Pubwoof

The truth is that they're both passengers and students, however you slice it. Customers of giant tandem mills will still learn something, even if it is little more than how to arch, what it's like to exit, or just how fast it feels out there. And, unless we give the "front seater" access to chicken handles and reachable toggles, they're ultimately still just a passenger too. Plain and simple. What's the point of this whole debate? Really? This misses the point entirely. If we're really interested in growing the sport, it means selling the first jump course. Or, so it would seem to me. If it is true, we should be thinking of tandem customers as prospects instead of worrying about the whole passenger-vs-student distraction. That first tandem shouldn't be regarded as a ride or a lesson, but rather a sales pitch. They need to learn that their ride/lesson up front can never compare to the things they can experience as a licensed skydiver in the air or in the lifestyle. I'm still surprised how often "being a skydiver" seems to be an entirely new concept to my 1st-time tandem customers, who too often think of us as glorified roller coasters. If you want someone to show up for your FJC, what they need to learn on that first tandem is how fun this is to do, who we are as skydivers, and why they should want to be one too. If they don't learn those things, who gives a damn whether they've been briefed on altitude awareness before they never return again? Bowling is a wonderful sport, right? Same thing when a new skydiver is born on the first tandem. Twenty-five jumps (or more) later, who in the hell cares whether our new brother/sister learned about holding areas on that first jump or in the classroom before their second one? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

For the most part, I like these logbooks we've been using where Peek jumps. They are set up to be used for the first couple of jumps, at which time the student would be encouraged to buy a more traditional logbook. It is also worth noting that the space in which free form comments go is quite large, leaving instructors with plenty of freedom to include as many narrative comments as they wish. I think of this style of logbook more as being "pre-formatted" than "pre-filled" as it mostly, to me, serves as a handy debrief checklist. Seeing all of the standard POs/skills listed on the card itself can help remind an instructor of anything they might have forgotten if otherwise staring at a blank page instead. It also standardizes some of the basic information the next instructor should be using to plan that student's next jump. We've only been using them for a couple months now (if that long), but my impression is that they provide a higher-resolution picture of the jump it purports to describe since fewer details get overlooked. Since I don't have a natural ability to speak while writing, the fill-the-boxes part of the card helps the debrief go more smoothly since the student spends less time watching me scribble. While it's never cool to short change a student on a debrief, I don't see anything wrong with it taking less time to complete one if it is the result of a more efficient flow of information. Less meandering and "dead air" in a debrief makes it more effective too, in my humble opinion. A bad instructor can short change a student just as easily with a blank logbook page as they can using this format. There are some aspects to these cards for which I feel less enthusiasm. One would be the cookie-cutter look of it. Even using the "other comments" section and/or drawing smiley faces doesn't make it look any less so. It's hard to tell how much of this is perceived by the student, but it's hard not to think of this as a bad impression to give however mild it may be. Also, when you're debriefing a student with multiple areas of concern, the traditional blank page makes it much easier to pare down the more minor gripes and focus on the most important stuff. I don't like the idea of a student feeling worse about a jump than they should because their formatted page contains multiple unchecked boxes. Maybe I could try drawing a line through any uncheckable items on which the student shouldn't be dwelling so much. Or maybe the card should include an "N/A" box next to the ones for yes and no to get back some of that flexibility. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center will be hosting its second CASA boogie of the season the weekend of July 12 and 13. Archway is located in Vandalia, IL about an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indianapolis, and a few hours south of Chicago. Free camping at airport, free organizing, indoor packing, and nearby eats. Further details will be posted when available (such as festivities, rates, and whatnot). Visit www.archwayskydiving.com and use the icon on the left to log on to the forums. This will be the best place to keep up to date on the tailgate. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center in Vandalia, IL will be hosting a CASA May 10 and 11. Archway is located in mid-southern Illinois about an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indy, and 3 to 4 hours south of the Chicago area. Archway offers free on-site camping, and skydiver discounts are available at the local Day's Inn. This could be the place to be if you don't want to wait for the summer heat to get your boogie on. There will be load organizing, barbecue, beverages, and a bonfire all on site. If you need more info about the DZ, visit www.archwayskydiving.com or feel free to message me. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Is it a given that canopy collisions are more likely based on bigger geometry alone? I really don't know whether the presumption that they are is accurate or not, but most arguments I've heard in favor of banning bigger turns seem to use this idea as an unarticulated premise. I'd like to hear some opinions as to why 270s (or greater) are inherently less safe than 180s (or less) as it relates to viewing other canopies in the vicinity. On one hand, it seems logical that 360+ swoops involve traffic along any radial of your turn leaving your field of view at least temporarily. It also seems more plausible that a swooper might be less likely to account for traffic that happens to be just behind them until after they have committed. On the other hand, it seems like 270s provide for a profile view of the swoop lane prior to committing the dive, which I'd think to be advantageous. Or, could a failure to account for traffic directly behind the beginning of a 270 be even more likely to produce a collision assuming everyone is flying the same L/R-handed pattern? I would like to hear some truly experienced people describe whatever correlation that may exist between the radial size of the swoop vs. the chances of a collision. Thank you in advance. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Your profile names Eloy as a home DZ. Would you prefer landing on a cactus? What'd corn ever do to you anyway??? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Indeed, after a vote was taken on our message board, Corn Freaks became the official name. It was loved so much, someone even got a little carried away with it (see attachments). You should show up now to take all the credit. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway Skydiving Center is located at Vandalia Municipal Airport in Vandalia, IL. About an hour east of St. Louis, a couple hours west of Indianapolis, and just a few hours south of the Chicago area. The airport is a short drive from town, where you'll find several motels and eateries if DZ camping isn't your thing. Students are welcome, but you'll need an A-license or better to get you on the specialty jumps. Observer rides should be available on the Caravan, the balloon, and the bi-plane for non-jumpers. For those of you not familiar with Archway, you'll find a fairly even mix of belly and freeflyers. Coaching and organizing will be available for all skill levels. There is a huge landing area with outs in every direction and a great pea pit for accuracy. If you're looking to get your "convention" groove on in the midwest this summer, this one is worth checking out. Read Archway's reviews on this site or visit archwayskydiving.com for more info on the dropzone. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Archway is in Vandalia IL along highway 70 about an hour east of St. Louis, a few hours south of Chicago, and a few hours west of Indianapolis. Forecast calls for sunny skies and temps in the lower 40s. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Wouldn't all the Hillary haters feel a bit left out? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

I doubt there will be much of a push for new gun legislation, assault weapons or otherwise. Too many of the new dems are blue dogs from conservative areas and the liberal dems have lost the stomach for it after 9/11. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

How does it serve US interests? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, it just seems our lives might be a bit less complicated and/or under threat if we weren't protecting them. Anyone have an opinion about this? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Futility. People of all political stripes perceive that their vote won't actually change anything for the better. Populists see two corporate parties, libertarians see two big-goverment parties, fundamentalists see two heathen parties, NAMBLAites (or whatever the hell they are) see two oppressor parties, and middle-of-the-road people see two parties of politicians. Just an opinion that might make some sense. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

In case you didn't notice, this wasn't a source that I posted, somebody else did. Also, I wasn't making any points about the facts presented other than they were indeed facts. To say that Cheney oversaw the awarding of a contract to a company from which he was still receiving pay is simply not an attack. Now, had the link said that Cheney was an evil son of a bitch whose Mr. Magoo-like eye sight made him a sad choice for a hunting buddy, that would be an attack. I may understand more about how government works, including the awarding of contracts, than you would ever suspect. I also fully understand the concept of deferred compensation, which in Cheney's case, does not refute the notion that a conflict of interest existed. Between political jobs, Cheney spent his time with Halliburton helping them get the inside poop on how to get a greater share of taxpayer money by taking advantage of the procurement process and his personal rolodex. As vice president, nobody disputes that he was involved in their being awarded a contract without having to compete with other firms. The ostensible propriety of this no-bid award was Halliburton's expertise in fighting oil well fires. Nobody disputes the procurement process was circumvented on this basis or that the resulting "value added" contract was larger in scope than their expertise in oil well fires by an order of magnitude. The extent of Halliburton's abuse of this contract has yet to accounted for because the Republican congress was conveniently disregarding their oversight duties. I receive information from a wide variety of sources including FOX, the WSJ, and the Standard (if only to be familiar with all points of view). What I don't do, is to avoid dealing with someone else's argument simply by claiming that their source is biased and then declaring victory as you seem to do. If you disagree with something, try telling us why. To say all of my points come from Soros is presumptious and untrue, especially when you consider I made no points at all based on this sourcing. Bias manifests itself in opinion. Facts do not constitute attacks, even if you don't like them. If you're ever looking to convince me or any of the other posters with whom you seem to disagree, you're just gonna have to do better than dodging points by declaring bias and moving on. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.

Evidently, you haven't made any reply as to how you feel about CPA order #39 and the morality behind it (or about 90% of my last post). Should I take your silence as a concession to my being right? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big.