0
Butters

Raising Minimum Deployment Altitudes

Recommended Posts

Quote

"I wasn't at terminal! I was cupping to slow down my fall rate to stay with the boobie girl!"


You guys read Ron's post above and then write or call your USPA rep of choice and tell them to STFU about wasting time on this silly-ass effort.

If you need a BSR to tell you to be safe for your particular situation, there's places called bowling alleys just waiting for you. They'll even provide cool shoes for you.



Or Put put golf, cool colored balls and clowns with wind mills!

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...or how about stipulating 'when at terminal' so lower exits could still be allowed?



Even better Tward, let's just not raise the minimum from a BSR perspective. Raising the minimums shouldn't affect everyone so it shouldn't be a BSR.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...or how about stipulating 'when at terminal' so lower exits could still be allowed?



How about 1 BSR. One that simply says, "Hey asshole! Do what you need to do to keep yourself and others safe."
:D:D
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How about 1 BSR. One that simply says, "Hey asshole! Do what you need to do
>to keep yourself and others safe."

That's great in theory but would not work too well in the real world, at least when it comes to preventing fatalities. All those BSR's were written because someone died ignoring the basic safety recommendation preceding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.



My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.

I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.


Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really.

I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded."

Case closed.

Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned.;)


Guess I would constantly be in trouble because my Altimaster II will be reading 0' by the time the DZO checks it.

Or, with the DZO tracking opening altitudes with "an altitude recording device", does that mandate me buying one so that I can make a jump at this DZO's DZ? Or is the DZO going to provide them thus requiring another jump ticket price increase?:S

Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!!
The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can."
Be fun, have safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think it's a good idea to open higher. But I don't think it's necessary to make it a rule



You really do have to make it a rule if you expect anyone to pay attention to it. If 2k the min pull altitude for any jumper, there are always going to be jumpers who consider anything down to that to be 'OK'. Even when there's nothing to stop them from pulling higher, they'll just hum it down to 2k because its 'safe', and the USPA says so.

If make the rule that 2.5k is the bottom line, then it becomes the new 'standard', and even the boneheads who take it to 2k for no reason will start opening at 2.5k.

The thing people are forgetting when they argue against this is how the 2k number was established in the first place. The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in looser rigs. All of those factors contributed to coming up with 2k in the first place, and now none of those factors are a part of the current landscape.

I'll save everyone the play-by-play as to why 2k might not be the prudent number with the demise of each factor listed above, but I'll make a comparison.

2k might have been great for skydiving circa 1988, but jumps in those days were a different mission, with different equipment. For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight.

The point is that I have a specific mission, and forgetting about time to react to a mal, or bouncing, or any of that, I simply need more time to make sure that I can take care of my business, and get my swoop on. Of course, you can always skip the swoop, but it's part of my mission, I'll open 1000ft higher than if I wasn't going to swoop, and account for the extra time I need under canopy.

So when today's jumper has a mission that involves jumping a canopy with a 600 to 800ft snivel, at a 1.4 or 1.5 WL (enough to get a good spinner going), and stuff it all into the smallest rig the packer can handle, then 2k might not a good place for them to cleared down to. So many other things in skydiving have changed since the mark was set at 2k, why should that mark be immune to a likewise change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing people are forgetting when they argue against this is how the 2k number was established in the first place. The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in looser rigs. All of those factors contributed to coming up with 2k in the first place, and now none of those factors are a part of the current landscape.

Quote





Don't forget lower exit altitudes, back when 2K was the norm most DZ's were operating a Cessna or two.

7200' was the 4-way go out & play altitude, 10,500 was a rare two plane 8-way. !2,500 is what ya saved up for and road-tripped to 'do' Z-hills and the like.

In '76 my S/L and C&P jumps were ALL exiting from 2200'...first time above 3 grand was my 5 second delay.

Altitude was more 'precious' back then if you will.


I understand both sides of the argument, I would rather keep it as it is, but I feel a wind blowin'. :ph34r:











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as
> a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most
>canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in
>looser rigs.

And all of those things are still valid for demo jumpers.

I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as
> a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most
>canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in
>looser rigs.

And all of those things are still valid for demo jumpers.

I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do.



Yup +1










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.

I don't need a BSR to tell me that.



Dead on point, Ron. +1if your FXC is on your main, no problem. If you have an FXC connected to your reserve, then the fun will start :P
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do



Waive the BSR for PRO rating holders in the case that that have to exit lower than 3k. Problem solved.

Let's face it, 2k is pretty low in terms of high speed malfunctions. There's not a ton of time available if you have any type of high speed mal. Pile onto that slow opening main canopies (if you can get it out, or if it clears itself after a second or two), AADs, and smaller reserves, and you can see where some extra time isn't a bad thing. Again, it's not that nobody should ever open at 2k, it is 'do-able' for some jumpers with some rigs, but it's clear that as a written 'rule', it's becoming a little outdated.

I get a sense of some old-school 'machismo' coming into play in some of these arguments, but a large majority of my support stems from the equipment and type of jumps people are doing, and less from the individual jumper. Like I said, if any jumpers wants to swoop a Velo and wants to start their turn at 800ft, I would suggest that 2k is fairly low to be pulling out the PC. I don't care how many jumps you have, how long you have been jumping, or how low you're used to pulling, it just doesn't 'fit' into that type of jump.

I just don't think 2k 'fits' in the majority of jumps that are being made these days. There have been a rash of lwo cutaways and people going in with partially deployed reserves, and there's no way to argue that more altitude wouldn't have been a good thing in those cases. I'm not saying that all of those jumpers would have reacted quicker or implemented their EPs sooner, but at least there would have been a chance. Add to that the problems with collisions and the focus on canopy control and landing patterns, and again, more time for traffic management and sequencing in the the pattern isn't a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight.



So pull higher. Do you really need a BSR to tell you that?

If you don't get a PC out when you wanted... Maybe you don't get to swoop on this load. Know your gear and make your decisions based on that.

This is about a MINIMUM altitude. Poll 100 jumpers on any given DZ and the majority will tell you they pull higher than 2k (I normally pitch at 3k).

This is a non-issue looking for a BSR. There are MUCH better uses of the USPA's time.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So pull higher. Do you really need a BSR to tell you that?



Me? No. You? No. Both of us, and most of the us posting on this thread have been jumping longer and made more jumps than 90% of the jumpers out there. We have proven that we 'get it', and can take care of ourselves.

This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps, is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well. The thinking, as always, 'I'll be fine, if it's cool for guys with 200 jumps, then it's cool for me too because I'm awesome'.

Notice that nobody pulls at 1500 ft. The reason being that 'rules' stop at 2k. The rules say that 2k is good for some jumpers, and it's the jumpers who think that they have to push every limit to the max are the ones who this is for.

Jumping isn't exactly what it used to be. There used to be more of a 'challenge' to jumping, and it took a special kind of person to 'fit in'. At the risk of offending some, it has in a way, become 'pussy-fied' not in the good way, where there's a large amount of pussy, but in the bad way, where there's a large amount of pussies. People can't even pack their own rigs. I have seen DZs come to a halt after one weekday load when no packers were around. When you combine that with the gear issues mentioned above, none of these people need to rock it down to 2k and learn the hard way how fast you have to be to save your ass if things go wrong. If a guy can't recognize that he should be able to pack his own rig (or gear check his own rig ala the recent incident in Deland), he's the same guy who's not going to understand that 2k isn't always a good idea. if 2k is possible, then 2k it will be.

We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't. The truth is, other unrelated issues they should be focusing on have no relation as to the merits of this issue. If I told you I was having a pork chop for dinner, and asked you the best way to cook it, telling me that a steak is a better choice is not an answer. I'm still having the pork chop, and still need to know the best way to cook it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with the mentality that because some people need to pull higher that everyone should have to pull higher. Is pulling at 2.5K safer than 2K? Yes. However, following that logic, pulling at 3K is safer than 2.5K and pulling at 3.5K is safer than 3K ... Skydiving is about understanding risks, understanding how to minimize risks, and then making a choice about the level of risk you're willing to accept.

PS: Making turns over 90's is more dangerous than under 90's (more so in the present than past given most canopies). Should we make a rule against turns over 90's?
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is pulling at 2.5K safer than 2K? Yes. However, following that logic, pulling at 3K is safer than 2.5K and pulling at 3.5K is safer than 3K ... Skydiving is about understanding risks, understanding how to minimize risks, and then making a choice about the level of risk you're willing to accept.



So then why do you think 2k is the min? I've probably pulled under 2k 100 times, and it always worked out. I've dumped out of terminal under 1k a couple times, no problem there. Have you ever had a cutaway, and not had your reserve open by 500ft? If no, you could have been pulling at 1500ft this whole time, and been just fine, including all your cutaways?

The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping. Someone, long before you came into the sport, chose 2k at the min, and that's what you came to know as 'safe'.

If I'm not mistaken, there are some countries that don't allow pulling any lower than 2.5k, regardless of experience or equipment.

The fact is that it's a number someone came up with a couple decades ago. A lot has changed in skydiving since then, from the equipment, to the type of jumps we do, the size and jumprun altitude of the planes, and the sport itself has become far more accessible to a wider cross-section of society. The idea that the same margins that applied back then should apply now is a little off.

Virtually every other facet of the spot has changed. License requirements, training methods, equipment, etc, and now the time has come for this aspect. Just like people were opposed to the BSR when it was created in the frist place, they felt that the current system of the jumper being a able to choose was just fine and the way it should be. Here we are, years later, and people are usnig the exact same argument to defend the BSR. All that does is show the temporary nature of these things, and support my assertion that people will attach themeselves to what they are used to, sometimes to the detriment of logic.

To answer your question of 'escalation' and why not 3k or 4k or 10k, that is where, again, logic comes back into play. I'm not suggesting that having 2k as a min pull altitude was a cluster-fuck from the start, and an embarrasment to the sport, it was a fine solution at the time it was implemented. Over time, all of the factors that would lead you to determine a safe min pull altitude have changed, and thus, so should the min pull altitude. Seeing as 2k was good at the time, and 'sort of' good today, all that's needed is a small 'adjustment', not a radical change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can,



Fair enough, but that's where I get (unreasonably?) defensive and angry about many new rules about deployment altitudes, AADs, etc. One could frame it as a macho / pussy fight there.

It really sucks to have things "stolen" from you, things you used to be able to do and take for "acceptable" in the sport. Like being able to pull at a certain altitude.

Still there are many ways to "jump smarter" -- an AAD on one's primary rig is nice to have, and altitude alerts sure are handy not just for head down but jumping in general. And we generally tend to accept that seatbelts should be worn, a definite improvement over the old days. There are many rules I think should be followed 90% of the time. But it is tough to write rules that don't say 100%. If something is only "highly recommended", it is tough to use the rule to stop that one person who has shown he really needs to follow that rule.

Edit: Davelepka has already addressed one of the issues since I started writing this reply. There is that feeling that the rules one started with are acceptable (at least in some cases)

And in France, already by the early 2000s, the minimum deployment altitude was 2800 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping.



I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on my gear choices and level of acceptable risk ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are many rules I think should be followed 90% of the time. But it is tough to write rules that don't say 100%. If something is only "highly recommended", it is tough to use the rule to stop that one person who has shown he really needs to follow that rule.



That's the problem with the current system. It says you should pull at 2.5k, unless you have a C or D license. The message that sends is that it's really OK to dump at 2k, just not for the new guys. Of course, too many of the new guys don't consider themselves to be 'new', what good for the goose must be good for the gander. The idea is that if it's out there, people will take it.

The GoPro thing is a prime example, but at least you can see that a guy is wearing a GoPro. Pull altitudes are very personal in that each jumper can make their own, independent decision on each jump, and generally with reprocussion. As earlier stated, who can tell 2.5k from 2k looking up from the LZ?

In terms of 'losing' things, outside of skydiving, we now have to wear seatbelts when we drive, or risk a ticket. You can't smoke on an airliner or in a restaurant anymore. At the risk of going a little too far, black people can now sit anywhere they want on a bus and use any drinking fountain they want. All of these changes were lamented by vast numbers of people at the time they were instituted, but we can clearly see that they were all for the best and that the world is a better place because of them.

I think the idea here is to think ahead. Five or seven years ago I pushed for a WL BSR, and to every person who bitched that it was unfair, I replied that in a few years they would be beyond the BSR, and there would be a whole generation of new jumpers who entered the sport, and only know the sport with the BSR. How many posters on here have been jumping for less than 7 years? How many new jumpers at your DZ have been jumping for less than 7 years? All of them would have been a-OK with a WL BSR, because that would be all they know. It would become a part of 'the deal', and wouldn't be an issue at all.

This is the same thing. Clearly there are reasons why skydiving has changed, and pulling at 2k is less and less applicable. I, for one, don't expect those changes to reverse anytime soon, I expect that things will continue to drift further away from 2k being the right number. Let's recognize the trend, and put the machine in motion to make 2.5k a part of the sport, and what people come to know as 'the standard'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on the my gear and level of acceptable risk ...



You sure about that? You mean to tell me that with no outside influence, no reference point from which to work from, you think you would have come up with 2k all on your own?

I'm not suggesting it was an active decision on your part, but I am 100% sure that your thinking was influenced by the fact that from the first day you started jumping, all of the 'expert' jumpers you met and were trained by, were permitted via the BSR to pull at 2k. To suggest otherwise is just being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The fact is that it's a number someone came up with a couple decades ago. A lot has
>changed in skydiving since then, from the equipment, to the type of jumps we do, the
>size and jumprun altitude of the planes, and the sport itself has become far more
>accessible to a wider cross-section of society.

The "cross section" is overall getting more competent, believe it or not. Almost no one uses piece of crap military gear any more, paid for by selling some pot in the parking lot. Nowadays people's average income is higher and their predilection for jumping drunk or stoned lower.

Then, when they start, they're told to pull way higher than they were years ago. When you are a static line student who starts from 2500 or 3000 feet, that's where you pull throughout your student progression. Partly out of necessity; you don't send that Cessna higher than 7500 if you can help it so you use every second of freefall you can get for that 30 second delay.

Nowadays your first jump has an opening altitude of 5000 feet, and it stays there until you're close to being done with AFF, at which point it moves down to 4500 or 4000 feet.

So even without any BSR changes we're 1000 feet higher - because the program works better with that altitude and the planes give us altitude to spare.

>The idea that the same margins that
>applied back then should apply now is a little off.

The 2000 foot number was chosen because too many people were getting killed due to low pull contests and people not having enough time to open their reserves. For a long time 2000 feet worked OK, although the primary way to die in the sport was still going in with nothing out.

Then those numbers started to improve drastically due to the Cypres, the first reliable AAD. People had the backup of an AAD to help make sure they got a canopy out in time. More importantly they started to pull higher anyway to make sure they didn't fire their Cypres.

So it's a situation that has gotten better, not worse, with time. We have MORE margin nowadays than we did when most people were actually pulling at 2000 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points from all. This is a fun thread because, to start with, it's all just personal opinion. We're not waiting for a rocket scientist to post, and settle the matter with some facts or figures, it's just one set of views against another.

The other reason it's fun is that there's an end. The BOD will settle the matter soon enough, and then we'll have an answer. Of course, the answer we'll have is if the BOD will change the BSR, because the BOD isn't always 'right' in what they do. We can still argue the merits of the rule itself, but at least to the question of if the BOD will change it or not, there is an end in sight.

Good times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But who among the new jumpers is likely to open low? Having been trained via AFF, the majority are more likely to pull high than low. Also, freeflying seems to encourage higher opening (at least based on the discussions I've heard), due to the increased speed of the skydive.

Along with multiple groups out on a pass (which also encourages higher deployment altitudes to get back from longer spots), there are very few forces pushing jumpers to open low.

The biggest thing that the 70's did was to make low pull contests far less cool; along with the new sport of BASE (which gives plenty of opportunity for low opening to jumpers who really want to go low), the desire to take it down really doesn't seem to be as generalized as it used to be.

Back when 2000 was established, many more dropzones used 182's, with a lower likely jump altitude. One thing about more DZs using larger planes is that jumps are generally higher than they used to be, and freefall isn't as precious. But that, too, means that individual jumpers' behavior is less likely to push them to try to take advantage of those "last precious few seconds of freefall" as they might have earlier.

Just my thoughts. I think that if we continue to have higher breakoffs (which is definitely true), 2000 will continue to be seen as an undesirable but legal basement, rather than as a likely and desirable opening option.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps



And since they are ignoring the 200 jump for a camera reg... What makes you think they would suddenly pay attention to this one?

Quote

is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well.



And if he is going to ignore that... What makes you think he will suddenly obey this?

Quote


Notice that nobody pulls at 1500 ft. The reason being that 'rules' stop at 2k.



I know people that still pull at 1500. So your observation is incorrect already. And your conclusion is also false. Most people I know started to pull higher after we saw that a CYPRES might fire if we pulled below 2k. I know I started pulling higher after I got a CYPRES for that reason.

Quote

At the risk of offending some, it has in a way, become 'pussy-fied' not in the good way



And yet here you are asking for a BSR to make it MORE pussified?????
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't.



Okay got to jump in, although it has actually been good reading for a change. I have no idea why this was put on the agenda or who put it on for that matter. The bottom line is, it is on the agenda and must be discussed and a decision made to the absolute best ability of the S&T committee. Then the full 22 person board must pass it.

The only person I personally had conversation about this was Bill Booth, who had a genuine concern for AAD deployment altitudes being high enough for a reserve pilot chute to clear a burble. Mr. Booth advised that a 1 second delay could mean the difference between life or death and he has the numbers to back his clams. Of course the AAD firing altitudes would need to be adjusted.

The flip side is we have had these in place for some time now and are they actually statistically the cause of problems. We all know jumpers who are the 2 pullers and will go to their grave argueing they have been doing it for years with no issues. Also AFFI courses routinely put the instructor around the 2k mark. Demos may present a problem.

How about records? Most jumps in a day or 24 hour period every minute counts. If said record holder went out the door at 2100 feet and any attempt from this point forward will have to go out at 2600 feet we have a bit of a problem.

This is a very sticky question because as mentioned above it takes away something we already have, versus making a sport potentially safer.

I am anxious to listen intently to those bringing this forward and all of the pros and cons and making a decision. Either way I personally promise to weigh out the two and make a ssolid fact based decision. I am glad to have read everyones input because it will help tremendously.

Further I will let everyone know how I personally voted and explain my rationale, I know some will agree and some will disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0