tkhayes

I'll let you in on a little secret. We don't make that much profit. I drive a Corolla with 150-160K miles on it. I want to go to Qatar for the 444 ways but I cannot afford it. I am trying to put together enough money to buy new gear - but I do not have it. - still jumping 10 year old gear. Not sure where you get the idea that all dropzone operators are automatically somehow rich. we are not. Pretty much every price increase does already get passed on to the consumer (you). If you have not watched the price of our jump tickets go up over the past 5 -15 years. Everyone a direct reflection of cost-of-sales increases. So yes, we can afford to pay more in taxes, more in fuel surcharges, more in rent, more in maintenance, more in wages, more in labor costs, more in everything as long as YOU can afford to pay more in jump tickets.

Yes we could. And skydivers could always 'pay a little more' for jumps, and gear, and everything else, and the food and the beer. But that is not really the point I was making. The point is that the FAA is already well funded. Future projects, like NextGen, are nothing more than imaginary concepts so far, and they want us to start paying for something that has yet to be invented. I used the same argument in lease negotiations with the City. They said it cost a million bucks to pave a runway (which lasts 20 years) and that we were the only user, so we should pay more. I already pay fuel taxes, and a usage tax, and rent, totaling about $50K/year. ($1M over 20 years) My argument is/was that if they want more revenue, then find more tenants and users for the airport. I AM paying my share. The fact that they cannot find more tenants is not really my problem. If they want me to pay for the million dollar runway then fine, I will OWN it, not rent it. And the fact that they cannot find a way to tax everyone who lands there to help generate revenue is not my problem either - oh but wait - they DO in fact tax everyone who lands there, through fuel taxes. Again, i rest my case.

and the previous administration also proposed a 'per-flight' fee and it was shot down, as will this one. The FAA is well funded through fuel taxes. All the internal FAA audits and people admit that themselves, so there is little argument to generate 'extended' revenues and make it a profit base. The aviation lobby is far larger than any skydiving lobby and it is filled with rich people that donate lo of money to campaigns, so I expect this will die, or will be converted into a higher 'fuel tax' perhaps. But thanks for the 'sensationalistic' headline.......terribly accurate, edited to add: Skydive City burns about 80K gallons of Jet fuel and pays about $18000/year in taxes for that fuel. We also pay the City of Zephyrhills another $3200/year fuel tax as part fo our rent I would argue (successfully), as I have many times before that "I AM paying my share"

ditto and touche

Some would argue that they are then only negatively influenced by their INSIDE world. Or they go to school, get a education, a job/pursuit that exploits their abilities not just the needs of the 'clan', and see the real world that we live in. And there are so many that do - including the RW nuts that are still trying to get ID in the local schools. If the Amish want to be part of the American way of life, just by living here, then they are going to have to conform to 'some' of the rules at the very least, just like the rest of us. I don't dislike them - I have my own level of respect of them, but at the same time, if you want to drive a horse-drawn buggy on a State Road, then you are taking a level of risk. just sayin'

John's rant reaches a new and unintelligible low.....

Ron Paul is and was dead-on-the-money. Honesty does not get you elected. A bunch of gibberish and praises to God might get you elected in the GOP. At least he speaks the truth. I doubt that will change. He's kind of like Nader in that respect - he might never win, but at least his integrity is in order.....

Skydiving is a large circle of friends and acquaintances from all over the world, just as closely held as it has always been. With a few misfits, just like it has always been. It is not, nor has it ever been 'exclusive' in any way to the military, despite what your experiences are/were.

how did this thread manage to make it to 47 posts? The Supreme court already ruled. And we have this funny thing called free speech. Hate those fuckers if you want, but it does not do any good. As fucked up as they are, they can believe anything they want - like so many other people I know. And they can stand on a street corner and say it. sucks but it is the way that it is.

I am doing homework as we speak for my Statistics class. 'one' is such a great sample to standardize an entire population. And funny how there are only snippets of what was said in any article that I can find - and your link does not work. I cannot seem to find the entire conversation anywhere where 'martyr' was used. You could be using a word like martyr for many reasons, not just dying. A lot of people on that ship wanted to make a statement. Again if they wanted to all die, they would have come with heavy weapons. They did not. Israel attacked and provoked a confrontation with 'incredible violence' hence the title of the thread and the context which we are discussing. Show me the full context of the conversation from the 'so-called' extremist and I will comment on that.

Like i said, they run out of food and go home, if they run out of fuel too, we have towboats, don't you know. Or you just leave them there adrift and someone will probably end up coming to get them. The rest of my arguments stand. 'kinetic military what?' So the military can act any time it wants independently of Congress? Great, - so we ARE actually in a military dictatorship, just fucking great!

yes they did, in international waters, with little or no right to do so. Or arguably, all the right in the world since it was international waters and they can do whatever they want. If the USA attacked a Haitian ship filled with people coming to the USA in international waters (with or without paintball guns) and those people responded with pipes and knives, and we responded with automatic weapons fire and killed a bunch of people, I expect that the world would very much frown on that and I expect the USA would suffer great consequences for it. Legal? As far as the UN in concerned, probably The right thing to do? Not even close..... Israel simply could have blockaded the ship. Eventually they run out of food and go home. Anyone remember David Koresh and Waco? Or have we already forgotten the enormous abuses of a huge government (which you guys so often staunchly argue against) He was a nut-job yes. Armed and dangerous? Absolutely. A threat to anyone? Not really. The ATF could have simply blockaded the site and eventually they would have run out of food and gave up. Give someone a gun and they will figure out a way to use it. Have large standing armies and guess what? We find ways to fight wars. Talking to a wall I think.....

"we know....?" really? you nor I actually have any idea what their motives were. If they wanted to be armed, they would have been. Participating in a escalating violent act or series of acts could be construed as self defense. There is not much excuse for INITIATING the act of violence in the first place. Of course that is up for debate as well. I love these people who emphatically state that they ABSOLUTELY KNOW what happened on a ship 3000 miles away. you have no idea. neither do I. Sending in special forces with overwhelming force to subdue unarmed people ranks right up there with LA tactical forces kicking down doors and executing people over pot. It's inexcusable. But sadly, many Americans seem to be willing that this is an acceptable behavior for their government, but will nto feel so strongly about it when we turn into a military run dictatorship. - we are on that path.

Bill von Novak's checklist for downsizing canopies. If you cna already do all the things in the list comfortably and consistently, then you can probably downsize. And don't forget John LeBlanc's famous words: "If your sphincter is already tightened up on your final approach and landing, then going to a smaller parachute is NOT actually going to help that situation."

I did not know you could 'fail' a coach jump..... Yer pulling the parachute and landing it safely? Then everything else will come with time, chill.

It may very well be 'legal', as any country has a right to defend itself, but it is far from the right thing to do. In the USA, if a few hundred illegal Latino's all started a protest at the border, then we intervened with police, and then someone took a swing at a cop, then we sent in the special forces and started shooting people, well I guess that would be 'legal' too. We would be defending our country in theory and I expect the UN would rule again that this was 'legal' It would be FAR from acceptable behavior on our part, would definitely strain relationships with various countries and may result in sanctions and shit hitting the fan that would go on for years. But whatever, the latter post of 'these jews and muslims need to sort their shit out' is a more accurate statement, and I think the USA should step far far away from all of it, cut off ties with Israel and Palestine for that matter. We only stand behind Israel because of the extreme right wing Christian influence that seems to think the Rapture will not happen unless Israel exists.....bullshit.

I always wondered how she fed all the snakes....

Z-Hills of course, http://www.skydivecity.com

My point exactly. define "performing to standards". "Can I land this?" has a wide range of subjective decision making, not just the parachute, but the dive, the weather, the wind/temperature, the passenger, the gear, and the experience, to mention a few. I had a bag lock that turned into a main reserve entanglement ending up with a wildly spinning reserve with a main hanging off of it. In the end, the situation actually IMPROVED and I did a stand-up landing in the peas with a passenger and a main partially inflated still in tow. In that situation, I had no choice. On a blown up canopy, I failed to react because I did not see the top skin blown out until we were at 2400', I cutaway at 2200' and ended up with a Cypres fire and a short reserve ride, and pounded the guy in, but we walked away from it. Having my time back, I would have and SHOULD HAVE landed it, the canopy was not flying that badly. On a A/B line entanglement in high winds, I decided to chop, and I ended up with a C/D line entanglement on the reserve and basically pounded in again. Luckily we walked away, but again, i wish now that I had just decided to and the main. It was not that bad. People seem to forget, when you pull the cutaway handle, you are actually limiting your options. I am not saying 'Don't do it', I am just saying that the decision is neither negligent nor correct, it is simply a decision to be made with possibly severe or at least serious consequences. Yes the odds of a problem are low, but you have to ask yourself , "If I land this, are the odds of a problem JUST AS LOW?" It is a subjective decision. The guy made the decision. In this case someone got hurt. Whether or not someone got hurt does not necessarily make his decision 'negligent'. But in this thread, he was convicted of wrongdoing by his fellow skydivers within 6-10 posts. I call bullshit and that is why I said "Shaddup!"

No exaggeration, 20+ reserve rides in 2500-2600 tandems. I have not had one for a long time. I started tandems in 1991, and I did a lot, I do not do so many nowadays. I had 3 in one weekend, 2 of them back to back a long time ago. I have several streamers, one seriou sbag-lock that did not cutaway, many tension knots, and I blew up two canopies. I have jumped (and cutaway) Master 425's, Master 500's, PD421, EZ384 and SET400's. Anyway, a little off the subject again, so I do not actually have to (once again) re-justify my experience to make my point. A tandem Instructor is carrying a passenger/student for hire. You have a far higher level of responsibility using far more complex gear so my argument stands: "The decision to cutaway a partially controllable canopy on a tandem is not black and white. And just because someone chose NOT to, even if an injury results, is not necessarily a sign of negligence." I would not hesitate to pull a cutaway handle on my own gear, not ever. That's largely because I have never had a problem doing that. I will very much hesitate to pull a handle on tandem gear if, after some testing, I maybe decide that I can land this thing. What is happening in this thread is that people are looking at a few STATIC photos, making a DEFINITIE judgement call on the decision making process and declaring NEGLIGENCE, prior to even having all the facts. I hope none of you work in law enforcement, I would not want to be on the receiving end of your investigation. TK

The decision tree is available from UPT, go find it. The tandem fatalities and their causes are also readily available online, go research them. Someone asked for examples of low cutaways and I gave them. The discussion was originally about whether or not a 'non-cutaway' was a negligent decision and I gave real-life experiences of my own to back up my claim that on a tandem skydive, the decision may not always be black and white. I stand by that decision, my knowledge and my experience. Unless of course your 8 years in the sport and 900+ jumps somehow trumps my 30 years in the sport, 7500 jumps, 2600 tandems, almost all instructional ratings from 2 countries and the decades of experience of running 2 dropzones in two countries and overseeing some 1,000,000 skydives and probably 60,000 tandem jumps. I was not offering an argument, I was offering advice.

Probably only a few, but the fact remains that it does happen, and the fact remains that in this scenario and MANY OTHER TANDEM SCENARIOS, the decision to cutaway or not is not black and white (trying to keep the discussion on track)

percentage today is lower than it was in years past. people still die cutting away, it is NOT always the best decision. Pete Luter cutaway at 300ft here at Z-Hills and died, I started skydiving with a guy named Paul who cutaway and went in. every year, someone chops too low, We had decades of a category called low-pull, no-pull reserve fatalities. Most people reading this forum have not been in the sport long enough to even remember why the RSL was invented. So yes, LOTS of people have died pulling a cutaway handle. But the thread was not about deaths was it? It was about the decision of cutting away versus NOT cutting away and some seem to think that this is a black and white decision, which it is not.

bingo! I have pulled a cutaway handle more than 20 times on tandem skydives. 2 of those times, i would have been better off NOT having pulled the cutaway handle. that's called experience. The decision tree for a tandem skydive is far more complex than it is for any other skydive. UPT published that decision tree 15 or so years ago. Not to mention the responsibility that goes with having a paying customer whose life you are expected to save when the time arises. Let's not oversimplify it unless you really know what you are talking about.

And if one person reads your post and cuts away a very minor problem and ends up with a reserve malfunction, then you are just as guilty of bad advice. It is not black and white, it is a judgement call. Part of the that judgement is exactly why tandem instruuctors are required to have 3 years in the sport, 500 jumps, extensive training, because these situations really arise. Even Bill Morrisey at Strong taught tandem instructors to make the call and land what you have if you can land it. I expect Bill's advice comes from years of experience and a few reserve malfunctions. If you have never had a reserve malfunction, then you cannot possibly have the same experience as those of us that have. It's a judgement call, not necessarily good or bad. Lots of people have not cut away and died, lots of people HAVE cut away and died. Your viewpoint seems to be only black and white. The plaintiff woul;d be very happy I expect to have you testify as an expert witness.