sacex250

Wheel of Death It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

No real damage done to the sport. I've seen a number of posts saying this has motivated them to book their tandem. People are funny and will figure that falling out of their harness is less of a risk. I mean an old lady managed to hang on so how hard can it be? (I'm giving a whuffo viewpoint, not mine) I'll bet that in the mainstream media an elderly woman comes off as a fool, and the TI comes off as a hero. After all, he did save her life! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Already posted in both Instructors and Incidents. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

That's why every poll is supposed to have a "Boobies" option. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Isn't it, "How will you celebate?" It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

He was just trying to loosen his load. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Was he using AOL, Compuserve, or Prodigy? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Talk about a matter of semantics. First of all, she's not suing the insurance company, she's suing the pilot/owner of the airplane who is covered by the insurance company. Of course, when the accident first happened she and her family clearly said that they didn't blame the pilot for the accident. Second, the claim that she wasn't a passenger is also ridiculous. Insurance companies have tried this tactic also, and lost. One insurance company tried to deny a claim to the family of a scuba diver who drowned because he couldn't climb back onto a dive boat saying that since he wasn't a "passenger" on the boat at the time his death wasn't covered. The insurance company lost on that one. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Face it Skymama, you're old, now. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So are you saying that it makes sense to you that a 100 pound jumper jumping a Silhouette 150 at a .75 psf (Novice) wing-loading should have a D-License, have completed an advanced canopy class, and consult with an S&TA? It also says in the SIM to follow the manufacturer's recommendations for canopy size. Why does there need to be an arbitrary one-size-fits-all wing loading limit when it may actually mislead jumpers into believing that they're safe under their canopy when they may not actually be. Why have so many contradictory rules in the SIM? If the SIM says follow the manufacurers' recommendations then why isn't that good enough? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It's not getting oxygen through "thick skin" that's the problem; it's trying to get anything through a "thick skull." It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I don't think that's in the SIM. 1. “Advanced” refers to practices that combine equipment and control techniques to increase descent and landing approach speeds. 3. Advanced equipment generally refers to canopies loaded as follows: a. above 230 square feet, 1.1 pounds per square foot or higher b. from 190 to 229 square feet, 1.0 pounds per square foot or higher c. from 150 to 189 square feet, .9 pounds per square foot or higher d. canopies smaller than 150 square feet at any wing loading The problem with arbitrary wingloading restrictions is that not all canopies are the same. For example, a PD Silhouette has sizes from 135 to 260sf. PD's recommendations indicate that any of the sizes loaded to less than .75 is a "Novice" canopy, and any of them loaded above a 1.0 is an "Expert" canopy. None of the SIM recommendations and none of the above proposed BSRs would take this into account. How would a 1.5 wing loading restriction stop someone from jumping a Silhouette at 1.0? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

They must not have told you that you were jumping from a Super-PAC! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

FIFY You're the first person I've ever seen who needed to reset his calendar for DST. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

FIFY It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

And there's no minimum age to solo any Part 103 aircraft (ok..air vehicle), powered or unpowered. Part 103 aircraft can be helicopters, gyrocopters, fixed-wing ultralights, trikes, hang-gliders, sailplanes/gliders, powered-parachutes, and paragliders. Just as skydiving has the USPA, there are several organizations that "regulate" these sports to a voluntary standard. United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (Unpowered hang-gliders and paragliders) United States Ultralight Association (Fixed-wing ultralights, trikes, and powered-parachutes) Experimental Aircraft Association (Has it's own full-ultralight licensing and aircraft registration system.) It's completely legal to fly an ultralight without belonging to any of these organizations, just as it's completely legal to skydive without belonging to USPA. Only the USUA prescribes a minimum age for issuance of either a student pilot's license (12 y/o) or a pilot's license (16 y/o). EAA once had a minimum age of 16 y/o, but have since eliminated the age requirement. The question is: why is it the USPA that caves in to the demands of the manufacturers and DZOs regarding civil liability when the USPA has no say in it, anyway? The USPA has it backwards. Civil law is there to protect the participants and end-users of the equipment, not the businesses that are profiting from the sport. By basically limiting the sport's participants to a waivered class for the benefit of those making the money from the sport, the USPA has basically sold-out. It's a chicken---- move. For all the anti-"lawsuit" rhetoric among skydivers there's one immutable fact, it's the skydiving community that's doing the damage to itself, not the lawyers. Are manufacturers currently going out of business from currently pending litigation from non-waivered jumpers? Are the USPA age-restrictions a direct result of specific actual cases that warranted the age restrictions? The age-restrictions, especially the new BSR that allows the manufacturers to set their own age-limits are nothing more than a self-serving safety net that doesn't benefit anyone except catering to the manufacturers' fear and insecurities. By listening to the bravado fueled dogma that's used to "nanny" the sport, you'd think that it's the waiver that's keeping the world from ending. It's a good thing that USPA doesn't have any influence over bicycle riding, horseback riding, skateboarding, karting, motorcycles, ATVs, gymnastics, football, soccer, baseball, softball, or swimming. By contrast, look at the organizations that license Scuba Diving, a sport that is at least as inherently dangerous as skydiving, although it takes more brains and studying to understand why. PADI, for example, has a minimum age limit for Open Water certification of ten years-old which then allows a supervised-child using his own Self-Contained-Underwater-Breating-Apparatus and other skill dependent equipment to descend in the Open Ocean to a depth of 30 feet, and to do it while using a hand-held camera, even a GoPro for that matter! And it's encouraged by just about everyone in the sport, and there's even a specific non-mandatory underwater photography class and certification available for it. A twelve year-old who completes the Advanced Open Water certification is even allowed to go as deep as 70 feet, by comparison, the typical backyard pool is 6 feet deep and doesn't have carnivorous wild life, poisonous animals, stinging plants, and powerful currents. Not to mention the risk factors that the biology, chemistry, and physics of such a hostile environment place on the human body. Putting aside the bravado of the sport for a moment, is skydiving really that complicated? Ever seen a kid in a wind-tunnel or pack a parachute for someone? Of course that would mean that popsjumper's use of the word "youngster" wouldn't have the same condescending meaning that it does now. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You know that nightmare you have of somebody taking your list of favorite songs and mocking it on the internet? Well,....... It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

8 y/o It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It's ironic how the video heading asks, "Imagine if this had happened in the air." Taking off again would have solved the problem. Pilot fail! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Washing machine, hell. I have an urge to get on the next load! The next load of laundry? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I have this urge to suddenly go out an buy a washing machine. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

For the exact same reason any government agency uses the press - to get more funding. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

The question is, who will invade them first, Idaho or Montana? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I'll bet the people at "The Onion" are banging their heads on their desks saying, "Why the hell didn't we think of that?" Seriously, Wyoming needs an aircraft carrier? Where would they park it? Classic example of delusions-of-grandeur that a little [piss-ant] State like Wyoming thinks it's the next world superpower. Crap, you can't even see Russia from Wyoming. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Well, now that she's been taken out of two races by other drivers, you know it's bad when your own teammate is trying to collect the bounty. It reminds me of the scene from Greased Lightning with Beau Bridges having drawn the card to take out Richard Pryor. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.