kimemerson

Lot of interesting reading here. Good points. Silly stuff. Useless stuff. Valuable stuff. But what I'd like to see is every poster tell us their own smoking habits/practices. The history and the current state of activity. I only ask because I feel it validates opinion. I'm sure a number of those who fall on the "anti" side probably don't smoke at all or much or have never or have since stopped or never smoked much to begin with. Not everyone on the anti side, just the greater majority. By contrast, I'd wager anyone who is in favor or doesn't mind or see anything wrong is likely a frequent smoker or has been ... you get the point. Also, I'd like to see the discussion address the OP's question which I think asks about being high while skydiving rather than ask about legality, responsibility and consequences, which are all valid discussions, don't get me wrong. (Unless the broad question is meant to encompass everything. Don't really know.) But I think some of these opinions are addressing, say, the legal or responsible by being anti, but are not addressing the simple question of being high while skydiving. I think that were the answers focused only on that, we would find a few more in the "pro" corner than we've seen here. Just an early morning guess.

Thanks. PM if you pull this off. Wear your running shoes.

N/A

This has absolutely nothing to do with skydiving but this is a great network of about a bazillion people so... I apologize in advance if it is inappropriate. I need a well worn used "gimme cap". It should have the logo of any company that a farmer might use i.e. any feed or grain supplier, any equipment manufacturer such as Deere tractors, whatever. But specific and unique to farming. I only need one. It should be adjustable as I have a large bean. Did I say used, well worn? Dirty is good. This does not have to be anything special. Not a lot of $$ should be spent on it - if anything. (Technically they're free, ergo "gimme"). So cheap is good. If possible just accost a farmer and ask. Be nice. Or if you know of such a place that gives them or sells them, either get it for me and I'll reimburse or let me know where so I can contact them if I have to. I will of course pay for it + S&H. Just keep it cheap only because the whole idea is that it not be fancy at all - not even close. I'm asking in part because where I live is not a huge agrarian area and it would be a tough find - not impossible, just tough. I'm thinking that some of you who live in, say, Iowa, Kansas or any of the larger farm states just might see these thing any time you walk into town. Or so I'm hoping. Please PM me for mailing or any other details. This would be a great help. Thanks. Kim

Not so that if it's not banned it's allowed. That presumes specificity of acts to ban. As an example, I have rights to protect me against your creativity to harm me. We don't have to spell out what you can or cannot do to harm me. I have the right not to be harmed. A free society does not allow anything not proscribed. That is a false presumption. And certainly proscribing or toleration is not the basis of a free society, or certainly not alone. There's more than just that utter simplistic take. Free societies also protect against harm without naming what harm. What you describe is a tolerance for any behavior not specified as abhorrent. Doesn't work that way. As for the England example, it was recently that they modeled a Bill of Rights of sorts (don't know what they called it) of their own after ours because they had nothing to indicate that the people have rights as opposed to there being laws that only spell out what cannot be done or must be done. The way it was, if it was not specified as illegal, it was allowed. But that's exactly what was targeted and has changed. (I'm an American living in America. If any Brit cares to elucidate on this for me I'd appreciate it.)

Maybe the difference would be that BASE, while perhaps not specified, does or can lead to other illegal things like reckless endangerment, welfare of others and a host of other things they can cite you for if they can't nail you on BASE. I believe it's how Corliss was not able to beat his charges even though he never made it over. Suicide is illegal but they can't make the charges stick if you're successful. As for BASE being legal, is it mentioned specifically as being a legal act in all those 50 + territories? Is it a right, so named? Or, as I suspect, is it simply not mentioned one way or another? I believe that when England borrowed from America's Bill of Rights, it was done because rights spell out specifics. Whereas in England until recently they had no such thing so the prevailing rule of thumb was that so long as something was not specifically cited as illegal, it could be gotten away with. Our Bill of rights changes that so that we have rights before we can be harmed. It is in this specificity that I question whether BASE is legal, or not mentioned, thereby allowing other charges to be leveled as a way of making BASE illegal indirectly. You may be right, that if it is not illegal per se charges can be fought. But until and unless BASE is named as an legal activity, it will always attract the law, become scrutinized by the law abiding, and bring some trouble. There are of course places, as you mention Moab. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly don't know, isn't Moab Indian property? Or are there both a Moab belonging to the US and one to Indians? I know I have, but it seems we've veered from the OP's question. Oh well, next.

There's nothing illegal about BASE jumping per-se. Moab and Twin falls are happy to have us. Other states with a libertarian live-and-let-live attitude have no restrictions surrounding their bridges and cliffs. The Royal Gorge gets extra tourist dollars when they invite us to jump off the brige and tram. Various Native American tribes welcome paying adveture tourists on their lands. The Mexican government likes adventure tourism and media exposure. Presumably the guys in Kuala Lumpor get something similar. All legal. . Well, for the most part each example you cite is either not in the US, or is Indian land (technically not the US) and special occasions (Bridge day) so that for the MOST part, it is indeed illegal, otherwise a number of friends should be able to claim false arrest. Corliss wouldn't have been convicted. As it is, BASE is illegal to the greater extent overall. Exceptions as you cite do not make the rule. So, the exceptions aside, tell me which of the 50 states actually allow BASE as opposed to say, not being strict on enforcing what is a law. There's a difference between having a statute stating what is or is not legal, and simply allowing the illegal to go on anyway. Talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal (NY) but people do it and get away with it even with cops noticing. Jaywalking is illegal in many places but back when Giuliani tried to enforce his "quality of life" laws on New Yorkers, they defied him on the jaywalking thing and I saw grandmothers escorting their wee charges right down the middle of 2nd avenue from one side to the other over to a gaggle of cops who did nothing. Didn't make it legal. And special occasions do not make the rule either. Native American lands: Not the USA Mexico: Not the USA Kuala Lumpor: Not the USA Royal Gorge: Special Occasion All legal. None here. I am supposing the OP is in the USA,rendering most - perhaps not all, but certainly most - of your argument moot.

I suppose there's a difference between discussing an illegal activity and discussing one's participation in the illegal activity. The former should not be forbidden at all as it impinges on free speech. And anyone who attempts to silence said discussions needs a civic lesson, perhaps followed by a tar and feathering, but I leave that to local discretion to decide. As for the latter, it is simple logic to watch what one says in an unfriendly environment. You needn't agree with their position but if they wield any control over you, playing cool will at least buy you time. Sadly, regrettably, it won't get rid of the idiots, though. And as for skydivers participating in illegal activities... as for judging others who participate in illegal activities... well, there just isn't enough time in the day to accommodate hypocrisy.

I'm not reading through every post because that would almost be a search in itself. Bit I think I agree with the OP. I would offer that there is a difference between suggesting to a questioner that there already exists a whole discussion dedicated to the question, letting the questioner know how & where to locate the thread, and telling the questioner to just do a search. Seldom will you find, as an example, a librarian suggesting you just go look for the book. You get courtesy and help all the while the librarian knowing the damn book has been right there for ages and that generations before have found it. Much is about attitude,approach and the awareness that newbies do not have the same resources or knowledge base the experienced do. Saying to "just do a search " is a bit dismissive and disregards the legitimate asking for help. And this dismissive retort doesn't offer help; it discourages further involvement. But suggesting a search, when coupled perhaps with an actual link, is beneficial in that it shows the questioner how to search, that a search gives up results, that there is a community of knowledge available and more. The flippant comment to "just do a search" is elitist and snobbish. And we know how we feel about that!

Yeah, lose the ragazine. It certainly has come a long way from the four page B&W newsletter of the '50's. And it has gotten better to look at and sort of raised its own collectible value just in its appearance. However, in times when good sized city newspapers are falling to the Internet and opting to publish only one or two days a week with the balance being on line; in times when print media is falling victim to the times, the net and general reader apathy; with an organization in which membership has for eons complained about getting the magazine and has discussed ad infinitum the desire to opt out; in times when everything costs more everyday and is disproportionate to income increases and ability; in an organization which is already admitting to membership loss due to many factors, among them being financial and the escalating costs of everything directly and indirectly connected, wouldn't it make sense to drop the glossy magazine? It has been slammed as being a forum and vehicle largely for beginners (cue the big sigh over the departure of Skydiving...) it caters mostly to a self inflicted image of piety and goodness and so refuses to be a true voice of the people it claims to represent. It occurs to me that in fiscal difficulty it might pay to see where trimming of unnecessary baggage might be viewed as frugal and responsible. Plus, as we already know, the Internet is a tsunami and will eventually force the issue anyway. I am usually done reading Parachutist within the first half hour of receiving it. Done. Unless I happen to have to take a shit then it gets a little more face time, if you'll excuse the image. Even if one remains adamant that Parachutist is a great rag, it might be wise to suck it up and let the thing go to its final resting place. Skydiving is supposed to be fun. It can be elitist due to the costs. I would encourage USPA to see what it can do to help. Parachutist as a memory might be a respectable start. That is, with respect to members.

The answer to the question posed in the subject is: Gear, aircraft and good weather. Two out of three ain't bad but still not enough.

Skydiving would do BASE articles when Parachutist wouldn't. Hell, they even MENTION BASE. Parachutist won't. You could say "fuck" in Skydiving. Try that in Parachutist. You could have tasteless ads in Skydiving. Don't even try in Parachutist. Parachutist panders to new members for the survival of the organization. Skydiving has (had) a loyal following who were willing to pay. Parachutist has captive members who have to take what they're given even when they don't want it (the magazine, that is.) Truffer's editorials gave us a real skydiver perspective as alternative to a magazine that is handcuffed by having to cater to members vs. subscribers. And that is the difference; Member driven vs. subscriber driven. With Skydiving leaving we will experience not just a loss of an alternative periodical, but a truer representation, an independence and a voice. Sorry to see it go. Real sorry. I hope we still hear from Mike time to time. He's actually a very nice guy. (He might be reading this so... Hi, Mike ) Ah, well, as this day has shown, all things are possible, and all things pass. We are all part of change. Change we want and cause, as well as change someone else resents. We are the new bright future of our own destiny as well as the harbinger of someone else's end. Life is like that; yin & yang, black & white, then and now.

...and they continue to ask, "Why do you jump out of perfectly good airplanes?" and we know they don't know and that we will never be able to explain. Then, along comes an answer, one we can embrace, and it just falls into our collective lap. Thanks for the leg up, TK. And congratulations.

I've always meant to have inscribed on a plaque the line a newly minted AFF JM made on his way back from a student jump. The look on the JM's face said SOMETHING had happened, though we could see the student was ok, walking back on his own. But we could tell there had to be a story there somewhere. As the JM walked back, he muttered more to himself than anyone, "Wow, I thought I covered that." Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance", as dad used to tell me.

The TSO just makes it legal. Otherwise it's a BASE rig like any other. I'm not sure how I come down on this. As USPA members I think it makes sense to leave well enough alone. But why must these jumps be involved with USPA? As members, are all our jumps under the critical eye of USPA? Can't we on occasion make non USPA jumps without risking membership? Yes. We can jump at non-member DZs. So what's to stop these guys from using a non-member a/c? Pull altitude is a USPA BSR. FAA isn't even involved so long as no one gets hurt. (USPA is self governing because we precede and then supersede the FAA. We satisfy FAA minimums. USPA is generally stricter than FAA). And if I'm wrong that we can do non-USPA jumps without risking membership and I could well be - then I would suggest that doing these sort of demos requires a certain dedication and that maybe these guys should just leave USPA if their passion is where it needs to be if they intend to pull this thing off. As for the thing itself, the fact is that when we do demos the attraction for the crowd is in part because they either thrill to do it themselves or they expect something could go terribly wrong. It is our responsibility to assure they never get the chance to witness anything going wrong on every demo we do. Still... there's that chance. It is hoped that anyone proposing to deploy at 400' will have an extensive record of preparation. That deaths and other bugs have been considered and worked out prior to showcasing what could otherwise be public suicide. From our perspective, demos are different than DZ jumping and the adrenaline rush is greater, the pucker factor is more pronounced. And that's only because we too know the shit could hit the fan. Yeah, part of demo lust is the make-them-feel-good thing, but it's a rush to do them. This isn't a desk job. We're the junkies in this equation, after all. Another thing to ponder is that a great number of advances in anything we can name come about through the insights of the gifted, the execution of the skilled, the willingness of the insane and the mistakes of the unprepared. Without these efforts this conversation wouldn't be taking place because the notion of jumping out of an airplane would have been put to rest once it was conceived. Some nut had to go first, Bless his soul! So rather than condemn the 400' gang outright, why not allow that if someone can think of it, it can be done and work toward a resolution? Are we saying a sub 500' opening will never be reasonable? Ever? You should live so long.

Drew ran what we called "Trim Day Care", teaching the younger lassies how to skydive. He'd take a guy up too but no guy ever got the t-shirt. I asked. And why was Billy scared Of Jimmy? He had the condom, after all. Hi Gary.

oh, the 5 1/2 year thing. Hadn't noticed. I think that's about when I saw him last, now that I think of it.

Drew Kochis as I live and breathe! Where the hell have you been? You ghost you! You live 8 seconds away and we never see you. I'll wager that no less than 80% of the people at the Ranch have no idea who you are. Come visit WHEN IT'S SUMMER!!! All kidding aside, Drew, it is good to hear from you. Please come out of hiding.

The language required for answering this ubiquitous question does not exist. It would be like explaining female orgasm to a guy. Can't be done. You'll need to go do a tandem or static line jump and get back to us when you've figured it out, because we don't even know how to explain it to each other, those of us who have done it thousands of times. No matter how hard anyone here tries to explain what it's like, they will fail absolutely .

Me, me, I did it! Once. The next lowest was from 1,800' with the same bungee pilot chute I mentioned earlier (will any of the younger folk even know what that is? Or why it's scary at 1,500' - 1,800'?) into a Herd boogie and after three of the Knights who did CRW. It was raining and we got the only jumps of the boogie because it rained the whole week. We were in the Otter being loaned to United for the boogie and we weren't technically allowed to land with the plane because it's not a passenger plane or some such thing, and we sort of couldn't get in the plane knowing we could neither land with it nor legally jump from it with that cloud base. So we got in anyway along with the cargo and jumped anyway at 1,800' in the rain. I swear I could touch both earth and sky from the door. Everything seemed that close.

I'd consider a real hop'n'pop to be deploying while still in sub-terminal. Otherwise it doesn't qualify. Hence the names: Hop 'n' pop, clear & pull, and jump & dump.

can't be very old. Those look like stainless 3-rings.

Not with my snively spectre! Just out of interest, what is the legal exit altitude? I would of thought at least 1000ft above legal opening altitude or am i wrong? As far as I can make out, here in the US, there's no legal exit altitude so long as you don't bust your container opening altitude.

No one listens when no one speaks. What's on your mind?

A true hop'n'pop - one which involves sub-terminal - is a thing of beauty. A lot of people put a premium only on freefall and cannot see themselves "wasting" money on anything else. So let them. The lowest one I've ever done was from 1,500' with a bungee pilot chute. Scared the bejesus right out of me so damn much I begged to be allowed to do it again. Got denied. Due to weather, honest. But the ones I like most are the ones done from full altitude on the sunset load on the first day of summer. Either cross-country or just local. When I'm up there like that I just know there are whuffos who would be extremely jealous just to have this view. And as another poster said, knowing how to do one, not being intimidated by doing on low - say 2,500'-3,500' - is damn good advice in case of emergency. This is a sport in which it helps to know rather than suspect or guess. Doing a hop'n'pop from a lower altitude gives you the skill, knowledge and courage to go when you have to rather than be shitting your britches in fear. when/if the need arises. Aside from that, at my DZ there's no cost difference between a hop'n'pop & full altitude freefall. So the incentive to go to only 3 or 4 grand is non-existent. It is actively discouraged.