Parachutes prohibited
Matthew Redsell
by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
their own chute.
This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
parachute since it gives a bad image.
What would our insurance say to this?
Comments please
--
Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
Marske Flying Wings
3007 Harding Highway East,
Marion OH 43302.
ph 740 223-3550
Marske Flying wings <http://www.continuo.com/marske>
Michael Benson
I would not fly at that club. Imagine the litigation following a survivable
incident in the air, only to die because no parachutes were used. I would
not be acting in the students best interest by *making* him fly without. I
have heard of several accounts whereby people have survived jumps circa
800/1000 ft. The club has no future with bylaws such as these. If you want
to instruct there under these draconian conditions, supply your own chute
and dam the club ostriches.
Mike
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA90CA...@gte.net...
{USER_FIRSTNAME} {USER_LASTNAME}
much of an ass to make a rule like this????
By the way Matt, you would not be writing this if you werent' wearing one
last year right?? I would go off on whoever implimented that rule and tell
them to shove their stupid rules and bylaws right up their you know what!!
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA90CA...@gte.net...
Christian Husvik
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA90CA...@gte.net...
> Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
> by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
> where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
> dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
> their own chute.
???
Why? I don't understand this, please explain. Does the student have to own
the parachute the instructor wears? Or do you have to own the chute you're
wearing? Anyway, what can possibly be the reasoning behind this? In my
club, the _club_ provides a chute for each seat. They are considered as a
necesary part of the glider.
Christian 8-)
Claudia Buengen
certainly the kind of club I would avoid...
>
>I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
>parachute since it gives a bad image.
I would object to it not because of a bad image but because if I ever have a mid air collision or any accident where a parachute might save my life I would rather like to be wearing one.
If it's a club providing club gliders then club parachutes should be part of the basic equipment provided.
Claudia
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: maidenhead.newsfeed.sdlintl.com
==============================================================
Gavin Goudie
Having spent some of bank holiday Monday helping pick up the pieces of an ASW20 involved in a mid air I know what I still prefer to have on my back.
Almost forgot - the '20 pilot survived without almost a scratch - he was wearing a parachute......
Gav
Host: spider-tn043.proxy.aol.com
==============================================================
Paul Lynch
provides parachutes. The CFIs are not without power. Many clubs will
wither and die without their CFI cadre.
Richard Brisbourne
writes
>Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
>by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
>where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
>dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
>their own chute.
>
>This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
>
>The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
>old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
>has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
>
>I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
>parachute since it gives a bad image.
>
>What would our insurance say to this?
>
>Comments please
>
How about this for a scenario at a coroner's inquest (or whatever your
local equivalent is?)
Attorney: "Mr xxxx, your club failed to provides parachutes for use by
your students, is that correct?"
Club chairman: "Yes, sir"
Attorney: "Do you own a single seat aircraft yourself?"
CC: "Yes sir"
A: "Do you wear a parachute when you fly that aircraft?"
CC: "Yes sir"
A: "No more questions".
--
Richard Brisbourne
Brent Sullivan
I remember when scuba shops quit renting depth gauges along with regulators because if the depth gauge was wrong and the error lead to an accident, they could be found liable. I hope this isn't the same train of thought--what if we provide a 'chute and it fails or the wearer doesn't operate it properly...
FWIW, the club I belong to has no club parachutes. Anyone can wear their own 'chute in any club ship at any time. I guess I can understand the logic of 'provide them for everyone in every club ship or provide them for no one' but I can't understand why you'd want to get in the way of someone protecting their own safety with their own gear.
At 10:20 11 May 2001, Matthew Redsell wrote:
>Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
>by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
>where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
>dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
>their own chute.
>
>This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
>
>The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
>old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
>has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
>
>I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
>parachute since it gives a bad image.
>
>What would our insurance say to this?
>
>Comments please
>
>--
>Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
>Marske Flying Wings
>
>3007 Harding Highway East,
>Marion OH 43302.
>ph 740 223-3550
>
>Marske Flying wings <http://www.continuo.com/marske>
>
>
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: camaro.bmc.com
==============================================================
Nis Adelby Clausen
This sounds like utter madness. I simply can't help commenting here.
In Denmark a midair where both pilots survived (no injuries) due to 'chutes
resulted in a recommendation being passed by the Danish Glider Union stating
that 'chutes should ALWAYS be used. This is strictly adheared to in Denmark.
In the midair I'm referring to, only one of the pilots was wearing a 'chute,
HIS glider disintegrated, the other pilot managed to get down 'safely' from
3000' in a severely mangled K-8. By the way, the two pilots pulled straws
before take-off to decide who was going to have the 'chute. 'Kinda scarey
huh?
regards
Nis Adelby Clausen
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA90CA...@gte.net...
BAToulson
>The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
>old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
>has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
In my club, one of the largest in the UK, most instructors, including me, would
refuse to fly with pupils not wearing a 'chute (which are available and
provided by the club).
The reason being that, should a mid air occur and the pupil is injured /
killed, there could be a claim by relatives that the Club had not exercised a
duty of care during their training of the pupil by failing to provide a means
of escape from the aircraft which was both available and an accepted method of
safeguarding the pupil.
If the instructor elected to fly with a pupil without a chute, the instructor
could be personally liable for any compensation, particularly if, in our case,
'chutes are provided by the club for pupils to wear.
Your comment about the "safety" of any particular glider would not safeguard
you against a mid air, the most common cause of bale out in the UK.
A single accident could render the club liable by not insisting the pupil wears
a 'chute and cost mega bucks, similarly it could cost the instructor his life
savings!
I suggest that you check your legal position.
Barney
Lincolnshire
UK.
Raphael Warshaw
parachute increased the risk of midairs.
Raphael Warshaw
"BAToulson" <bato...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010511161626...@nso-mi.aol.com...
George Emsden
--
George Emsden
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA90CA...@gte.net...
ChrisAtUpw
>lies some good intention
It is, but why give credit to the idiots for a 'good intention' when it
may just be miserly greed?
Since the seating in gliders, unlike powered aircraft, is designed for
parachutes and is often damn uncomfortable without them, it is reasonable to
conclude that it is actually more dangerous NOT to wear one. A short pilot can
have problems reaching the instruments.
OK, highlight the problem, but just ignore the regulation.
Regards,
Chris
Tango4
Only in America!
Ian
"Raphael Warshaw" <r...@wdds.com> wrote in message
news:9dhkgk$ub0$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
JohnPegase
writes:
>
>I had a gliderport operator tell me in all seriousness that wearing a my
>parachute increased the risk of midairs.
>
>Raphael Warshaw
>
This is comparable to the post a few months ago suggesting we don't wear
parachutes when we don't expect to use them to reduce the wear and tear which
might knock a year off their useful life!
Find another club, or if you're paid employee, organise a stike!
Of course we should remember that America is the place where people who survive
head on collisions in their car then sue the airbag manufacturer because it
gave them a friction burn!!
John Wright, 742
Gordon Greenman
posted message:
Before making serious comments please consider the source,
the accuracy and the personal nature of this message from Mr. Redsell.
Jim Behrends President COSA
-----------------------------------------------
Gordon Greenman
Matthew Redsell
of COSA whom I had sent an email to for the boards discussion since
there was objections to my wearing a parachute when instructing and
giving commercial rides. He was designated to tell me the ruling.
The rule approached the thorny issue of the instructor wearing a chute
and the student not wearing a chute. This is a difficult matter to deal
with and I would have been happy to provide a parachute to any student
or passenger but the board went on to prohibit anyone from wearing a
parachute that did not own it. This effectively forces me to not wear a
parachute if I am to fly in a two place ship, which I have been doing
upon occasion to comply with the ruling but I feel very uncomfortable
doing it.
Many people say I am just spooked about flying without a Chute.... but
the more I know about flight safety and the machines we fly with I feel
it is important to fly with a parachute at all times.
.
Should I have misrepresented or misinterpreted this rule now is the
chance to clarify it.
So if there was some misunderstanding in my posting please put the
bylaw in writing for all to read it.
Larry Goddard
So why don't you tell us the ruling and the circumstances from your viewpoint
rather than a not-so-veiled attack on someone's character!
Larry
"There is no kingdom so small that someone doesn't want to rule it with an
iron fist."
Caracole
> and the student not wearing a chute.
When you belong to a club you are obligated to follow the clubs rules.
If you want the rules to reflect your opinion, then lobby the membership
to sway them to your point of view.
Otherwise you should find a different club, or start your own.
It is unfortunate that we are unable to know the facts behind your club
imposing this rule. There are always two sides, we've heard yours.
Unlike some other countries, here in the U.S. the wearing of parachutes
is a personal choice. An exception is when flying in most contests,
when the contest organization typically requires parachutes, due to the
significantly higher potential for mid airs.
M Eiler
Jjglider
outbursts in the last few months. He made unauthorized modifications to the
Winrose Sailplane and then condemned the design when it didn't perform
properly. He then threatened to sue the Homebuilders Association over nothing
more than their reporting of the facts.
Now he is slamming his club. A picture is emerging of good old Mat climbing
into a sailplane wearing his parachute while his "chutless" student sits in the
front seat with a worried look on his face. I imagine the club is not in a
position to buy chutes for everyone, so the ruling that students must own
chutes or nobody wear a chute.
I see Mat as a immature "loose cannon" and take his proclamations with a
grain of salt.
JJ Sinclair
Bill Alexander
You did know about the lightning strike in England where
two lives wqere saved by the pilots using their chutes
Bill A.
At 10:20 11 May 2001, Matthew Redsell wrote:
>Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
>by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
>where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
>dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
>their own chute.
>
>This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
>
>The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
>old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
>has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
>
>I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
>parachute since it gives a bad image.
>
>What would our insurance say to this?
>
>Comments please
>
>--
>Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
>Marske Flying Wings
>
>3007 Harding Highway East,
>Marion OH 43302.
>ph 740 223-3550
>
>Marske Flying wings <http://www.continuo.com/marske>
>
>
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: p3As11a06.client.global.net.uk
==============================================================
Jjglider
parachute, then everyone on board gets one." We tested this law a few years
back after delivering an F-4 to the Philippines from Vietnam. We got on a
commercial flight bound for Saigon dressed in flight gear with something that
looked like a parachute slung over our sholder. Actually it was just the
harness and a jungle lowering device that looked like a parachute pack. The
look on the Grunts (Infantry) faces was priceless, "if they get one, we want
one too."
On one side of our harness a Smith & Weston .38 was tucked away and the
other side sported a big hunting knife. It hadn't been too long since good old
DB Cooper pulled off his sky jacking and then escaped via parachute. The
stewardess told us in no uncertain terms that "the guns, knives and parachutes
are going in the baggage compartment."
JJ Sinclair
Greybeard
Jjglider <jjgl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010512124133...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>I imagine the club is not in a
> position to buy chutes for everyone, so the ruling that students must own
> chutes or nobody wear a chute.
> I see Mat as a immature "loose cannon" and take his proclamations with
a
> grain of salt.
> JJ Sinclair
JJ, maybe you should try to learn understanding plain english. Matt has
said that even if HE provides the chutes, they cannot use them because the
student doesn't own one. Please be so kind as to explain where that makes
any sense at all.
Jjglider
>there was objections to my wearing a parachute when instructing and
>giving commercial rides.
>
>The rule approached the thorny issue of the instructor wearing a chute
>and the student not wearing a chute.
Mat was flying with a chute and his student / passenger didn't have one. Only
after the "ruling" did good old Mat offer to provide a chute to the people he
was flying with.
If Mat doesn't quit the club, I think the club should quit Mat.
JJ Sinclair
George Emsden
gliders and not spend a tiny proportion more on a parachute which might save
someone's life!
The people who made this rule (which has been requested in this string >
once) do not seem not fit to be a) flying or b) in any position of
responsibility in a flying organisation. They strike me as the sort of
people who fly around with their eyes glued to the instruments and do not
bother to see if anyone else is flying. Perhaps they should join a cycling
club instead, but that might offend cyclists.
Two final thoughts - whatever happened to common sense here? and - Can we
see the rule/bye-law please?
--
George Emsden
"Greybeard" <grey...@mwci.net> wrote in message
news:tfr7fmc...@corp.supernews.com...
Greybeard
>
> Mat was flying with a chute and his student / passenger didn't have one.
Only
> after the "ruling" did good old Mat offer to provide a chute to the people
he
> was flying with.
> If Mat doesn't quit the club, I think the club should quit Mat.
> JJ Sinclair
Why was that refused? If he offers a chute, and the student/pax accepts,
why would anyone with 1/4 of a mind object? simply because said student/pax
doesn't own it is hardly a reason for the club to say no. Which, obviously,
they have. By the same token, if said student/pax refuses, why should
anyone be forbidden to use theirs then?
(Having blown my weekly allotment for gas in an unsuccessful attempt to
deliver my chute to a rigger today, they're a sore subject with me anyhow.
Starting to think that the ladies at the park might like some cloth to work
with.)
Greybeard
George Emsden <yq...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3afdba44$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Two final thoughts - whatever happened to common sense here? and - Can we
> see the rule/bye-law please?
>
Reverting to my days with Apple II basic,
common sense<>club rules
just as:
Military <> intelligence.
I have also noticed the silence when requesting the club rule.
Matthew Redsell
To set the record straight: I understand well that if the instructor
wears a chute so should the student and I have offered to provide a
chute and instructions for my passenger or student.
Maybe its a question of liabilites but I would rather survive the crash
and be sued than to be dead any day.
I thought we had some agreement in the club for a while when I was
allowed to take students who had already soloed: andt I can understand
the boards decision to not allow that anymore should an issue arise
where I survived and the student did not. But to then prohibit me from
teaching the student about parachutes and providing one for his use did
not make sense.
The club is in essence forcing me to fly without a parachute if I wish
to continue teaching or carrying passengers.
I must say that this is a particularly good club in many ways and it is
unfortunate that I had an accident where I was forced to use the
Parahcute. It saved my life.
The thought then occured to me... what am I doing flying without a chute
when I have a perfectly good one sitting at home unused? I should really
be wearing one at all times.
Yes I can leave the club...but maybe we all have something to learn
here ands thats why
I am trying to gather information so I can meet with the COSA board and
suggest alternatives to the rule. I think that just by quitting and
moving on will not be in the best interest of everyone.
-mat
Jjglider
Did you fly with a parachute and your student or pasanger did not have a
parachute? Yes or No
JJ
Greybeard
What the hell difference would that make? If my instructor chooses to fly
with a parachute, and I choose to fly without, why should that instructor be
told not to fly with one? If I screw up bad enough that the instructor
feels there is no alternative except for the "silk", what sense would there
be in neither one of us being able to get out? Hmmmm?
James Wilson
pilot so often fly without a chute. Recently it has occurred to me how much
I do fly without a chute and is perhaps a cause for concern. Anyway if I
decide to fly without a cute when flying as P2 it is often because of the
weight issue, and I am quite happy to do this. My comment is that I would be
worried not to be offered a chute as P2. Also the reason I am questioning
whether I fly too much without a chute was when visiting a club on a
checkride I said that I was happy to fly without a chute, the instructor
made sure that another instructor was aware that it was totally my choice
and I was 100% happy with this. I can only imagine that this incase of any
accident where my parents were to say but he wasnt wearing a chute.
James
Greybeard wrote in message ...
George Emsden
are we talking about here? It would be nice to see the rule too - requested
for the umpteenth time.
--
George Emsden
"Matthew Redsell" <mar...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AFDE624...@gte.net...
Matthew Redsell
Greenman the secretary has not replied yet.
This ruling was explained to me in detail by LeRoy Johnson: It made me
very upset at the time and when I later expressed my displeasure at this
ruling to the President, whom I have a very high respect, advised me
that I could meet with the board and bring along others who could
re-inforce my point of view. But he also added that the board would
basically not alter the decision they had made or it would be next to
impossible. Thats why I am asking these questions here to a broad
audience.
Jim Behrends the president also stressed that he felt I was spooked by
my parachute save and that in the eyes of the board the club has
demonstrated that the planes are safe (mostly 2-33's for teaching) and
in the last 40 - 50 years they have not had an accident.
My points are that any plane with an elevator (negative pitching moment
airfoil) will kill you if the elevator malfunctions, the 2-33's are
getting quite old and the aluminum will be in a fatique state with the
many hours they have on them, the corporate jets that fly from here
are difficult to see and a mid air is possible not only with them but
everyone else who passes by here enroute and what is the use of my
having a parachute if its left at home? Sitting in the back seat of a
2-33 does not offer the instructor a good view and relying on the
student to see the traffic is not recommended.... so I think we should
wear parachutes for the sake of safety.
The liability issue is perhaps in question, and maybe here my suggestion
of wearing chutes while instructing is not a good thing in this area.
Does anyone have some understanding of the liabilitiy issue?
Jjglider
My point is, "the student was not offered a parachute." Good old Mat is being
very quiet on this point, I wonder why???
JJ Sinclair
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
> I have requested that COSA respond with the exact ruling but Gordon
> Greenman the secretary has not replied yet.
> This ruling was explained to me in detail by LeRoy Johnson: It made me
> very upset at the time and when I later expressed my displeasure at this
> ruling to the President, whom I have a very high respect, advised me
> that I could meet with the board and bring along others who could
> re-inforce my point of view. But he also added that the board would
> basically not alter the decision they had made or it would be next to
> impossible. Thats why I am asking these questions here to a broad
> audience.
Basically everywhere, using a parachute in a glider is not only
recommended, but obligatory. You will not be allowed to glide
in France for example without it. Perhaps the people at your club
have opposite opinion, then they are fools and you cannot continue
practising such a dangerous sport in a club of fools.
I don't even understand why there is any discussion more on this point.
In the French Alps, there are enough casualties due to the high density
of gliders there, without adding to that the unconsciousness of
rulings like that.
--
Michel Talon
John Wren
thread.
Can someone, leave your emotions out; explain why we must have parachutes in
basic trainers. I can only think of one and it has not been mentioned in the
current thread.
After 28 years of cross country, instructing, racing, and towing I find it
interesting that so much emotion controls this issue. Little logic, but a
lot of emotion. Most of us think nothing of flying 5 hours in a glass glider
(with chute) on a ridge at treetop level and then climb into a tug or small
power plane (without a chute). What's the difference?
Someone mentioned that it was unforgivable to think that a club would not
have the cash to buy a fleet of chutes, yet have the money to buy gliders. I
don't know what world he lives in, but in my travels I find most clubs
around the world need to watch every penny. The club I fly from has pushed
this around for several years. It would cost more than a years worth of fuel
to properly fit out and maintain our club the first year. Then a third more
than a years worth of towplane insurance a year there after; this assumes
the chutes are not left laying around the field and dogs pissing on them,
which is the usual case. All this for a fancy seat cushion.
The most dangerous flying we do in this sport is towing. Why is it we are
not pushing for chutes in towplanes? Keeping in mind most training flights
never get much higher than the tow plane that brought them up.
John Wren
FAA & BGA instructor
John Wren
If everyone wears a chutes in France then why are there still "enough
casualties"?
Greybeard
Probably because every time he answers something from you, you only follow
up with a little more of your condescending attitude. Makes me believe that
maybe you were an officer in the military, and can't seem to realize that
there are other ways of life. The fact that you pick one point, and can't
seem to read the rest of what he says, tells me that you don't think too
well for yourself.
Don't pride yourself on being unique, however. It's the predominance of
your attitude among aviation people that has made me realize that restoring
tractors may be in better company. No maybe, I know it is.
I did not see "the student was not offered a parachute", but did see "I
cannot offer him one because the club rule says he has to own it". But your
attitude says to me "think as I do or get out of the box". I'm out of the
box.
BTW, It's grEybeard, not grAybeard. (Nothing as good as a spelling or
grammar flame)
Jjglider
1. Mat is flying with a parachute because he has recently made a "nylon
decent."
2. Mat wears his chute while flying with students and passengers.
3. The students and passengers are not offered a chute.
4. After complaints about Mat wearing his chute, the club board takes action.
5. Only after "the ruling" does Mat offer to provide a parachute for his
passangers.
6. Mat gets on RAS and snivels and whines about "the board action."
On a personal note Mat, I think your talents are being wasted in your
current line of work, you can dance around the truth better than anyone I have
ever seen. Why don't you consider going to law school?
JJ Sinclair
Greybeard
> Come on people, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out;
> 1. Mat is flying with a parachute because he has recently made a "nylon
> decent."
A logical and reasonable response.
> 2. Mat wears his chute while flying with students and passengers.
So?
> 3. The students and passengers are not offered a chute.
Cough up the bucks, then you'll have a right to complain.
> 4. After complaints about Mat wearing his chute, the club board takes
action.
Assumption on your part, I'm sure. Matt didn't state that.
> 5. Only after "the ruling" does Mat offer to provide a parachute for his
> passangers.
And why should Matt be the one required to provide? Hmmmm? Why don't YOU
provide one or more? Hmmmm?
> On a personal note Mat, I think your talents are being wasted in your
> current line of work, you can dance around the truth better than anyone I
have
> ever seen. Why don't you consider going to law school?
You really should see about your extremely narrow mind and tunnel vision. A
course in reading comprehension wouldn't hurt either. You seem to have a
problem reading what is meant instead of what you want to read. Dr. Freud
would have a field day with your superiority complex too.
Paul Lynch
Got something against those who defended their country while others enjoyed the benefits?? How many friends have you lost to military training accidents and combat?
Walt Konecny
news:3afdba44$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> It really seems pathetic that a club can spend thousands of dollars on
> gliders and not spend a tiny proportion more on a parachute which might
save
> someone's life!
That decision is to be made by the club, for the club, not by outsiders who
have no other interest in this but to stand with hands on hips, criticizing
someone else's organization. People have a choice, they can be in the club,
or not be in the club. Maybe the club doesn't want to expose itself to any
unnecessary liability. If someone wants to fly with a chute, let them buy
one.
> The people who made this rule (which has been requested in this string >
> once) do not seem not fit to be a) flying or b) in any position of
> responsibility in a flying organisation. They strike me as the sort of
> people who fly around with their eyes glued to the instruments and do not
> bother to see if anyone else is flying.
You don't know crap about these people and the organization, except for what
the lunatic Redsell posted. If you accept him as your primary source of
information, well then, govern yourself accordingly, and be prepared to look
the fool.
> Two final thoughts - whatever happened to common sense here? and - Can we
> see the rule/bye-law please?
Those rules and bylaws are none of your damn business, except if you happen
to be a member of that club! What the hell is going on here? Have we given
birth to a new group of list-nazis who take it upon themselves to regulate
other soaring clubs and activities? That club does not need to open itself
to judgement from cyber-world.
This is another example of Redell's expertise in PR and marketing - - blurts
out some garbage to the world. The proper course of action, by a rational
individual, would have been to discuss this with the board and other
clubmembers.
You people are going to have to learn.....if it involves Redsell, it's bound
to be a red herring.
"Parachutes prohibited"? It should be "Redsell prohibited".
wk
DJA
Gary Ehrefneld
died in front of my eyes.
Dust Off pilots (who were Officers) risk their lives for me and my wounded
Marines. Please know what your talking about before you judge any one.
"DJA" <ahe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:HcFL6.63365$K5.66...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
John Morgan
>
> Don't pride yourself on being unique, however. It's the predominance of
> your attitude among aviation people that has made me realize that
restoring
> tractors may be in better company. No maybe, I know it is.
Since you once threatened to trash your glider, have consistently railed
against the attitude and mentality of glider pilot's and gliding clubs
everywhere, and generally are able to find a bone or nit to pick with dang
near any subject which might be discussed on RAS . . . just why the hell do
you stay around? Aren't there any tractor lists that might interest you
more? Just wondering . . .
--
John "Bumper" Morgan <bump...@castles.com>
S10-VT N50ZZ
00 VFR800FI
To REPLY please remove aviation part of address.
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink.."
greybeard
cause babble to appear with:
>
>
>Got something against those who defended their country while others enjoyed the
>benefits?? How many friends have you lost to military training accidents and
>combat?
>
Well now, lesee. One of my classmates dead in a huey, had an uncle,
shell shocked, (WWII) didn't even respond to his own name. Myself,
every time I see a picture of a burned VN child, I wonder if I'm the
one that filled that bomb. Got my ass chewed by a leutennant
commander for hanging on to the landing gear of an A3D while an F4 was
trying to blow me over the side. Threatened with mast for malingering
after I broke my kneecap during a GQ drill, division officer said I
did it deliberately. (Oh, yeah. Such fun.) Yeah, saw my radar text
books, not military, confiscated because my division officer said I
didn't need to know that. Never mind that I already had my FCC second
and wanted to add the radar endorsement. Had one of the
communications officers come to the compartment and tell me that I was
to report to the ships amateur radio station as "operator on duty".
Totally out of his authority. I refused, got thirty days restriction
to ship. We got back to the states, he lost a few bucks to the fines
he had to pay. What do you see there to respect? Oh, yeah. I used
the record out of my own service jacket to burn him too. He had not
violated military bullshit, he had violated civil law. Nothing the
Navy could do to help him. "E2 burns O3". Ya gotta love it. The XO
told me that I was restricted, not for refusing an illegal order, but
not following the order, then going through military "channels". In
other words, don't stop a violation of law, just wait forever until
someone thinks they have to look at it.
Sorry dude, but most officers, 99.8%, need being proclaimed
"gentlemen" by an act of congress. Nobody else would admit to it.
Matthew Redsell
today
1. Mat is flying with a parachute because he has recently made a "nylon
decent."
Yes this really made me realize the importance of wearing a parachute..
and why should I go without one if I own one?
2. Mat wears his chute while flying with students and passengers.
I go without a chute since it is the club policy. Before at many times I
was the only instructor on the field and already soloed students had the
choice to fly with me or not. I do not take pasengers if I am wearing a
chute. But I must admit that I at first did not consider that my wearing
a parachute while teaching would actually raise such an issue
3. The students and passengers are not offered a chute.
Yes I have a spare chute to lend anyone and would be willing to instruct
on its use and the safety considerations. At this point there is no one
on the field that can offer this advice..... and I need to brush up on
it myself.
4. After complaints about Mat wearing his chute, the club board takes
action.
The students did not complain but the board members decided that it
created a bad image, and that I should trust the 40 year old gliders. If
I have this incorrect any board member can reply here.
5. Only after "the ruling" does Mat offer to provide a parachute for his
passangers.
No I cannot offer any student or passenger a parachute.... they must own
their own chute. I would gladly do this but the ruling says I cannot
lend a parachute.
6. Mat gets on RAS and snivels and whines about "the board action."
I thought my posting where fairly done, and that I am looking for
information about parachutes at different clubs and countries. I too
need to learn about this issue.
On a personal note Mat, I think your talents are being wasted in your
current line of work, you can dance around the truth better than anyone
I have
ever seen. Why don't you consider going to law school?
JJ Sinclair
Mr Sinclair, I appreciate your admiration of my lesser talents. If you
look the Marske site and see the new 135 lb carbon Monarch I have built
you might also realize that I may also be good at building gliders,
flying wing inovations, developing carbon epoxy techiniques... and I do
fly reasonably well..... but I'll let others judge that. Oh and I forgot
my talents at making home made bread....
Al
Bumper.. anyone who buys a 1-26 to survey lakes within 7 miles of the field
is one beer short of a six pack...
However I award you with the best lennie/greybeard rebuttal seen to date.
Al
"John Morgan" <Flyb...@castles.com> wrote in message
news:9dn9t...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Matthew Redsell
to even offer my student a parachute and thats the point that confuses
me about the boards decision.
And today I made a special point to ask if this was the correct
interpretation and that was confirmed by a board member.
greybeard
cause babble to appear with:
>
>So what's the point Greybeard?
>
Military traditions are useless outside of the military, and JJ is
fond of quoting them. Also incapable of reading anything outside of
the context that he wants to see things in.
That you are an officer, or were, is quite evident by your use of html
and not snipping unneeded parts. Using Agent, it looks military,
totally unintelligible.
I have always wanted to get another dog, a mongrel bitch. So I can
name it "Sir". Then when I say "Yes sir", it will be to something
that I can respect.
fstead@earthlink
parachute, or from flying with a parachute when the student doesn't have
one?
My club is another that supplies a rack of club owned parachutes and I
believe it is mandatory that they be used on training and demo flights.
It's our culture that almost everyone wears a parachute almost all the
time while flying gliders. Oddly, one rarely sees one of our tow pilots
wearing one, however.
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
Matthew Redsell
happen
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net>
This statement above may be the bottom line in our discussion on the
parachute. However I still feel that just maybe since it is a club, that
the members other than the members of the board should know about this
ruling and have a resonable discussion of it since it will affect all of
our lives.
Calling each other names does little to promote soaring.
Yes I do raise some thorny issues and I do believe in the future of
soaring with the Marske flying wing ... but thats what gives us
diversity... and that may one day be one of the saving graces of
soaring. We need enthusiastic innovators and those who will speak up.
And besides who else do you know who is developing gliders in the
states?
Bruce Hoult
> And besides who else do you know who is developing gliders in the
> states?
Ummm. Genesis. And what happened to the design Pater Masak was working
on after he flew it in the '95 Worlds in NZ?
-- Bruce
Jjglider
I will agree with you on one thing, you probably should go restore tractors.
BTW, I was enlisted for seven years and then got off my duff and got a
commission. Sorry you didn't make it, or did you even try?
JJ Sinclair
greybeard
<Flyb...@castles.com> Did cause babble to appear with:
>
>Since you once threatened to trash your glider, have consistently railed
>against the attitude and mentality of glider pilot's and gliding clubs
>everywhere, and generally are able to find a bone or nit to pick with dang
>near any subject which might be discussed on RAS . . . just why the hell do
>you stay around? Aren't there any tractor lists that might interest you
>more? Just wondering . . .
Well bumper, my plane is flying this year, supposedly six people
chipped in to pay the fixed costs in return for it's use. I am not
one of the six, but as always, only five paid. Guess where "share
number six" came from?
Matt has stated that the club rule prevents him from loaning a student
or pax one of his parachutes, and unless said student or pax has a
parachute, Matt may not use one. The student or pax must own his own
parachute, or use none. (???) JJ seems to have comprehension problems
with this, and quotes a military tradition to support (?????) his
position. JJ seems to think it better that both die instead of at
least one being able to get out alive. Matt makes some very good
points, one being that the visibility from the back of a 2-33 is
miserable at best, but such "minor" things are ignored. The attitude
I get is that "the club is always right", which is usually not the
case.
The other inference I see is that Matt would be such a poor man as to
bail out and leave the helpless pax to fend as best they can. I
haven't seen anything to back this up, and would prefer to believe
that he would do everything he could to make a surviveable arrival
rather than abandon the pax. To infer that he would do otherwise is
nothing but a slam against the character of the man, and I believe,
totally uncalled for. Matt has also made it very clear that he would
prefer that the student/pax be given the choice, instead of an
arbitrary "no".
And in the case , hopefully never, that both would be killed in a
crash, Matts survivors would have a very good case for suing the club,
the club having denied him the option of using his safety equipment.
However, to answer your question,
1. It will be november before I return to the strip, so no one need
fear seeing me, terrible person that I am. As far as here on the
group, there is always the "killfile", and ask me if I care.
2. My plane will not be available to others next year, I can't afford
that.
3. whereas my plane occupied the garage last winter, and the tractor
sat against the fence, it will be reversed this winter.
4. The tractor I would like is a Case 30-60 from before 1917. None
of you own planes that could equal the price of one of these. Which
might explain why I don't have one, and there is no group connected
with them. There are five known to exist.
greybeard
<acro...@www.silentflight.com> Did cause babble to appear with:
>ROFLMAO...
>
>Bumper.. anyone who buys a 1-26 to survey lakes within 7 miles of the field
>is one beer short of a six pack...
Ummm, no. I'm six beers short of a six pack. You forget, I don't
crawl in the company of pigs.. Actually, I think one can might be
more than I've had, in all of my 59 years. Brain rot in a bottle
isn't my thing. Must be yours.
greybeard
babble to appear with:
months and threats from the chief before I even took the test for E3,
and one month later I was back providing for myself, without the great
white tit. Strange thing tho, both of my division officers and the
education officer chewed my ass the next day. Seems I had the highest
score that had ever been seen on that ship. Didn't mean anything
then, and doesn't mean anything now. Being in the Navy in the mid
'60s was a bad trip, and nothing else. I should mention that I
already had six years in machining before being called to active, and
knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I still do it, even
though I'm retired.
Bert Willing
Maybe France, Germany or the UK is not everywhere, but the US is not really
known to set standards in soaring...
--
---------------------
Bert Willing
Calif A21S
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in Southern France:
http://la-motte.decollage.org
John Wren <gli...@mediaone.net> a écrit dans le message :
3pxL6.27383$e85.10...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Parkito
>Those rules and bylaws are none of your damn business, except if you
>happen
>to be a member of that club! -
> "Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net>
>
>This statement above may be the bottom line in our discussion on the
>parachute. However I still feel that just maybe since it is a club, that
>the members other than the members of the board should know about this
>ruling and have a resonable discussion of it since it will affect all of
>our lives.
>
>Calling each other names does little to promote soaring.
>
>Yes I do raise some thorny issues and I do believe in the future of
>soaring with the Marske flying wing ... but thats what gives us
>diversity... and that may one day be one of the saving graces of
>soaring. We need enthusiastic innovators and those who will speak up.
>And besides who else do you know who is developing gliders in the
>states?
Okay people, once again we are debating apples and oranges and only a couple of
people are seeing the big picture.
Matt Redsell started another bog with the following:
"Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
their own chute.
This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students."
First off, Matt is airing dirty laundry that should have been appropriately
discussed within the confines of his own club before throwing the mess on
R.A.S. If no consensus was reached within his club (read as no one knocked
some common sense into his brain), then go to R.A.S. with a club specific issue
such as this.
So only JJ seems to really be on top of this. Matt was flying essentially
non-pilots while only he wore a parachute, and why?
"The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
Many people say I am just spooked about flying without a Chute.... but
the more I know about flight safety and the machines we fly with I feel
it is important to fly with a parachute at all times."
"Jim Behrends the president also stressed that he felt I was spooked by
my parachute save and that in the eyes of the board the club has
demonstrated that the planes are safe (mostly 2-33's for teaching) and
in the last 40 - 50 years they have not had an accident.
My points are that any plane with an elevator (negative pitching moment
airfoil) will kill you if the elevator malfunctions, the 2-33's are
getting quite old and the aluminum will be in a fatique state with the
many hours they have on them, the corporate jets that fly from here
are difficult to see and a mid air is possible not only with them but
everyone else who passes by here enroute and what is the use of my
having a parachute if its left at home? Sitting in the back seat of a
2-33 does not offer the instructor a good view and relying on the
student to see the traffic is not recommended.... so I think we should
wear parachutes for the sake of safety."
So Matt is quite concerned about wearing a parachute. But if one reads Matts'
comments carefully, it is clear that before the ruling Matt was wearing a chute
while his passengers were not.
"The source of this parachute ruling came from Leroy Johnson board member
of COSA whom I had sent an email to for the boards discussion since
there was objections to my wearing a parachute when instructing and
giving commercial rides. He was designated to tell me the ruling.
The rule approached the thorny issue of the instructor wearing a chute
and the student not wearing a chute. This is a difficult matter to deal
with and I would have been happy to provide a parachute to any student
or passenger but the board went on to prohibit anyone from wearing a
parachute that did not own it. This effectively forces me to not wear a
parachute if I am to fly in a two place ship, which I have been doing
upon occasion to comply with the ruling but I feel very uncomfortable
doing it."
I repeat for emphasis: "The rule approached the thorny issue of the instructor
wearing a chute
and the student not wearing a chute. This is a difficult matter to deal
with and I would have been happy to provide a parachute to any student
or passenger..."
Thorny issue????? NOW he willing to provide a chute????
JJ caught this:
Mat was flying with a chute and his student / passenger didn't have one. Only
after the "ruling" did good old Mat offer to provide a chute to the people he
was flying with.
If Mat doesn't quit the club, I think the club should quit Mat.
JJ Sinclair
In a followup to the ruling, now Matt offers to provide a chute:
"To set the record straight: I understand well that if the instructor
wears a chute so should the student and I have offered to provide a
chute and instructions for my passenger or student."
Maybe its a question of liabilites but I would rather survive the crash
and be sued than to be dead any day."
So Matt is keenly concerned about survivability at least for himself, and if
the student died, at least he would still be alive:
"I thought we had some agreement in the club for a while when I was
allowed to take students who had already soloed: andt I can understand
the boards decision to not allow that anymore should an issue arise
where I survived and the student did not. But to then prohibit me from
teaching the student about parachutes and providing one for his use did
not make sense."
Yet Greybeard jumps in with his garbage for a brain and comments:
The other inference I see is that Matt would be such a poor man as to
bail out and leave the helpless pax to fend as best they can. I
haven't seen anything to back this up, and would prefer to believe
that he would do everything he could to make a surviveable arrival
rather than abandon the pax. To infer that he would do otherwise is
nothing but a slam against the character of the man, and I believe,
totally uncalled for. Matt has also made it very clear that he would
prefer that the student/pax be given the choice, instead of an
arbitrary "no".
Come on Lennie, what other explicit inference can there be if the
instructor/ride pilot shows up with only a parachute for himself? Matt, did
you ever explicitly tell any of your students or rides that if there was a
structural failure or a mid-air and you had the ability to leave the aircraft
and use your chute that you would do just that and leave the student/ride to
fend for themself? Were you that honest with even just one of your rides?
What else could you possibly say? You were wearing a chute and they were not.
If you didn't intend to bail if the situation called for it, you would not have
worn the chute. If I was a begining student would I want to see my instructor
show up like that? Not for all the tea in China. Would I have continued in the
sport, definitely not.
So after the ruling, Matts' response:
"Ofcourse I offer the student a parachute.... thats my point! I am unable
to even offer my student a parachute and thats the point that confuses
me about the boards decision."
Interesting use of verb tense, confusing at the least, downright duplicitous at
the least (that means deceptive, Lenny. Deceptive means dishonest, Lenny).
Now, the interesting point is that those that follow R.A.S. know that Matt has
a history with building and tinkering. The story of the Windrose is still not
clear, but those associated with the SHA and individuals such as JJ and Walt
are aware that Matt has not come to terms with reality regarding his
modification of the Windrose he built. I would think that those in his club
probably know Matt even better. Accepting responsiblity for Matt's personal
equipment would be a big leap of faith for me. Again, however, Matt seems to
only see the surface of his "solution".
His counter offer to make a parachute available for his passenger puts the club
in a position of liablilty for Matts' personal property. Is the chute in good
condition? Is it in current repack? Is it the right size for the passenger?
Does he have more than one chute to accomodate different size passengers? Who
is responsible for the check out? If Matt is providing rides or training for
the club in a club ship and then provides a chute, how can the club not be
liable for all aspects of that chute? Has Matt thought about any of this? His
concern? ....
"The club is in essence forcing me to fly without a parachute if I wish
to continue teaching or carrying passengers."
"I must say that this is a particularly good club in many ways and it is
unfortunate that I had an accident where I was forced to use the
Parahcute. It saved my life."
"The thought then occured to me... what am I doing flying without a chute
when I have a perfectly good one sitting at home unused? I should really
be wearing one at all times."
He is still only thinking about himself, not the people flying with him or the
future of the club.
What the Europeans responding to the discussion are missing is that most clubs
in the U.S. do not provide chutes, and yes cost is a real factor. When you
have small fleets of mostly $10,000 2-33s and $5-9,000 1-26s, a minimum of two
-$1,000 chutes constitutes a significant fraction of a cost of a sailplane.
Factor in the need for multiple sizes, and the fraction cost of chutes is very
significant. Yes, it would be good for everyone to wear a chute, but that day
is not here yet. Personally, I have over 150 hours in 2-33s and 1-34s without
a chute and it never bothered me. Schweitzer iron is very dependable. When I
went to my own glass ship I bought a chute to go with it. Would I wear a chute
Matt Redsell offered to me? I'd want to ask a few questions first. To be
fair, I'd probably ask almost everyone the same questions under the same
circumstances.
Finally:
"Yes I can leave the club...but maybe we all have something to learn
here ands thats why
I am trying to gather information so I can meet with the COSA board and
suggest alternatives to the rule. I think that just by quitting and
moving on will not be in the best interest of everyone."
The consistent theme in Matts' comments is that he is concerned about his own
interests, not his passengers, not his clubs', and not the soaring community in
general. I don't think it is deliberate selfishness, I think that Matt just
doesn't sees the bigger picture. All-in-all, quite similar to his monocular
focus on flying Monarch sailplanes.
JJ got it right, but I would add one thing to the summary:
Come on people, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out;
1. Mat is flying with a parachute because he has recently made a "nylon
decent."
2. Mat wears his chute while flying with students and passengers.
3. The students and passengers are not offered a chute.
4. After complaints about Mat wearing his chute, the club board takes action.
5. Only after "the ruling" does Mat offer to provide a parachute for his
passangers.
6. Mat gets on RAS and snivels and whines about "the board action."
On a personal note Mat, I think your talents are being wasted in your
current line of work, you can dance around the truth better than anyone I have
ever seen. Why don't you consider going to law school?
JJ Sinclair
7. Would I want my club to be responsible for personal property not
maintained, inspected, whatever by the club and offered by an individual that
has difficulty in reconciling his views with reality? Nope.
Parke
Vice President
Utah Soaring Association
Parkito
>A military carreer was never an option in my mind. It took me 21
>months and threats from the chief before I even took the test for E3
Aah, ever the great achiever.
Parke
Birger.W...@dnv.com
Neither is Norway, but a club providing such rules here would almost
certainly be kicked out of our National Soaring Association
Interesting to see JJ's twist in starting (multiple) personal attacs
in order to get away from the original question. You don't get my vote
though.
Also interesting to see what can happen in a country ruled by lawyers
greed for money, and the consequence of resulting liability questions.
And good old Al, you couldn't let go a possibility of kicking
Greybeard did you? f you look closely, Greybeard has turned an
entirely new person, argueing on a level I must say has become much
higher than several other persons in this thread.
Having finally passed sixty, I think I can stand the reaction of those
of you which feet I stepped on.
Birger
On Sun, 13 May 2001 15:10:32 GMT, "John Wren" <gli...@mediaone.net>
wrote:
Peter Nyffeler
>Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
>by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
>where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
>dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
>their own chute.
>
>This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
I'm not sure whether I understood it correctly:
You are only allowed to take a parachute if you are the owner of it?
Is this a club rule or a FAA regulation?
If it is a club rule change them immediately.
If it is a FAA regulation, ignore it for safety reason and the SAA should
force the FAA to change the regulation.
My Opinion: To each glider seat belongs a parachute.
And it should be checked and refolded at least once every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER NYFFELER, ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry
mailto:nyff...@phys.chem.ethz.ch, <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny >
To my hobbies: Soaring <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny/sf>
and Control-Line Aeromodells <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny/CL>
Don Johnstone
1 Should parachutes be worn in gliders? In the UK a large proportion of light aviation pilots do not wear parachutes. The crew of gliders are only required to wear parachutes if the flight is to take place in cloud. The wearing of parachutes is a matter of personal preference outwith the above condition. Personally my preference is to wear a parachute when flying gliders.
2 Should parachutes be provided by clubs or by the crew? In an ideal world each person should have his own personal parachute but this is really not practical. In the UK most clubs supply parachutes and provided they are properly maintained and the crew are instructed in their use there really is no problem. Bearing in mind para 1 above there is no requirement for a club to provide parachutes but I suspect that there would be critisism if they did not do so. I would certainly not remain as a member of a club that did not make such a provision.
3. Is it acceptable for one person in a multi crew to wear a parachute and the other not? I would suggest that this is not acceptable as it would place an unacceptable burden on the captain of a glider where this was the case. I would certainly be very reluctant to leave an aircraft if my student/passenger could not do so and I suspect most people would feel the same. In the event of a situation where abandonment is the indicated option but the instructor in the rear seat is the one not wearing a parachute there is a real dilema as if the front seat is vacated control of the glider would be impossible. My personal opinion is that in a multi crew situation both or neither should wear parachutes.
The bottom line is that it is a matter for the members of the club who have made the rule which started this thread. The members have the option of leaving the club and this may focus the mind of the club executive.
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: ppp-3-40.cvx3.telinco.net
==============================================================
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
> Sorry mate, France is not everywhere.
Of course, and the same US is not everywhere. I was thinking of all
other countries, Germany, etc.
> If everyone wears a chutes in France then why are there still "enough
> casualties"?
Because in the Alps, people fly very close to the rocks, are numerous
at good spots, take foolish risks and finally are involved in some
accident. I was flying in a club in the Paris region. One of the instructors
was a very good pilot, young and well trained. He bought a brand
new ASW23, and went to the Alps. He killed himself almost immediately.
Using gliders is highly dangerous, and one must be very serious about
using all possible security devices. I understand that in the US the
space is much larger, so the probability of collision is smaller.
Nevertheless, i still cannot understand that the use of parachutes
is not obligatory. An other poster said that in planes, you don't wear
parachutes. This is true, but not a tradition to be followed on gliders.
Not that if you eject from a plane, there is a probability that the plane
falls on some house for example, so one may understand that all is done
so that the pilot tries to land on a field. Unfortunately many pilots
have been killed landing in bad fields. This danger seems less present
for gliders. Have never heard of casualties this way.
Parachutes have a cost, for sure. However in european clubs, there is a stock
of them, they are regularly inspected by members of the club, who have
acquired necessary qualification, and i don't think this costs much in
the long run. Only gives trouble to the poor club members!
On the other hand gliders are extremely expensive, so money cuts on
the parachutes seems to me foolish.
>> Basically everywhere, using a parachute in a glider is not only
>> recommended, but obligatory. You will not be allowed to glide
>> in France for example without it. Perhaps the people at your club
>> have opposite opinion, then they are fools and you cannot continue
>> practising such a dangerous sport in a club of fools.
>> I don't even understand why there is any discussion more on this point.
>> In the French Alps, there are enough casualties due to the high density
>> of gliders there, without adding to that the unconsciousness of
>> rulings like that.
>>
>> --
>> Michel Talon
--
Michel Talon
Paul Lynch
military when the military used court judges to recruit for them. Felons, heavy
drug use were commonplace. That is not my military. If I ever discovered any of
my officers or chiefs treating Sailors the way you were treated, they were quickly
disciplined and trained on how to positively lead. They either learned or went
away.
Jon Meyer
J.
>
>Parke
>Vice President
>Utah Soaring Association
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: shadow.dera.gov.uk
==============================================================
Jjglider
+ We have provided life vests for only the crew.
+ Enjoy your cruse.
Mat Redsell, Captain, USS Titanic
Greybird, Seaman 2, Tractor Repair
JJ Sinclair
Al
If you dont glide anymore and your flying hours can be written on the back
of a postage stamp.
I find your inputs on most subjects so far out of whack that as bumper says
maybe there is a tractor group for you.
If not lets start one for you then how about rec.lathes.atlas. there go
look in that one..
Al
<greybeard> wrote in message news:3aff69d3...@news.mwci.net...
Jon Meyer
I can see what you're getting at JJ, but using the Titanic as an example, There were only enough lifeboats for, say, half the passengers. That's unfair, and by your logic they should have either had enough for all the people on board (my point of view), or none at all to give everyone an equal chance (your cheapo point of view).
Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me, do you think the titanic would've been better off without any lifeboats? They may have had too few, but at least they bothered having some.
J.
Robert Ehrlich
>
> Sorry mate, France is not everywhere.
>
> casualties"?
>
Probably due to the ratio of the number of flying gliders to available space, which
is probably much higher than in the US.
Bob Kuykendall
>And besides who else do you know who is developing
>gliders in the states?
I am.
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: h201s25a82n47.user.nortelnetworks.com
==============================================================
Jjglider
My Titanic example was exactly what Mat was doing when he flew with passengers
and didn't have a parachute for them, only one for himself.
JJ
Matthew Redsell
parachutes.
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> Should parachutes be provided by clubs or by the crew? In an ideal world each person should have
> his own personal parachute but this is really not practical.
Not only unpractical but economically a non-sense. In my club we have 21 gliders among them
5 two-seaters, i.e. 26 seats and 26 parachutes. We have approximately 150 members, exact
numbers is varying with seasons and weather. So it would be an economical non-sense that
we own 150 parachutes, and eveybody paying for his repack, storing it at home instead of
having a storage place in the club with air conditionning and humidity control, which is easy
for 26 parachutes but not for 150. I think the argument of cost that somobody raised in this
thread is a very bad one, since in any case, provided by the club or owned by the members,
the parachutes are paid by the members. The argument of cost would only be valid if a majority
of pilots don't own nor wear a parachute.
Jjglider
they should
>have either had enough for all the people on board (my point of view), or
>none at all to give everyone an equal chance (your cheapo point of view).
Yo Jon, As a two time member of the Caterpillar Club, I am very much in favor
of parachutes. My only stipulation is EVERY BODY GETS ONE OR NOBODY GETS ONE.
JJ Sinclair
greybeard
babble to appear with:
>Aah, ever the great achiever.
>
>Parke
Unlike certain personalities, I chose to enter an occupation that
could produce things of use. Unlike those same personalities, I don't
feel that I wish to be in a place where I have "power" real or
imagined, over anyone else. I have many equals, and no superiors.
When something is not worth pursuing, I won't go chasing after it.
Whether or not it is worth going after, I am the only qualified judge,
as I am the only one what will have to live with the decision. Two
weeks after boarding the ship, I had decided that a military career
was something I didn't want. Now, explain why anyone would go chasing
after something he doesn't want.
Parkito
>parachutes.
>
>--
>Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
>Marske Flying Wings
Mat:
Is it your student or the clubs' student? Did the student sign up with the
club or you for instruction? Are you flying in your ship or the clubs' ship?
How many students did you fly with where you wore a parachute and the student
did not before the new bylaw?
Just the facts, ma'am.
Parke
greybeard
>
>If you dont glide anymore
So?
and your flying hours can be written on the back
>of a postage stamp.
So?
And if your flying hours fill a ledger, what does it mean? To anyone
beside yourself, that is. Good for pumping the ego, but still
requires 59 cents for a cup of Hardees coffee.
I've been under what I consider pretty heavy pressure to get back into
the plane since January. However, I've had since September to think
about the mistakes that I made and nobody else saw, and consider the
effort it would take to overcome these mistakes. The end result is
that the end result wouldn't be worth the effort.
However, as the price of gas increases, I find less humor in the
knowledge that someone finds reason that I should visit the strip
every flyable weekend. Always ends the same, one instructor in the
towplane, the other in the 2-33, and it becomes a good time for me to
get in my truck and come back home. Starts the same way too, "I need
help with...." But with gas knocking at $2 per gallon, and I'm not
willing to allot more than $5 per week, that's going to have to stop
too.
Gordon Greenman
It is difficult not to question your real motives in light of the fact that
you apparently just recently got into the business of selling parachutes.
Gordon Greenman
----------------------------------
Matthew Redsell wrote:
> Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
> by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
> where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
> dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
> their own chute.
>
> This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
>
> The argument that I find most disturbing is that I am told to trust the
> old 2-33's, the accidents mostly occur under 1000 ft and that the club
> has worked for over 40 years with few fatalities.
>
> I personally object to the club telling instructors not to wear a
> parachute since it gives a bad image.
>
> What would our insurance say to this?
>
> Comments please
>
> --
> Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
> Marske Flying Wings
>
Al
something which you lack!!
maybe the instructor doesnt want you in the 2-33!!
price of gas at tahoe is already $2:25 for 92!! so whats your point?
Dont tell me that because the trip the airfield is going to cost an extra
50c your not going!!
ROFLMAO you really are a nimrod of the highest order.
STOP PRESS.... Lennie cant afford 50c of gas to get to the field so all
flying activity must stop because the rest of the syndiacte in his 1-26 are
flying it.
6 people in a 1-26 syndicate thats the funniest thing I have heard so far.
Remember lennie rec.crafts.metalworking would love you to join them!!
Al
<greybeard> wrote in message news:3b0015fe...@news.mwci.net...
George Emsden
To set the matter straight, I have always flown gliders with parachutes.
This has always been part of my training. I feel uncomfortable flying
without one. The vast majority of people in this NG feel the same way. To
actually go to the trouble of stopping people wearing a parachute or
discouraging them is most unusual and does not encourage safety. The club
concerned is the odd one out here.
Bit like the old joke about a proud mother turning to her husband at a
military passing out parade where their son is among the soldiers marching
past,
"Oh look, they are all out of step... except our Johnny"
--
George Emsden
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:GsEL6.2177$xN3.2...@news.uswest.net...
> George Emsden <yq...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:3afdba44$0$15025$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> > It really seems pathetic that a club can spend thousands of dollars on
> > gliders and not spend a tiny proportion more on a parachute which might
> save
> > someone's life!
>
> That decision is to be made by the club, for the club, not by outsiders
who
> have no other interest in this but to stand with hands on hips,
criticizing
> someone else's organization. People have a choice, they can be in the
club,
> or not be in the club. Maybe the club doesn't want to expose itself to
any
> unnecessary liability. If someone wants to fly with a chute, let them buy
> one.
>
> > The people who made this rule (which has been requested in this string >
> > once) do not seem not fit to be a) flying or b) in any position of
> > responsibility in a flying organisation. They strike me as the sort of
> > people who fly around with their eyes glued to the instruments and do
not
> > bother to see if anyone else is flying.
>
> You don't know crap about these people and the organization, except for
what
> the lunatic Redsell posted. If you accept him as your primary source of
> information, well then, govern yourself accordingly, and be prepared to
look
> the fool.
>
> > Two final thoughts - whatever happened to common sense here? and - Can
we
> > see the rule/bye-law please?
>
> Those rules and bylaws are none of your damn business, except if you
happen
> to be a member of that club! What the hell is going on here? Have we given
> birth to a new group of list-nazis who take it upon themselves to regulate
> other soaring clubs and activities? That club does not need to open itself
> to judgement from cyber-world.
>
> This is another example of Redell's expertise in PR and marketing - -
blurts
> out some garbage to the world. The proper course of action, by a rational
> individual, would have been to discuss this with the board and other
> clubmembers.
>
> You people are going to have to learn.....if it involves Redsell, it's
bound
> to be a red herring.
>
> "Parachutes prohibited"? It should be "Redsell prohibited".
>
> wk
>
>
>
>
Matthew Redsell
Thanks for your interest:
The club teaches on saturday and if I am one of the instructors on
duty I will teach whomever wishes to have me as an instructor. I did
also teach during the week since I live very close to the airport and a
student could call me or come by the workshop. It is bascially a student
from the club who may choose me or just be next in line.
I am flying two place ships, 2-33's that belong to the club. I have a
log book nearly full of students I flew with before I decided that I
should be wearing a parachute. When I made this decision it did not
occur to me that I should get the boards blessing on it. Each student
was informed that would be wearing a parachute and could elect not to
fly with me. I may have flown with a non-soloed student but this was
discouraged. If I flew with an advanced student I flew from the rear
always. And I also consider that spin training should be done with a
parachute, which is not done here.
I own a number of recently packed parachutes which I am willing to
provide for any student: I encourage my friends to wear chutes and lend
them one when they need it.
I am also doing as much as I can to upgrade my education on parachutes
since the club does not cover the use or mention the parachute at all in
the students training.
As an interesting note, I am a hang glider pilot as well and very few
hang glider pilots fly without a parachute.
Your posting was:
Is it your student or the clubs' student? Did the student sign up with
the
club or you for instruction? Are you flying in your ship or the clubs'
ship?
How many students did you fly with where you wore a parachute and the
student
did not before the new bylaw?
Just the facts, ma'am.
Parke
--
Mat Redsell CFIG <mar...@continuo.com>
Marske Flying Wings
3007 Harding Highway East,
John Wren
that. But, it would help if you would reply to the correct message.
--
John Wren
"Bert Willing" <wil...@ir-microsystems.com> wrote in message
news:3aff7c28$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Matthew Redsell
.....and did you also mention that I would sell them at cost to anyone
in the club? You know full well that the Marske shop will never make
any money and consumes about $30-50,000 a year of my money for the
research and development of the Marske Gliders.
Yes I do want others to wear a parachute and will make it easier for
them by selling the chutes to them at cost.... now do you have an
argument for that?
I still have not seen the rule printed here for all to see...... but
why not attack Mat it easily avoids the issue.
Walt Konecny
statement:
> "Makes me believe that maybe you were an officer in the military, and
can't
> seem to realize that there are other ways of life."
Having served honorably and proudly in Vietnam during '68,'69,'70, and
having seen many fellow aviators (and others) shipped off in bags and
wheelchairs, I take your position to be nothing short of extremely
offensive.
It's too bad that those of us who fought for it, aren't allowed to decide to
whom those freedoms should be extended.
Also, while you constantly berate European and other countries, you
nonetheless walk lockstep to the tune of Socialism.
wk
Parkito
>The club teaches on saturday and if I am one of the instructors on
>duty I will teach whomever wishes to have me as an instructor. I did
>also teach during the week since I live very close to the airport and a
>student could call me or come by the workshop. It is bascially a student
>from the club who may choose me or just be next in line.
So the students are signing up through the club, flying in club equipment. If
you offer the student a parachute, I can't see how the club would not be
considered liable for the outcome of any incident in which the parachute was
used. To me that is a big step to broach, club liability for personal
equipment along with proper instruction on the use of parachutes.
To me, the clear route to go is to get the club to buy and maintain parachutes.
While your retro offer may be generous, how is the club suppose to know the
quality and condition of parachutes that you possess and maintain?
But the really mind boggling part to me is:
>I am flying two place ships, 2-33's that belong to the club. I have a
>log book nearly full of students I flew with before I decided that I
>should be wearing a parachute. When I made this decision it did not
>occur to me that I should get the boards blessing on it. Each student
>was informed that would be wearing a parachute and could elect not to
>fly with me. I may have flown with a non-soloed student but this was
>discouraged.
Apparently, you have no qualms of bailing out of a distressed aircraft leaving
a student behind to fend for his or her self. If you really feel that strongly
about safety and are that worried about potential catastrophies, as a moral
person you would have elected to not fly at all with a student if they didn't
have a parachute well before the initial board ruling prohibited you. I can
only think that your clearly callous thinking was apparent to the board and led
to the bylaw change in the first place.
>I own a number of recently packed parachutes which I am willing to
>provide for any student: I encourage my friends to wear chutes and lend
>them one when they need it.
If I understand this correctly, you have always been willing to lend friends a
parachute, but only offered to provide a student a parachute, not when you
began wearing them during instruction, but only after the board prohibited you
from wearing one if the student didn't have one of their own. I have got to
interpret this to mean two things, 1) a student has never worn one of your
parachutes and 2) you are only interested in getting flight time as an
instructor, and not all that interested in the safety of your students. If
this sounds harsh, you are right, which is exactly my whole point.
Really, this ranks right up there with the glider pilot who won't early release
from tow unless he sees smoke and flames being emitted from the tow plane
engine with his own eyes because it may put the glider pilot in unnecessary
jeopardy to release over unfavorable terrain if the tow pilot apparently is
waving him off willy nilly. You two should form your own club.
Parke
Parkito
>Aah, ever the great achiever.
To which Lennie labeled as ">par...@aol.com (Parkito) Did cause
>babble to appear with:"
And further responded with:
>Unlike certain personalities, I chose to enter an occupation that
>could produce things of use. Unlike those same personalities, I don't
>feel that I wish to be in a place where I have "power" real or
>imagined, over anyone else. I have many equals, and no superiors.
>When something is not worth pursuing, I won't go chasing after it.
>Whether or not it is worth going after, I am the only qualified judge,
>as I am the only one what will have to live with the decision. Two
>weeks after boarding the ship, I had decided that a military career
>was something I didn't want. Now, explain why anyone would go chasing
>after something he doesn't want.
Uh, whose babbling here Lennie?
If it only took two weeks onboard to realize that the Navy wasn't for you then
who was the one chasing after something he didn't want? I can only imagine
what a jewel you must have been to your non-superior officers (as they must be
as you claim to have no superiors) for the remainder of your tour with that
terrific attitude.
Parke
Marc Ramsey
> To set the matter straight, I have always flown gliders with parachutes.
> This has always been part of my training. I feel uncomfortable flying
> without one. The vast majority of people in this NG feel the same way.
May I very politely suggest that neither you, or anyone else, has any idea
what the vast majority of the people in this NG feel about this subject?
You may know what the majority of the few posters to this thread think, but
a lot of people have stayed out of this fray, simply because it was clearly
going to devolve into a flame war.
> To actually go to the trouble of stopping people wearing a parachute or
> discouraging them is most unusual and does not encourage safety. The club
> concerned is the odd one out here.
Clubs often do odd things for odd reasons. In some cases obscure bylaws
exist to deal with issues that can't be addressed in a more direct fashion.
I have no idea of the real story in this case, nor does anyone other than
the parties involved.
FWIW, I do own and use a parachute for most of my flights, and always use
one in single seaters and for cross-country flights. I would never consider
wearing a parachute if my passenger is unable or unwilling to use one. I
often take non-pilot passengers for rides, without either of us using
parachutes. Why? Because I believe the chances of an inexperienced (in
aviation) person managing a successful egress and chute deployment are
essentially nil. I do not want to put myself in the position of having to
decide when to leave someone else to their fate.
Some of the disagreement here may well be cultural. When I got my license
in the US (30 years ago), parachutes were not used during training at any of
the sites I was familiar with. The club and commercial training flights at
many of the spots where I fly are still mostly done without parachutes. The
exceptions are aerobatic (required by regulation in the US) and cross-country
training flights, which seems sensible and reasonable to me.
Marc
--
_____________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
John Wren
in my neck of the woods.
--
John Wren
"Robert Ehrlich" <Robert....@inria.fr> wrote in message
news:3AFFF4B2...@inria.fr...
Chris Rowland
Matt objects to flying without a chute in a 2 seater, even if he
provides the pupil with a chute. As he has had to use a chute I can
see his point.
The only response from the club, and most others, is personal abuse,
no discussion of the issues, just abuse. Presumably they have no other
way to refute this. Nobody has said that Matt is incorrect.
I have flown, and instructed, both with and without a chute, I would
be very reluctant to fly with a chute if my pupil did not. It's not an
issue, the club provides parachutes for every seat.
The last time I heard of this sort of thing was the First World War,
when the British pilots were refused chutes because it might reduce
their fighting spirit.
Please try to ad hominem attacks, it only shows that you have lost the
argument.
Chris Rowland.
Stephen Rouse
up with a little more of your condescending attitude. Makes me believe that
maybe you were an officer in the military, and can't seem to realize that
there are other ways of life. "
Last time I checked, there were probably more active and retired military
personnel, both from flying and non-flying careers, in this sport than most
other professions. I don't see folks like Jim Payne or any other military
personnel flaming others in this newsgroup. Maybe we could all learn that
at times military = = intelligence.
LTC Stephen Rouse
US Army
N97L (I do wear a chute!)
greybeard
>something which you lack!!
Supposing you tell someone that gives a fuck. I don't plan on being
there, so your hours mean nothing to me.
Hours al, count for time on machining, of which I have 80,000 and
dealing with metal, which you lack.
>
>maybe the instructor doesnt want you in the 2-33!!
Dense little klinker aren't you? When everyone else is off the
ground, it means it's a perfect time for me to leave without having
someone try to talk me into "just one flight". Especially since I
don't want to be there in the first place. Anticipating your next
question, (with a 99% probability) "Why am I there if I don't want to
be?", if someone that I respect asks for help, I have a hard time
saying no. In your case there would be no problem.
>
>STOP PRESS.... Lennie cant afford 50c of gas to get to the field so all
>flying activity must stop because the rest of the syndiacte in his 1-26 are
>flying it.
wrong again superstupe. I really don't care if they fly it or not, or
if the wind makes it go away, or if someone totals it. Makes no
difference to me as long as I don't have to deal with it or their
problems. And I didn't say can't afford, I said won't afford.
>6 people in a 1-26 syndicate thats the funniest thing I have heard so far.
Only because your ego wouldn't fit in the cockpit of a Stearman. And
if you meant it as an insult to me, try again. I'm not one of them.
I don't fly the plane, I don't maintain it, I just own it. The
agreement is that they can use the plane, but I am to incurr no costs
in connection with it. The other part of the agreement is that if
they have problems with scheduling, or if it needs something outside
of the normal insurance, annual, tiedown fees, I don't hear about it.
>
>Remember lennie rec.crafts.metalworking would love you to join them!!
Get rid of Peter "Erich von Superkraut" albrecht, his buttsuck Gunner,
and it may be a useful group.
>
fstead@earthlink
In the US parachutes must be repacked three times a year. This may be a
factor in discouraging their use, as it costs about $45 to have one
parachute inspected and packed, one time. The US government would far
rather I fly with no parachute, than one whose inspection is out of
date.
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
Peter Nyffeler wrote:
>
> In article <3AFA90CA...@gte.net>, mar...@continuo.com wrote:
> >Recently our club passed a bylaw that prohibited the use of parachutes
> >by instructors unless the student actually owned the parqchute they
> >where wearing. It also went on to prohibit the use of parachutes in a
> >dual place glider unless the pilot in command and the passenger owned
> >their own chute.
> >
> >This meant that I could not provide a parachute to any of my students.
>
> I'm not sure whether I understood it correctly:
> You are only allowed to take a parachute if you are the owner of it?
>
> Is this a club rule or a FAA regulation?
> If it is a club rule change them immediately.
> If it is a FAA regulation, ignore it for safety reason and the SAA should
> force the FAA to change the regulation.
>
> My Opinion: To each glider seat belongs a parachute.
> And it should be checked and refolded at least once every year.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> PETER NYFFELER, ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry
> mailto:nyff...@phys.chem.ethz.ch, <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny >
> To my hobbies: Soaring <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny/sf>
> and Control-Line Aeromodells <http://www.chem.ethz.ch/~peny/CL>
fstead@earthlink
around the home gliderport.
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
Al
rec.crafts.metalworking is calling you.
Maybe you can impress them with actualy knowing what you talk about unlike
in here where all we hear is your drivel.
Dont move or the Atlas Lathe gets it...
Al
<greybeard> wrote in message news:3b005436...@news.mwci.net...
greybeard
<wkon...@uswest.net> Did cause babble to appear with:
>Having served honorably and proudly in Vietnam during '68,'69,'70, and
>having seen many fellow aviators (and others) shipped off in bags and
>wheelchairs, I take your position to be nothing short of extremely
>offensive.
Sorry about that dude, but I was out of the navy in 67, shortly after
watching 9 (IIRC) of my shipmates shipped out in body bags . Paint
locker fire. I also was aboard and quite near when the cat harness
ripped open the centerline drop of a Phantom, just as the bow runner
came up on deck. Must have been a real picnic as 9000 pounds of fuel
vaporized and the afterburner hit it.
What I take as offensive is officers demanding respect because of an
act of congress, and never having to earn it. I did what I had to to
survive my time, but also realized that sucking the great white tit
was a dead end. I'm not alone, I got that expression from C.W.Eagan,
CPO, USN. You will not find many enlisted that hold their officers in
high esteem, usually they were glad to get away from them. I'm no
exception. "Just because you're an officer doesn't mean you're a
gentleman, just because you're enlisted doesn't mean you're not. "
But I would still like to know how that bootcamp JG that stopped me in
Waukegan Ill, with my wife, one week after I had left the navy,
thought he could demand to see my "Leave papers".
My discharge is honorable, but I have no pride in my time in the navy,
it was only a waste of time.
Matthew Redsell
discussion you may peronally email me with suggestion... good and bad.
Many thanks for the many responses.
greybeard
babble to appear with:
>
>Uh, whose babbling here Lennie?
>
>If it only took two weeks onboard to realize that the Navy wasn't for you then
>who was the one chasing after something he didn't want?
Not just the Navy parkie, the military. And I didn't have the option
of resigning a commission and returning to life.
I can only imagine
>what a jewel you must have been to your non-superior officers (as they must be
>as you claim to have no superiors) for the remainder of your tour with that
>terrific attitude.
Ummm, it's apparent you haven't ever heard the entire quotation, which
is:
I have no superiors and damned few equals, and you aren't in either
group".
And no, it's not mine. But Roy Petts and I think a lot alike.
I did what I had to, and never led any to believe that there was any
chance of me looking at any extention of my time there. Nor did I
ever give any sign or hope that I would try to reach a higher rate.
The LCDR that was the division officer when I first came aboard gave
me a bunch of crap about it, but when he left, his replacement said
little to me about it. As the reenlistment rate among non petty
officers was below 1% for the division and lower than 5% for the ship,
I don't think I'm unique in any way. As most of us came in through
the Naval Air Reserve, our active duty was two years, which meant that
if we took every test as soon as the time requirements allowed, we
would reach E-4 thirty days before separation.
And as the CIO gave us our "ship over" lectures before we left the
ship, he asked "What could be more attractive to you?", and I held up
a picture of my wife of five months.
I have no pride for my time in the navy, it was two years totally
wasted, and I have no shame in stating that I don't respect most of
the people that I had to deal with there.