man was unconscious for some reason...that's completely different...I think that when you are in different situations, it is a little more clear what is appropriate for each individual one. Not exactly the same, but I watched a female jumper at my old dropzone get hit under canopy at 800 feet by another jumper who was spiraling and didn't see her. Destroyed her canopy, and damn near killed her (she popped her reserve first, being so low, then cutaway. The freebag was found inside the main canopy after she landed only a couple of seconds after her reserve was open). You'd better believe that I would expect for negligence like that to replace the canopy. We know that we are in a sport that is dangerous, and that anything can happen. We also know, though, that we have certain responsibilities to keep ourselves and others safe. I think that we should stand behind those responsibilities, and not use the excuse that "he knows that it's dangerous" as a means to avoid the financial sting. That's how I would handle myself...just my opinion. Good question, though. Steve

Dan, Thanks for your response to the thread. In response to your statement, though, regarding McDonalds' order of priorities, low price, fast delivery, consistancy, quality, design. I think that PD has proven that their designs are solid (even if they are not as technologically advanced in some cases). The Spectre is arguably the best 7 cell canopy on the market. The Stiletto remains a staple of the high performance canopy market. The Sabre, while being old technology, was replaced by the Sabre2, which is turning out to be extremely popular on its own merits. Personally, I don't like the Vengeance, but many people do, and can offer reasons for their preference, aside from "it's a PD". I have several friends who jump the Velocity, and are extremely pleased with it. Their quality is without anymore faulter than other manufacturers, and in many cases is better. They have proven to be consistant, if you look at the ratio of canopies that have problems in their manufacturing to the number that come out without said issues (i.e. - opening hard, diving on opening, etc.). They do not offer the fastest delivery times on the market, and they certainly are not the least expensive. Although I think that some people are closed minded to alternatives, just like you said, because of a certain "blind faith", people are starting to see that they do have other options, and we are encouraging them to examine them closely. That does not mean, though, that I think that PD deserves to be overlooked simply for fear of acting upon the blind faith, or that I would consider it a bad decision on anyone's part to purchase a PD canopy because that is what they like. I still maintain that this is an unfair comparison. Steve

Chris, That is why I tried to throw in so many words like "apparently". I would love to have more clear information, but I just don't know. I heard that there was a mark on his rig, but from what, I don't really know. It could have been fact or speculation that he had hit the tire, from the original investigation that night. Either way, they were pretty convinced that that was what happened. That was the point that I got most of my information...there has been very little added since then. Steve

From what it looks like, Grumpy was referring to a comment in the thread, not the entire thread itsself. (*but I think a few of us would be less skeptical of the comment (or the motives behind it)*). I have not argued against, and have not heard anyone argue against the involvement of manufacturers on these forums, and the obvious benefit they bring in to us less informed. This is probably the 7th post, at least, that we have had, specifically making an arguement why we should have input from manufacturers in the forums...the point has never been argued, that's not the issue. Unless anyone has something additional to throw in, I would like to humbly suggest that we leave this thread and move on. Anyone else agree? (if you do, don't answer that...sort of defeats the purpose of the question) :-) Thanks for the discussion. Steve

Here's what happened from my point of view. We were in the plane. Chris was last out, as all wingsuits always are, with few exceptions. We went about our skydive without incident. When we landed, I heard someone point to a reserve. Saw a main floating, so there had been a cutaway. The reserve was high, so it looked like it was the birdman, because of the separation from the rest of the jumpers. As we were headed in, we were being paged to check in. Checked in, and were informed that they were concerned because the pilot felt an impact during his descent (sp?). They apparently sent another plane up to assess the damage before the otter landed. We found out later that the plane had, in fact, hit the birdman. The pilot supposedly went straight for a short time, and then turned. This was standard procedure. They don't really know where hit what. His rig hit someplace, and I haven't heard anything else. At the point that I last heard, they didn't know if he had pulled his main or if the plane ripped it out. Either way, he cutaway and pulled his reserve and does not remember doing so (but still managed to keep his handles). His first memory was apparently from under his reserve, going "why the hell am I so high"? Right afterwards, he was sitting in manifest and walking around like everything was fine. Of course he was shaken up, but I was seriously impressed. Sounds like he hit a tire, and then the tail of the airplane. The vertical part of the tail is warped and tweaked on the right side, all the way from top to bottom. Haven't heard any recent estimates for the work to be done on the plane, but it ain't going to be cheap. Anything important that I am missing, anybody? Steve

I have asked myself that, but don't think we'll ever have an answer. Steve

Great post. Thank you. Steve

That's your impression of McDonands. I don't think of it the lowest quality food available to man, but rather the standard by which all other fast food is measured. Some is better, some is worse, but like it or not, they are the standard. Sound kind of like the PD of the parachute industry? I think it does. ---------------------------- Refer above to my statement about comparison within genre. ---------------------------- So, if I had said this it would have been OK? That's certainly not fair and it's a double standard if I've ever seen one. ------------------------------- No, it is not a double standard. I don't believe that subjective comments are admissable (sp?) into an arguement on the part of a competitor. That goes for anyone. A double standard would be to say that Dan cannot say anything like that about PD, but if I worked for Sunpath, for example, it would be ok for me to make a subjective statement about another competitor. That is a double standard. What I have said is that that kind of subjectivity discredits anyone after making what may be a perfectly legitimate arguement, regardless of who makes it. ------------------------------------ It sounds to me as if you're reacting on the same Blind Faith that Dan mentioned in his original posting. Someone says that PD isn't the industry leader or that they don't make the worlds best canopies and you automatically assume the worst. Rather than take the statement at face value you chose to read things into it that clearly aren't there. ------------------------------------- A) I do not jump PD mains B) I have worked in the industry for the past 3 years and do know a thing or two about different companies, their manufacturing processes, and their business practices...I would not call my motivations to purchase one product over another "blind faith". C) I don't necessarily think that PD makes the best canopy in all cases. I will recommend different canopies from different manufacturers to different people. I am not reacting to him inferring that they are not the industry leader...I am responding to the method by which it was presented, and he has continually presented his arguements up to this point, regardless of who the arguement was against. D) Just because you don't see something does not mean that it is "clearly not there". I'm done. Steve

What if it is true? What if the image is false? What if their manufacturing processes really are inferior? So far, the only defenders are the people who apparently bought that 'image'. ------------------- Then it should be proven wrong through factual statements. ------------------- You might say this isn't a forum to 'Challenge' other companies. ------------------- If you read any one of my other posts, you will see that this is not at all what I am saying, and that I encourage discussion and education. -------------------------------- Dan's facts stand unchallenged by any data from the other manufacturers. -------------------------------- If you are stating fact, there is no way for it to be challenged. What I have been referring to the entire time, as I have stated many times, are the subjective comments that are not necessary. ---------------------------------- I think it's a legitimate metaphor. He wasn't attacking the quality of PD's canopies; it's just an anology with another business that mass-produces their product. ---------------------------------- There is a significant difference between mass producing, and producing a hell of a lot. PD produces a hell of a lot of canopies, just as Sunpath makes a hell of a lot of containers. Altico, on the other hand, who makes the Dolphin, mass produces containers. They are sitting on the shelf, waiting to be pieced together and shipped. I don't feel like this is slander, because this is their advertised way of doing business, it's no secret. THAT is mass production, more along the lines of fast food. I would still consider it inappropriate, though, should someone from a container manufacturer get on here and state such. --------------------------------- In fact, I might like the Micky D's a little better cause it was faster. --------------------------------- Taste and quality are not necessarily the same. I have stated that I like the taste of McDonalds, and eat there from time to time. At the same time, though, I cannot say that I consider it to be quality or healthy. ---------------------------------------- I find it very offensive that anyone would say McDonalds suck. They have been around a very long time and are the standard that other fast food places try to achive. ---------------------------------------- True. The comparison was not kept within the genre of fast food, though, which would have been completely different. The metaphor showed PD to be the fast food quality in the world of restaurants. Now, if Dan meant to say that he believes Atair to be like Wendy's, that's different, because that identifies the genre in which we are comparing. ------------------------------------------- The message has to put accross to people like him and the only way is to compare with PD and say why this or that is just as good as or better then PD products. ----------------------------------- I am trying to figure out a new way of saying this, since nobody seems to get it. Again...comparison is good...support comparison...which is better, though (same premises, different conclusions): 1. fact 2. fact 3. fact 4. fact conclusion - Atair is better than PD 1. fact 2. fact 3. fact 4. fact conclusion - PD is worse than Atair Coming from the competition, I do not believe that the second conclusion has any place in any comparative statement or advertisement. I have stated my opinion, and you have yours. If this was a solitary statement, I think I would consider it a petty arguement. This is not a one time thing, though, and I hate to see it continue. Steve

I second everything LD21 said...it rocks!!! Steve

Would you have been happier, perhaps, if he had used 'Cooker' or 'Fridays' as an example? ------------------------ Yes. What he chose was what would be considered by most everyone in the world to be one of the lowest, if not THE lowest quality food available to man. Then, a statement was made that seemed reasonable. One may disregard the McDonalds statement as minor, and move onto the other...there is still, though, an image created, and an identification between the two...PD and McDonalds, which is unfair for 2 reasons...1)I don't believe that PD makes the worst quality canopies possible. More importantly, less subjectively, 2)Statements like this should not come from a competitor. You don't see any tv commercials (other than sleezy political ones) that do this, do you? They state facts that they believe support their side in the best light possible. This is something that I would do in an arguement if I did not consider it to be inappropriate. Fast food restaurants don't have signs outside that say "YOURE HUNGRY!!!". Instead, they have signs that are red and yellow, two colors that subliminally encourage hunger. Just as Dan made the statement about McDonalds, he did not say "they suck!". At the same time, though, by identifying them as said restaurant's equivalent in the skydiving industry, that is the image that can be created, whether it is meant or not. As a competitor, if it is not meant to be like that, it is upon his shoulders to make sure that that is not how it comes across. You may consider the original post off base, but this is something that has been happening for a long time in these forums. Whether posting here could be considered advertising or not in the legal sense, I consider it to be a form of such. In this way, I believe that anyone posting about their competitors here has a responsibility just as if they were printing a magazine ad. I appreciate competition, and think that it's important that comparisons be made in a factual way without the addition of statements meant to create images that are unfair. If anyone can say that they think McDonalds makes quality food, or that PD makes cheaply made canopies that could be considered the worst in the industry, I would like to hear it. Without that to back up the relation between the two, I believe that it is an unfair statement to say that they are alike, and insulting to the quality and image that PD has worked for so long to create. Steve

Two birds with one stone...damn, I like it...will you teach me? ---------------------------- (theory only...not practical application) :-)

If she starts to stir just whop her on the head again and they usually go right out............ ----------------- Which is convenient when what you are using for restraint has a heavy object on the other end... Two birds with one stone...damn, I like it...will you teach me? :-)

ok, so where is the best place to purchase quality zip ties? Now that I have someone who will actually have sex with me, I need to test the zip tie thing out for myself. Please answer quickly, I think the drugs might be starting to wear off. :-) Steve

No, that wasn't the case. The pilot followed the standard procedure that had been set out, which was to continue for a time in a straight line and veer off. This pilot is conservative, and wingovers are not something that are practiced regularly at Perris. I don't know that I have ever seen one there when I was jumping, other than for special circumstances where it was planned. Steve

If you would reread what I posted, you would see that I fully support competition and comparison. I specifically said that I do not appreciate, or find it necessary, to add a statement that says basically "oh, yeah, and they suck". Factual comparison is fine in my book. What you both addressed in your posts and said was ok was just that, that it's ok to compare. I fully agree, but continue to stand behind my statements regarding non-factual statements, based on the bias of a competitor, in order to shed negative light on a company. Had phrases like "they're like McDonalds" been omitted, I think his post could have been just as informative, more professional, and I would not have had a complaint in the world. Blue Ones, Steve

I don't feel like I am in a position to explain the whole event, as the information I have, or much of it, is second, third, fourth hand. What I will say, though, is that the collision was said to have occured about 15 seconds after exit, and the plane had followed its standard procedure. Wingovers are not normally done in Perris. Also worthy of note is the fact that the pilot is generally conservative. Yes, it is confirmed that there was significant wrinkling on the tail of the plane, from the base of the tail up past the horizontal stabilizer. It was dark, so we couldn't really see too much more, but the damage was quite obvious. We're all just happy that everyone is ok. It's really unbelievable when you think about it. Steve

I think my favorite will always be his SNL skit about Clinton... "I neva sthpokin to a senata while, uh, havin my wang mouthified...so Missa President, I salute you, fo doin yo job while havin a job dun to yu". :-)

And I you my brother, and I you. -------------------- As a fellow owner of a heat seeking moisture missile that can be subdued only by the powers of the poon, I fully understand. I saw the Ladie's Man last night and took notes. I have already begun developing my lisp and will work on my afro. :-)

I'll join you in your walk, my brother. Just keep in mind that the first chance I get for poontang, I will betray you. :-) he he he steve

stating that pd consistantly manufacturers in high volume good to avarage quality in construction canopies is hardly a bash. -------------------------- That's not what you said. If you truely believe that McDonalds is a "good to average" quality restaurant, I would make a couple of suggestions: A) Go out more often, to actual good restaurants B) Take a better look at your neighborhood McDonalds C) Ask yourself, "what part of the chicken really does have the nuggets?" McDonalds is crap, and you know it. The way that you worded it was taken for what it was...comparing one of your competitors to one of the lowest quality food chains in the world. Don't get me wrong, I eat at McDonalds as much as the next guy...I'm not going to lie to myself, though, and think that I really am eating chicken and cow. PD has been a leader in the industry for a long time...they have produced some of the best canopies on the market for their time period. I honestly believe that there are, in fact, better canopies out there at this point. The facts that you stated may very well be just that, fact. Your credibility, as far as I am concerned, though, is threatened when you make statements like you made about McDonalds. You can make a great arguement, that I think is your right, your duty as a sales person, and should be respected by those who look at it. i.e. - A)FACT B)FACT C)FACT D)FACT...I just don't see how throwing in point D) "Oh, yeah, and they suck", helps your cause any. I consider it to be unprofessional and unnecessary. I am with the bytch on this one. I am all for manuacturers being on here and helping us all to learn more about our equipment. At the same time, though, what I appreciate even more, is that I don't see any of them making any sorts of derogatory comments regarding their competitors. Blue Ones, Steve

This whole situation has bothered me a lot from the beginning. It's a horrible thing to happen to anyone, but really hits home when it is someone who you consider to be a friend and all around great guy, as in the case of Nathan. I see people here defending him, and making statements like saying that the group that he jumps with is not aggressive, etc. We don't need to place blame, and I agree, the group, as a whole, is not extremely aggressive. At the same time, though, what led to this accident was a series of aggressive decisions, that were made by Nathan himself. We are not talking about an entanglement, or landing a canopy with broken lines, having a steering line break on landing, etc. This situation is a product of a mistake, pure and simple. Although it is hard sometimes to accept as an individual that makes a mistake, and many times, harder as a friend of that individual, because you want to be supportive and not bad mouth, I think it is vitally important to take each and every situation for the facts, emotions aside, and take the opportunity to learn what we can for our own futures and the futures of those who will look to us for advice. I wrote the following on Monday, not knowing where I would send it, post it, etc. or if I anyone would see it at all. It was sort of my way of venting. Anyway, figured I'd include it. Blue Skies people! Stay Safe!!! Steve --------------------------- It is a fact of life that we will have friends who get seriously injured, and in some cases pass on. In any aspect of life, though, the horrible reality will be realized in any one of a number of ways. What comes to pass may be an accident, which I am not sure is better, in this world where we seem to thrive on having those who we can blame for misfortune. In other instances, the result follows as a direct result of decisions that have been made by the victim. It may happen that the we all agree with the decisions that were made, but what is worse, is when we lower our heads in the acknowledgment that we may have been able to prevent what came to pass. Watching a friend be taken from the DZ by ambulance this weekend turned out to be a situation more closely related to the latter. Having just over 225 jumps, this friend was jumping a canopy unquestionably classified as high performance. Further magnifying the issue was the fact that he was loading the canopy at greater than 1.5:1. One can be injured on any canopy, large or small, low or high performance. In this case, given the severity of the maneuver that was made, the result may have been nearly the same, regardless of 10 or 20 additional square feet. In a vast number of cases, though, that difference may just save a life, and sometimes, even injury. The question is, how to convince those who lack experience that they are endangering themselves and others, and that they do, in fact, lack experience? How can we convince people that small high performance canopies being hooked low is not what makes a great swoop, but the experienced canopy pilot that can make any size or type of canopy look good? Even if it is understood that "thou shalt not hook low", it still takes experience in order to know what is low, and what is not. It takes experience to judge the difference between 700 feet and 725 feet, which can make the difference between a sweet swoop and a broken body. It takes experience to know how to adjust based on winds, humidity, and temperature, to know when something isn't going as planned, when one needs to bail out, how to do so, etc. These are all based on experiential knowledge, not things that can be implemented straight from a discussion at the bar, or from any book. It seems to me that it would be horrible on a number of levels to set hard, steadfast rules by which we all must abide with regards to licensing dictating canopy size, etc. After all, people are different, as are skill levels, drop zone altitudes, learning/teaching ability, etc. What seems sure to me, though, is that someone looking to become a proficient canopy pilot should not downsize as quickly as possible, and at 250 jumps, does not have the skill to use a high performance canopy to its potential, which would thus, allow the individual's potential to be realized. By downsizing at too rapid of a pace, the focus moves from developing skill to simply survival. Either: A) The person will consciously focus on that survival, which will negatively impact the learning curve, or B) They will not realize to what extent their survival is threatened, not have that focus, and likely break themselves or worse. Jumping the smallest canopy that one CAN is not what needs to be the focus, but jumping the optimum canopy for ones skill level, experience, and goals in the sport of skydiving. Save the case of highly experienced canopy competitors going for records, etc., that formula never (NEVER) adds up to the conclusion "jump the smallest, fastest canopy I can land". I wonder many times if exceptions to rules really exist. I would venture to say, though, that if one thinks that they are an exception, they probably are not. I heard it put brilliantly once, that every one of us should learn from the mistakes of others, because we will not live long enough to make them all ourselves. Some say that the answer to the drug problem in the United States is to make them legal and tax them. Though I don't know if that's quite the right answer to that problem, I think that it can be used as a reasonable illustration of what we can do to help those who do things that may be considered by a wide number of peers to be dangerous. People are going to downsize and jump small canopies. People are going to hook turn. We can turn our heads after saying, "you don't have the experience", we can give these people constant crap, or we can help these people to do it right. Like rebellious teens, the more they are alienated, the more they will continue doing what they are doing, thinking, "I'll show them". I think most all of us can come down from the high horses that we sometimes ride, and help these maneuvers and progressions to be learned as relatively safely as possible, as opposed to leaving many of these eager youths of our sport to their own faculties to learn by trial and error. More times than not, our reaction to disagreement is to say, "he's a big boy, it's his choice". We lose sight of the fact that worldly age has nothing to do with youth within the sport. This is something that need be realized on both sides...by us, who may be put in more of a parenting position than is sometimes comfortable, and by those who are learning, who need to accept their youth, learning from the advice of the experienced who offer it. By treating people with respect, we can also earn it. Hopefully, in the process, we may keep an ear open to education, and keep more of our friends from making the mistakes that so many like them have made in the past. So, you want to be a good canopy pilot? Don't get in over your head. Don't jump what you can, jump what will help you better your skills. Fly the snot out of a canopy before you downsize...when you have the experience to squeeze performance out of a canopy, you will be better suited to make a reasonable decision regarding your next step. If ever you are sitting at home or having a conversation and the thought crosses your mind, "But I have a D-license", stop and ask yourself if you know the as much as the D-license holder next to you that has 6,000 skydives, and started jumping in 1977. Experience is more than just jump numbers. Proficiency is more than how long you have been in the sport. A good landing is more than being alive to tell about it. I have been through some of these phases, and will never lose sight of the fact that I am lucky to be alive. I hope that examples such as this weekend's will cause ears to bend, and that those ears will be greeted with helpful voices that will breed bigger and better canopy pilots that swoop faster and farther than ever before. Refuse to believe that you are the exception...it will likely keep you alive.