polarbear

This isn't a skydiving project, but I'm using the same tools I use for tandem video (Sony Movie Studio 11 and a Sony CX 100). I'm putting together a video of a family event. In some instances, a lawnmower drove by the event and the noise really covers up what's going on. Any ideas how I might be able to filter it out? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/ The text of the letter "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I must respectfully but emphatically disagree with you on this. In the past several months...in fact, in all of my decade of membership in the NRA...they have never once tried to sell me a gun, or encouraged me to go out and buy a gun. They have never once stood up and said 'The government's going to take your guns! Better get 'em while you can!' In my experience, the three top things the NRA does are: 1) Keep reminding me to reup my membership. 2) Encourage me to write my local and federal officals about gun issues and participate in rallies. 3) Encourage safe and responsible enjoyment of hunting and the shooting sports. Now, while I am a member, I don't agree with everything the NRA says or does...but I certainly can't see how they've done anything but exercise their 1st ammendment rights in defense of the second. Using mass-murders to sell guns? Sorry...I haven't seen the NRA or any gun manufacturer do anything like that. Personally, it seems clear to me that those who are pushing the bans are causing the upsurge in sales. As for whether or not NRA allegiance will be a plus or a minus in future elections...undoubtedly in some areas (say, for instance, Illinois) it may be a minus, while in others, it will be a plus. The overall effect is still to be determined. The elections are still two years away...by then, there will probably be another crisis. As for me...the NRA doesn't dictate who I do or don't vote for, but I can say I consider it a major negative when a politician's first response to a problem is to limit constitutional rights. I believe in all of my rights...ALL of them, not just the 2nd ammendment...and politicians who seek to limit them will face an uphill battle for my vote. But that's just me. I'm only 1 out of 350000000. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Why does it have to be one or the other? To me it's about responsibility. I believe that a society that exercises individual rights with responsibility can still have safety. I also believe that giving up individual rights does NOT make one safe. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Agreed. The nuclear weapon argument is really ridiculous. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

This is the way I see it: Strictly speaking, I think arms means all arms...and yes, that includes nuclear weapons. But I'll never argue that civilians should have access to nukes - here's why: 1) Security - There are some very, very bad people out there who would like to get a nuke and use it to kill millions. The US government has to spend an enourmous amount of money on nuclear security. If nukes were distributed in civilian hands all over the country, how long do you think it would be before someone bad got a nuke and blew it up in a major city? Yes, I know criminals will steel guns...you can thrawrt most common criminals with a gun safe. How will a civilian ever protect a nuke against a well-organized, heavily armed terrorist group? 2) Cost - Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive. Even if I was a billionaire I'd still prefer to spend my money on something else. How many people out there could actually afford a nuke? A really, really small number. 3) Safe use - How could a civilian ever safely use a nuclear weapon? With small arms, all I need to do is find a place far away from other epople with a clear field and a good backstop and I can easily shoot all day without bothering anyone. You can't just go out in the desert and set one off a nuke. How would our country know if it was under attack or if it was just Johnny having some fun with his nuke? What if someone went and set one off just for fun and it started a war? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. Evan if it didn't start a war, what about the fallout? We still experience increased radiation all over the world from the fallout from tests in the 50s and 60s. These are just the three big arguments I see. As I said in the beginning...to me, 'arms' means all arms. But the nuclear weapon argument isn't even worth having. Why fight about it? So a few rich people can have a pet nuke? We have bigger problems. I know that some people reading this will argue that the same arguments apply to small arms, such as semi-automatic rifles, as well. I personally wouldn't agree. Why? 1) Security - yes, there are criminals and crazies out there who would like to steel an AR-15. It isn't that hard to buy a quality gun safe and thwart them. Point is for nukes, I have to protect against well-armed and organized terrorist groups; for a private firearm I pretty much just have to worry about the common criminals. 2) Cost - Sem- automatic weapons aren't that expensive to buy or operate. Indeed - the AR is the most popular firearm in the country. Obviously many, many people want them and can fford them. 3) Safe use - It isn't difficult at all to use a semi-automatic safely. I just need to find a place away from other people with a clear field and a good backstop and I can shoot all day and not bother anyone. And semi-automatics are used every day by millions of people for safe, legitimate purposes, to prove my point. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Personally I wonder if Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation would survive the supreme court if passed and subsequently challenged. It seems to me her proposal is so restrictive that it could be construed to effectively ban an entire class of firearms that is in common use. Not only is the AR 15 a highly popular rifle amongst civilians, it (or it's militarized cousin the M4/M16) are generally the standard issue carbine/rifle in our Military, National Guard, and most Law Enforcement agencies. It seems it could be argued the AR 15 is specifically the type of weapon that the Miller decision (referenced in the Heller decision) says the 2nd Ammendment protects. Not that I'm a law scholar...it just seems to me that there is a legitimate argument to be made about the legality of the Senator's proposal. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Raymod gave some good performance criteria. From a safety standpoint, the biggest mistake I see new competitors make is get so fixated on getting in the gate that they do whatever it takes to hit the gate...even if it means hitting the ground hard. So I would say that you need to be able to keep from getting fixated and know when to bail and save yourself, even if it means getting a zero for the round. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Thanks...I've gotten no response from Aerodyne yet. The trims you gave me match the canopy I'm inspecting, so that's good. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Anybody out there have a recent copy of the line trim specs for Tempo reserves? I can't find them on the aerodyne website. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

We are alive and well and Skydive New Mexico! We had a miscommunication amongst our staff that resulted in us not getting our USPA membership renewed, but that will be remedied quickly. Come on out! "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I actually haven't seen the new rules. Can someone post a link to tham? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

It may be true that you have no groundspeed for the last few seconds when swooping into a strong headwind, but we are really talking about distance here. It doesn't matter if the last three seconds are at zero groundspeed; what matters is how far you went over the ground. The difference between airspeed and groundspeed is the windspeed, you add windspeed to airspeed to get groundspeed. The distance coverd in the swoop that can be attributed to wind is the windspeed multiplied by the duration of the swoop. It doesn't matter if three seconds of the swoop are at zero groundspeed, they still count in terms of swoop duration. In your example above you still spend 10 seconds swooping, it's just the last three have zero groundspeed. Again, this all assumes the pilot does everything the same no matter what the wind, which I don't think is true. Take a strong crosswind...in order to fly straight through the course, you have to turn into the wind, which means the canopy will have a roll angle. At the same time, you probably have to add more tail input to keep from sinking, since the canopy isn't straight over head. This additional control input means the canopy is banked and pitched and flying in a dirtier configuration than it would be in no wind conditions. Point is, wind does change things, strong winds change things a lot. It isnt quite as simple as adding windspeed, but it's a good 1st-order approximation. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

I think that's only because we fly differently in different winds, Ian. We swoop through the air, but we measure our swoops over the ground. To convert from one coordinate system to the other it's simple math, just as Dan described above. That's physics 101. Assuming the pilot does everything exactly the same on an upwind and a downwind run, the headwind will have an equal but opposite effect as a tailwind. But, since the pilot likely will not do everything exactly the same on an upwind run as on a downwind run, it gets more complicated. Still...you can't argue that you won't go much further with a 6.7 meter per second tailwind than you would with no wind. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Just to be clear, is that 'mps' as in meters per second, or 'mps' as in typo for 'mph'? "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"