Airman1270

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Tee hee. I replied to the original question without having read the other responses. Kinda wonder what was just said that hadn't already been mentioned.) Carry on guys! Cheers, Jon

I made several banner jumps in the 90's to announce my kids' births. The banners were all made with the help of my riggers according to instructions provided in an article in the December 1989 PARACHUTIST. (Note - I assisted on a few other banner jumps which featured homemade banners that were not built according to these instructions. They didn't work.) I used F-111 cut into a slight trapezoid shape, about 3' wide at the bottom, with a reinforcing seam a few inches from the top. This allowed the top portion to vibrate & shred a bit, while the main part with the message flew wide open & stable. A nylon cord was sewn along the bottom seam, with a loop through which the left (reserve) hand is inserted (just four fingers, not the entire hand!) for a solid grip, and a knot tied at the other end for the right hand. Fit the banner over the left hand, then stuff the material into your hand with the knotted end of the cord hanging out. The whole thing fits very snugly inside your hand. Once in freefall just grab the knotted end & pull it out as straight as you can. The banner is flying very nicely. You may wish you had a photo, so be sure to arrange for a video guy to join you. At pull time, let the banner streamer behind you at arm's length while you deploy the main. Piece of cake. In the event of an emergency, just let it slip off your left hand and save your life. Planning for a high pull might be a good idea, but probably isn't all that necessary if you have enough experience to be fussing with a banner in the first place. You know how we exit with our arms out & hands wide open? Hold the fist closed until you're ready to deploy the banner. You're on video - don't mess up! Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S.

(Jon likes this.)

Wow. Such effort to conceive/wisualize/create this art. Very good. Of course, the author likely wasn't getting any at all... Cheers, Jon S.

Ah, timing. Am about to embark on a commission-only job. Returning to a radio station I once worked at. New management. Doing the morning show, and selling advertising. My pay is 50% of whatever we collect. And I don't have to give up the day job. Only wish I was good at sales. Interesting learning curve ahead... Cheers, Jon S.

Sold about half of my record collection (200-ish LP's) in 1984 during my student days. Talk about timing! Right now I couldn't give away the other half. Still enjoy listening to them, though. Cheers, Jon S.

The part I'm having trouble with is we've got a new jumper who's already obsessed with this whole idea of "downsizing." As these newbies go through their training and become acclimated to DZ culture, how many highly experienced jumpers do they see who fly larger canopies? Are these people as much a part of the scenery as the high-test swoopers? Or are they regarded as the occasional oddity? Nobody who visits a DZ to make that first jump is thinking, as they arrive at manifest & fill out the paperwork, "Gee, I wonder how many jumps I'd need to fly something smaller?" At some point this kind of thinking takes hold. When new jumpers are led to believe that downsizing is an inevitable, normal part of the sport, it follows that some of these people will place inordinate emphasis on learning to fly smaller stuff, and many get pretty well banged up in the process. Just wondering. Cheers, Jon S.

Democrats try and keep us from owning guns and doing things they perceive to harm the environment... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "They perceive." Very well said. Owning a gun causes harm to nobody. (Misusing a gun does cause harm, but Republicans do not support this, so this response is irrelevant.) Republicans try to keep us from doing things that are personal decisions... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Such as allowing customers to smoke in a restaurant? Or cooking food using trans fat? Or riding a bike without a helmet? Or driving alone in the left highway lane without wearing a seatbelt? Or selling "Happy Meals" with a small toy inside? Remind me again which Republicans are trying to make such things illegal. If you can think of any. ...Republicans think that if some guy gets high on X and fucks their boyfriend that society will collapse, so they try and ban drugs and fight the gay lifestlye... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There are valid reasons to keep illegal drugs illegal. Having said that, I'll agree that small-time violations should be handled in a common-sense manner. (This would not include arrest & property confiscation.) As for the two guys, if they wanna have queer sex it's their business as long as they don't shove it in my face and demand I give approval to their favorite sin. (I've done immoral things too, but I don't shout it from the rooftops or volunteer such information during a job interview.) Why do I have to know about it? Keep my nose out of your bedroom. It's all bullshit, and is really nothing more than trying to push their personal opinions on others... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Telling someone what you think is not "pushing" anything. Demanding a law to force them to conform with your preference is. If you tell me you use an AAD and suggest I do the same, fine. If you won't allow me to jump at your DZ because I don't have one, you are pushing your beliefs on me. ...Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pure fiction. If you look at the list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are now illegal, you'll see the fingerprints of Democrats all over the place. Yes, some of these laws were passed with the help of Republican votes, but it was Democrats who pushed such legislation in the first place. If you've ever been hassled by police for doing something that used to be okay, thank a Democrat. Can you say patriot act?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Okay okay. If you make overseas phone calls to know terrorist sympathizers your calls might be monitored. And depending on who you are your library records might be looked at. I'm not very comfortable with some of the provisions of this legislation, but tell me: If Bush had done nothing would you be praising him for his restraint? If we had been hit again the left would have blamed Bush for failing to "do something" to prevent it. Cheers, Jon

Probably keep falling. Cheers, Jon S.

Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is insane. If this logic stands, why limit this policy to drug use? What about traffic violations, which pose a far greater threat to public safety than a bunch of people sitting around smoking dope & enjoying music together. It is one thing to violate a law for petty personal reasons. It is quite another to aggressively cause harm to someone else. In the 70's & 80's I ran with a circle of folks who frequently smoked pot and played music together. This was our only offense against society. We were otherwise very nice people who lived quiet lives, held jobs, & didn't cause trouble. We all have clean records. Regardless of our moral imperfections we didn't hurt people or take their stuff. Liberals (mostly Democrats) are obsessed with using any excuse to prevent people from owning guns because they are the ones who keep imposing policies which erode liberty & freedom while forcing "free" Americans to do things they otherwise would not choose to do. They know that if they keep provoking people they will eventually prompt a defensive reaction. Gotta wonder what it is about Democrats that makes it impossible for them to simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone. Cheers, Jon S.

If someone wants to cause trouble by misusing a gun, the only effective remedy is more guns.

#20. T-10. Also my first 20-second delay & first head-first "bombout" exit, First load of the day, I was the only student. Windy, long-spot. Spent almost the entire ride going backward, crabbing a bit to get on the wind line. Pretty much nailed the target field, landing a few hundred feet from the "X." They put a hold on students for the rest of the day. Cheers, Jon S

What's so frustrating about this day is the disproportionate attention assigned to King. Why is he the only American deserving of a holiday in his honor? Not to suggest his message wasn't worthy of serious reflection, but if Washington & Lincoln do not rate such recognition, it seems we've gone a bit overboard with this annual ritual... ...Especially given the PC climate in which people who actually attempt to live their lives & run their businesses according the the principles espoused by King are frequently accused of racism. Try running a business without paying attention to the racial background of applicants & employees. If you simply focus on finding the best qualified people, and refuse to report racial information on federal paperwork, you risk having to appear before a judge to explain yourself. King would never have approved of racial quotas or "affirmative action." Cheers, Jon S.

...Because smarter people are often proud of their ability to dodge jury duty. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tee hee. I used to be one of those people who regarded jury duty as something to avoid, but now I'm eager to get picked. If I get the chance I intend to portray myself as a clueless dolt so as to increase my chances of being selected. I'll be as fair as is humanly possible, but first I must get selected. A few years back I got on a jury. A couple was suing a moving company for losing/damaging their stuff. We heard a few hours of testimony, then quit for the day. The next day I was eager to hear more, but learned the case had been settled and I was no longer needed. I don't know how I would have voted. Cheers, Jon

If a case involves a traffic mishap, they do not reject potential jurors simply because they held a driver's license. Yet in a case involving a skydiving mishap, the first people rejected are people with parachuting experience. Why? If getting to the truth is a priority, wouldn't a juror with some skydiving experience be an asset? I once asked a lawyer: "You know how they sometimes cover newspaper vending machines in the court building so jurors won't see them? If these people are so shallow, so easily manipulated that exposure to a newspaper would render them incapable of deciding a case fairly, why are they selected as jurors? Why don't they just pick a panel of smarter people?" He said I'd stumbled onto something of a trade secret. Cheers, Jon

In another discussion we were talking about the litigation machine that assigns responsibility to business owners for the actions of employees & customers. I said if I were on a jury I would not blame the company for events over which it had no control, that the individual is responsible for his actions regardless of whether he was on the job at the time of the incident in question, or who happened to own the property on which the incident occurred. Someone with law school experience said this attitude would be considered a pre-existing bias & that I'd have no business being on a jury. My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias? If the heating/air serviceman commits a crime during a service call, why is the company responsible? If the pizza driver runs a red light, why is the company responsible? If the customer at Wal-Mart stumbles into a merchandise display because he was not paying attention, why is the company responsible? If a skydiver goes in on a no-pull, why is the DZO responsible? Why is it okay to report for jury service with the attitude that the business is responsible for the conduct of employees & customers, but it is considered an unacceptable bias to believe in the concept of personal responsibility? Cheers, Jon S.

Learned that my good friend John Calen passed Dec. 22nd in Poughkeepsie, NY following another cancer episode. John & I trained together and shared our first jumps on Sept. 30 1982 at Duanesburg. Bob Raeke trained & JM's us, DZO Bob Rawlins flew the 206. I broke my ankle, John did just fine. He never jumped again, but enjoyed the experience and went on to earn a pilot's license. He later told me he wasn't all that eager to jump in the first place, but did it because I suggested we try it and he thought it sounded like a good time. He proudly wore his Albany Skydiving T-shirt for several years afterward. We played music together for many years. I have many tapes of our jam sessions, including one in the Duanesburg motel made the night before our jumps. Almost nobody here will remember him, but I'll never forget. Cheers, Jon S.

Perhaps exposure to the sport in such an informal, matter-of-fact manner will inspire the people who might have been inclined to make a jump anyway. I can't imagine the ones who are not interested will change their minds by listening to skydivers talk about it. Cheers, Jon S.

QuoteAnd after all, so many of the people in Bonfire (for example) are here for skydiving advice I'd be far more scared of newbies giving advice they have no context for, than people giving potentially outdated advice. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yes Wendy! I'm trying to come up with an example of advice that might be "outdated" and therefore potentially dangerous. It seems the stuff we learned so long ago still applies today. (After all, reminding someone not to twist a belly band is still good advice, in the event one actually has an opportunity to use a rig with belly band.) Cheers, Jon S.

...Claiming that arbitrarily old gear is just as safe as any modern gear is nonsense... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ASSuming that older gear (especially in the hands of one who has much experience with this gear) is unsafe in nonsense. Nobody is claiming that the newer stuff isn't a bit better than the older stuff. Frankly, I feel "safer" using my Infinity/Triathalon than I do using the 'Hog/'Cloud w/ the round reserve. But the old rig is just as good as it was 30 years ago. If it was safe enough for students in the mid-'80's, it's safe enough for experienced jumpers today. Cheers, Jon

The good news is that sometime soon we'll all dress up nicely and meet his family on a Wednesday night and eat potato salad. They're probably really nice people. Cheers, Jon

OxyClean will get that out... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Good good, but remember stage presence! Declare boldly, just a hint below shouting... "OXYCLEAN WILL GET THAT OUT!" Cheers, Jon

I greatly respect the thoughtfulness of your posts on skydiving issues. But with all due respect, let me lend some perspective to what you propose: The only way what you propose could happen is if the prospective juror, during the screening process, lies to the court when asked whether he has any pre-conceived biases... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Really? Refusing to assign blame to an innocent party is considered a pre-conceived bias? I'd go in with an open mind. (Perhaps it really IS Wal-Mart's fault that the guy fell & broke his ankle.) But if it becomes apparent that the guy fell because he wasn't watching where he was going, Wal-Mart is not guilty. I don't care what the pizza company's policy may be. The driver is responsible for his operation of the vehicle. Period. If the heating/air company had knowledge that their serviceman intended to commit a crime on company time, perhaps they're partially responsible. Otherwise, it's not their fault. Not Guilty. Bringing this back to the subject of skydiving: If the DZ is putting out first timers at dusk in high winds, perhaps the staff is partially responsible. But if an experienced jumper decides, for whatever reason, to jump from their airplane & land without pulling it's not the DZO's fault for failing to require an AAD. (If a customer has an AAD but does not turn it on, is the DZ liable for failing to make sure the unit was properly set?) Cheers, Jon

... You need gear that will operate correctly and land you safely. A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If the returning jumper is using gear with which he's familiar it doesn't matter how old it is. Just because the other people standing around watching have never used a rig with ROL deployment or a round reseve doesn't mean it's dangerous for the guy who actually owns/has used this equipment. . It might not be a good idea for a young jumper to borrow my Wonderhog for his first 20-way, but it would be perfectly fine for me to use it as I've been jumping this rig for 20 years and have nearly 50 round jumps, including three reserve rides. Every rig I've ever seen, including the military gear I trained on, had some form of pin protection. This phrase comes up a lot, but is irrelevant as long as one observes basic safety procedures, such as protecting handles, etc. Cheers, Jon