dudeman17

I've got an old 24' RWPC in the closet...

Well I am happy to report that Meso saw my message and fixed the problem. My account now works normally. So thanks to Meso! Yay!

Just saw a thing on the news... Treat Williams, who played Cooper in the '81 'Pursuit of...' movie with Robert Duvall, was killed today in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle near his home in Vermont. He was 71. Sad...

I would hope that one of the perks of living in a shack in the woods would be NOT wearing a tie!

Here's the full incident, not shown on the news due to time constraints... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZw65gsesw

I think it's possible/likely that you are not mistaken. When you included that quote in your post, it made me recall the early quotes, so I posted about it for general interest. The early Booth quote was particular to a certain time and context. When that moment had passed, and tandems did become commonplace, it was outdated. Part of my intent was to give Don Balch credit for his quote. Bill Booth is extremely safety/survival minded. His many contributions to the sport over the years show that. If you remember him saying that, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

I gave this a couple days to see if anyone else remembered this. I thought Rob might chime in, as he generally remembers the details of early developments like this. And we all know what time and aging brains can do to memories, so as always, if I'm wrong somebody can correct me. But this is how I seem to remember it... The quick answers are that Bill Booth said "It's just another skydive", and it was Don Balch who said 'It's NOT just another skydive". Who was right? Well that's the 'trick' part of the question. They both were. The difference was in the timing and context. To flesh that out... As with many things in our sport, there were earlier precursors to tandems. I think some of those have been described in these forums, and wasn't there an article in Parachutist not long ago? One that I don't recall seeing mentioned was, sometime in the 70's Jim Handbury made a tandem rig. He wasn't trying to invent anything or revolutionize student training, he just had a young handicapped family member that he wanted to take up, so he built a rig and did that. Anyway, when modern tandems were being developed, it was Ted Strong and Bill Booth who were designing, testing and refining, discovering the need for drogues, and what-not. They got it dialed in, and it was time to build rigs, issue TM ratings, and bring it on-line. Well, there was some hesitancy among jumpers. That's when Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive". He wasn't promoting complacency or downplaying the need for training and diligence, he was just saying that there was no reason that tandems should not become a common occurrence and mainstay of student training. And he was right. Well, build rigs and issue ratings they did. And tandems quickly became popular with the customers, and it took off. Well, jumpers started noticing that their TM buddies were making lots of student jumps and making decent money, not to mention 'the Lois Lane effect', and there came a surge of interest in the TM rating. That's when Don Balch said, "It's NOT just another skydive". He was not just reiterating the need for proper training and due diligence, but also noting that the proper motivation was required to make an appropriate TM. And he, too, was correct. It would not surprise me if Mr. Booth updated to the newer saying, because clearly it became the correct view.

Just as an isolated bit of historical trivia... And pardon me if I'm having a senior moment, but I remember something differently. I believe that is not correct. As I remember it, Mr. Booth said, "It's just another skydive", as in it IS just another skydive. It was someone else who said "It's NOT just another skydive". So the trivia question is, who was it that made the other quote, and which one of them was right. (Hint - it's sort of a trick question.) And if Mr. Booth (or the other person) happens to read this, no fair your answering, unless I have this wrong.

I hadn't thought of that in a long time, haha. "Trippin' the edge, casually..." -------

I'm guessing his shorts may not have washed out either.

Oh, geez, this hurts. From the earliest days when he was just a gangly kid, too young to jump, running around Perris because his mom Lou worked at the school... Such a unique light, unique soul, always so much fun to be around. Ed was actually where I got this stupid user name from. Back in the day he used to call me dudeman, hell he used to call a lot of people dudeman, but when I got my D license and he noted that the last two digits of it were the same as my base number... That made me laugh and it stuck in my head, I ended up making an email out of it and using it here. The world's a bit darker...

Curious why you come to this conclusion. Assuming that each of those represent either an at least somewhat intimate relationship, or a presumably fun, consensual encounter, are there any of them that you would take back, that you wish you hadn't done?

I'm curious why you would say that. One, there is a crew member saying that indeed it was in there, and as someone who routinely flies in aircraft with open doors or open tailgates, I can say that air from outside does come in. You are correct in that... is precisely the time it would happen. (How long of a time frame was that?)

I agree with that. My point was in reference to the spectator who shows up at the drop zone and decides to check out the swoop area, which was a scenario earlier in the discussion. I think that was also readily apparent. I agree that swoops should not occur at demos and most certainly not on tandems. ... Wingsuits are a whole different animal. Yeah, with wingsuits people maintain 'terminal freefall' for extended periods of time mere feet off of the ground. Again, clearly apparent, not what was being discussed. I've said this before in general, and I think I've said it to you in particular, some of you people just like to argue for the sake of argument, arguing against points that were not being made, to the point where it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Oh well, such is the state of the internet...

I disagree. To the average person of reasonable intellect looking at skydiving, it is readily apparent what the potential outcomes might be. Indeed, many whuffos regard skydiving as more dangerous than it actually is. Watching a swoop landing, it is blatantly apparent that it is low, it's fast, and if someone screws it up it's going to be ugly. To regard these people as innocent deer-in-the-headlight types who have no clue what they might see is an insult to the intelligence of the general population.

I am not here to advocate for (intentionally) pulling low, but you clearly have no idea why it occurs. Very few BASE jumps result in being at terminal.

Yah. As in the other thread, not THE reason, AN influence. And other people's reaction to an act does not determine the reason for that act. Anyway, incidental point, carry on. For the record, I believe in a person's right to choose, and that includes DZO's. I also believe people should shoulder the responsibility for their choices, and that includes spectators. I realize neither of those are popular.

I hadn't taken you for a ghoul.

My thought process was along the lines of... He writes books about finance and investment. Was he successful at that? Did he need money from what he might have thought would be a popular book about a (at the time) current interest? Would he be worried about it damaging his credibility? Did he have FU money, where he wouldn't care about any of that, and write the book out of personal interest? Does the answers to all of that inform whether he might make it all up, or support the idea that he was in fact actually contacted by somebody? Questions, questions...

My curiosity was more whether he was a successful investor.

Was Gunther himself rich?

It was the summer of '80 or '82, one of my first few years in the sport. A buddy and I were standing on the sidewalk between the manifest building and the packing area at Perris. Suddenly, Jeremy went running by, a dead serious look on his face. I looked at my friend, with a somewhat puzzled expression. A moment later, Al Frisby ran by, same direction, same countenance. My friend looked puzzled. "How often do you see those guys running", I said. Jeremy was one of those people, along with Al and yourself, Mr. S, who I figured I'd better listen to if I wanted longevity in this sport. No, he wasn't one of those 'official instructor' types who went around preaching proper practices and protocols. But he knew what the f was what in a down-in-the-dirt kind of way. I wasn't one of his closer friends, but I knew him, I liked him, and I respected him. BSBD, fly free...

I'll leave it up to you guys to determine what ought or ought not to be done with that rig. But if it were to be tested for DNA, a couple other places to test would be the underside of the shoulder part of the harness, as that is the most apparent and common way of picking it up, and also the pin protector flap on the back of the backpack. Along the edges of that, especially where those five snaps are that hold it closed. If Cooper knew enough to do a full pin check on it, he would have opened and reclosed that. All of these areas would also have been touched by the rigger that did the two repacks after Hayden got it back.

Exactly. No one is going to put a seal on it as airworthy and usable. But he could unpack it, photograph it, and confirm that it is what it is suspected to be. And he could repack it so that returns to a displayable condition. True, but it's still a tangible curiosity. As I once said to Blevins, if his plane was on fire and losing a wing, I bet he'd be willing to change his mind. Ha!

Again, '26' conical' and '28' canopy' are the canopies themselves, not the container. As with 377, my first reserve ride was a 26' conical, mine deployed out of a Wonderhog container.