winsor

Recognize the difference between luck and ability (I certainly don't always). Ego gets you out the door, but humility is what gets you to the ground in one piece time and again. I have, upon occasion, been willing to take credit for pulling off a close one or two, and appreciate the folks who took the time to point out that I had actually come a RCH shy of biting the dust. The best advice I have had in this sport was when I was told that I had more than my share of luck, and if I kept pushing it, it would run out. When I consider how many close calls I have had where I wasn't particularly scared, I figure if something frightens me, I am in for a near-death experience at the very least if I continue. All too often, when I stood down because I didn't like the conditions, one or more of the people who forged ahead became casualties. Thus, the smarter things I have done include listening to the advice of people who don't want to see me hurt or killed. Blue skies, Winsor

I'm familiar with that. You will note that I specified "malfunction," not simply two out. Big difference. Your likelihood of having a stable biplane when you started out with a spinning malfunction is nil. Once you have transitioned past a sideplane, it behooves you to get rid of the main STAT - at least if landing without serious injury or death is a consideration. Blue skies, Winsor

Besides the obvious lessons, I'm curious if there have ever been any experiements with two-out situations where one of the canopies is 'aerodinamically challenged'. I've thought about it and it seems to me in this case, the possibility of a stable configuration is pretty small. Am I right? Quite right. With two out due to an AAD fire or whatever, there is a good chance (assuming compatibility) that they will fly just fine. If the main has controllability problems from the start, such as with a tension knot or lineover, there is a near certainty that it will result in a personal downplane. In the cases with which I am familiar, there is a slightly better than 50% chance of survival. Survival, however, involved life-flights, lots of surgery and less than complete recovery. The lessons learned here are: 1) Stay the hell out of the basement. 2) If you have a malfunction and the reserve appears of its own volition, GET RID OF THE MAIN! The jumper in this case dodged a bullet. If this is typical of their decision-making skills, they may be advised to take up another hobby. Blue skies, Winsor

McGyver was a phony.

Same basic deal. Jack Daniel's and other brands use charcoal filtration to get rid of the nasty allenes and whatnot that show up in rotgut. FWIW, using Brita filters is a bit of overkill. In addition to activated charcoal, they contain a mixed bed ion exchange filter, and deionizing a distilled product is kind of redundant. If you can come up with a straight charcoal filter type system, you have it made. BTW, ethanol alone is quite sufficient to provide hangovers. You can get a monster hangover from absolute alcohol (diluted with mixers) - trust me. The presence of some of the strange organic compounds can only make things worsse, both from the standpoint of taste and aftereffects. The only way I have found to avoid hangovers is pretty simple - don't drink. Blue skies, pink clouds, Winsor

It wasn't very long ago that a bunch of people hated the British and the British way of life; the IRA killed and maimed many Britons, and planned to kill many more. And people in Boston and New York and Houston and Dallas and San Francisco and Chicago sent the IRA money and weapons to assist them kill the British. So what was your point again? Hey, I didn't send the IRA anything. Then again, I have been known to wear my International Orange down vest on St. Patrick's day, so that is hardly surprising....

Answer: Neither of the two options. If #1 - Which god? Deities are legion, and equally "real." If #2 - "The Bible" is a group of tracts assembled from various disparate sources by committee, and translated and edited by other committees. The popularly available versions have clearly demonstrable errors, as well as verifiable fact. So it is "true" about as much as it is "false." Whatever. If #3 - What Jesus claimed or did not claim is one thing, what is attributed to him is something else altogether. Every word he said could have been correct, but what is attributed to him is oftentimes clearly false (new wine in old bottles, bricks without straw, etc.). If #4 - It is not possible to prove anything beyond all doubt. "Faith" is by its very nature a disease of denial. No amount of "proof" can override so fundamental an emotional failing. Sanity is lost on the mentally ill. Thus, the answer to the question is, again, E - none of the above. Blue skies, Winsor

I expect to be there. If you need a rig, I have rather a few that might work. Let me know if you're a small person, and I'll stick a CYPRES in something with an appropriate harness. Blue skies, Winsor

Are we not men? We are DEVO!

We used to make "Sunkist" dives, which were great fun. A large, spherical navel orange was found to have a fall rate that was no problem with which to stay relative in freefall (bellyflying). Just toss it out the door and chase. If you have one that is asymmetrical, be prepared for it to begin spinning. It will then require quite a serious track to stay anywhere close to it. Given a particular density, fall rate will tend to increase with size. IIRC, to keep fall rate constant, the weight of the object should vary with its area, rather than volume. A 10 cm ball that weighs 100 gm should fall at the same rate as a 20 cm ball that weighs 400 gm. A 20 cm ball with the same density as the 10 cm ball will weigh 800 gm and fall 1.41 times as fast. Playing with the numbers, given a 12 cm orange falling at 120 mph, a 33.3 cm orange would be doing 200 mph at terminal. If a pumpkin has density similar to an orange, you would have to stand on your head to keep up with one 1 foot in diameter. Blue skies, Winsor

Ah. Tolerance at its finest. I find the concept of "tolerance" to be singularly offensive. The condescension inherent in someone choosing to tolerate me is such that I would rather do without. You do not tolerate something unless you consider it fundamentally unacceptable. You only tolerate something if it is has basic negative qualities, and you are showing strength of character by your ability to endure it. You do not tolerate a nice meal, you tolerate a poison. You do not tolerate nice weather, you tolerate conditions that are unfit for your needs (rain, cold, wind, etc.). "Tolerable" means something that is bad but can be survived. If someone does not accept me, that is fine. It is honest, and I am partial to honesty. If they basically disapprove, but wish to "tolerate" the characteristics they perceive to be my shortcomings, they are not doing anyone any favors. Talk about sanctimonious. If I have a friend that is into something that I decidedly am not, I prefer to remain indifferent than to say "you suck, but I am so superior that I will put up with you nonetheless." I have friends that are gay, watch football, drink, and do many other things in which I expect to die of old age before participating. I don't expect them to be anything but indifferent to the fact that I am a breeder who doesn't watch football or drink. Neither of us has to "tolerate" the other. Thus, I view tolerance as a bad thing. I see "tolerant people" as synonymous with "fatuous assholes." Blue skies, Winsor

Being a pilot is useful when learning to fly a parachute. Be advised, however, that it is much harder to execute a go-around with a parachute. Blue skies, Winsor

The question still stands "do you know why" Yes, I know why. When someone presents such s garbled picture of what they think is going on, it is usually an uphill battle trying to convey to them the errors in their thought process, since these may be inherent. If you can come up with an approach that is anything but optimal and get it to work nonetheless, bully for you. I will stick to the optimal method and be done with it. Blue skies, Winsor

Bullshit. Skydiving is an activity that involves a near-death experience every single time. You are, in effect, committing suicide, convinced that intervention - when you have scant seconds to live - will be effective. EVERY time you skydive, without intervention you are dead. You can count on the magic gizmo to open a 100% reliable parachute that will flat guarantee that you will land uninjured, but I have news for you - the gizmo is not magic, NO parachute is 100% reliable and you can do everything right and still die. You can reduce the level of risk to acceptable levels by a combination of equipment and procedures, but you can make it fatal in short order by some relatively innocuous actions. Skydiving may be accurately described by a number of adjectives, but "safe" is not one of them. Blue skies, Winsor

Kallend has explained what the policy should be and why. That's what we use. Ok Mr bigway you seem obsessed with Mr Kellend That's DOCTOR or PROFESSOR Kallend. With an "a." It doesn't follow. If you do a brief search you will find a variety of sources, all of them quite legitiamate, whose analyses come to the same conclusions. John Kallend's presentation is among the best. if not THE best. Do your homework and get back to me. Actually, it is anything but surprising. With all due respect, that standpoint is entirely irrelevant. The principles put forth by any of us are about as cut and dried as whether an anvil, when released, will go up or down. Nobody with a clue would describe Physics as "everything," but the disciplne does detail some inescapable realities. Ignore these physical realities at your peril. The answer is: the policy which optimizes horizontal separation between groups in all regimes of the skydive. And yes, I know why, and Dr. Kallend and I are in complete agreement. Blue skies, Winsor

I have like five ParaCommander-class canopies around. My primary PC is a Lightweight RWPC, D-bagged in a Wonderhog with a 26' steerable conical reserve and a BOC throwout pilot chute. I have a Sierra set up the same way. I have a couple of Mk 1 PCs in Mini System harness/containers, but haven't gotten around to jumping either. I'm a big fan of keeping handles in the same place from jump to jump. I have a UT-15 Russian rig that I can't figure out how to pack. It is in the original Russian harness/container, and quite how the lines should stow and how the sleeve is retained on the canopy is not apparent upon casual inspection. I'll probably wind up setting it up in an American harness/container when I get around to jumping it. The big problem with the Mk 1s and the UT-15 is they are bloody HUGE! The RWPC and Sierra have about half the pack volume of the traditional PCs, and can be fitted to a Wonderhog with no problem. I'm not big on belly-mounted reserves - though I have a quarter-bagged C-9 with 4-line release set up in one - so I haven't jumped the Mini Systems to date. I probably should, but am in no rush. Anyone wishing to jump a ParaCommander need only stop by Tent 3 at the Convention. I have it there every year. Blue skies, Winsor

The only reason it could fail to work is if his faith was not strong. Lions are well known for their devout nature.

Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see an axe inside those bundle of sticks. "The root of the word: fascist, is fasces. This is a symbol composed of a bundle of sticks and an axe. The United States Congress is graced with this symbol." More here http://scifiles.no-ip.com/FASCIST.htm t Thanks, I was looking for something U.S. Government and official that contained the symbol, but couldn't come up with it. I was pretty sure it was around somewhere. The U.S. Government has rather a dog's breakfast of symbology amongst its various official seals, documents and whatnot, so it's not surprising that fasces are in mix. Blue skies, Winsor

And a few years later his son was dead. Must have been bittersweet for Joe Kennedy. Joe had four sons who were groomed at various times for the presidency. Joe Jr. was in an airplane that blew up during WWII, so Jack the Zipper was next in line. Once Jack was assassinated, we got stuck with LBJ, and Bobby was positioned to run. Bobby didn't even get to the nomination before he was shot, which gave us a race between Hube the Cube and Tricky Dick. Teddy was then considered likely for the presidency - as a consolation prize for having his siblings killed or something - until he rolled out of his car to avoid being caught playing "hide the salami" with a cute campaign worker and sent her off to her death. Joseph P. was a truly despicable human being, and I'm not too impressed with his offspring. I only wish Jack lived long enough to be remembered as a singularly mediocre president instead of being deified after death, and have no sympathy at all for the feelings of his father upon his demise. In politics more than elsewhere, the scum rises to the top. Blue skies, Winsor

I have a custom bike I built myself - HD frame and engine - and can pretty much guarantee I spent a lot less on it than you did on yours. In all fairness, I've had it for 17 years so I got in when you could actually get a basket case for cheap. Nevertheless, it's way amusing (and truly uncivilized). Blue skies, Winsor

Simple solution: if you want a Harley, get a Harley...

I just found out that my mother has never seen "A Christmas Story." I have to scare up a copy for her - Jean Shepherd was brilliant. Blue skies, Winsor

Correct definition! I was not very precise in using "Fascism" as a buzzword, what I meant is "the ideology of the fascist regime of the 3rd Reich." FWIW, Mussolini was the author of the concept of Fascism (tm), and the name was applied in generic form to a variety of other similar political systems. IIRC, fascia are the bundles sticks beside the throne that represent the power to punish. Mussolini apparently liked the idea, and thus coined the phrase. The NSDAP, FWIW, laid claim to "socialism" as its basis. Regardless of how they labeled themselves, "a rose by any other name...." Blue skies, Winsor

Spaying strays is considered humane except when applied to the human species. There have been cases where receipt of Welfare has been dependent upon giving up the capacity to reproduce further, and I believe there is at least one class-action suit in the works as a result. The suggestion that receipt of AFDC or other similar funds be contingent upon undergoing reversible sterilization would seem a realistic approach on face value. If, during one's fertile years, the individual has achieved sufficient liquidity to pay for reversal (should they so desire), they are quite capable of further reproduction. This, however, immediately has people concerned about the slippery slope toward a "Final Solution" scenario - perhaps rightly so. The Third Reich gave Eugenics a rather bad name. Given the rather horrific excesses that accompanied their policies, that is hardly surprising. The propensity for people of insufficient means to reproduce is a problem, but I am fearful of anything that claims to be a solution. Having bureaucratic dunderheads making any more life-affecting decisions than they already do is not an option. Blue skies, Winsor

I wouldn't say it can't be done; it just didn't work this time. "Son, you only need to win by one vote. I can't afford a landslide." Joseph P. Kennedy