airtwardo

Members
  • Content

    32,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by airtwardo

  1. Like square reserves will ever become popular.... ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  2. Bingo! And get quality knives, when ya spend 7 grand on a rig don't spend 2 bucks on a knife! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  3. And the "If you want to know what happened, get on the phone and do your own back-channel investigation, otherwise STFU" crowd. And the "What's the big deal? He said he was sorry and it won't happen again. Isn't that all you need to know?" crowd. And the "Somebody else's incident in the past was dealt with this way by USPA, so why you want to treat him different?" crowd. And the "My anonymous source told me something (that I won't reveal), but it has satisfied me that there is no problem here, so everyone should just move on, OK?" crowd. ...and the we don't really need actual proof in an internet trial crowd. Hey believe whatever makes you feel good - I don't know what exactly happened, I wasn't there. Those I spoke with who were don't seem to agree with what others who say they were there contend. The unvestigation process suddenly seems to be in doubt with a considerable number of the membership because a conspiracy theory letter was sent out en mass, purportedly by a licensed ex-USPA member that it turns out hasn't jumped in a decade or so...? In the cover up theory we are urged to speak out against the obvious good ole boy private club trying to sweep something under the rug...by another good ole boy private club that seems not to like the newly elected first club. What's undeniable is something stinks about all this... Stepping back for a broader view we can choose to condemn the safety chair for being involved in an incident that we're told by 'someone' who knows nothing of the incident, the people or the process... There was gross negligence and it's being covered up. Or. We can condemn the secret squirrel brigade that for some undisclosed reason sees fit to ignore the established rules of the process and discount the findings of it publicly in a manner which negated the safeguards and like it or not - does put OUR organization squarely in front of a moving bus. Or. We can condemn the whole freakin' thing because no matter what you wish to believe, clearly this isn't the way things are supposed to work...which begs the obvious question, what else is going on behind the curtain for reasons OTHER than the promotion & protection of our sport? Mull around for a bit if all of this bullshit is enough of a concern for US to address formally and logically, without emotion... Because truly we deserve the quality of leadership we demand. Any way you look at this situation - whichever 'camp' you side with, it's pretty clear personal agenda took precedence over the organizations priority. Who knows how much time and money was and is being wasted...other important issues being ignored - If in fact that bothers ya, make yourself heard and i don't mean bitching on the internet... If nothing else, keep what's best for the organization...YOUR organization, in mind the next time you vote. Are you making a choice for leadership experience and ability or a popularity contest based on name recognition? Ideally we get the leadership we demand - unfortunately it appears we have the leadership we deserve! And hey gang ~ THATS on US. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  4. It's guesswork to speculate about others' state of mind, especially a group of others. That being said, assuming Rich wasn't performing his jump on behalf of the USPA or in the course of his duties with the USPA (and despite the old canard that anyone can try to sue anyone for anything), I see no basis for any liability claim at all against the USPA arising out of this incident. Out of the incedent are the key words here. Maybe think a little further out of the box... Is there maybe something some representatives on the board of directors may have done that could possibly put the organization at risk ? At risk of USPA liability to the injured person for the injuries she sustained in the incident? No. (Perhaps that only answers half of what you have in mind.) Actually I was thinking more along the lines of intentionally, publicly and maliciously working to destroy someone's reputation within the industry they make a living. Especially considering it was officially decided twice there wasn't a reason to... Not saying that's happening, just saying pretty freakin stupid to put the possibility in play - I'd bet after some reflection whoever drew up - have the unknown whistle blower appear out of nowhere plan - is thinking it may not end up coming off so well. Wanna be mad about poor judgement and unnecessary risk? Find out who made public the private proceedings and incited the campaign of hate & discontent some people so willingly spread across several avenues of social media. Send them packing for gross unethical behavior by putting the organizations assets at possible risk because of personal vendetta. Then ask me again why I suggested from the getgo sonething stinks and let's stfu for a while and see what's going on. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  5. It's guesswork to speculate about others' state of mind, especially a group of others. That being said, assuming Rich wasn't performing his jump on behalf of the USPA or in the course of his duties with the USPA (and despite the old canard that anyone can try to sue anyone for anything), I see no basis for any liability claim at all against the USPA arising out of this incident. Out of the incedent are the key words here. Maybe think a little further out of the box... Is there maybe something some representatives on the board of directors may have done that could possibly put the organization at risk ? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  6. Did you miss my last post to you? Have you not read Jan's publicly stated reason as to why there were two investigations? Its beginning to look like you are purposefully ignoring that information, since you keep repeating the same points. I did read your last statement...however didn't address it, not sure how to since it's my understanding bod members are somewhat limited as to the extent of information regarding the whole investigation process thing - there may be more to it than was sumerized. But hey, maybe not...could be, making public statements about that stuff is for some reason ok in this case - unlike every other one. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  7. I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day. I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership. Anyone know the scoop on that? I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election... Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely. That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident..... top edited for clarity I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'... On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment. If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . . It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama. I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up. I'm speaking from a pretty ignorant perspective, but just today I heard for the first time a completely different version of what happened than was reported in the original incidents thread. That thread made it sound like Rich's behavior was blatantly reckless and prompted many who read it to get on a "throw the bum out" soapbox. What I heard today was quite different and didn't sound at all like his actions were anything more than a botched execution. I don't know which version - if either - was correct, but the original version getting such a venomous response from many members may have had something to do with HQ's actions. Things that make ya go hummmmmm. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  8. I'm not picking sides here, but if HQ made public statements about everything each member would like a statement about they would do nothing but make public statements all day every day. I'm not even sure if the organization is required or authorized to discuss procedural matters with the general membership. Anyone know the scoop on that? I'm not an insider in any stretch of the imagination. I am sure they are not required to make any sort of public statement. I do remember whole bunch of the current board members promising more transparency and accountability to the membership when they were running for the board in the last election... Actually, when doing investigations, the opposite is true. When the BOD or a committee is discussing investigations or incidents because the person is requesting a rating or membership back, the gallery is cleared and only the BOD members are privy to the information. The person accused can come in and speak, bring in witnesses, etc. But the entire process is done behind closed doors so everyone speaks freely. That is why no official word will come from USPA or a BOD member, they are bound by the confidentiality clause. Interestingly, that may mean Rich can't come here and speak, maybe he is bound by confidentiality on his own incident..... top edited for clarity I'm not a lawyer but going by my limited understanding of procedures - Rich is about the ONLY one that could speak publicly about the investigation by virtue of his being the target of it. Well...not 'it' but rather 'them'... On about any level you look at it - makes sence that he would have no comment. If in fact the reason for the two investigations, or the findings somehow make him look bad - why throw more light on it On the other hand- if there isn't some really really really good reason he was put through two of them - (which has never happened before btw) and in fact a no discipline finding was attached to both... And seeing as how information that isn't normally made public was done so anonymously by some mystery guest USPA rep. . . It would be in his best interest to have no comment publicly at THIS time too - which frankly would worry me, if I had by chance varied from historical procedures for some reason & made a guys life hell, that didn't have it coming. And tied up the organizations time and resources on something it wasn't in fact necessary to do & and other critical issues weren't given the attention they needed as a result. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out...cause like I've been saying, never seen anything like this before. And incedents a lot worse that this have been addressed proceedurly sans the drama. I keep wondering, why this incedent - why at this time & who gains when the never before seen unnamed mystery guest shows up. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  9. Jan lying ? About what ? Don't understand the reference but I've certainly never know her to intentionally lie - it that's what you're asking ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  10. And that kinda zeros in on the point but not the way you probably want. Never before has the information been made available to the populace and nary a snuffle was heard. In several instances people holding the reigns have knowingly and purposely by design done things that effectively resulted in injuries of a permanent nature and even death - preventable if not for disregarding general safety practices. Nobody knows if there even was an investigation much less the facts of the incident. I'm not saying the not knowing is either right or wrong... My point is why is this Winstock thing being handled differently? Why would a member if the BOD purposely break with the way things are always handled and create all this drama but remain silent all the other times when every factor was significantly worse? Regardless of ones opinion of what happened with Winstock, surely they must realize on some level that something ELSE is also taking place... I mean in simple terms some office holder had an incident and it was looked into just like it is every other time that happens - the judgement of a panel of peers found no reason for the axe - again just like in the past. Someone for some reason wasn't satisfied with that - maybe felt they saw a way to knock some fellow bod members down, so a drama was scripted and there seems to be no shortage of extras willing to play the part without looking an inch deeper. This stinks on many levels. The greatest one being what was put fourth as having happened - didn't in the way alleged. Put away for a minute if you believe that or not - and try to recall any other time some bod member made a statement about the facts of any incident under investigation. Then wonder why if by chance what I said is true and the allegations that were made aren't accurate - why would someone do THAT? Gotta figure if that anonymous person will disregard the process then disregarding factual truth is no great leap...question is why here why now. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  11. Jim, You said... Given what Jan, a BOD member, has publicly stated: And... Is that not a fair assessment? That someone attempted to sweep the issue under the rug? If the regular investigation and disciplinary measures werent followed? In fact would it not be fair to suggest this this entire "scandal" is the fault of the executive staff and executive committee of the USPA? Had they rather had a non-biased (someone not connected with the board or a friend of Rich's) senior S&TA conduct the investigation, followed their normal rules and then publicly published the incident report, just like they would do for anyone else, then this never would have inflamed to the level it is now. And yes I understand that this has happened in the past according to allegations, that other members based on seniority or popularity had issues dismissed, but that doesnt excuse this nor make it any less stupid. People smell "blood in the water", as you put it, because the public perception is that things were handled differently because of his board status. When they should have done things by the book, to show everyone the process is above board and works. And since it wasnt people are naturally curious and assume the worst. Perception is reality~ Lee Atwater I don't really know if it's a fair summary...on it's face I wouldn't have jump straight to the swept under the rug cover up theory. And knowing what I now do it's quite within the realm of possibility that an inquire was conducted. - a finding of no discipline necessary was properly reached and it was suggested the matter be put to bed. The thing is...you don't know either - unless I somehow missed the sign up list memo for reviving correspondence between the BOD...this is a first. IS it just me or do you in fact receive copies of emails addressed to the board? If in fact this is an anomaly & something not generally considered SOP within the organization ... Why this time? And by whom? Whoever it was on the BOD that made this communication public obviously did so because THEIR impression was one of some devious cover up - that's sure how MY copy came - basically saying to the effect look at the horrible cover .. It's a cover up In case you don't understand - see what Sherry said! That's a cover up. Bullshit! That's one persons take who manipulated a freaking riot based on nothing other the their flawed perception and colorful innuendo. That's not how it's supposed to work. Further more - enough bitching was generated that they held a second investigation... Guess what - SAME FINDINGS! So NOW- let's all just take it as a givin the the whole board is corrupt because 'someone' got the impression from an email that some earth shattering incedent is being swept under some imaginary rug. I'm not that niave - In very simplistic Polish public school product language - what I see is, someone for whatever personal reasons or motivation went against what's generally accepted as proper protocol / rules governing BODs at any corporation I've ever worked at or heard of...releasing information probably not meant for review by the general membership if for nothing ElSE than the loosely worded structure. Whether for reasons of malice against another bod member or some kind of personal gain is the real question. Who wins out of any of this? Not Rich. Not the membership. Not the majority of the bod... Tell ya what ~ if this was MY rowboat. I'd be holding a formal disciplinary investigation focused on whoever it was on the board that blew this thing so far out of shape it's embarrassing. That's not how real professional executives conduct business - period Wouldn't be any slap on the wrist either, I'd give em two hours naked in the hot tub with an angry Ferrit! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  12. Then: ***What I find most troubling about the whole thing is the mass of inflammatory emails 'someone' felt necessary to send...and that allegedly private correspondence was made public - if that's true ~~ So in one case you don't want to repeat 2nd or 3rd party accounts. But, in the other case you have o problem doing so, and calling it the issue you find most troubling. Just a complicated guy I guess huh? This and Jan's post with the sarcastic comment regarding knowledge of other private medical concerns - is precisely why I was rather hoping to have people find out what happened from the actual people involved. You guys smell blood in the water and go after anything moving! Like I said I was curious so I asked people that know. I'm entitled to my opinion and will hold it no matter how much sarcastic bullshit gets thrown my way. It's ok to have an opinion different than mine without trying to discredit me I'm sorry if differing opinions were had because different 'facts' are being circulated- not my problem. I just really would hate to be facing a jury with some of you on it - but ok I get it! You're right no matter what the facts are & and anyone that disagrees is an asshole. Perfect! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  13. Has that happened? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  14. Same way I guess some people seem to believe that there is some shadowy cover up going...ya believe what ya wanna believe. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  15. I can't speak for Spot...but yes out of curiosity I did follow up as I'd suggested others do. I have no idea why what was told to me wasn't available to you too Jan, unless for some reason a 'no comment' policy went into effect. You would know more about that stuff than I would, not being the political type. I WAS asked not to editorialize here regarding the conversations I had, as it's my understanding either the investigation(s) were not complete - or another one was in the works...again, you probably know more than I do on that stuff. I said I wouldn't - so I won't. ~ as anyone who knows me personally will attest...my word is solid. Besides - as I said in the thread earlier, why would someone take MY 'shared' account as factual? I sure didn't just blindly believe what was in the unsolicited email I received, as was also received by the OP of this thread...or take as solid fact what some posters here have quoted as truth - only to find out THEY were just repeating 'reliable source' rumor - that wasn't....2nd & 3rd person accounts are next to worthless, each tier injects their own opinion consciously or not. I didn't 'share' because not only did I say I wouldn't - but it would be practically pointless to do so anyway. I apologize if that has or is causing some frustration, but it is what it is. That's why the best I feel I could do is suggest others get first person accounts and judge for themselves. IMO ~ it was an incident, could have been avoided but then again most can. What I find most troubling about the whole thing is the mass of inflammatory emails 'someone' felt necessary to send...and that allegedly private correspondence was made public - if that's true ~~ The derogatory nature of pointing fingers and calling names to include the 'cover up' label seems unfair & premature. Will the whole thing negatively affect Rich Winstock politically? Probably. The thing is...I really don't know if it should - or not. What happened is no doubt 'bad'...but not as bad as originally described. Negative statements were made & opinions formed...human nature will tend to make one stick with their 1st impression - we put that 1st impression slant on whatever later comes out so unfortunately that never gets a fair read in cases like this. How objective can you be for example Jan, when you say both that you haven't gotten a first person play by play . . .your queries for information are not satisfied - But you know that - "a person sitting in the spectator area was hit and put in the hospital for several days." When I think you know - a more accurate description might say 'a spectator was injured though not from being hit, and spent several days in the hospital because of both that injury & other undisclosed medical concerns' We hear what we want to hear sometimes...just sayin' The guy screwed up, he's not the first. I'm sure you & I both could tick off a laundry list of elected members that have made errors, as bad or worse over the years. However SOMETHING weird is going on with all the character assassination & backstabbing out of left field...never seen that before. - troubling. I don't know Rich personally...pretty much just from on here. What I DO know of him is that the positive things he's done for the sport seem to outweigh the negatives of this incident. ~ But that's MY opinion YMMV. I don't know what he did to piss someone off enough to send this down the path it went...but let it be a lesson to everyone - don't EVER fuck up, sometimes ya don't even get one strike! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  16. If you're not willing to provide information here because it's not "YOUR JOB" then don't expect everyone here to be all-knowing. If you want something set straight, then set it straight. If you're not prepared to do that - don't whine about it. Again...I'm not here to set something straight - why don't YOU get it straight from the horses mouth? ~ Instead of spouting off inconsequential rhetoric that some guy told some other guy about an incident a whole different guy had - and the fictional 'cover up' thrown in for spicy flavor...the whole thing is ludicrous. You make these 'all knowing' statements and arrive at conclusions - demanding action on something you don't have a clue about...the fact that 'someone' went above & beyond by sending out unsolicited emails, quoting private correspondence that may or may not have taken place - alluding that SOP investigational procedures equate to some shadowy cover up - - is obvious cause to rally the troops and make some revolutionary charge against 'the man' and this horrible oppression... Take a 'Lude chill out man. ~ Many it seems swallowed the bait - hook, line, sinker & boat...without even once putting it to at the very least a 'smell test'. All I'm Saying to you is - what you think you know about this situation is wrong, therefore all the self righteous indignation and call to arms that you're making are ridiculous, a bit naive & shortsighted in that you accept unequivocally something said by someone you don't know, taking a firm stand without checking simple facts If YOU'RE willing to ride some bandwagon driven by 'anonymous' that's headed someplace you know nothing about because following the mob makes better sense to you than thinking for yourself...have at it kid, and good luck - you'll need it. MY first post to this thread was along the lines of - something doesn't sound right, lets all calm down and check some facts prior to tying the hangman's noose... ...Well I did check some facts, and I'm satisfied that though there certainly seems to be 'something' going on here involving backstabbing & back scratching - the incident that's the catalyst for the controversy in no way rises to the level of sandy panties it seeming has caused. Why is I wonder that you so willingly accept the 'story' as told by somebody nobody seems to know...that (again) clearly tells it in a manner preconceived to create the most controversy...but are unwilling to believe some others & me, when I say I checked into a few things & what's being cited as fact - isn't. I've been going around the sun long enough to know ya don't 'argue' with a large flock of sheepeople - you point the direction you arrived at YOUR opinion from & hope a few are curious enough to see for themselves. Instead of BooHooing on here about delusional inner circles, codes of silence & secret handshakes...send USPA's President an email voicing your concerns and asking your questions. Even though the email address for the USPA is a closely guarded item of national security...I bet you're resourceful enough to google. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  17. Oh it passed ridiculous a long while back. The 'pathetic situation' as you call it, is the continual urge some people seem to have for talking out their ass about something they have no actual information about. This thread was started by someone referring to an email they received regarding an incident that took place. Umm...RED FLAG! I've been a USPA member for coming on 40 years, NEVER have I been contacted by anyone making statements about an incident and comments referring to private correspondence they weren't even a party to. The email was essentially the same one I too received...from someone I never heard of, stating 'facts' not in evidence & drawing conclusions clearly designed to elicit an inflamed response. Sorry...I don't just buy into that shit - maybe it's YOU that needs to 'grow up' a little? There isn't a 'code of silence' going on, or some magical 'inner circle'...why don't you do as has been suggested several times in this thread - make some calls, talk to some people that are involved with the situation first hand, maybe learn a little about the protocol regarding the investigation process and the parameters for deciding 'if & what' determines if any disciplinary action is required...and THEN form an opinion that actually means something. These people are very accessible and I've found quite willing to discuss matters with those who are truly interested in the facts - that don't bring into the conversation preconceived notions stemming from questionable motives by people unknown, with possible grudges or political agendas. The paranoid spoiled brat ranting about being criticized for not having information is precisely what's so ridiculous...you draw conclusions and make demands based on innuendo and rumor, while making no effort whatsoever to get a clear picture of the incident...other than sitting at your keyboard kingdom whining about inner circles. It's not MY JOB to do your homework for you and play news reporter outlining the things I discussed while satisfying my curiosity... You don't know me any better than you do the guy who sent those emails out enmass looking to create this controversy. I wouldn't expect you to believe MY take on things any more or less than you did 'his'...why would I want to appear to 'defend' or 'condemn' someone anyway? I don't care to address some of the outlandish bullshit that has been 'quoted' as fact in this matter, since there seems to be an endless supply of it...stuff like 'the long time designated no swoop zone was carelessly disregarded and the jumper crashed in the observation bleachers hitting a spectator causing her to spend a week in the hospital.' THAT is not what happened..yet that and several other unsubstantiated versions have been circulated ad nauseum both intentionally & not...resulting in confusion and misplaced controversy. Hate to break it to ya - but there have in the past been several investigations instituted regarding the actions and conduct of both office holders and 'dues paying members' of our organization...the results vary from no action required to censure and expulsion. You're not gonna find two page editorials in the monthly magazine giving the what, when & why's of those things either...because that's not how business is handled. - If you don't like it, or somehow feel 'entitled' to have some say in the process and determinations...tough shit, life is full of little disappointments - wear a helmet. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  18. Right now, it's on a "need to know" basis, and I reckon right now you just don't need to know. Respectfully. I think USPA dues-paying members need to know what went on when their safety director injured a spectator in a "no-fly" zone. This isn't an issue of national security. Yeah...and dues paying members should have access to ALL the investigations ever conducted whether made public by publishing a private email or not! WE the 'dues paying members' should have open and complete access to EVERYTHING that's goes on 'up there' - - we NEED to know... the salaries we are paying those in charge of the non profit, as well as the qualifications of those in management positions as well as their subordinates...they should have full disclosure of what all goes on in the infamous closed-door sessions that at times even 'other' board members aren't allowed to attend. ALL the dirty laundry of EVERY board member, officer, rating holder - you name it, should be front & center as well...maybe an extra couple of pages on the USPA website with names - photos - and descriptions of the infractions, incidents & near misses they've been associated with...you know, the 'good stuff' like when rules are bent - mahogany row d00ds jumping demos drunk... OR..bad common sense stuff like dropping heavy things from altitude and causing damage. - the list is actually pretty long and interesting! ...the 'dues paying members' could click a 'like' or 'dislike' icon ~ so people like ME would know exactly how outraged I should be, and at whom - and maybe I'd then have a better shot of eating lunch with the cool kids. The dues paying members in good standing should have access to the books in regard to what all is spent where & why, a monthly spreadsheet divided into received & payables sounds like a fair accounting. Perhaps the very charter itself needs to be revised to better reflect the contemporary needs and more realistic goals the organization needs to focus on... None of THAT stuff nears the realm of national security either, and in fact is probably a positive path that just might make the whole association work a little better in that once the veil of secrecy is lifted - the average joe the ragman skydiver feels more in touch and actually gets interested in the overall direction. ...but it ain't gonna happen ~ - all the folks that have never made a mistake, would much rather bitch about the latest flavor of the month diversion twisting their painties up, speaking with authority whether they are truly aware of the facts or not...'cause if ya claim to be 'holier than thou' loud enough & long enough - somebody may believe it! IMO ~ in the overall scheme of things...this really doesn't rate all that high. ~what this guy did shouldn't have happened. That said, the actual circumstances related to the event have yet to be discussed. Just 'blue skying' here...but theoretically - would it make a difference if the 'no fly zone' as you call it, had changed for that particular jump? How about you clarify your meaning of the term "Injured"...what if say, no actual physical contact was made between the jumper and the employee - I mean 'spectator'. Would that have any bearing on your opinion of the event? There is plenty of speculation, there have been absolute lies told about it by people who've never met the guy nor jumped at that dropzone. There HAVE BEEN two possibly three investigations regarding the incident, in which all the available facts were reviewed & the members we elected to oversee the association, seem satisfied this was an unfortunate anomaly and not some despicable pattern of endangering the public and doing irreparable damage to the sport as a whole. SO...as I see it, we can either stomp our feet & throw a judgemental tantrum about an event we don't have factual insight to. Or...we can trust the system as it stands, because just maybe it's working as designed. And since nobody really wants to address any weakness in it with positive/productive input - it's all we have. Like has been said - it's easy to be a critic - but the honor goes to those IN the arena...win, lose or draw - it's THEY who are actually doing something. And the bottom line is ~ the 'something' they do that actually matters...is keeping the Feds at bay ~ period. All else it smoke & mirrors...and of no consequence at all should that single primary item of priority - Fail. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  19. Curious as to why you're rehabbing one of those? I had a bunch of the bigger ones, still have one with 5 jumps total on it...and you prefer to have it in a bag or to have someone jump it ? Perfer to have it in the bag.... It was a special made experimental canopy that is coated with an aluminum like substance...it was 'supposed' to reflect the night pyro in a dramatic fashion...what it DOES ~ ~ ~ ~ is get that silver shit all over everything. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  20. They weren't porous when new, but they sure do degrade faster than any other F1-11 canopy I've ever had. Like I said I have several, one has about 300 jumps on it and yaHOOO does THAT bitch take a week to open! I talked with somebody a few years back about possibly making one out of Zpo, said it would be a problem - how many did I want. For demo jumping...IMO the 260 Excalibur is the BEST canopy ever for that. It has good speed but can sink stable if needed...and for spinning smoke on a candycane they're perfect. don't lose a lotta altitude too fast when you bury a toggle & hold it for 4000 feet! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  21. Wanna bet?! MINE'S a 260! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  22. Curious as to why you're rehabbing one of those? I had a bunch of the bigger ones, still have one with 5 jumps total on it... ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  23. Yes, that area now has a nice spectator fence and an easily visible line of deadened grass about 20 feet further into the landing area as the beer line. That beer line extends the entire length of the fence and around the corners of the hangar, and extends vertically to a height equal to the roof of the hangar (25 feet or so) creating a no-fly zone. This keeps jumpers from passing over the spectator area at a low altitude and landing "barely legal" and keeps jumpers from cutting across the corners as well. It's enforced too. Skydive Spaceland is super busy these days with 2 turbines running most weekends, so we have a DZ Safety Officer monitoring operations. 'Cept nobody told ME about the dead grass thing until....nevermind! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  24. http://youtu.be/6k9KV1cJChg?t=40s ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
  25. Ya think? The obvious missing option was "Strangle kittens". I think I'll start a poll asking if it's better to beat your wife with a hammer...or a monkey wrench? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~