Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Wing Suit Flying:
Parachutist Editorial

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Jul 6, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #151 of 234 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Yea..I missed it. So please answer it again. As you answered just about everything exept my question. And Ill be very precise in explaining this time.

Three people. Ill give you the names in a PM if you want em, but you quite well know who they are, so why even bother...

BMCIs. You know, the guys who TEACH all other new instructors THE standard by which they should be instructing.

As I pointed out in my post above, this isn't limited to just one manufacturer camp, it has happened in all of them, some more than others. Do I condone it, no I do not.



Quote:

Didn't you train someone that didn't meet the minimum requirements? Guess you're part of that cancerous growth eh?

I have.


Talk about not addressing questions. So, you admit you're part of this cancerous growth as you call it, yet here you are complaining about others doing it.




Quote:
Ive voiced my concerns about certain things in the past, and my 'worries' about that subject where just plane/rude ignored. Not even answered. Just ignored. Ive tried discussing the subject in a straight and to the point manner.

I've had conversations with you, much like this one and "straight and to the point" is not the term I would use to describe how they went. So you voiced your concerns and didn't like the response you received, fair enough. So that justifies talking smack about that person behind their back when you're just as guilty as they are?


Quote:
With the current topic being, do we need a change in the way things are being done with regards to instruction, this is as ON TOPIC as we can get.

When it comes to instruction....Practice what you preach...
Nothing more...nothing less...



With that said then, seeing how you've admitted you're just as guilty as all those who you point your finger at and cry foul, what is there that a governing body can do to ensure it doesn't happen again and what are the fitting repercussions?


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 6, 2009, 3:49 PM
Post #152 of 234 (1313 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Talk about not addressing questions. So, you admit you're part of this cancerous growth as you call it, yet here you are complaining about others doing it.

Talk about selective quoting Scott...
But you have made it clear you ARE fully missing the point and uncapable of actually understanding what I and many are people are talking about.
Stick your head back into the sand, and have fun I guessWink

Quote:
With that said then, seeing how you've admitted you're just as guilty as all those who you point your finger at and cry foul, what is there that a governing body can do to ensure it doesn't happen again and what are the fitting repercussions?

I made the mistake of NOT reading someones logbook, and thus not finding out sayd person didnt have the experience level quoted to me when I took him up. A mistake. And unlike you (where a question like this would be met with a deaf response), actually being man enough to admit to it. Its not a fact I ever tried to hide or lie about. Nor do I care. I fucked up, hope you or someone else learns from it, and makes sure he doesnt repeat the same mistake.

To answer your question. And you answer this one.
Would mentioning the names of the 'corrupt' BMCI's result in them publicly accepting responsibilty for what they did?
Or will they ignore it, and continue their biz as usual.



Its a giant shame, that the people I looked up to, people who where my hero's, my examples and the whole reason I wanted to get into wingsuit instruction....that those same people are now the reason for me to be close to ambaressed to even mention the fact that I took a BMI course in the first place.


michalm21  (Student)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:00 PM
Post #153 of 234 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [all] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

geez, I'm fucking tired of the drama in this thread CrazyShocked

can we just get out of the planes already?


(This post was edited by michalm21 on Jul 6, 2009, 5:01 PM)


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #154 of 234 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

If you dont like it, dont click it?TongueWink


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:09 PM
Post #155 of 234 (1273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
geez, I'm fucking tired of the drama in this thread CrazyShocked

can we just get out of the planes already?

It depends, do you want an instructor,, do you want a reeaallly good instructor, will you promiss to follow the recommendations so that you won't die before its time, Do you promiss to not start rumors about regs and trains?

As a licensed skydiver do you promiss to accept full responsibility for your actions and decisions?


michalm21  (Student)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:09 PM
Post #156 of 234 (1270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

no pony for you TongueWink


michalm21  (Student)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:15 PM
Post #157 of 234 (1261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

As a licensed skydiver do you promiss to accept full responsibility for your actions and decisions?

Don't we all?


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 6, 2009, 5:48 PM
Post #158 of 234 (1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 Most but not all.


fasted3  (D 30104)

Jul 6, 2009, 6:09 PM
Post #159 of 234 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
geez, I'm fucking tired of the drama in this thread CrazyShocked
Not me! Save me a seat on Scott's side while I pop some corn.
To recap:
A need is seen to regulate wingsuits. (Unknown.)
A proposal is created. (Flock U, Tonysuits.)
The proposal is criticized. (Almost everybody.)
"Bad" Birdman and PF Instructors are cited as the reason for the proposal. (A few people. Flock U)
Questions are raised about the need for this: What exactly is the problem? (Everybody else.)
Answer: "Bad Instructors are cited. Examples given: Low timers having problems. Examples given: Birdman instructors. (By the same few people.)
Writers of the proposal publicly named. (Flock U.)
News of BPA change. (Glad I don't live there.)
More questions raised about the need for this. (Everybody else.)
Examples given: Wingsuitor in Utah with no instructor, (as per DesertDevil,) and Sebastian incident. (Instructor, Jeff, Tonysuits, as per LouDiamond.) Conclusion drawn by the few? USPA Instructors are needed.
Answer: No. Maybe a BSR for 200 jumps, but nothing like USPA instructors is called for. (Several people including me.)
LouDiamond speaks up for Birdman, outs Jeff as the instructor in Sebastian. (Scott.) Points out that one of the best instructors in wingsuiting is also one of those 'bad' instructors. Shocked
Jarno starts a fight with Scott, or vise versa, use search damnit!
I might add that Jeff is not alone in thinking that some low number jumpers can learn to fly. West Coast Wingsuits comes to mind. Oh yes, me too.
Can I change seats?
Where was I?
Never mind, my popcorn is done.
Carry on.
BTW: Here is what I sent out:

Dear XXX,
I understand that wingsuit regulation is being proposed and would like to share my thoughts. I jump at Gold Coast Skydivers and have 300+ wingsuit jumps.
I do not support the USPA creating a wingsuit instructor rating. I think the current structure provides adaquite instruction. The only area that has been a problem is low timers, those under 200 jumps. If something 'must' be done, a requirement for 200 jumps minimum is all that is needed. I feel the the proposed regulations go too far and are not needed.
Regards,
Ed Cummings
C36539


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
Jul 6, 2009, 6:38 PM
Post #160 of 234 (1219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Talk about selective quoting Scott...
But you have made it clear you ARE fully missing the point and uncapable of actually understanding what I and many are people are talking about.

I beg to differ, it is you that is missing(avoiding?) the point. Continuing with this line of discussion is pointless.


Quote:
I made the mistake of NOT reading someones logbook, and thus not finding out sayd person didnt have the experience level quoted to me when I took him up. A mistake. And unlike you (where a question like this would be met with a deaf response), actually being man enough to admit to it. Its not a fact I ever tried to hide or lie about. Nor do I care. I fucked up, hope you or someone else learns from it, and makes sure he doesnt repeat the same mistake.

So ignorance grants you clemency and gives you the right to harp about others? Give me a break. Rationalize it all you want, it doesn't exempt you from being just as guilty. Do you know all the circumstances/details behind the others whom you cry foul or are you going on what you have heard?



Quote:
And you answer this one.
Would mentioning the names of the 'corrupt' BMCI's result in them publicly accepting responsibilty for what they did?
Or will they ignore it, and continue their biz as usual.


Lets not focus on just one camp, as it crosses over into all of them. I cannot comment on how each individual would respond but making veiled comments online and compiling lists and passing them around and not asking the person face to face when you have the chance isn't going to resolve the issue. Have you ever considered that some of those people whom you have issue with found themselves in the same or a similar situation as you did? Not saying thats the case but it is a possibility that should be taken into consideration. The only way you will ever know is if you ask the person and not rely on what you've heard.


Quote:
Its a giant shame, that the people I looked up to, people who where my hero's, my examples and the whole reason I wanted to get into wingsuit instruction....that those same people are now the reason for me to be close to ambaressed to even mention the fact that I took a BMI course in the first place.


Dude, I don't know what world you're living in but you're looking for the impossible and expecting humans not to act like humans. You can't honestly put hero expectations on another person and expect them to live up to them, they're human just like everyone else. People make mistakes and bad decisions every day and to keep things in perspective, we're talking about just skydiving here.


To try and steer this back on topic, the real issue here isn't about crying over milk spilt in the past, but how the USPAs involvement would do a better job. How would it change anything from how it is now and more importantly, how would USPA rated wingsuit instructors be held accountable for their actions and who would enforce it?


SuperGirl  (D 30091)

Jul 6, 2009, 7:18 PM
Post #161 of 234 (1190 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A proposal is created. (Flock U, Tonysuits.)
...
Writers of the proposal publicly named. (Flock U.)
...
"Bad" Birdman and PF Instructors are cited as the reason for the
proposal. (A few people. Flock U)

You should try to get your facts straight...
This is NOT supposed to be a Flock U rating.
It just so happens that some of the people involved are Flock U instructors (it also happens they are really good instructors/wingsuit flyers with a ton of experience)
But FlockU-wise that's just four of them: JSho, Spot, Callantine and Monkey.
All other writers are NOT Flock University instructors.


In reply to:
The proposal is criticized. (Almost everybody.)

since when does a pretty damn limited sample of a few very vocal people represent everybody?
okay, a bunch of people voiced their concerns, but please don't generalize so easily to "almost everybody" or we'll just have another silly discussion similar to that "you europeans" vs "you americans" thread from a few days ago


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 6, 2009, 7:48 PM
Post #162 of 234 (1178 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Not me! Save me a seat on Scott's side while I pop some corn.
To recap:
A need is seen to regulate wingsuits. (Unknown.)
A proposal is created. (Flock U, Tonysuits.)
The proposal is criticized. (Almost everybody.)
Well to be more accurate.

1 A rumor of oncoming regulation was heard. This was followed by an unheard proposal by parties unknown to this discussion.

2 The panel's proposal brought to this discussion isn't Tonysuits and some of the people on the panel are BMIs and PFIs and I don't think they are all Flock-U Is. They don't all agree on everything but they all agree that the first proposal by some unknown group was junk.

3 This proposal isn't some part of a brand war or linked to any manufacturer. In fact our panel would love to keep it non-denominational.

4 This proposal is a very well intentioned idea that is a group overreaction to a rumor. Although Douglas has expressed this was a need and his actions are not reactionary to a rumor and make no mistakes I'm sure there are some very seasoned BMI's not on the panel who give this concept as much support as Douglas gives it passion and drive.

5 There are no facts as to why a change is needed. No sure promiss to fix anything that isn't broken now. The whole thing is based on feelings.


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jul 6, 2009, 8:19 PM)


fasted3  (D 30104)

Jul 6, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #163 of 234 (1173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SuperGirl] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the input, Supergirl.
It just so happens that most of the contributers to this proposal are from Flock U.
I don't have a problem with that; Flock U represents the pinnacle of wingsuit flying in the US, IMO.
As for the proposal being viewed as going further than is called for, I will stand by that. I like the new sylliblus for wingsuiting. I would strongly support it as a recommendation. Please do not mistake my comments as being critical of Flock U. I am not, and I support them in the goal of making wingsuiting as safe as it can be.
If I disagree with the method that is currently being discussed, it does not mean that I disagree with the goal.


QuietStorm  (D 28724)

Jul 6, 2009, 11:04 PM
Post #164 of 234 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Jeff:

Nicely said....and well stated

Wink


peggs82  (C 36427)

Jul 6, 2009, 11:16 PM
Post #165 of 234 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Ed.... please get your facts straight before passing them along like correct information.

As someone who has known you from BEFORE YOUR FIRST WINGSUIT JUMP, I thought you would have a little more integrity before bashing people who looked out for you and brought you into the discipline (specifically myself and jeff). Was this issue important enough for you to sling mud at your friends?

My first point - I am not, and never have been, a Flock University Instructor. My name may appear on the Flock University website, but no where does it list me as a "Faculty Member". I consider my MENTOR and ONLY TEAM MATE to be Chuck Blue. The only wingsuit school I claim is Z-Flock

Continuing on with that thought....neither is Taya Weiss, Jeff Nebelkopf, or Jeff Donahue part of Flock U. So 4 out of the 9 people involved with this project were NOT affiliated with Flock University.

Are we friends? Yes. Have we worked together before? Yes. Did you like the 71 way? Guess what...its the same team! No one said the 71 way was a Flock University conspiracy to take over wingsuiting...we were just a bunch of people who wanted to do something great for wingsuiting.

By no means was this a lovey "yes man" group. Many times I was personally offended by the heated discussions and arguments that went on. If you think this was a conspiracy to make Flock U the default trainers of the US, you are wrong wrong wrong. It was a bunch of people who care about safety and quality of coaching. Maybe our methodology and outlook on the issue differ from yours, but there is no reason to insinuate conspiracy and post FALSE information.

I took part in this because we were ASKED by the BOD. When the Board asks for my participation in a discipline I care about, you better believe that I will take part in it. To pass up that offer is foolish. I care too much to let some no name twat who may have never even seen a wingsuit make the only proposal which may (however slim a chance) get passed.

On all other discussion...talk to your RD's, email the BOD...thats the system. Myself and 9 other wingsuiters from the Boston area did just that this past weekend. Remember, this was ASKED for by a member of the BOD. If you don't like that idea, VOTE for people who reflect your thoughts.

Just because you shout the loudest on an internet forum does not make you right nor does it necessarily make you the majority. If you care..pony up and by a plane ticket for Dallas TX this week. I just did.
Attachments: gforum.jpg (13.7 KB)


fasted3  (D 30104)

Jul 6, 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #166 of 234 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peggs82] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Please tell me what mud I slung and I will sincerely beg your forgiveness for doing so.
I state no conspiracy, but why not comment on the fact that MOST of the contributors to this come from the same place. My intention was to show the closed nature of this thinking rather than a conspiracy. When I discussed this with my non-wingsuit friends this past weekend, they attributed it to a USPA conspiracy. Go figure.
The fact that you were asked by the USPA to provide a ... whatever this is ... does not give you and/or your friends free reign to regulate everything you want.
Please understand that I still like everybody and hope they will feel the same towards me. If you think this amount of regulation is needed, by all means try and get it done. I think I've raised some fair questions about it, and openly disagree that it is called for. At the same time, I've commended this work and think it should be incorporated into the standard FFC. Just because I would not like to see it as a regulation does not mean that I'm against it, or anybody.
I didn't think I passed along any false information. Please let me know what that was so I can correct it.


QuietStorm  (D 28724)

Jul 7, 2009, 3:03 AM
Post #167 of 234 (1071 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

No better yet.....

Apparently lines have been drawn, sides chosen, allegience pledged over the past few years.

So I guess its now time for "COLORS" in wingsuiting?

Time for Prospects and earning "Full Patch"

Time for Territory? Us vs. Them? An occasional fight at a boogie or two to "settle things" once and for all.

Seems to me wingsuiters are fast becoming the 1% ers of skydiving and we are heading in this direction.

There seems to be some very hard feelings out there and it doen't look like its going to change.

Maybe we don't have to get along anymore. Maybe we need to stop trying and just end the discussion.

Maybe we need to accept that too much damage to good will and trust has been done in our little "wingsuit civil war"; and it won't get fixed. Too much ego and pride.

While try to reconcile the irreconcilable?


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 7, 2009, 3:42 AM
Post #168 of 234 (1063 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Do you know all the circumstances/details behind the others whom you cry foul or are you going on what you have heard?

I was THERE when people where trained Scott.
I have video's of said person(s) training low timers. I was THERE, protesting what they where doing. There was no error in info on their students experience level. It was a deliberate decission to do so.
And its only a matter of public image by which you choose to steer this conversation in a different direction.

Quote:
Quote:
And you answer this one.
Would mentioning the names of the 'corrupt' BMCI's result in them publicly accepting responsibilty for what they did?
Or will they ignore it, and continue their biz as usual.

Lets not focus on just one camp, as it crosses over into all of them.

ANSWER THE QUESTION scott.....
Will we EVER see any of the self-proclaimed instructor-instructors having to take ANY responsibility for what they do? Or (again) do they live above their own laws?

Quote:
Have you ever considered that some of those people whom you have issue with found themselves in the same or a similar situation as you did?

As mentioned, I was THERE when it happened. I can even point it out in video to you if you want. Its not hear-say. Its KNOWING.

Quote:
To try and steer this back on topic, the real issue here isn't about crying over milk spilt in the past,

This is happening NOW..not in the past.

Quote:
but how the USPAs involvement would do a better job. How would it change anything from how it is now and more importantly, how would USPA rated wingsuit instructors be held accountable for their actions and who would enforce it?

Like any instructor in other diciplines. Not adhering to rules, get a slap on the fingers, or worse, loose your rating.
You could take people up in a wingsuit straight off AFF, and still keep flaunting your BMCI title everywhere....


JohanW  (D 86318)

Jul 7, 2009, 4:52 AM
Post #169 of 234 (1043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You could take people up in a wingsuit straight off AFF, and still keep flaunting your BMCI title everywhere....
How much beer for a BMCI rating title straight off AFF? Inquiring minds want to know .. Angelic


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2009, 10:08 AM
Post #170 of 234 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I'm still waiting to hear what the actual proven problem is that your proposal will be sure to fix.

Since this request (in various forms) has been put forth by several people now, I'm starting to wonder if it's being intentionally ignored. An "inconvenient question" perhaps?

Still no answer - I guess it's being intentionally ignored.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 7, 2009, 10:22 AM
Post #171 of 234 (935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
I'm still waiting to hear what the actual proven problem is that your proposal will be sure to fix.

Since this request (in various forms) has been put forth by several people now, I'm starting to wonder if it's being intentionally ignored. An "inconvenient question" perhaps?

Still no answer - I guess it's being intentionally ignored.

Nothing can be proven to fix anything, regardless of whether we're talking about bug spray or hitting Mars with a probe.
No answer regardless of how intelligent or unintelligent it may be, will not satisfy you. Fatalities and bad instruction tend to bother me; you don't give a shit.We differ in philosophy.


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Jul 7, 2009, 10:27 AM
Post #172 of 234 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Still no answer - I guess it's being intentionally ignored.

Well, I have zero interest in wading into this discussion any more than I have, but that statement is disingenuous.

The question has been answered by Spot several times: in a nutshell, it was a perceived problem with the existing instructors, in terms of quality control, and a perception that there was no consequence to being a shitty instructor. It may not have been put in the form that I just did (a quotation of Brians or your writing followed by a response), but it's been addressed. In painful detail. On both sides. Ad nauseum. Like to the point where I want to go, "Please, merciful Jesus, make this thread go away..." And I'm an atheist.

Whether you agree or disagree with Spots response is another matter entirely (and, like I said, not one I have any interest in championing at this point, since this thread has devolved into just a stream of gibberish), but it was addressed.

[Shrug.]


(This post was edited by Skwrl on Jul 7, 2009, 10:37 AM)


michalm21  (Student)

Jul 7, 2009, 10:45 AM
Post #173 of 234 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

DSE
In reply to:
Fatalities and bad instruction tend to bother me; you don't give a shit.We differ in philosophy.
skwrl
In reply to:
The question has been answered by Spot several times: in a nutshell, it was a perceived problem with the existing instructors, in terms of quality control, and a perception that there was no consequence to being a shitty instructor.

Since Dan Kulpa's fatality was mentioned in this thread as one of the triggers, mixed with above statements, I would now have to assume his instructor did a shitty job and is not good at what he does.

This is not what I think about this instructor. And Dan was my friend.

As much as I like and respect people behind this proposal, I don't think an official instructional rating is the solution in this situation.
Life, however, tends to prove me otherwise sometimes so I'm curious to see how it all turns out.

In the mean time, I hope everyone enjoys their summer puffy surfs.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2009, 10:49 AM
Post #174 of 234 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
I'm still waiting to hear what the actual proven problem is that your proposal will be sure to fix.

Since this request (in various forms) has been put forth by several people now, I'm starting to wonder if it's being intentionally ignored. An "inconvenient question" perhaps?

Still no answer - I guess it's being intentionally ignored.

Nothing can be proven to fix anything, regardless of whether we're talking about bug spray or hitting Mars with a probe.
No answer regardless of how intelligent or unintelligent it may be, will not satisfy you. Fatalities and bad instruction tend to bother me; you don't give a shit.We differ in philosophy.

If you can't present any evidence of a systemic problem (and the two fatalities that you cite, however unfortunate, do not even indicate a problem with individual instructor quality, let alone a systemic problem) then I think the BOD will be quite unimpressed.

"On a personal note, I was with the decedent and his instructor moments before the skydive, and can't agree with the posts disparaging the instructor.", DSE, Jan 2, 2009


(This post was edited by kallend on Jul 7, 2009, 11:01 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 7, 2009, 11:03 AM
Post #175 of 234 (872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [michalm21] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
DSE
In reply to:
Fatalities and bad instruction tend to bother me; you don't give a shit.We differ in philosophy.
skwrl
In reply to:
The question has been answered by Spot several times: in a nutshell, it was a perceived problem with the existing instructors, in terms of quality control, and a perception that there was no consequence to being a shitty instructor.

Since Dan Kulpa's fatality was mentioned in this thread as one of the triggers, mixed with above statements, I would now have to assume his instructor did a shitty job and is not good at what he does.

This is not what I think about this instructor. And Dan was my friend.

.

DSE agrees with you:

"On a personal note, I was with the decedent and his instructor moments before the skydive, and can't agree with the posts disparaging the instructor.", DSE, Jan 2, 2009


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Wing Suit Flying

 


Search for (options)