tkhayes

hmm, did not see 'treason' in there....so much for THAT angle.

I used to hang a sign over my desk at IBM that said "Watch your fucking language". Always been a vice of mine that I cannot seem to kick. It came up at every employee review and evaluation I ever did.

bit of a stretch to go from 'wanting to kill jews' to the 'end of times' don't you think?

DGAS

everything is booked due to some bike and cars shows coming up. We are busy. no doubt about it. Try the Hampton Inn in Dade City Hampton Inn Dade City - Zephyrhills 13215 US HWY 301, Dade City, Florida, USA 33525 Tel: 1-352-567-5277 Fax: 1-352-567-5776 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&ion=1&biw=1503&bih=882&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=wesley+chapel+hotels.&fb=1&gl=us&hq=hotels.&hnear=0x88c2b1bc68a9141d:0xaa68a698bdcd3b74,Wesley+Chapel,+FL&ei=HAw5T9KdKqrk0QGJ_q27Ag&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&ved=0CC0QtgM&iwloc=cids:13267783421356372895 A bunch of hotels at Interstate 75 and State Road 54, probably a little closer than Plant City and many of them are new.

An exercise if you will. . . shut down the wars, bring the troops home. 1/2 the 'secrets' we keep will no longer be necessary.

I have a solution for that - fewer secrets..... Still waiting.........

that's one way of looking at it. But the other way is like I said - if SO MUCH damage was done, then at least some piece of it would have been leaked. I call Bullshit. sorry, I just do. I trust the military, yes, to protect my country. I do not trust them with the power of secret rule....nor for that matter any other facet of government.

name some of them. better yet, ask them what harm was done. Have then write it down for you. Just because GWB, the cabinet, the pentagon, and Colin Powell (who I greatly respect) say that Iraq has WMD's does not make it so. As we know this was a complete fabrication. And we spent 1 trillion dollars, killed tens of thousands of people and destabilized the middle east over it. We are the people. The Constitution reads "We the People....." we actually are supposed to be the ones who know and I will NOT accept a government that decides that secret courts and secret trials and secret "whatever" are 'best for the people' just because they say it is so. it is, and always was, unacceptable. I demand a system of checks and balances to keep this power in check. ANd given that there are NO, NONE, ZERO or any reports whatsoever of harm being done, would lead me to believe that it is all bullshit. If there was some harm done from hundreds of thousands of cables being leaked, I expect some of them could be put forth without putting the country at risk. Not all the leaks were about Navy Seals special ops that put peoples lives at risk. some of them were actually just about who ate lunch with who. SO if damage was done from that - you then are suggesting that this should be a 'secret' that only the military knows about? bullshit. sorry, just the way i feel. Of course you would not be the first person to not understand the danger of secret governments. Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists all agree with you......

Again my point exactly. YOUR experience is land it. MY experience is not to. Your experience nor my experience has ANY VALID STATISTICAL OR SCIENTIFIC THEORY BEHIND IT. therefore there is no conclusion. To make one is incorrect. To publish it as 'correct' is further incorrect. I'm talking to a barn door here and I'm done. I am NOT going to teach my student to land a bi-plane with no flare. Sorry, I am simply not going to do that given the lack of data that we have.

And quite possibly no one is - because quite possibly, that information does not exist.

perhaps, but perhaps not.

Remember My Lai? Once in a while the whistleblowers, even when they defy orders, are actually doing the right thing. Much of the public-opinion case against Manning is about the damage done - I am still waiting to see that damage. Got any? No I did not think so. Assange? Got any damage there? No I did not think so - yet the accusations proceed. Manning faces life and soldiers that slaughter civilians get a slap on the wrist. Yep, this is a fair system fer sure..... Anyway enough of the ranting....still waiting - let me know when that happens.

thanks for the support. I think we need a real study on the effects of flying two parachutes out of varying sizes and typically wing loading that students have. And no one except perhaps large manufacturers or the military has the resources to do that study. Some of the given "conclusions" that disturb me: 1. Landing a bi-plane with no flare. Maybe with a Manta and a Raven III reserve with a 170lb student yes. But a 200lb student with a Navigator 240 and a PD 235 reserve? 2. Side by side cannot be cut away safely. I think it can and with probably zero or near-zero probability of entanglement 3. Bi-plane cannot be cutaway with the main in front. It sounds totally logical to everyone, even me, but the fact is that we have no data to support the number of times it might result in a main/reserve entanglement. We have had a million jumps at Skydive City since I arrived here in 1995. A handful of 2 canopy out situations. Never had one with a student. EVERY TIME, the person cutaway and landed their reserve. I do not remember anyone ever landing two canopies. So our experience is cutaway - no matter what, but the sample is still too small to make a conclusion, so I do not make that conclusion. But I MOST DEFINITELY question the logic behind "landing a bi-plane with no flare". TK

thanks for the support. I think we need a real study on the effects of flying two parachutes out of varying sizes and typically wing loading that students have. And no one except perhaps large manufacturers or the military has the resources to do that study. Some of the given "conclusions" that disturb me: 1. Landing a bi-plane with no flare. Maybe with a Manta and a Raven III reserve with a 170lb student yes. But a 200lb student with a Navigator 240 and a PD 235 reserve? 2. Side by side cannot be cut away safely. I think it can and with probably zero or near-zero probability of entanglement 3. Bi-plane cannot be cutaway with the main in front. It sounds totally logical to everyone, even me, but the fact is that we have no data to support the number of times it might result in a main/reserve entanglement. We have had a million jumps at Skydive City since I arrived here in 1995. A handful of 2 canopy out situations. Never had one with a student. EVERY TIME, the person cutaway and landed their reserve. I do not remember anyone ever landing two canopies. So our experience is cutaway - no matter what, but the sample is still too small to make a conclusion, so I do not make that conclusion. But I MOST DEFINITELY question the logic behind "landing a bi-plane with no flare". TK

still waiting to see what all the damage was.... still waiting.....

I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with this statement. I stated that earlier. Canopies are different; and we provide a WIDE variety of sizes for students, not one large size for everyone. I fundamentally disagree with your statement. And again, we, nor you, have any reliable data BECAUSE it is 20 years old. No students are not "dying" - but how many of them are landing biplanes with no flare? Again, no data, no analysis, therefore no conclusion.

again, reinforcing my point. No one knows what the right answer is. We know for a fact that when you have a mal, you pull the handles. When you are at 5000', you pull, no matter what. When you have final approach, you should be on level flight prepared to land. example. No one says "what do you do if you are NOT at level flight at 200' or suddenly I do a massive hook turn? what do I do?" The answer is "Don't do massive hook turns and BE ON level flight at 200'" You might land the biplane but I would choose to not do that. Therefore there is no 'right answer' for the bi-plane or two-canopy out scenario. The best we can do is to probably explain the possible options and consequences, and I thin publishing that landing a biplane is not always the best course of action. "Well land it but you will probably get fucked up" does not sound acceptable to me. Fine if everyone has 260+ sq ft canopies. Student with 5 jumps or student with small body size flying a sub-190 sq ft canopy has a different answer to that. And the bottom line? No stats, no data, no reliable information except for that of 20 years ago. not good information today.

I do not know, that's also part of my point. We are publishing document stating that THIS is the way to do it, yet I am suggesting that the data is 20 years old. I am NOT INTERESTED (and nor are you I expect) in landing a biplane with a navigator 240 and a Raven reserve. And I am not convinced that this is what I want to teach my student. so convince me.

try not to put words in my mouth - i have a problem with religion in general, but thanks for your opinion of what I think. IYO no I'm not kidding - did you think I was kidding? People every day expect and demand and refuse to act without concrete definite and absolute SCIENTIFIC PROOF of global warming or climate change and if it is not there, it must be bullshit. So I am not asking for that re: 'god' - I am simply asking for any meager trace of proof that it might exist. At least I realize that some wars are warranted and some are not. maybe even that most are not. But some are. WTF?? have fun with that - I cannot understand your banter..... It's not a tantrum. read the Constitution, I am allowed to publicly display my disagreement with anything. and I have a problem with organized religion penetrating my government. It's fucking evil and it promotes evil. IMO. you obviously have no concept about how much or how little I am excited about this. I signed a petition and I typed a few words into a computer. You would have the world believe I was on fire or something. Your perception, not mine - sorry I cannot change that, Insofar as "In God We trust" on our money - thats crosses the line of religion in government and get it the fuck off the fucking money. comprendez?

back that up please.....

exactly my point, these situations are too complicated to write a paper about it and come up with a 'method'. KISS or whatever, YOUR student may very well get killed or seriously injured following a published procedure. So don't publish one. Talk about it yes, and give several examples. and then focus on the prevention of any such thing ever happening because you are mostly likely fucked if it does.

And this then, by itself, it a reason for the whole country to be committed to believing in a deity that only some of us actually believe in..... And even for those who claim to believe in that deity, that cannot actually agree on what exists, what the belief structure is, and to what degree the word of said deity has any meaning. In other words. It offends common sense people to have a deity on our money. If there was proof beyond some reasonable doubt....maybe. It might offend you to see all the corruption that you point out - money, entertainment, hedonism....but all you have seen apparently is the bad stuff. I have more faith in humanity - we put men on the moon, cured diseases, found vaccines, brought food to the poor and fought world wars to destroy enemies that killed millions of people. All is not lost - with or without 'your god' on our money. half empty or half full? Have your beliefs. fine. keep it off my money and out of our government.

Maybe the Bible thumpers should be asked to pay for the removal of it since they wanted it there in the first place, but never paid for it then.....

I disagree with that. 20 years ago most everyone was jumping a Manta, and today we have everything on the shelf from a Spectre 170 to a Navigator 300 for our students. I do not disagree with keeping it simple. However a student with 12 jumps could easily (at a progressive dropzone), be downsizing to a 1:1 wing-loading and to say that they should continue to think that they can land a biplane (IMO) borders on negligent. So we then need to teach every student what to do on every jump depending on what canopy they have over their head for that particular wing-loading, canopy set etc. In other words, you cannot use KISS. It is no longer simple and the answer changes with every set of gear they use and every canopy they fly. Prevention is the key and landing under ONE parachute is always the best option. I am more inclined to tell my student how to turn a bi-plane into a side-by-side and then chop the main. And if it is anything other than a bi-plane, chop it, because most of the time, they will clear just fine - I have done it myself. Now if every student regardless of size and/or weight is/was jumping a 288 main and a 260+ reserve, then the issue of landing a bi-plane, arguably is not a bad decision. My point is that there are far too many different size parachutes out there for students and to tell anyone to land a bi-plane with the performance of parachutes these days is probably going to end up with serious injury - regardless of the possibility of negligence. Which is worse, the case for negligence or the case for serious injury? How many possible scenarios are you going to try and cram in their heads on a First Jump Course? or at 10 jumps? or at 25 jumps? Does anyone actually have real statistics on how many main reserve entanglements occur due to cutting away from a biplane? 'cause if we do not, then the advice that ANY of us is giving is pointless.