skypuppy

someone mentioned tandem rw in another post, and it got me thinking. I thought I'd seen a picture, maybe on Parachutist cover, of an eight-way built with 4 tandems drogue-less (ie 4 tandem masters hooked up, each with passengers). I think they might have been the Golden Knights. Or it could have been in skydiving magazine. Anybody have a copy of this mag and can post a scan? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I started in 1979 and have done jumps every year since, some years less than others due to injury or to work. Thought I might get out once before getting offered a spot on a demo team, which rejuvenated my jumping somewhat. Then when that wound down, I got a tandem rating which again boosted the jump numbers for a few years. And paid for a few fun crw jumps, both just for fun and for competition. After that I started getting into doing freefall student jumps again. Not sure how long that will go on. The ankles really do hurt some days... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Dalton Mcguinty's liberals banned junk food in Ontario schools in 2010. The upshot has been that since the ban sales have dropped as much as 45% in many school cafeterias as students voted with their feet by crossing the road to fast food restaurants (and thus increasing the risk of accidents, etc)... Pasted from a Huffington post article As Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk told us in December, Ontario's Healthy Eating program has been a complete and utter failure. Cafeteria sales across Ontario plummeted 25 to 45 per cent, while vending machine sales have fallen by as much as 85 per cent. Larger school districts like Ottawa and Toronto are reporting millions in lost revenues, money that is earmarked to support field trips, tournaments, and other extra-curricular activities. This isn't the first time an activist government has tried to fight obesity and failed. In 2011, Denmark introduced the world's first fat tax. It was unanimously passed by the government and aimed to tax fatty foods to improve public health and offset health care costs associated with obesity. In practice, this tax was a bureaucratic nightmare that caused food prices to soar. Much like high school students in Ontario, Danish consumers voted with their feet and their wallets, and met their cravings elsewhere. One study found that 48 per cent of Danes resorted to cross-border grocery shopping in nearby Germany to avoid the fat taxes. A little over a year later, after its economy lost an estimated $1.8 billion, the Danish government abolished the much-hated fat tax. What do you do with a failed government program that has backfired? In Denmark, the government unanimously agreed to revoke the fat tax. In Ontario, instead of examining the data and considering factors like behavior and incentives, the Wynne Government has just designed another way to expand the program and spend more money. This government is dead set on altering our behavior and changing the foods we like to eat, regardless of the cost to taxpayers, the unintended consequences or whether it's actually working. Forget about overweight students, the weight of our government is the real problem in Ontario. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Been quite a few years, but let's see... School started about 7:20, & went until 3:30-4PM. Then, there were after school sports. I often wouldn't get home until 7PM. On the nights I didn't have a sports practice, I worked (& got home even later). So yes, Kids spend the majority of their time in school. If you have something useful to contribute. Please, do so. If you just want to be a d*^#? Go spread that over in SC... Oh. Never mind. Carry on, then. school here in ontario runs from 8:30 to 2:50, teachers are usually expected to be there from 8:15 to 3:05 on a normal day, 194 days a year. The time of start and end may vary a small amount depending on the school (busing issues, etc) and also on length of breaks for lunch, recess, etc. ( a while back I did see a school with a 1 hour break at lunch, but usually it's 40-45 minutes, with 2 other nutrition/activity breaks of 35-40 minutes) but that is the general amount of time. Actual instruction time is 6 50-minute blocks. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Not so. You're aware that lots of kids eat two meals per day at their schools? Breakfast & Lunch are served to lots of children, nowadays. I hear what you're saying, but...Not every parent has a partner. Not every couple can afford for one of them to stay home w/the kids. &, quite frankly, not every parent is bright enough for the job... Whatever the causes are outside of school? It clearly isn't working. Childhood obesity isn't going away. Kids spend the majority of their time at school. Fast food corporations were allowed to turn school cafeterias into McDonald's etal annexes. That's done real damage. It needs to stop. This will help do that. I think you've read enough of my posts to know I want the Govt. the fuck out of my life. The Govt. created this mess, in part, by allowing their dirtbag fast food friends to take over the feeding of these kids. In this, at least, the Govt. is making a move back in the right direction. That's still 10 meals out of 35. Still not anyone's problem but the parent(s). If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

That's not true at all. capitalism is based on a provider charging what the market will bear for his product. In the case cited, the couple weren't willing to sell for what the buyer (city) was willing to pay, so they took it by eminent domain. That's not capitalism... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

After 20 years, at some point you have to enforce the law. Do I think they needed to show up with an Army? Absolutely not. But nice letters didn't seem to be doing the trick. A site visit was in order. Earlier in this thread, I suggested a visit from the feds... not an army but a couple agents but that was ruled out as being too costly. ChuckWhat do you think a "nice little face-to-face" would have accomplished that 20 years of litigation didn't? It's not as if this guy had no idea anything was amiss until the BLM started to remove his cattle. He's been in "fuck you" mode for 20 years. Bundy is now claiming effective ownership of a huge swath of public land. His cattle are grazing through a large part of Lake Mead National Recreational Area and the Valley of Fire State Park. The situation is not much different from a mining company claiming that they don't recognize the United States Government, and then opening an open pit mine in the middle of Big Bend National Park. I'll admit that this case has a certain resonance with me. When I lived in Arizona, I was very frustrated with ranchers who closed off BLM land and denied everyone else their legal right to access that public land for hiking and camping. I ran into this at a number of places in both Arizona and southern New Mexico. For the price of a grazing permit, these ranchers got (well, took) what amounted to personal ownership of huge tracts of land, including in some cases entire mountain ranges. BLM officials just referred me to local law enforcement. Appeals to local law enforcement went nowhere, as they either were friendly with the rancher or decided it wasn't something they wanted to get mixed up in. Don you honestly are claiming that allowing cattle to graze on land is the same thing as opening an open pit mine on it? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Depends. Do the financial analysis. Which is costing more. Letting the guy rack up a bill, with fines and interest and when he dies take it out of his estate, or the constant legal battles and potential for violent confrontation. Take that over the remaining time of his expected life, and do the simple math. Which costs more? Or just shoot him now and take it out of his estate... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

And this is a valid argument against requiring them. Why aren't more people here using it? Not banning small canopies for everybody, but for people who haven't demonstrated the skill to use them, it might not be a bad idea and I could see it being implemented sometime in the future. Not sure about where you are, but some countries have different driver's licences for trucks, cars, motorcycles, manual transmissions vs. automatics. You're not allowed to drive a manual truck if you only have a licence for an automatic car. You have to demonstrate that you are capable of handling the class of vehicle before they'll let you on the street with it. But for somebody with the appropriate skill, we don't need to ban trucks. Banning 270 degree turns on landing for sub-xyz jump jumpers has also been implemented at some DZs. We don't ban demo jumps, we just ban them for people who haven't met the minimum requirements. I'm banned from doing a wingsuit jump because I don't have my 200 yet. And so on. If you look at the incidents, I think you'll find that many, if not most of the people who have died swooping (or from canopy collisions enroute) would be people who had 'demonstrated the skill to use them' and just f'ed up on a jump. Just like many if not most of the recent proximity flight deaths were by some of the most proficient wingsuit and proximity flyers in the world. So having previously demonstrated the ability to do something doesn't mean your immune. Statistically however, an experienced, current jumper in normal jump mode is unlikely to need an aad and should be free to make the choice to use one or not himself. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'm aware that BASE typically uses a single canopy, but this is a skydiving forum, and BASE is not operated like skydiving. I was wary of wading into this thread. I've already been subtly insulted twice. I just wanted to point out that the "don't regulate me" arguments are not valid when we happily follow other regulations without protest. People are fine with rules as long as they're rules that they like, they're not really objecting to the concept of having rules, but seem insistent on dressing it up that way. Just tell us the real reasons why you don't like something. come to think of it, most reserves are actually cheaper than aads. and likelihood of using the reserve is higher than the aad. so the aad is less cost-effective. Thanks... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I wouldn't require anything more than the USPA does other than banning anyone under the age of 18 from the property, with no exceptions unless required by law. I agree with you here. AADs are required in most dz's in Quebec. A few years ago they had the nationals there, so any jumper from canada (where aads are mandated only for students or tandems) wasn't allowed to compete UNLESS they had an aad even though there was no national rule to have them. I have a problem with a cspa member not being allowed to compete even if he was technically following all the cspa regulations, but apparently my opinion wasn't important. I do know of a few teams who would have attended otherwise but didn't. I feel a dzo does have a right to impose mandatory aad rules on his business - but if he bids for a competition he then the rules of the competition's organization should be enforced. I also feel that if a dzo wants to impose mandatory aad rules people have the right to go down the road to a competing dz without those rules -- but what we sometimes see is dzo's attempting to force a NATIONAL rule change so that there won't be any competition allowed down the road and they won't lose their pool of jumpers to other non-mandatory dz's. I find this to be repugnant - enforce your own rules and take the punishment, or don't make them mandatory at your dz - but attempting to force others to toe the line is over-reaching... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

WHERE IN ANY POST THAT I MADE DO YOU FIND THE WORDS "SHOULD BE REQUIRED" THAT YOU SAY I USED? You are correct there - I had confused your post with Larhsw. sorry about that. However, as to the cost of the aad, it is entirely possible for experienced jumpers to buy 2nd and even third rigs for under 4 grand each, even under 3 grand. However expecting them to buy a aad for each of those could increase the cost by 50%. So cost is a factor, any way you want to break it down. You may disagree with it. You may have lots of money. You may have different priorities. That doesn't make other peoples' perceptions of the cost any less valid. But certainly cost is not the only factor. There are disciplines for which aads are not recommended or necessary, and since no one is stopping you from using one, there is no reason to force others to wear them, if they are licenced and current. As far as the rsl we weren't discussing cost-efficacy of rsl's anyways, I could care less about rsl's, my only comment is that they're not recommended for crw. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Again, it was YOU who said it 'should be required'. The initial cost is not the all-in cost. You are seeming to forget the fact of the ongoing maintenance of cypres 4 and 8 year checks, which necessitated taking them out of the rig for a period. That is an additional cost and also, what do you do when the aad is being checked? Not jump? or rent another? You've also left out the fact that many skydivers have multiple rigs. Their secondary rigs may not have cost them much as deals sometimes come along, but buying new aads for each will multiply that cost. Then there's the fact that for some disciplines, aads are actually NOT recommended. just as in crw you aren't going to want to have an rsl hooked up. I have no problem if people want to have an aad in their rig. I do have a problem if they tell ME I have to. And again, in your post you stated it 'should be required'. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If you want to be a coward, fine, but don't take choices away from other people, because that's the mark of a total shitlord. There are plenty of reasons to jump without an AAD, and just because you're too unimaginative to think of any doesn't make them any less valid. What the fuck is wrong with you, man? You can choose not to use an aad or rsl or a skyhook for all I care, I really don't care if you kill yourself because you are "uncovardly". I am not taking any choices away from anyone, and I am not saying there should be any mandatory pieces of equipment imposed on you. I simply stated my opinion on aad's and skyhooks, and the fact that my German friend probably would be alive had she used at least an rsl. Grow the fuck up. You actually said right in your quote, and it's right here at the beginning of this post, that you 'believe they should be required". That sounds to me like you want to take choices away from everyone, or don't you get that? You guys need to take a look at what you are saying and how your are saying it… Suggesting that jumpers should use an AAD or any other safety equipment will not in any way limit how you skydive or impose any restrictions on how you practice your sport. You can still jump any way you want to, pull how low you want to and take all the chances you wish. You may also opt not to turn your AAD on if this makes skydiving more exciting or dangerous to you, or you can simply unhook the RSL if you don't want to use it. This discussion is much like the arguments in the 1960 when the idea of seat belts in cars was introduced. People thought is was unnecessary, but the fact of the matter is that seat belts save lives. Some people opt not to wear a seat belt, and that is a personal choice, but I don't know how many people in this forum would buy a car without seat belt fitted today. Would you? The seatbelt doesn't change the way you drive your car, or how fast you can go, but it will most likely save you life in an accident. The same goes for an AAD when you tumble unconscious through 900 ft because some fucker hit you in free fall, no matter how stupid you think it may be that someone should dare suggest to impose something on you. Again, you said aads 'should be required'. that means you are in favor of them being mandatory. The mere fact that you want to make people spend money they may not have to buy an aad, means that quite possibly they won't be able to skydive the way they want to. The fact that you even suggest making people buy one and then tell them they don't have to turn it on is hypocritical. Either you believe it should be mandatory, or it shouldn't, shouldn't it? The seat belt example is erroneous - a seat belt manufactured in the factory and put in the car there increases the cost of the car by what, maybe $25 for a car that costs 15 grand or more? Mandating an aad adds what $1500 for a rig that might cost 7 grand? or a used rig worth 3 grand that still needs the same$1500 aad? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If you want to be a coward, fine, but don't take choices away from other people, because that's the mark of a total shitlord. There are plenty of reasons to jump without an AAD, and just because you're too unimaginative to think of any doesn't make them any less valid. What the fuck is wrong with you, man? You can choose not to use an aad or rsl or a skyhook for all I care, I really don't care if you kill yourself because you are "uncovardly". I am not taking any choices away from anyone, and I am not saying there should be any mandatory pieces of equipment imposed on you. I simply stated my opinion on aad's and skyhooks, and the fact that my German friend probably would be alive had she used at least an rsl. Grow the fuck up. You actually said right in your quote, and it's right here at the beginning of this post, that you 'believe they should be required". That sounds to me like you want to take choices away from everyone, or don't you get that? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Can you back this up? There are dz's around where they're mandatory, yes. But I don't think they're the majority around here, other than student operations... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

my understanding is that they were on the wrong route. I thought I saw video from google earth of what some of these proximity flights would look like used in preparation for flying a new route. I know gps etc are improving all the time. I'm wondering if the technology is close to be able to superimpose the route in a heads up display inside your visor as you fly, to avoid heading into the wrong area? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

For those who tought they had insurance and ended up having to claim bankruptcy cause their insurance didn't pay for much. Or for those who died because their insurance didn't cover. hmmm. my mother died right here in Ontario despite our much-vaunted (but certainly overblown) single payer health care. from something that shouldn't have happened in a province where everything is supposed to be paid for. In order to save the cost of a second ambulance. So don't tell me how much better single payer or state mandated health care is. It isn't. Why do bob Rae and Brian Mulrooney and jack layton and Danny williams all go the states for healthcare? Cause it's better than they can get up here - before obamacare. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

It is not a presumption. Your guns have not been taken away. You can still buy them. that is just luck that obama's law didn't get passed. he still proposed it, he just got shut down. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

When I was in school just about all of my professors were extremely well recognized in the professional and scientific community. Many were active directors at commercial firms. Surely you have a real explanation? Right, recognized and perhaps on the BoD but none were CEO's nor ran their own business. Reminds me of the guy who was always the "assistant" Manager but never the Manager. Is that based on any kind of actual experience or research? Being CEO has nothing to do with your original point. The population of CEOs of large businesses (when compared to the conservative US population) is statistically insignificant to explain why liberals dominate the academic world. There's still the other 99.9% of the general US conservative population who is doing other normal shit. The question is why aren't they teaching? Care to try again? As much as I like to harp on teachers. I do think that many start with the ideal of helping to educate children and help educate the next generation. Trying to help society is certainly a more liberal mindset. Conservatives tend to think more along the lines of, if I help myself society will take care of itself. I don't think it is a grand surprise that many teachers are of a more liberal mindset. Makes sense to me. However, policy is set by the school boards, run by elected trustees. Hence, in stead of complaining about liberal dominance in schools, why not elect a conservative trsutee, or is there is none, run as a trustee and get yourself elected. (Would also not surprise me if many who complain don't even show up for these elections) Many if not most school trustees end up being retired teachers. Same with people working for ministry of education I would think, although I haven't researched it. It also has something to do with the instructors at teacher's colleges mainly being liberal (unless they happen to be a visible minority). Thus the new teacher graduates are more liberal... If you have a conservative mindset in education field, you generally learn to keep your mouth shut. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This has had some interesting developments in the last few days, but not all good. Yes, the minister of public safety announced in Parliament that he would grant amnesty to owners of the swiss arms weapons, but amnesty is only for 5 years and the guns remain on the prohibited list. That means that you are not allowed to transport them or to take them to the range from what I hear, nor would you be able to leave them to a family member if you passed away while the guns are still prohibited. So the rcmp banned some guns and the public safety minister announced within a day or two he wouldn't enforce the ban - you would think the rcmp might take the hint, right? So what do they do? THEY ANNOUNCE THAT THEY ARE BANNING TWO MORE RIFLES, after the public safety minister's amnesty... They also released documents showing that they are planning on banning AR-15 variants. This may get interesting. Amnesty is a good move if it is a delay in order to change the legislation so that unelected bureaucrats can no longer decide who is a criminal at the drop of a pen. My fear is the government, which is having difficulties of its own, may decide they don't want to alienate the gun haters even more, and leave things as they are. The rcmp have shown they can't follow the gov't's lead in allowing private gun owners to enjoy their possessions without harassment. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Then Americans must be mighty stupid, cause even with all those guns, you guys keep shooting eachother. Nobody gets shot in Canada? Sounds like the perfect place. The title of this is: "Grief and few solutions in wake of mass Toronto shooting" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/grief-and-few-solutions-in-wake-of-mass-toronto-shooting/article4424591/ although some people do like to pretend that no one gets shot in canada, 3 people died last week in a shooting (or several) in Tamworth Ontario. And a crazy guy out west went in to work in body armour with knife and killed two fellow employees in warehouse. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Regardless of your stance on gun control, more people would have been dead if this guy had used firearms. Or, someone in the crowd would have stopped it cold. Every coin has two sides. Predicting what might have been is a very tricky business. The article said there were 10 attackers. So what is the "someone" in the crowd going to do about 10 people armed with guns making a coordinated attack? Or say there had been 20 armed people in the crowd. Now speculate on how 20 random people with guns, not knowing who is who, would have fared against 10 armed, coordinated attackers. according to what I read the attackers all ran in together, all dressed in black. So if an AR-15 is so deadly, one person with an AR-15 could have taken them all out at once. or more likely, he could have taken cover and picked them off one by one, but who knew what they had planned? So in fact one has to realize that when people do go off the rails, someone or several ARE going to die. But you can possibly reduce the number of casualties if you allow people the means to defend themselves and others. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Gun sales are down so I'm guessing they need another bogeyman to scare up some business. I guess you have a hard time understanding the difference between gun sales being down and the RATE OF GROWTH OF GUN SALES being down. Seems to make a bit of a difference. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

And they don't have a use for knives anyways, they use chopsticks... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone