AndyBoyd

I've done almost 2000 tandems, many of them on hot days with small passengers. I have got caught in thermals, and it can be an issue on a busy day with students waiting on the ground. I do not claim to understand the science behind thermals, but my experience tought me that there are really only 2 solutions. 1 - spiral like crazy (like another poster says, as much as your passenger can tolerate). 2 - thermals seem to be concentrated in small areas over dark surfaces (i.e. runways or dirt fields), so try to move away from these areas if the spot allows you to do so.

"With the way the Carolina Hurricanes are playing right now - I think I need to find a hockey support group. I had a thousand heart attacks during the third period of their loss to the Atlanta Trashers last night....." I'm a Blackhawks fan. You get no sympathy from me.

"Andy Honigbaum is nowhere to be seen and was invited onto Airspeed a couple of years before Andy D and Eric. What is the story?????: Also Todd is back skydiving at a competitive level ......" Andy (along with Todd, Eric, and Chris Irwin) ran an Airspeed 4-way camp this week. Andy, Eric, and Todd all participated in the meet as player-coaches with AA teams.

I took a "little person"/vertically challenged/midget (insert whatever the current PC term is these days) on a tandem back in 1996. He was maybe 4 feet tall, as I remember, and seemed to be around 100 pounds or so (he had some muscle on him). The old Strong harness fit easily, but there was a lot of excess leg strap to stow. The jump went fine, including the cutaway. (The landing was a bit rough. The whole "legs up for landing" thing doesn't work that great with a little person:)). He had a good time, and came back for another jump.

Slayer: War at the Warfield

Yeah, on my definiton, that's sex.

Not that I've had any lately, but here's my definition of sex: Any activity engaged in by two or more consenting adults in which it is likely that at least one person will have an orgasm.

I hadn't seen Tom since the old days of Skydive Illinois, when, out of the blue, he showed up at the Holiday Boogie in Eloy with some buddies from Byron, and a nice new girlfriend. It was a pleasure to see him again, and to find out that he was still the same old Tommy - humble, friendly, and a genuinely nice guy. The mumbling hadn't changed, either.

Yeah, that happens. It is awful when our system convicts innocent people. You won't believe me when I say this, but the system tries to minimize these terrible things. There was another thread on this topic previously. If I was sober, I could help you find it. But, as much as it pains me to point this out, you still have to pay your taxes. So just pay up, and quit bitching. Everyone, including me, pays up. Just pay your share, and it's all good.

Refusing to pay your taxes is a really bad idea, people. You will almost certainly get caught, and at a minimum, you will be forced to pay back taxes, with penalties. At the worst, you will be prosecuted by the federal government, and you will then be looking at potential prison time or, at least, a hefty fine. I'm not familiar with the case linked to in one of the above posts, but it looks like the lawyer may have done some fancy footwork, and convinced the government to drop the charges. That's great for this particular defendant, but not likely to happen very often. I'm no tax expert, but I am a lawyer, and I work for a federal judge. I've seen tax protesters prosecuted, and they uniformly lose. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. And it's fine to have a theoretical debate about whether or not the law actually, specifically, requires one to pay income tax. But the reality is that if you don't pay your taxes, the government will catch up with you sooner or later. And you won't like it when that happens. Pay your taxes, folks. Just a bit of friendly legal advice.

I agree 100% with this. Very well said. And with that, I'll bow out of this thread. Unless I decide to jump back in. No BS, I really do appreciate the reasonable and thoughtful posts on this thread. Blus skies, all.

Well, I vowed to stay out of this, but what the heck, we're all friends here, right?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. In other words, it is the most important law that we have. It is the foundation of our legal system. If the overall intention of the Constitution is to defend individual rights, as you admit, then the overall intention of our legal system must be to defend individual rights. Tougher question to deal with, I admit. I'll concede that the right to freedom in this case is balanced against society's needs. But all the other rights a criminal defendant gets, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against him, etc., are not diminished. That's what I mean when I say that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve rights. Feel free to have the last word on this. Nice debating with you! Andy

I'm relatively new to posting here, so don't get annoyed if I goof up quoting your post. Feel free to get as annoyed as you want with my reply, though.

I would argue that our legal system is designed to provide the maximum protection of society while still preserving individual rights where it can. Hence the "reasonable doubt" clause. Your argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with.

You've got the wrong idea about the criminal justice system in the USA. The bedrock principle is that it is better to let the guilty go free than to lock up the innocent. "The land of the free," and all that good stuff. The system is not set up to make calculations about how many innocents we would want to imprison in order to assure that no guilty people go free. In fact, it's the opposite. The system is set up so that a few guilty people may go free in order to assure that no (or at least, very few) innocent people go to prison. At least, that's the theory, anyway...

Skydivers could learn something from the TSA here. Anybody farts in the plane, toss them out the door immediately. Might make for some quick climbs to altitude on Sunday mornings...

Rush, Moving Pictures tour, 1981, International Ampitheater, Chicago.

After having two nasty spinning malfunctions on my old canopy (not a PD), I decided it was time to upgrade my canopy. After talking to a few gear salespeople (the staff at the Sunshine Factory were particularly helpful), I determined that the Spectre had the qualities I wanted in a canopy. I have not been disappointed. It consistently opens softly and on heading. After roughly 650 jumps on my Spectre 150, I have had minor line twists on maybe three or four occasions. Other than those incidents, the openings are great. The canopy has a surprisingly powerful flare for a 7-cell, and my no-wind landings have never been better. I am not a swooper, but I have watched folks swoop Spectres a fair distance. All in all, the canopy does exactly what I want it to: it opens without giving me a hard time, and it lands me softly. I liked the canopy so much, I bought another one for my second rig. The only drawback is that Spectres do not glide as well as most 9-cells out there, and I can have problems if the spot is long. The canopy does respond pretty well to rear riser input, though, so this is not a huge issue. I have been very pleased with my Spectres, and would recommend this canopy to anyone who is looking for a solid, reliable canopy that opens beautifully nearly all the time.