Leaderboard

I also believe the scripture is very clear. If Jesus was to return he would be riding a magical unicorn flanked by the flying spaghetti monster. He would proceed to flay Johnson and all of the other hypocrites before sending them down to a fiery hell where they would wake each day to never ending suffering for acting like horrible human beings and perverting his teaching to justify their shitty ways.

I agree!

Almost. Just "they identify as female", at the end there. The fundamental grammar doesn't change, using "they" still modifies the other words the same way it always did in English. Easiest way I find for people to get comfortable with it is to assume you have no idea of the sex/gender of the person you're talking about (e.g. someone mentions their cousin is coming to a party, but gives no more info than that). If you need to refer to them now, it's pretty automatic - "What time are they coming? Can they bring a plate?", etc etc.

a Blevins in a pear tree

Unless they have a rich daddy who can pay an unscrupulous doctor to make a diagnosis to get them an exemption.

I really like your post, and I am happy to see that you have balanced views on modern skydiving disciplines. One thing I want to mention: every time I hear 'statistics' that really indicate that we look at things in general. So statement like swooping is dangerous is no different then skydiving is dangerous. Dangerous for whom? Anyone who is trying anything above their skill level in skydiving is at risk to themself and sometimes to others. Try to jump on large formation without proper training - you endangering yourself everyone on it, try to fly angle without proper training and skills - you are the danger to everyone on a load, list can be continued. I don't want to say obvious things. So same deal with swooping... Somehow everyone thinks they are great pilots with above average skills. That is the only explanation I have. Take small wing, add higher degree turn, add competition or demo environment and you increasing risk. That is also obvious. So when we say swooping is dangerous we really not saying anything... We ignore all those tiny little details like how many years in sport, how many swoops, on what wings, previous competition experience and etc and so on. I do believe that swooping is safe but you have to be honest and do things adequate to your experience and skills. Like do you need canopy loaded above 2? Do you have to do high degree turn? Swoop in traffic? Swoop thru the course? Participate in competition? It is amazing what kind of answers you get from people who got in accident... Like I am asking a person did you have any formal training? And answer is YES, many courses from top level pilots... And then I ask how long have you been swooping - answer was about a year.. WTF??? I don't want to go in more details not to embarrass the person. But that is perfect example of how swooping can be dangerous for someone like that. Another misconception is that you can be all you want to be and you just need to try harder and you will be on top level. Try to do the same with RW... Turn 20+ average on 4 way? I am sorry but just jump numbers is simply not enough for that, some people simply can't achieve that level of performance no matter how much they spend money and time and that is ok! Not everyone can be champions. But with canopy piloting everyone thinks they are next big thing:) and all you have to do is downsize and pay for some coaching.

Oh look, a dishonest brent argument again...must be a day that ends in 'y'. Ford is building out factories and production lines for EVs, which is why they're spending a lot and making few EVs (that's why they're building factories, duh). So this random blogger on substack just divided their annual loss associated with these costs with the number of EVs sold (random blogger did it, because Brent can't do maths) and came up with the $60,000 number. It's like building a $1-billion silicon fab, which produces and sells its first chip on December 31st, then these idiots saying that each chip that year was sold at $999.999 million below the cost of production then declaring that the business model isn't sustainable.

My wife has a Tempo 150 from 2001. Yes, I still love her and yes I still repack it for her. Actually I pack several Tempos for a few customers. Including 6 or so 250s in our student rigs. There is no time limit to the airworthiness of nylon parachutes. There may be reasons for you to consider a new reserve, but age is not one of them.

Why do you toy with the (personal abuse deleted)?

Back for another update....I ended up jumping about 3 weeks ago. I was definitely nervous, both because it was my first after shoulder surgery and also because it was my first in about 11 months. Much like with other activities that I've started picking up again (road cycling being the biggest one) it was all about getting over the mental aspect of "is it healthy enough to do this?" Because it is, I know it is, my surgeon said so, my physical therapist said so, and it just takes some time back in whichever activity to believe it. Coincidentally, my biggest concern was what would happen if I needed to PLF and had to roll over onto the shoulder and that is exactly what happened. We had a long spot and were landing off, and I wasn't even going to try to stand it up. PLF went fine, I rolled back to my feet, and everything was good. Believe it or not, the only thing that really caused any discomfort was packing. You use the shoulders a lot when packing, so my first day back I was one-and-done because there was no strength left after the first packjob. The following weekend I got two jumps in, again decided to stop once it started stiffening up from packing. Now the season is just about done, so by the time jumping season rolls around again I don't think there will really be any limitations at all.

Hi Mods, I suggest that this thread be locked down. Nothing new in the last few days; just the same old crap back & forth between two people with a difference of opinion, no one else. Jerry Baumchen

I don’t understand why it’s ok to regulate a woman’s body to save a fetus, but it’s not ok to regulate the sale of guns to save the life of a child. - Sara Spector

I wanted to add to this comment of mine, that bringing in many new people to the case isn't at all a bad thing. It also brings in bright people with varied backgrounds and fresh perspectives. Unfortunately, for every one of them, we get three cranks, two kooks, and one crazy.

I agree that the 'normally plural' used in the singular is challenging. It just 'feels' weird. Nowhere near as challenging as what they have to go through, so I just go with it.

This comment about USPA was made by @NickDG in 2008: Before forums on the internet completely imploded into anonymity and incivility we urged the USPA Board to use the net to open a dialogue with its members. They didn't, and it was a combination of some not being computer savvy enough, or if they were, thinking it a severe breech of USPAs bunker mentality. And by bunker mentality I mean a combination of hiding most of the year in a cold weather state, allowing their RDs, ST&As, and (as we see here) their candidates to shield them from the heat on a day to day basis. And when they do make a public appearance en masse they use secrecy to shroud their inner workings. Now I'd think secrecy is sometimes called for in cases like fatalities so board members can speak frankly without the worry of offending long time friends or the deceased's families. But they surely abuse the secrecy thing and they use it for every hot button issue. Now a word or two on the first time candidates and the threads here where we're supposed to ask them questions. To the folks asking the questions - ease up a little bit. The candidates are the least culpable in anything the USPA has done in the past. And the candidates, even though they realize there are issues and problems, may think of the USPA like a benign and friendly member association when it's really more like the Mafia or the Hells Angels. What will happen is once elected the hierarchy of USPA will endeavor to convince them it's not them against USPA, it's USPA against the great unwashed, which is us - the rank and file members. So like freshman Congressmen they will either drink the kool-aid and get onboard or life will be made miserable for them. And being onboard means survival of the USPA is job one. And believe it, the board does hears us when we say things like we should drop USPA and go with AOPA, and it scares them. I suppose like many long time members I have a love/hate relationship with the USPA. In my first few years of the 70s, I loved them, I devoured every word in the magazine, and USPA was my hero and champion. Then slowly and through the 80s I saw the cracks began to appear, the nepotism, the old boy network, the don't rock the boat, and the propensity to hang individual jumpers out to dry when that was the easiest thing to do. And while I didn't realize it at the time USPA was becoming less a member's representative and more a trade group for people in the business of skydiving. So when we write long, pointed, almost accusatory posts, asking questions and demanding answers of our candidates we are already starting them down the road where it becomes easier for them to believe USPA and its methods are more sanctuary then adversary. And a lot of people here help that along by saying, "run for USPA office or shut the hell up!" That's B.S. It's like saying run for Congress or you have no right to voice opposition to your government. Yet, where we do fail is we don't confront the USPA enough with our concerns. So where the candidate's forum could work is in just listing our concerns for new candidates to become familiar with. Such as pure tandem mills getting association protection and benefits while excluding up-jumpers, a group member program that should be strictly a member to member program, and the fact USPA pretty much pulled the covers over their heads concerning the swoop death rate issue. I'd also like to see groundings come back. And not on a DZ level, but on a USPA level. People do get kicked off DZs these days, but it's usually for wacky ground antics and not wacky air antics. And anyway the offenders just move on to another DZ. I think any ST&A or Instructor should be able to document a jumper who's an accident waiting to happen, and if they prove their case, the aberrant jumper's USPA card would be flagged as grounded, not for 30 or 60 days, but if warranted for six months, or even forever. One thing that we accomplished when we grounded people all the time is sometimes it kept them from killing themselves in the next few jumps and it matured them a little bit. Another issue is USPA HQs very location. When they moved from San Francisco to the DC area many many years ago it sort of made sense. It was to be near the seats of power, and indeed Bill Ottley like to portray himself as running down to the halls of Congress (sometimes through the snow) for a beat down every time legislation that could possible affect skydiving popped up. But that was flawed reasoning and if you go along with it then USPA HQs should really be located across the street from FAA HQs in Oklahoma. But even that's a stretch in these days of instant communication and cheap airfares. USPA should be where the members are. I believe USPA HQ should be located in a Sunbelt state and next to a large DZ like Eloy, Perris, or Deland. A place where many members rotate in and out of, a place where the most members can knock on USPA's door year round with their concerns. As it is now it seems to me like they're hiding out in the DC area during the winter. Besides that there are other issues. I've watched USPA sit by and watch Instructors have their power stripped away, I've watched the various methods of instruction, the product of years of research and refinement turn into a hokey hodgepodge of hybrid programs designed to favor a DZOs bottom line rather than students and teachers. We totally allowed our AFF certification courses, once a flagship program copied the world over, to be dumbed down to the point of being toothless. There were I know issues with it but the answer was making the AFF cert course real schools on instruction and not just cert courses. But they skipped over that and just made the cert easier to get. Another thing I hear people say all the time is, "I'd rather have the USPA regulating us rather than the FAA." So let's examine that for a bit. This is a USPA scare tactic that works and they count on it. But the FAA, or more specifically the FARs, already does regulate the sport of skydiving, and also more importantly, they protect it. The feds recognize skydiving as a legitimate aeronautical activity and it's the reason we can't arbitrarily be banned from airports that accept federal funds (and that's the majority of GA airports.) Generally, Part 105 of the FARs is all we need to regulate skydiving. The USPA is just a façade built upon those federal regs. And if the USPA did all of sudden disappear and the FAA felt the need to get deeper into skydiving it would not be the end of the world. I'm sure like they do in other areas they'd hire experienced parachutists to oversee things and I could finally get my dream job. A skydiving instructor with a badge! Besides, rarely does an entire week go by without a General Aviation accident that results in fatalities. And most of the time it's not only a licensed pilot who dies, but they take one or more innocent passengers with them. The FAA understands well that when people fly people die. So I doubt they would overreact and start strictly over regulating skydiving. And seriously, if the FAA tried to do anything detrimental to skydiving there is actually more of a re-course already built into federal rule making system, and even more so than what we have with USPA. Thirty five or forty thousand of us could actually get the FAA to do something we wanted in the long run. They are bound by law to consider our concerns. Thirty five or forty thousand of us can't get the USPA to do anything. They can simply throw our concerns in the shitcan and there's nothing we can do about itl. I know many will say, "Who cares about all this?" And don't think the USPA doesn't count heavily on that. They know most of their members stay in the sport for seven years or so and those members just want to go to the DZ on weekends and make some jumps. And that's fine and dandy but who's watching the store? It used to be USPA printed a detailed line item budget every year in the magazine and any member could see where every penny went. They still run it but now it's so general in nature you really can’t tell where the money goes. There's no doubt Bill Ottley saved the USPA in the 80s when they didn’t have two cents to rub together. They were actually cancelling general membership meetings for a time because they couldn't afford them. But through some good real estate and investment deals Bill turned all that around. But the down side is now we have $100,000 per year Executive Directors camping out and collecting that money for years and years. The Executive Director slot shouldn't be a Pope for life position. Term limits should be in place and I'm not so sure letting the Board decide who gets the ED position is all that wise. But I don't know how to fix that as the general membership is too apathic to cast an informed vote in that regard. One thing maybe we could do is let any member run for the job of ED, and have the board vote rather than just decide like they do now. (BTW, I pretty sure that's the way it works so let me know if I'm wrong). And as it stands now the job of ED surely calls for someone who's not necessarily a very experienced jumper but more someone who's an experienced administrator. And in our ranks at large we have plenty of those folks. I've learned and taught others to always end a critique on a high note so here goes. The new website is great, a big improvement, and Shirley has made the magazine into a thing of beauty. But it's just lipstick on a, - Whoa, almost blew it there . . . NickDG August 7, 2008 https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/138544-example-of-uspa's-problems/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-3090631