dorbie

How ever I'll agree with you on this. It's discrimination. What's next, drinkers? How about obesity next? Force people to diet & exercise for their own good by threatening to fire anyone who is fat, it should work out great! Really this is unbelievable, if someone smokes it's none of the company's damned business, I hope the lawyers leave a smouldering crater.

This isn't about 100 jump newbies jumping with a wing loading or 2.0. One of the issues of contention is more like should 100 jump newbies be loading their canopies at 1.1. OK there are test outs but at least use the numbers being proposed lest anyone misunderstand why this is contentious.

I think he's just stirring the pot. - Jim Are you accusing a moderator of trolling their own forum!

No it doesn't make me nervous although that was suggested in another thread where I articulated my objections in detail. What rules?

Couldn't agree more although I'm just a beginner. I made my second attempt to reschedule training with a similar canopy control coach last week for skills assessment and general training (whatever he thinks I need). When he's back from PIA & tour I hope to benefit for his expertise and training. I know I need it. It should be money well spent.

Stratostar, I respect you and many other experienced jumpers immensely. I mean that sincerely. Maybe I come across as some wannabe bedsheet pilot, I'm not. If I push against the details of some proposals don't assume that I'm entirely on the opposite side of the debate objecting to all reasonable controls and training I'm not. And my opinion is what it is, I make no secret of my experience level, this stuff affects me and the generalizations used to justify it don't all apply to me. A statistic is just that one guy in a thousand used as the example to regulate and restrict everyone else for their alleged benefit.

More intelligent justification for regulation. I'm really warming to your persuassive abilities. This is ridiculous and purile, there's two aspects here, how I jump and my opinion on your regulation, you just want to humiliate any dissenters by calling them unsafe idiots because they take issue with your proposed rules, irrespective of how or what they jump.

Newer jumpers who have their heads so far up their ass that they can neither hear what people are trying to tell them, nor see their impending impact with the ground. Of course, I could be wrong..........but I'm not. I congratulate you on your rational debate. Having never seen me jump, we should all just kiss your ass and put up with whatever regulation the vocal minority sees fit to impose. Note to anyone else who might consider standing in the way of this freight train, it ain't worth the insults.

I said it's *NOT* missing the peas, which some experts have proposed as one of the tests taken before progression. geeze what's the point. But I'm glad you agree with me it's a fucking stupid way to judge safety under a canopy, maybe you should take that issue up with the proposer, and not the person who's objected to it all along.

I'm curious as to what you think the real problem is. It's not missing the peas.

Aye, what sports/regions were you thinking about, Dorbie? Within the US, it's pretty uncommon. Most regulation is imposed by the operators, not by the government. Key exception coming to mind is Laguna Beach and their silly ticketing of divers for 'safety violations' like soloing and no snorkels. When I wrote that I was thinking specifically about SCUBA in certain organizations in the UK and not government regulation & contrasting that with my experience with PADI. The overregulation happens through creeping good intentions with helpings of grandfathered old farts on committies setting rules. Add some vestigial outmoded bullshit like snorkel cover and you have the makings of a bunch of crusty carmudgeons killing a great sport. The comparrison is not a direct one but the prognosis is the same. This stuff happens in degrees and ballance is important, dusting off the hoary old chestnut of safety to justify regulatuion is easy, but proposals should be demonstrably targeted and effective.

No that's not what I'm saying, it's about striking a balance. I could make skydiving safer by mandating 7 cell squares and all wing loading

No, the right education & training would, not any education and training. I agree with your last comment. The goal that's been unstated should be the minimum restrictions that get you the most return but that's a judgement call. I happen to be of the opinion that some proposals are both excessively restrictive and ineffective, it's difficult to test and difficylt to argue against when you're making the case for not saving lives, the emotional side of us tends to want to err on the side of caution, but people choose to skydive and we don't restrict everyone to 7 cell large square mains even though it would save lives.

Women fart?

This highlights the problem for me. We don't come to skydiving in a bubble we have other life experiences and have issues with the case being made. Some of us have seen other sports in different parts of the world strangled by over regulation, it tends to be an irreversible trend. We can see the generic assumptions about our actions and what we "don't know" being applied with broad brushes and the best of intentions. There's so many conflicting theories, bogus analyses, lack of statistical data but plenty of opinion and downright hostility and prejudice on the part of some towards newer jumpers. I've been attacked more than once here for simply voicing objections to possible overregulation, I'm hitting the peas with regularity but a respected expert will apply the same flawed assumptions to my ability that he does to accident statistics and tell me I'm scared of accuracy testing when I know what's being proposed won't make me safer under an HP canopy. We don't need analogies to driving with a latte in your hand, we need hard data and/or lucid arguments tied to specific training as it relates to safety. The more I see some leap from say accuracy to intentional hook turns the more skeptical I am that people are actually dealing with the problem instead of putting something in place because they have a curriculum for it already. A wing loading chart might be seen as a permisison slip so it has to be set excessively conservatively and that's restrictive on people who can fly a canopy with moderate competence and there's not enough specificity on the details of testing out or how exactly the details of that training & testing helps safety w.r.t. what actually kills people without making leaps between different unrelated scenarios. For my part I was a bad driver when I was young because I did stupid things, not because I lacked skill. I was probably better w.r.t. handling a vehicle then than I am now, but I was a bloody idiot because I'd do stuff I'd never do now in a car.

It's just great that the folks who refused to acknowledge the UK as a valued ally for this past two years now see them as vital when one article voices an opinion that there might be strain in the relationship. The only time the left in America acknowledges any "ally" is when it's bitching about the U.S. or looks like it might be about to bitch. The idea that Blair and the UK went into Iraq purely out of loyalty to Bush or the U.S. is farcical. Get a clue, other countries act out of their national interests too, not exclusively on how their actions are regarded by whoever governs America at that moment.

No, that's not how it works, this actually happened. You only confess when it involves seditious slander, even then the play book on that may have been revised recently.

They are just getting ready to run for President. I guess it's up to Democrats to decide on that one. They'll be in excellent company with Ted Kennedy et.al.

Don't confuse the debate by bringing hard facts to the table.

Looks like some politician's sons are getting their felony convictions in early. http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/295825.asp?format=print This makes it look like an orchestrated effort that reached the very top of the local party organization.

Baby teeth fall out you just gotta wait. All of mine were pulled out by hand mostly by me personally, and it wasn't painful one bit, I looked forward to the $$ from the tooth fairy. My nephews and neices are the same, they're growing up right now and their teeth getting yanked by them or their dad as nature intended. They're encouraged to yank at the loose ones :-). Getting orthodontics is another story, if they need to come out for that then they need to be removed by the dentist. It seems a bit early though, I assume the xrays show some problems somewhere.

With this new fabric only your rigger would know you weren't cool .

You are right, it is the user's fault for not: - continuously upgrading and updating their anti-virus software - continuously upgrading and updating their spyware detection software - continuously installing Windows patches etc etc etc In order to keep your PC safe, it takes quite a bit of work. I know Gareth, and he's been around computers for a long time too.. just like me, and keeping your pc clean and "safe for the internet" is a lot of work. I'm not saying that PCs are bad, cause they are not but it is a lot of work keeping them up to date and clean of virusses. Iwan All of this happens automatically on my PC after asking me permission, it takes almost no work. My hardware firewall/router helps too but I need that anyway so that's a freebee and takes no work in anycase. PCs represent a target rich environment for hackers, it's getting better w.r.t. the OS itself but it'll never be safe because the popularity makes it the primary target of antisocial freaks who want to cause disruption. I don't use a PC because it's the safe & trouble free option, I use a PC for the same reasons hackers attack it, it's the popular choice so software & hardware developers develop their applications primarily for that platform. I have nothing against Apple, they're great machines, it's just not the right choice for me.

Surely you mean the reserve container much larger than the main.

I might upsize and fit a larger reserve in the same container. Can't go wrong with a bit bigger reserve. But really, no, I have a reserve and a container, this would only be a factor if I was looking at a new container, but if that's the context I probably would, I like the idea of having a decent sized reserve regardless of main size, ignoring my current setup for a sec , which is just a placeholder for where I want to be in the long haul with this container.