DanG

You clearly didn't write it yourself. Where is it from? Why do people think it is okay to post things like this without attribution? - Dan G

They can also conduct recurrency training for licensed jumpers. - Dan G

I will admit to turning off my Cypres on one particular jump. Let's just say that the projected exit altitude was lower than traditional. I think swooping, intentional low pulls, and aircraft descents with student mode AADs are the only reasons I can think of to turn it off. - Dan G

Come on down to Skydive Orange. We're not going anyplace. A lot of the old school Hartwood types ended up at Orange. - Dan G

The reserve will launch generally up, not back. Even if you sit up mightily, once the pilot chute gets free of the container, it will get pulled up way faster than the spring will launch it backward. Unless there is someone above you, I wouldn't worry about which direction I was facing during the pilot chute launch. To take it further, if you are in the middle of an out-facing point (bi-pole) would you take the time to turn and face your team? I'd just get something out as fast as I could, as long as there was no one directly above me. - Dan G

Unless you have outside video from above (who's probably long since left because he has the advantage of looking at the ground the whole jump) I don't see the point of waving. Pulling will pretty much get the point across. Frankly, I don't really see the point of turning away either. If I'm the only one who realizes we're low, the best thing I can do for my buddies is pull immediately. Turning burns another 200' off of their lives. I'd like to think I'd go for silver, but I'm about 90% sure I'd dump my main out of habit. - Dan G

Closed. I hear the military is leasing the runway to do some sort of vehicle testing on it. Haven't heard anything about it reopening anytime soon. - Dan G

Touche. It's the only manufacturing industry where we are still a global leader and have a huge positive trade balance (aircraft, too, but largely supported by military work.) On the other hand, we're already starting to export some of our weapon-making ability to Europe. That will only increase. - Dan G

Not sure I agree with your analysis. A large uneducated population is exactly what you need when having an industrial revolution. They won't compete with us in service sector jobs where education is important, but the service sector is just money going in circles. It doesn't lead to economic growth. You only need a few educated people and a lot of worker bees to become the largest manufacturer in the world. And I think they'll win the resource war. When push comes to shove and a third party nation has to decide who to sell its resources to, they'll choose to sell them to a country that can give them real goods in exchange. We won't be able to do that in the future because we won't make anything anymore. - Dan G

1. Resource scarcity 2. Rising power of China 3. Ethnic conflict 1. Oil is obvious, but water will be the next oil. Especially if we don't get global warming under control. 2. China is a massive military and economic competitor. Their rise will redefine the world order in a decade or two. This will be the Chinese century and unfortunately I doubt there's much we can do about it. 3. Ethinc tensions still exist from the haphazzard way national boundaries were drawn over the last 100 years. Add in a dash of increasing resource scarcity and they will continue to boil over. US citizen. Democratic. The Republican goal of exporting democracy without regard for the political and social climate of a region will lead us into conflicts we have no business being in. Their desire to maintain a constant state of fear and conflict in order to maintain a grip on power (1984 style) is alarming. Their refusal to invest in alternative sources of energy and ween us off of fossil fuels is extremely short sighted. Neither party aligns with my beliefs perfectly, but I think the Democrats will do less harm. Thanks, as ever, for the intelligence of your posts/polls. - Dan G

Thanks, but you were more than slightly of target. In fact, the source that you provided said nothing like what you claimed. You said: And the NAACP article says: The article says nothing of "race-guilt". It says nothing of the potential racism of voters on either side. All it says is that racism still exists in America. If you don't believe that it does, just read some of the posts on this very site. Your original post is an example of how the conservative punditocracy is trying to frame this election in terms of fear, misunderstanding, and straw man race issues. I'm suprised that you are buying into it. - Dan G

I suppose you could look at it that way, if one of the "added expenses" is profit for the DZ. I'm sorry, but the profit margin on a tandem (in % of price) is much higher that that for an experienced jumper. As someone else pointed out, though, the experienced jumper will make many more jumps over the year than a tandem, so the total profit may be higher for that individual. Either way, the "added expense" of students does not account for their higher price. This is clear to anyone who has ever been behind the scenes at a DZ. Granted, but still industry standard. - Dan G

Airplane owners usually rent planes "dry". They don't really care who's using the seatbelt, it's all the same to them. The engine(s) don't care who's using the seatbelt either, so it takes just as much fuel to get a tandem student to altitude as an experienced jumper. Really, no one cares who's using the belt, but if the DZO just averged everything out and charged the same price to everyone, fun jumpers would find themselves paying a lot more per jump, just as tandem students would see their price go down. DZO's charge more to tandem students because they can. It's supply and demand, that simple. It also helps keep prices low for experienced jumpers. It is possible for small club dropzones to exist without tandem and/or student ops, but I think you'll find that it is very hard to motivate people to keep a dropzone running if no one is getting paid for their time, effort, and expertise. My DZ applies the same cash discount to students and experienced jumpers. - Dan G

I'll be out on Saturday. See you then. - Dan G

This coming from a man who just posted on the Internet that he carries. I'm through talking to you. You refuse to understand anything anyone else says. - Dan G

Source, please? Thanks. - Dan G

If I were you I'd focus on the core skills you need to get your A license. You'll definitely want to drill the basics of stable position, pull position (a lot of people never practice their pull in the tunnel, but they should), forward and backward, up and down, and basic turns with heading control. Then work on your Cat G and H skills of docking and docking with altitude adjustment. Also try some superpositinal moves, such as combining up and forward, or down and backward, etc. If you can get through all that, then I'd start looking at centerpoint turns. Save mantis for just after your A license. Just my opinion. Have fun. - Dan G

How is this a liberal/conservative thing? Responsible gun ownership is a right enjoyed by every American. I strongly support it, as stated previously. I have, however, met many people who carry around guns looking for an excuse to pull them out. My opinion of these people is that they suffer from some sort of general inserurity about themselves, and carrying a lethal weapon makes them feel more like a man. I have also known many people who carry concealed and no one would ever know it. From his posts, and the fact that he was ready to draw down on a barking dog, leads me to believe that birdlike is one of the former. If I'm wrong, so be it, but his over the top posts lead me to believe otherwise. PS: I like sex.

The rest of us were having a discussion about the use of guns against dog attacks. YOU, all by yourself, tried to make this about "liberal" crime prevention programs. and then... My irony meter must be broken. It's reading 11. You have no idea how much it suprises me that I'm saying this, but I think you actually did the right thing. If you take a second to think about it, you followed my earlier advice to the letter. Good job. I realize you will refuse to recognize that fact, but maybe everyone else can see that my advice is practical. And how would dropping your baton (a very effective weapon against dogs) and pulling out your gun have helped you defend yourself? Or are you just one of those losers who goes around looking for an excuse to fire your faux-penis? And to warpedskydiver: If your dog will leave your property to attack someone for any reason, you need to keep it properly restrained at all times. Attack dogs should not be trained to attack of their own volition unless they are on their own property. If they are trained otherwise, then you are an example of the worst kind of dog owner. - Dan G

Very few dogs live to 20 years. Try to stay on topic, Mr. knee-jerker. I've already answered your stupid question. It's not my fault that the answer to, "What do you do when attacked by a dog, " is not, shoot at it. When alll you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Put down your arsenal and go make some skydives. Are you reading any of this thread, or just posting the same bullshit you post in all the threads? The question was about dealing with aggressive dogs. I've provided some very practical advice. The most practical advice I think I've given it that firing shots at a dog once it has engaged in an attack is fucking stupid. By the way, you assume that because I don't think that guns are the answer to every problem that I am somehow anti-gun. The opposite is, in fact, true. I firmly believe in every American's right to bear arms, I just don't think that a firearm is a good, or even sensible, solution to the problem of aggressive dogs. I know its hard to understand, but people can disagree with you and not be pinko, commie, liberal, flower children. - Dan G

Is a dog on you RIGHT NOW?!? Holy shit, dude, stop posting on dropzone.com and deal with that dog on your arm!!! What? There isn't a dog biting through your bone right this second? Anyone else having that problem right now? No? Good. Then now would be a sensible time to plan ahead to make sure you don't ever have a large dog biting your head. You act like it is either/or proposition. It is possible to both plan ahead and deal with unexpected crises. I know it is difficult for the simple minded to understand, but keeping problems from developing in the first place is almost always a better idea than waiting until they are upon you to act. You're right. It is illogical to both support proactive crime prevention and punish criminals. I bow to your superior Internet fantasy world black and white reasoning ability. No sarcastic emoticon needed. - Dan G

I agree that pepper spray will not stop a dog that is intent on doing harm. 99.99% of dogs, however, don't fall into that category. As a law enforcement officer are you really advocating people start shooting at dogs when they feel threatened? Come on. If a person in your precinct started popping caps at every dog that barked at him, I would hope that you'd be locking up the shooter for reckless endangerment, not the dogs. To the rest of you, learn about dogs: why they act like they do and what are the signs of aggression. You and everyone else around will be safer. - Dan G

My last cutaway was caused by a rapid pit bull. He was coming straight down the lines at me, man. I wish I had a gun. - Dan G

Thanks for posting that. The news story references the same CDC study, so you really don't get credit for the same info twice. I would also like to see a link to the Australian study. If you had taken the time to read the whole CDC study you would know that they admit their methodology is flawed. It is biased towards more common breeds, biased towards breeds with a bad rep, biased toward breeds with less responsible owners, and biased towards larger, more damage inflicting dogs. In other words, the study is biased towards pit bulls and rotties. My wife worked at an animal shelter for years and they would often get in dogs people reported as pit bulls that had not one drop of pit bull blood in them. Many people don't even know what a pit bull looks like, and just assume any dog they are afraid of is a pit. This phenomenon is also mentioned in the CDC study. Your study is good information, but it does nothing to prove that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. - Dan G

I'm with you. I was trying to get some sensible info to the poster who is afraid of the neighbor's dogs. It's not the dog, it's the owner. Talking to the owner should be the first step, but carrying a stout stick and (if desired) some spray would be a much more practical alternative to a gun. As a total aside, dogs are not as easy to kill with a gun as you might think. One of my men had to put down a dangerous (had biten more than one person) dog in Afghanistan. Took three shots with his M4 to the chest. That was one tough dog. (And for all you wannabe Rambo's out there, a head shot was not an option as the dog could not be safely restrained). - Dan G