dorbie

Wouldn't blame it in the US, but it is an interesting phenomenon that 150,000 die in a tsunami and billions in aid money appears within a month. Millions die of aids and we can't even bring it upon ourselves to have them pay less for the medication they need...... And Storm, you are right, good thing they didn't find any WMD. Who cares about that little invasion thingy....right?!?!?! You're right that the coverage of the Tsunami has been disproportionate, however you go too far with your indictment of the West. African nations do get cheaper and even free medicine even in the face of accusations of using them as guinneapigs recently w.r.t. an inhibitor that reduces transmission to unborn children dramatically and has saved countless children from infection. It kinda perplexes me that we're so willing to kick ourselves for not doing more when that might undermine the engine that allows us to do anything. What would happen without western medicine there in so many areas? Antibiotics, vaccinations etc, the situation would be far worse. Saying we can't bring ourselves to help is plain wrong, but you're right on with observations w.r.t. the current news story.

Stick to claims the data supports. The NPR audience was more informed on a single issue. People seeking sources like NPR would be. I wonder which audiences would get the objective facts right w.r.t. questions about the Killian memo authenticity. I know what the facts are with certainty I've studied the multiple rounds of detailed evidence and it's utterly damning, you wouldn't get that impression from most news outlets. This Williams guy screwed up and I almost started this thread myself. I'd hang him out to dry if I thought this was true as reported but it seems that there's been a convenient extrapolation in the reporting. Williams got paid for an infomercial style add. That is not directly linked to his subsequent support for the policy. While it looks bad and his credibility suffers anyone who's heard this guy knows he'd have supported it anyway. There is a bigger issue of the government paying pundits our tax dollars for any policy promotional reason, that's so open to abuse it's unbelievable that anyone would think this is OK. I'll add it to my list of issues with the way government is run.

Has anyone done any DIY job on this to build it into the power chord as a small dongle? It seems like this could be more convenient than a hunk of plastic and wasted space for my intended use. Has anyone done this?

OK, but in the preceeding post you said accuracy wasn't about this kind of save. I recently sought training for this type of canopy flying at the instructors discretion (unfortunately there was a last minute cancellation). I understand the need for it but I don't confuse that with more of the same rigmarole on flying the pattern. I don't see a lot extra in there nor do I think there is a lot more you can put in there w.r.t. flying the pattern that's going to get you to the stated accuracy objective for a newbie (just in my opinion of course). Other saving manuvers OK, but much of the stuff mentioned is and should be taught on AFF (at least the AFF course I took). If you're arguing for a training requirement (and ultimately this could become a burden on jumpers so I don't take this lightly) let's be specific about the why. I've had my say, I don't have your experience, I'm nowhere near any instructor's skill level and greatly respect your views on this I just wanted to throw some thoughts in the ring as I see this relating to my recent personal experience. There's always a good reason to justify some new requirement but striking a ballance is key. See my post above about figuring out what you can actually teach someone as a means to drive what your teaching objective is.

That's not how I imagine it working. I've been on a canopy control course, with than and AFF, I've had many tips about wind asessment, using your altimeter, consistently picking your checkpoints & adjusting over multiple jumps, compensating in your pattern for wind, flying your ground track adjusting your base-final ground track for distance using your risers on final to alter your glide slope, etc. When I come down I always do my own analysis on what happened in the pattern, I've been given those basic tools. In my opinion after all this it actually takes many jumps to hone your judgement and get it working at all consistently. You can only teach so much and then it takes a lot of practice. I better understand what you're shooting for with your post now though. I think 5 in 10 is ambitious for new jumpers which I where I thought you were targeting this. I was practicing flat turns during AFF.

That road's starting to act a lot like a creek. Good luck with the home, I hope it's safe from all potential sinks, slides & floods.

Angular momentum gravity and friction etc. Imagine that all the stuff in a sphere around the Sun (and including the Sun) has an average angular momentum. Basically the whole lot of stuff if you average out all the motion spins around a single axis even if individual particles vary. Over time internal gravitational collapse, and collisions etc, spin this material into a disk, but material in the disk maintains the averaged orbital velocity about the center of mass in the plane of the disc. There's a theory that somewhere "out there" there's a spherical cloud of rocky crud that's not completely accreted into a disk called the "oort cloud".

P.S. put a syllabus together teach it well and see what the median skill level you can produce after a target number of jumps is w.r.t. accuracy. Then set that (or possibly less) as the benchmark for certification. At least then you're picking a goal you know you can reasonably claim to be able to teach. After that cut the student loose, because it doesn't matter whether you teach them or not beyond this, they're learning on experience and you're only playing with labels not their accuracy. Don't forget to compare to vanilla AFF taught well to see if it's worth it.

We currently have training goals for this particular skill, the real issue is at say jump 100 will the jumper be any safer and the answer IMHO will be no, he'll just be less certified. He'll still be making the same jumps. In this case it's a lot about developing experience and judgement IMHO and less about useful training, there's only so much teaching you can do for flying a pattern for accuracy, I've been on a highly respected canopy course that I see recommended often and there were only a few pointers not covered during my AFF that helped with accuracy but not much more information. It was very thorough and covered everything but I guess my AFF and ground school was taught well because it was all fresh in my memory and almost boring because it was mostly the same stuff (other aspects were more useful). This TLO is going to involve a lot of just waiting around for the student to string 5 together if he doesn't quit the sport waiting and ultimately it doesn't really affect what he does in his jumps. He'll be making the same jumps just as competently or otherwise w.r.t. accuracy comparing my AFF to the canopy school I took immediately afterwards. Accuracy doesn't tackle the elephant in the livingroom of guys bouncing when they attempt to move on to make aggressive landings.

I'm sorry you responded to my post by assuming I can't hit a barn door under canopy because I disagree with you raising the bar for neophytes. Just discounting what I'm trying to say because you think I'm scared of it is one approach I suppose, but I wasn't actually thinking of myself. I'm in favor of a more advanced canopy control course but maybe I can make my objections to the accuracy requirement clearer. Your accuracy requirement is a proficiency test. It's not training at all. As a student I was striving to hit the target every time, your accuracy requirement wouldn't have done anything to change that and wouldn't have helped my accuracy one bit, it certainly wouldn't have made me any better or safer today. What are you teaching that's new with this? Beyond A there''s B and C accuracy so I've never stopped working on this. Giving a neophyte a consecutive requirement to land on target is potentially dangerous IMHO. Do you think they're more or less inclined to fly the pattern safely with good judgement when they're trying to nail that 5th jump? I have a big issue with proficiency requirements masquerading as training and your accuracy proposal is a perfect example of that. It's pure window dressing. That jumper is still going to be doing the exact same jumps but maybe he'll take 100 jumps to get his A license, maybe he'll get bored and quit, but one thing he won't do is land any safer IMHO. He'll be making the same jumps at the same skill level and one day he'll string 5 together and buy a case of beer.

OK here's my newbie perspective. Some of this I was taught during my AFF jumps, one maybe two I did on my first jump, before getting my A license I was taught half brake turns, full toggle 90/180s etc, rear riser turns, planning my pattern with varying wind, naming hazards and alternates, awareness of other canopies etc. Item 4 is extremely tough for a student, you will not get most students passing this. You can teach all you like about setting up and adjusting your check points, most students or even moderately experienced jumpers won't be able to do this because they lack consistency and they won't do this until they get beyond the flying by rote stage IMHO. A requirement like this may even make genuine skills progression less likely. What are you *teaching* them, confidence & flexibility in the pattern and flying it with awareness is probably better than obsessing about the 20m circle. The main contribution to safety (or difference) w.r.t. what I was taught is item 7 I think, but without a ground plane as a reference I don't know how useful it is and getting stududents to perform anything like a dive at 1000 AGL may be dangerous, they still have to land and not all DZs have a load of space. I saw some comments on vetoing the 90/180 turn sequences due to line twists, this is a requirement for an A license now, I was taught to do this, I was warned about line twists I was taught how to kick out line twists and I was told not to attempt any radical turns below a safe altitude. It was also extremely difficult to induce line twists in the student canopy I flew, the 90/180s were some of the most fun I had as a student and built confidence. There's also a distinction to be made between what you teach someone and proficiency testing. For example, a requirement to do a standup landing within 10m of target 5 jumps in a row is a proficiency test, it doesn't teach the student anything new. Is this supposed to make someone safer? How, what new information have you taught them? Considering the danger zone seems to be when people transition to more agressive landings something that teaches this may have better results. I really don't think my current skills shortage is in flying the pattern and doing 45 & 90 degree turns. I've been on a canopy course and actively sought additional canopy training so maybe I'm not typical, but I'm no hot shot by any means.

Good call. Most people don't know their gets from their puts so that's not going to work for them. There's enough simpel GUI ftp programs out there that you don't need to do this.

I thought that in Oz, everything meant sex! That's only everything to do with sheep.

The U.S. has been admitting mistakes and voluntarily paying compensation to victims of collateral damage since Afghanistan.

The rest of your bullshit aside, yup this sort of thing is almost inevitable, certainly lots of similar unsung stuff going on and lots of tragedy. That's the nature of war. It doesn't alter my support for this. Anyone who thought going into this that this could never happen or even that it was unlikely over the course of a campaign is a complete idiot.

And things that it very nearly says, are usually intended to be very nearly said. It is a deliberate effort to mislead. You're talking about your interpretation of course. The administration made a deliberate effort not to make an accusation you guys want the administration to make so you can attack them for it. This is amazing, even when a connection isn't made you interpret it as being said so you can attack over it. Guys it's pathetic, you actually attempt to do this with no shame at all. Ignoring most of what the administration has said and selectively quoting the most hawkish individual in the administration just isn't going to get you there either. If only you could muster a candidate that says he wouldn't have taken us into Iraq. As it is even if your willful misinterpretation were reasonable (and it isn't) you still don't have a leg to stand on.

There's a difference between a direct quote and a politicized interpretation. Only part of one of the posts was a direct quote. We all know that a letter to congress like this is very carefully written. Things it does not say, it very deliberately doesn't say. Respinning it's contents because you want to confuse two separate statements is not a reasonably interpretation of the contents of a document, it's a willful misinterpretation to suit preconceptions.

You met a couple of idiots, men push strollers here all the time.

It certainly can be, your willingness to merge and muddle several clearly discrete statements in plain English is a testament to that.

OK so we've moved to an implied connection, fine you're entitled to that belief. I wouldn't know about Fox News, I never watch it, but the Bush administration isn't responsible for what Fox Viewers believe. Moreover a lot depends on the specifics of the question you ask anyone. I believe there were high level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, the 9/11 commission agrees and so does the article you posted. There's conflicting and very tenuous evidence about the 9/11 attack itself, when I first heard reports of the meeting in Prague (very early reports before Afghanistan I think) I thought it sounded like it might be a smoking gun but we don't get to see the real Czech dossier, then almost immediately there were reports of US denials, even as the Czechs became more adamant about it, then there was some vacillation on it, the details of which I forget, but always some doubt cast on it. What am I to think? I just don't know, even Tariq Aziz hedged his denial, he didn't flat out deny it happened, he denied it then said if it did happen it's meaningless, suggesting to me they were worried about coroborrating evidence. I wouldn't be prepared to say either way, I'm happy to say I just don't know. Even the Czechs, who insist Atta was in Prague twice and met with al Ani speculate it may have been over a domestic attack, but that seems unlikely to me for a Terrorist checking out crop dusters, jet purchases and pilots licenses in the US at the time. Some things we just never get to know the definitive answer to. With shadowy networks of loosely associated decentralized terrorist cells and aquaintances you're often only going to get loose connections and single fleeting points of contact. Ever ask yourself how Zarqawi even thought he could write a letter to bin Laden? I mean most Arabs couldn't write the guy a note if their life depended on it.

I already gave at the DZ.

I've seen similar shots, some of the same areas before but these show a larger area. There's also direct evidence of the damage to coral reefs in one of the images. http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/tsunami/default.htm#aceh

He went straight for the silver. Says they were pretty low when he got it. Just because the video person pulled the reserve for them doesn't mean the tandem pair was low. On a tandem, you MUST clear the drogue before you release it or you will have a horseshoe mal. I suppose if he had gone for the drogue release, there was a chance that the drogue would have cleared from the guys head...or flat out ripped his head off. Too big of a risk. bottom line...when you can't clear the drogue, tandem instructors are taught to pull thier reserve immediately. I wonder how the reserve managed to be fired into the drogue bridle without entangling...lucky guy! I was referring to the information accompanying the video. They interviewed everyone and the video guy claimed that they were about 5 seconds away from disaster. I forget his exact words but 5 seconds was the number he used. P.S. the tandem pair were spinning pretty quickly. The drogue around one side of the neck cocked the TI up at an angle and induced the spin. They were lucky the video guy reached a handle. FWIW it did look like the exit was reasonably stable before deploying the drogue but there was a bit of vertical separation between the TI and the cameraman so the exact cause of the wrap wasn't obvious. I think the TI said he blacked out as he was reaching for a knife, next thing he knew he woke up under canopy and didn't realize how the situation had resolved itself until he saw the video.

I think he just did. or did I......... I would just like to add one final comment...Bushs donation was generous. All you guys are correct, he did not have to donate anything. I just thought when he did do it, if he was gonna do it, it would be more. I hope all of the 10K he gave makes it to those who need it...(but that is a totally different discussion) Wow, I'm impressed. fair comment, I wish it had come sooner it would have spared my keyboard a workout.

Ahh. my bad, I see the tounge in cheek at the end. Maybe I'm losing my dry sense of humour, I shouldn't even need hints like that.