kimemerson

Still not too late to change your ways, though. A little tough love approach, perhaps. Maybe some intercession therapy. Personally, I use 550 cord as a pull-up cord. That stuff doesn't come in ribbons and it sure as hell doesn't come in pink. Oh Really??? Ok, that scared me.

From a low timer after asking about the wind conditions (which caused most of the experienced skydivers to stay down) and getting the whole speech with anecdotes, testimonials... the whole "I think you'd better stay down" approach: "Ok, thanks. I'll just make this my last one today then." Yep. Quite possibly.

Still not too late to change your ways, though. A little tough love approach, perhaps. Maybe some intercession therapy. Personally, I use 550 cord as a pull-up cord. That stuff doesn't come in ribbons and it sure as hell doesn't come in pink.

Be sure to join S.A.P.S. when you get there. (Skydivers Against Pink Shit). Give Hallett a big wet kiss for me too.

"If one of us goes low, I'll come down to get you."

Here's a project some folks are trying to get started. I don't know if this has been brought up already. Sorry if this is redundant. (I'm not too sharp on the make it a clicky thing.) http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/marahstrauch/help-us-transfer-carl-boenishs-archive-and-finish?pos=39&ref=recommended

Just because I slept with you last night doesn't mean I'll skydive with you today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--qHBEOEY8&feature=related

Fuck, yeah. And then some.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810701-1

I can't vouch for the veracity of this tale, but I heard it from Chet himself. I may have a few facts messed up. It's been a while since I last saw him. But according to Chet, he started jumping back in the barnstorming days when he, his brother and another guy would fly from place to place, fair to fair, and put on a show. I guess Chet's brother was the pilot, the other guy was the parachutist and Chet was - I can't remember, a mechanic maybe. Well, the other guy who did all the jumping went on to other things and that left Chet and his brother without anyone to do the jumping. His brother more or less looked at Chet and said something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm the pilot." So Chet's first jump was a demo and all his instruction was from watching the other guy. That's it. What a guy. No wonder he's a hero to some of us.

I'm not so sure Chet had to pay for those tandems in DeLand. I think Bob just let him. I had the pleasure of being on one of his tandem jumps, possibly on his 90th birthday. And his last dog was Greta. I used to have a lot of talks with him in his trailer, after buying cigarettes from him.

I'm not sure I can defend it, and really that's not my purpose in discussing it here. I am sure there was some sound reasoning applied to this rule when it was made. Like you, I'd like to hear what the reasoning was and see if it still applies. I have an ex-wife who is a certifiable nut-case. She lives in her own world and in that world, all her thoughts form logical and rational conclusions. It all makes sense to her, and to her, others would be wise to follow. But her world simply does not jibe with the world at large. There are lapses of coherent thought in her judgment, but she is able to defend her views so that at times others can feel her sincerity and begin to question their own. She's malignant in that way. The ability to reason the irrational is a strong power. In my view, USPA is not always spared this ability.

You are having a conversation with a BOD member! OK, mostly I'm just listening here. I was not on the Board when this was put in, so I can't answer why it is this way, but it can be revisited in the future. While it might be too soon to get on the agenda for the Febuary BOD meeting, we can discuss the issue and look into it. I appreciate everyone's input on this! Craig Stapleton, Pacific Regional Director I understand that there has to be procedure, but isn't this so simple that it defies logic to keep it any longer? Can't it be attributed to something easy to remedy? Can't it just be changed to reflect a rational application? It isn't a BSR so I can't imagine that it falls under any restrictions of a Board decision. It isn't waiverable or non-waiverable. It's arbitrary and even harmful. Harmful because it acts as a deterrent to accomplishment if a skydiver, for whatever reason, simply does not possess or want to possess a D license in order to qualify. I understand that you weren't there when this bone-headed idea was made, but can you shed some light on the mentality of the Board when they were around to make it? What might their rationale be? What are we, the dissenters, missing by not being privy to such discussion as was required to make this rule? And what would be so difficult about simply making the clerical change? Call it a typo for all I care. Because without any comprehension of how this rule makes sense, I can't see why any procedure is needed to remedy it. I don't believe the BOD needs to waste its time and my money on this. Someone walk into the appropriate office, get on the computer and change that damn thing. It's straight-forward and blatantly apparent to anyone paying attention that it is a senseless rule which discredits real accomplishment by placing irrational standards on an applicant's goals. If USPA chooses to stand by this requirement, I'd love to hear a defense for it. I feel about this the way I feel about the existence of winter: No one asked me and if they had... What's your own opinion on the requirement, and how might you address it should it come up at a BOD meeting? Thanks

yeah, it's a hair splitter between "must hold" and "required" but they amount to the same thing. I'd love to have a conversation with the Board on the topic of logic with regard to this one. If someone can skydive without a license, can accumulate hours and jumps, both without a license, then how can these accomplishments be dismissed because of a lack of license? What is the purpose of the badge and the wings? Are they simply to recognize the accomplishment of what they ostensibly represent in their names? Is there any hidden or unstated purpose for these awards beyond the recognition of an accumulation of hours and jumps? Or is it all explicit and straightforward? You do 1,000 jumps and that's what USPA rewards, no less, no more? As regards just this issue - of awarding recognition for accomplishments - what the hell would having a D license do that not having one can't do as well? Jumps is jumps. 1,000 brilliant jumps or 1,000 you-suck-at-skydiving jumps. Jumps is jumps. Period. For christ's sake, USPA, give the guy his fucking badge. He's willing to pay for it AND he's apparently done the work. Give it up, already!

I don't see the word "required" anywhere. It just looks like having a D is assumed. So cross out the "D" and just put in your A, B, or C # and let them sort it out. Then tell them - don't ask - that it is apparently NOT a requirement and is obviously a clerical error. Mind you, people tend to get "required" and "recommended" confused. As an example, a lot of people believe a "B" license is required for night jumps. No license is required for a night jump. It's just considered sage advice. I would doubt USPA could defend a policy requiring a D license for a badge, at least not to anyone here. So wing it - so to speak - and put in for the badge anyway. For all you know the lack of a D won't be noticed. And to beat a dead horse again, what's the point of a license anyway? Ok, it proves a certain level of proficiency and it is probably a good idea for Instructional ratings. But for competition and achievements? I think we've all known skydivers with 1,000's of jumps and no license who can still fly circles around the rest of us. They can't compete, instruct or, apparently, get recognition from the same association they pay dues to. The logic is lost on me.

I only half pay attention to this as I'm not a RW flyer and I don't compete. But I think it's FS - not FF - for Formation Skydiving. And for all I know someone wanted to get rid of "work" as part of the name. I still call it RW though. Thing is, eventually there will be fewer people who will know what I mean. I think the change was initiated by USPA for reasons only they fully understand or care about. After all, it doesn't matter what it's called when it comes to turning points. So who really cares?

Isn't the procedure "Peel & Pull", essentially a single action, rather than "Peel, Pause & Pull"? If the right procedure is done then this scenario wouldn't occur. But it did, which means initially that the skydiver in question was a.) wrong and b.) fucking lucky. This skydiver created a situation in which (s)he was faced with a question about how to proceed. A good general rule of thumb is to never have a question while skydiving. Most especially at pull time. Answers only, and good, right answers at that. So if the 'pause" portion is part of this sequence, the only way to eliminate the question portion is to complete the pull. Anything else is making it a crap shoot. And as they said years ago, "This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no fooling around." Or did I just lose a bunch of you with that one?

I just watched a fairly (ok, very) lame movie from 1967 called Fathom. It starred Raquel Welch as a skydiver helping a jewel thief, or trying to catch the jewel thief, or was she working for the thief...Anyway, there are a lot of real jumps with rounds and it looks like it could be California for most of the skydiving bits. Credits were sparse and the only name I could find was for Ken Voss for "parachute sequences" and for Donna Garrett as a stunt double for Raquel. Anyone know any more about it?

my total jumps:3900 my total cutaways: 5 3900+5800=9700 9700/5=1940 Did I do that right?

1. 3880 2. 5 3. Partials. Some fast, some slow. Probably didn't have to chop mal. #2 (I was young) and probably should have chopped one or two that I didn't (I was young).

you think even the passenger was in on it? From the look of it I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that. And if he was then if he isn't an actor he's missed his calling. And how would that be effective as a prank if he's in on it? Or are you saying that the whole thing is a prank on us, the viewers?

Well, it's certainly true that the BSR's don't give a mention to terrorizing the shit out of anyone. So I guess that makes it ok. Maybe it's me but I couldn't see how the passenger was enjoying the ride. From here it looked like he was genuinely scared. And being an innocent, how could he imagine otherwise, especially as we know that even properly handled beginning skydivers experience real fear? Having a fucking nut job TI pull this shit doesn't do much to allay those fears. If I were the DZO I'd have his sorry ass in a sling. If I were the S&TA (and I was at my DZ) I would seriously look into getting his rating tossed. I have no idea now if that's possible or plausible but I'd give it a go. Assuring that your passenger is scared shitless doesn't fall under the "professional" category. It's more like the asshole category. Anyone who takes professionalism seriously would never consider this.

I made no personal assumptions about you directly. My comment about likely not knowing any Jews was broad, general, and was never stated as an absolute. Rather, I wondered aloud that many who use the term Nazi might not actually have a personal relationship with any Jews. I find it hard to go to Passover with my Jewish friends one day and then to feel free to call someone a Nazi over a trivial event the next day. Maybe that's just me. My whole post above was only my making a suggestion, a request, and to attempt to provide some context and support for my request. If I failed in that then I am at least comfortable that I tried. I find the use of 'Nazi' an offensive practice and I am one who speaks up - damn the dissenting opinions of those who would rather not deal with it. I also am used to taking flack for being able to carry on a discussion that dares stretch beyond single paragraphs and monosyllabic language. It's a lonely world but so be it. I did not mean to imply that Jews were the only ones to suffer. But certainly, historically, they are the one who are understood to be the larger target - or at least most noted. It was easy - too easy - for me to mention them only. I apologize for the limited perspective. I did not, however, get nasty or personal. Saying that if I don't like it it's too fucking bad is making it personal. No call for that. I prefer a dialogue over a slam fest. Apparently I'm in the wrong place for such a consideration. I should check my road map before venturing out on a solo trip next time. But I can take a joke. Your wasn't really funny. Try harder. (The person who said no soup for me would have lost me on that because I have not watched TV in over 20 years, But coincidentally, I was in NYC the other day at my mother-in-law's place and I turned on the TV for some sort of diversion and Seinfeld was on, that episode too. I have only seen about two or three episodes of Seinfeld and that was not one of them until Friday night. I'd heard of the episode but didn't really know what it was about. So now I know. And to bring it up here was funny, and now I actually get the joke.) Also, I need to apologize for getting off topic. This isn't the right forum. Carry on.

Not sure what that means. Anyone half awake knows what happened. The scars of that time are still here. So I don't need to be a historical reference anything to assume others are not ignorant of that time and its horrors, but I could be wrong when "others'" are too self involved to recognize there was a time before their own. My point, though, is simply that by using the term 'Nazi' to describe anyone who gives someone else a hard time, corrects a behavior, asks for simple consideration, or even makes some demands, does a lot of harm to the efforts by those who lived in that time to prevent it from happening again. Here's an example of one such use. Years ago I had a cd player on at the DZ. A visiting organizer didn't care for the music at the moment and went and turned it off, putting on the radio instead. I reminded her that it wasn't her cd, her player or her dropzone and that a simple considerate request would do more than taking matters into her own hands, that maybe a more democratic approach would be better, that perhaps asking the owner first, or respecting the fact that she was a guest, or waiting her turn... I was polite about it and made my points in a courteous manner. But she smirked at me, said nothing to me directly and went on to her friend and called me a radio Nazi. But the Nazis, gassed innocent people, tortured babies, made human experiments on living people and the list of horrors goes on. By using the term as loosely as this we risk taking those horrors away from the rightful owners and we dilute the pain and fright and sacrifices made. One problem is that those who use the term likely did not live that time and they are not at all sensitive to the emotions connected with it. They are also often too self centered to be able to understand any one else's feelings. But what about their own time? Today we have replaced our fears of Nazis or Communists with a new fear of terrorists so that today one is chastised for asserting that perhaps the World Trade Center attackers were not terrorists; that they were in retaliation for the actions of the US; that the cops and fire fighters were not heroes, just guys and women doing their job, a job they were trained for and knew well enough what they were going into; that a true hero is someone who does what they are NOT prepared for and do so anyway. If I attempt to assert any of that then those who are alive today could well take exception to such a view. It's all stil present and raw. But how would those same people feel 60, 70 years from now when a whole generation decides that the USA deserved what it got and sees the alleged terrorist as brave fighters for their cause? Want to bet someone gets angered at that? What if at that time people call anyone who makes any demand, slight or great, a terrorist? Can you imagine the child or spouse of a victim of 9/11 simply agreeing? Can you imagine the anger at the diminishing of what a real terrorist is? Can you imagine that they would be angered at the fact that people have indeed forgotten? So, please, save the Nazi term for those who were members of the Nazi party. No one deserves to be lumped in with them unless they were actually one of them. I'm not a Nazi anything. I'm just a guy who senses the wrong of insensitivity to those who remember, were affected or know those who were. Concentration camp survivors are still here, today. If you care enough about anything beyond your own cloistered life, seek one out - they are not hidden - and ask them directly how they would feel if you called the cranky child making unsound demands, the person with a different view making a request that you temper your language, the cop who doesn't want to hear your take on how fast you were going or anyone you simply disagree with a Nazi. I don't doubt if you ask someone with a number tattooed on their wrist if it's ok to toss that word around that they would object, emotionally and emphatically. And it's fine to challenge me on this. I was born in 1952 so I did not live it. But just ask someone who did. Be brave and be willing to be humbled and shamed. It's ok. personal growth can be painful but it can be fruitful too. Get some history before making more or diluting what was. I'd also wager that most people who see no problem with calling someone a Nazi do not actually know or associate with any Jews. Not closely, anyway, not counted among one's friends.