LyraM45

Am I the only person who has 100% always (well, with the exception of Lodi) been asked for a log book? I thought log book, license, USPA#, reserve card, and possibly your whole rig, was standard fare during check in at a new dz? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

It's always been a better value to jump at Davis or Byron (assuming you value more than money). You mean "almost the same price." OK-- close enough! "Almost the same price."

Byron and Davis are going off this summer-- lots of events and fun stuff, so bring on the WS too! I know about this time last summer Davis lowered jump tickets to $18 each, and if enough people kept coming out and keeping planes turning, they were going to let that price ride. Maybe they'll do the same thing this season! At that point Lodi WS refugees can almost get the same value. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Well, then they should have sponsored him responsibly (on the sapphire) or not at all, maybe? You don't have to fly a toys-r-us sized canopy to be a cool sponsored athlete......... or do you now? Maybe that is something wrong with the culture in that respect! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Nice, Rory!!!

1.) Where do you get from my post that it's clear that I have zero interest in canopy piloting? I have more interest in flight, canopy and other wise, then you evidently understand. I'd like you to tell me exactly what I said, in quote, that makes it implicitly clear that I have not a care in the world for canopy piloting. Why would I even be involved in this conversation if I didn't care? 2.) Where, in quotes, did I put any responsible canopy pilot down? Thanks in advance for your answers. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Or, if he did have interest in any of those "other" disiplines, he would seek out advice from those who do have skill AND experience and moreover, he would listen to that advice. But, what the hell do I know? Eexxxaaaaccctttlllyyyyy PS-- she Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I assumed most people don't just race to the ground. I'm open to the fact that maybe I assumed wrong, but a lot of 1000-2000 jump folks I know have definitely taken the time to understand their canopy and how to pilot it well and do it safely. They tend to have a more well rounded understanding of it all-- not just zeroed in on one aspect like high performance with not much thought given to everything else. +1 Some people are simply focused on mechanical "skill" and will argue from that foundation like there's no tomorrow. There's a lot, and I mean a LOT more, to it than that. You got it right. Phew. Good

I assumed most people don't just race to the ground. I'm open to the fact that maybe I assumed wrong, but a lot of 1000-2000 jump folks I know have definitely taken the time to understand their canopy and how to pilot it well and do it safely. They tend to have a more well rounded understanding of it all-- not just zeroed in on one aspect like high performance with not much thought given to everything else. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Probably the 2100 jump pilot. They've been under a wing longer. They understand things better and have a more well rounded view on flight characteristics, approaches, watching for traffic, etc, etc. Just because a jumper has been spending every single jump of their first 500 jumps working on a maneuver, doesn't mean they'll have the experience and skills to fly perfectly. Oh please, you have got to be kidding me This is where I draw the line; enough of this non-sense. I will quote what was said earlier, "Some people have 1000 jumps, other people have the same jump 1000 times." Stop being ridiculous; generally, if you invest more time into a specific skill you're going to be better at it than someone who has spent less time practicing that specific skill (excluding natural talent). Give those people the credit they deserve. I'm not surprised at this reply, coming from a guy who is a 100 jump wonder loaded 1.2 on a stiletto. And let me guess.... you've probably got the next elliptical canopy size down in hand and ready to rig up soon? So, I beg your pardon, but YOU'VE got to me kidding ME, right? As for giving the people who dedicated all of their 500 jumps to HP canopy stuff the credit they deserve-- no where in my post did I poo poo on them and take away credit. I'm sure there is something to be said for somebody (especially somebody who has worked closely with a mentor and a coach and has gone through a proper progression as best they can) who takes the time and dedicates their practice to one certain area. Doesn't mean they are overall more experienced, better skilled, or more ready than somebody who has thousands of jumps and a lot of time under a wing, even if it's only semi elliptical. When it comes down to it, I guess it differs on a case by case basis and not something we can throw a blanket yes or no over with regards to the who is more ready question. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Probably the 2100 jump pilot. They've been under a wing longer. They understand things better and have a more well rounded view on flight characteristics, approaches, watching for traffic, etc, etc. Just because a jumper has been spending every single jump of their first 500 jumps working on a maneuver, doesn't mean they'll have the experience and skills to fly perfectly. Hell, just my very square canopy that I've got a couple hundred jumps on is no where near being fully understood by me, and I don't expect to be fabulous with it in another couple hundred jumps. So why should the 500 jump pilot be any different with an HP wing? Just need to let experience and time do it's thing. Doesn't mean that practice and skill honing doesn't help, but you can't look past the experience/time element under a wing. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/interviews-with-irs-agent-suggest-tea-party-targeting-came-from-washington/ Fox News trying to focus blame on administration? No-- I don't believe it! Sounds like the agent feels like he was being thrown under the bus, so he's doing it back. Who knows what's really going on, honestly. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

That's why a regulation/rule couldn't be a general jump number. It would have to be "x amount of jumps on this type of canopy, X amount of jumps on the next type of canopy, etc before going xbrace." There would have to be some kind of progression. It would have to be signed off, similar to what dave was talking about (in the incident thread) with a typical student progression and creating a safe environment for people who don't know enough to judge their skill yet. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Local enforcement is certainly a fundamental part of the solution, but how do you export the successes from one DZ to another? What specific educational or regulatory processes did the successful DZ's employ that need to be implemented elsewhere? You mentioned there are some examples of idiots being banned. The DZO's or S&TA's had specific reasons for such actions. Why not make those formal rules and tie them to required education and ongoing training that could have prevented the jumper from getting to that point? I think the development and implementation of canopy w/l and type restrictions together with ongoing educational requirements and skill certification prior to advancement is the formal version of the common sense measures you have described. A formal process that is recognized and accepted by the USPA and member DZ's is the way it gets pushed out to more DZ's. No, it's not going to get implemented everywhere. No, it's not idiot-proof. But we might still have a very talented tunnel rat flying his Pilot or something more appropriate. And we would have more DZ's working together to provide more structured CC training and oversight. You took the words right out of my mouth. This is what I was getting to when I asked how would we go about making DZ's police themselves and enforce something. I think that's the main reason we would need some sort of rule to do something uniform across all GM DZ's. I wish we could sit here and say "we need to police ourselves more and enforce XXX to prevent this from not happening," and everybody would conform and the culture would change collectively......but we've seen this before, we've said this before, and obviously it's not working. I really wish it would. Sounds easy and all, right? I really wish the community would step up, but I don't think it will happen on its own in a uniform way. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

But how do we get the DZO's/fellow jumpers/DZ employees/S&TA/Ect that aren't locally enforcing anything to start enforcing something? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I was just about to post the same response

I have to agree with you on that for the most part. Are we sure of long term effects yet? Or if there are any at all? Probably not, but I think a lot of people complaining about GMO stuff or trying to get legislation passed about, aren't actually trying to outlaw it so much as they are requiring GMO products to be labeled. In all honestly, I 100% support that. Just like ingredient labels, or any labels on food, people deserve to know exactly what they are buying and eating. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Well some people actually decided to provide valid arguments, rather than silly old name calling... Was I not talking about the issue at hand enough? Funny since you responded to the posts that included name calling and conveniently ignored the last one from me which required you to answer a few questions about the issue we're hashing out. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Weather is a very broad term-- I thought we were specifically talking about tornadoes; large and violent ones at that. Without large scale changes/manipulation, IE: 0-6km bulk shear changes, temp/dewpoint changes, LCL changes, energy/helicity changes, jet core strength/location changes, freezing level changes, stability (or rather instability in this case) changes. And all of these have to be done on a large synoptic scale. Scientifically speaking, I believe it is not possible to simply alter things of this nature. Especially not by something as simple as "aircraft buzzing around a storm." And how does that storm get intensified? Can you even explain the meteorology behind it now, let alone what a human would have to do to intensify it? When we get death tolls as low as Moore, OK, that is pretty good. Zero deaths would obviously be better and the ultimate goal of forecasting for the NWS. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I do not see how this can be looked at from an agnostic approach. One of the reasons people are agnostic is because there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove something. I think there is enough science behind this to disprove it-- no great wonder left to ponder and be agnostic over. This is not an argument that will come down to "my faith," when I can't prove something. Weather people are still trying to understand these storms up, down, and all around. If we had the ability to create a large and deadly tornado, don't you think we would have the science down to also forecast these things with 100% certainty in all areas, IE: point of touch down, width, strength, exactly direction, long tracked, short tracked, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way, but we are far from getting it so well that we nail each forecast even down to the smallest detail of the storm. I'm pretty sure if we had the ability to create it, then we'd understand it so well that it could be forecasted for with 100% certainty. Do you know how much energy and what precise elements have to be present for a favorable environment, even for small tornado development? Hell, even just for embedded mesocyclones? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Really? I'm a meteorologist and think I understand this more than most, and I think this asshole deserves a tinfoil hat the size of the luxor. So, I'm going to have to veto you on this one. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Well, in the context of 2003-2008 under bush, I'd say an awful lot of jobs were created through things post 9/11: TSA, military, contracts, manufacturing, etc, etc. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

But what if the payoff wasn't tangible like that? What if somebody wanted to get a specialized degree and the payoff was being able to do a job you have a passion for, even if you know you will never be rich from it? I went to a private aeronautical school. I always had a passion for all things aviation and weather. I knew it would be a struggle to repay any loans I took out associated with the $150K price tab (trust me, I didn't take all of that out-- I got a lot of grants and scholarships, but still have a good chunk to repay), because lets face it, meteorologists aren't rich, and most young pilots aren't rich. BUT.... I enjoy what I do. I go to work every day and basically get paid to do what would be my major interest and hobby if I wasn't employed in this field. My student loan payments are just over $500/month, and it sucks, but going to work and not hating my job and/or life is absolutely priceless! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

What do you expect her to do? Propose a ban on tornadoes? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

state medical examiner confirming 7 children from the school dead Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)