Leaderboard

Lots of legal battles have been fought over similar scenarios. Four cancer charities were taken to court in 2015 for misappropriating donations. Government officials have also found themselves in deep water for the same. So you don't have to steal money or be a thief for the act to meet that definition, only misuse it. In this particular scenario, we have seen $87,000+ go into a project that has produced absolutely nothing over a long time period. If the USPA isn't misusing these funds by blindly giving them to another organization to build something that has yet to materialize since 1999, where is the proof? The BOD has kept largely mum about the accountability of those monies. And then come the comments about the USPA not being responsible for donated funds. Wrong. Take a gander on a reputable, legal website and you'll find a plethora of examples where organizations were grilled about where their money went. I've led large organizations for most of my professional life and money is something you must be careful with or people will grow suspicious and start pointing fingers. At the very least, this situation amounts to a bad optic with disastrous potential. Why not spend that money on something that will actually benefit skydivers? Like efforts to reduce canopy-related deaths or fighting to keep dropzones open at airports who have suddenly terminated their leases? Our sport just saw yet another canopy-related death (see parachutist). And several dropzones have been given the hook this year by their host airports. Yes, there is money going into related counter-efforts, but not enough. The USPA also has a mandate to "promote our sport." A museum that hasn't broken ground after five years and tens of thousands dollars isn't in keeping with that mandate. I'd go one step further to say that most skydivers neither give a hoot about a museum, nor want one. Our sport isn't on par with the likes of the NFL or NBA and much discussion about including several of our disciplines in the Olympics has thus far been for not. We need to be more realistic about our sport's goals. Why not promote it by funding AFF programs for college students - like I saw at one DZ a few years back - or something similar for service veterans with jump ratings to transfer to a civilian license after separation or retirement? I've witnessed DZ's funding such programs in the past, but what about the USPA funding something similar on a larger scale? Thoughts? Let's actually have a discussion about it rather than label one another. As far as my vernacular goes; yes, I feel I've chosen the correct word in light of the known facts. Having said that, I'm open-minded to any proof (facts) anyone might have to the contrary. -JD-

I've have around 500 some WS jumps on my Pilot 7 167 and I've done hundreds of jumps on it with a CR+, Freak and other large suits. It opens fine. If you had three chops it's probably because you got the risers uneven and it put you on your back. Some canopies are more tolerant to that than others (e.g. a reserve or an Epicene), but ultimately that's pilot error. You need to know what to do when you get linetwists. That's part of being a skilled wingsuit pilot. If you get the risers uneven enough, the Kraken will spiral down on you too. Any canopy of any WL of any size, including a reserve, can and will dive given uneven enough risers. It's just a matter of how much they can be uneven before it starts to become a problem.

FBI file #40 is out... Lots of info on Rackstraw near the end.. https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-40-of-40/view