mswallin13

The "Twardo and Monkey Show" sounds like bad morning radio.... However, it makes for a really cool airshow kickoff! Matthew Wallin C-37899

I stand corrected. Matthew Wallin C-37899

Man, I just keep digging this hole deeper.... Absolutely not! You should keep and wear whatever makes you feel good/sexy/fun!

Holy Jesus, what have I done?!? This is why I need more "years in sport" before I start spouting off in the Bonfire. First let me apologize and say that my "you" was never meant to apply to "you"! Furthermore, an exception can certainly be made for lingerie. I do however, have to stand by my comment for outerwear...and stripper heels. Matthew Wallin C-37899

I vote for "it makes me think you're a skank", which I guess is closest to the trying too hard option. But then again, I'm still confused as to how platform heels made it from strip clubs to the mainstream. Maybe I'm just a square... Matthew Wallin C-37899

Yeah dont get that at all, I would never think of "keeping track" or my wifes spending. to enter into a relationship with this as a concern, to me means there's already a communication issue I, too don't understand the "keeping track of". Mike and I have only joint accounts which we have equal access to. We don't differentiate "his and her money". It must not be obvious in the way I phrased it, but I *don't* want to keep track of her spending. I just want to be able to throw $500 worth of gas in the boat without first asking her whether there have been any recent couple hundred dollar trips to Victoria's Secret (e.g.). Having our own accounts plus a joint account lets us each spend confidently without having to ask what the other is up to. Blues, Dave ignorance is bliss? At the risk of putting words in livendive or amstalder's mouths, I believe I understand exactly where they're coming from. It's not about a lack of trust in your partner, or a desire to keep tabs on them. It's simply a matter of simplified account balancing. My wife and I have always had separate accounts so that neither of us has to worry about bouncing a payment because the other one paid for something else. Our bills are split up in proportion to incomes so that we are each saving a similar amount of money in savings. However, all of our account information is stored in the same Microsoft Money file, so there is no hiding anything from one another. Everything is transparent. The only time this system has been a problem is when we sold our last house and the check was made out to both of us. We had to add her to one of my accounts in order to deposit the check. We would still have that joint account, but they started charging a maintenance fee and that account went bye-bye. I'm not advocating that everyone (or even anyone) use this method, but I am a little miffed at the implication that having separate accounts somehow implies a lack of commitment or a pessimistic attitude about the future of the relationship. It's worked for 11 years, and counting... Matthew Wallin C-37899

I'll give these a shot... 1. Revise the Integrated Student Program student progression to include five jumps that are dedicated solely to canopy-control training. This sounds like a good idea to me, but I have to disagree with not including supervision during the canopy flight. I'm afraid that without supervision there's not much to this requirement. Right now almost all of the AFF dives include canopy skills, but there is very lax/no enforcement that these skills are practiced. I'm not sure how that will change without someone watching the canopy flight. I understand the concerns about cost and I would be open to some sort of compromise on the number of jumps. 2. Revise the accuracy landings requirements for licenses to include declaring intent before the jump, similar to the PRO rating requirements. I guess this one makes some sense, but it seems to imply that someone is going to be waiting in the landing field to verify that a certain accuracy was accomplished. It seems challenging/costly to implement. 3. Require completion of a Canopy Progression Card for achieving a B license. I like this a lot, but I think it needs a subtle tweak to "achieving any license higher than A". I know a lot of jumpers that never bother with B or C licenses. 4. Require the completion of the Canopy Progression Card before every coach and instructor’s next rating renewal. This seems to make sense to me, but as I'm not a rating holder my opinion is pretty much moot. 5. Change the license tests to include more questions on canopy control. I like this one because it shouldn't take much effort to implement, and while it make not have a tremendous effect, the fact that an applicant has to study the canopy info more closely might make something stick better. 6. Change the Coach and Instructor Rating Courses to include more training and evaluation on teaching canopy control. Again, this seems to make sense, but is beyond my experience/responsibility envelope. 7. Require each coach or instructor rating candidate to attend a canopy course geared toward teaching the candidates more about canopy control and how to teach canopy control. (This course has not been developed.) See #6. 8. Develop methods to ensure that each drop zone is separating high-performance landings from other canopy traffic and ensuring that each jumper is flying an established landing pattern. This, of course, is a good idea. I do understand the question of why this should be necessary given that the Group Member pledge already includes it. I take this suggestion to imply that someone will actually be enforcing this requirement of the Pledge, unlike the rest of it which seems to mostly be a marketing campaign. Matthew Wallin C-37899

Are you sure that's not a tranny? Matthew Wallin C-37899

I have to agree with Kallend on this issue. If you were to compare doctor's offices to say restaurants, the issue is pretty striking. A restaurant that consistently took reservations (appointments) and then sat people 45 to 60 minutes later could expect a rash of complaints and then customers not patronizing anymore. And the way that restaurants deal with this issue is to either staff up so that they can keep reservations running on time, or they tell patrons "I'm sorry we don't have a table at that time". The majority of doctor's offices I have dealt with routinely make patients wait 20 to 60 minutes for their appointment. Without an apology or explanation of any kind, as though it is so common that they don't even notice they've inconvenienced the paying customer... I'm a professional too, and my time is also valuable. If I showed up 30 minutes or more late to 20% of my client meetings, I'd start losing clients. It would seem to me that if you can't see patients on time, you need to schedule less appointments. Matthew Wallin C-37899

I can personally vouch for SkyDance as a great place to jump. Full-time turbine and large landing area. While I have not jumped at the other local DZ's, I can relay that many folks that I jump with really like Bay Area Skydiving (Byron). ETA: There's some more information along the same lines you're looking for here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4072847;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Matthew Wallin C-37899

I hear you. I guess my point was just that if I were AirTec, I would have started the video clip with a big "This is not how we intend for our device to be used. Please deploy your own reserve whenever humanly possible" warning, before showing how their device saved this guy's life. Matthew Wallin C-37899

Looking beyond the discussion of the jumper's intentions, I'm kind of troubled that it looks like AirTec is using this as a piece of marketing. While I understand that without the CYPRES this guy wouldn't be here, it seems that publicizing this save is at least mild encouragement of waiting for your CYPRES to fire as a sound deployment technique. I hope that this YouTube clip has edited out an explanation by the manufacturer that this is a horrible plan for not dying during a skydive, whether you have an AAD or not. Matthew Wallin C-37899

+1 This is almost exactly how I do it, except I push through from canopy towards container. I also use a variation on Monkey's approach, folding the excess into thirds before threading it through the back side of the lower toggle keeper. As stated by others, it is much easier to stow the excess if you leave the lower toggle tab unstowed. Once the excess line is in place, set the lower toggle keeper and you're done. Matthew Wallin C-37899

Kallend- As a fellow student of applied science (civil engineer), I very much respect your logical approach and insightful comments in most cases. However, I've always felt that there is little value in attacking potential solutions to a problem without offering your own alternative. It seems that you're poking holes in the balloons floated so far, but haven't suggested your own solution. Unless I've misunderstood your positions, you've said that using jump numbers is too simplistic (a reasonable assertion), but that a rating system is too complex to implement (for both students and instructors). I would then ask, how are we to solve this problem? Matthew Wallin C-37899

Just as a philosophical question for the group... Why would USPA be concerned about the liability associated with a wing-loading BSR, but not be concerned about liability associated with creating a wingsuit BSR? Doesn't the same logic apply to a potential lawsuit if someone with 200 jumps within 18 months (or 500 total jumps) goes in on a wingsuit? I'm not advocating a position either way as to the right way to handle the issue, just trying to understand the rationale. Matthew Wallin C-37899