Leaderboard

This is where your arrogance really shows. You assume that those who disagree with your position are just too lazy and/or stupid to have spent time thinking about it. Of course you also feel that if they only did they would see things your way. You could not be more wrong.

Let's take all additional abortion arguments to the abortion thread, and leave this one for the original topic.

But when I said I could address the content, all you said was: So why are you even here?

The thing is, the abortion debate is about abortion, not about religion. I know Christians who are pro-choice, and I may know atheists who are anti-choice. The abortion debate is not about whether people need to get abortions, it's about whether an abortion can be chosen by a woman under circumstances that she, with the possible addition of her family and doctor, deem appropriate. Wendy P.

Ultimately, the Cooper case is an extremely complex logic puzzle.. with a massive amount of accurate and inaccurate information to process. If you don't have the reasoning and logic skills down you haven't got a chance sorting it out and you will consistently make errors. The case becomes a Rorschach, a confirmation bias exercise and you just see what you want to see.

On their wedding night, a groom asks his new bride, "Honey, am I your first?" She says, "Why does everyone ask me that?"

Yep. I'm glad they are around; they have some interesting ideas. (And I knew the libertarian candidate for US president in 2004!) But, like any pure ideology, their ideas don't work in practice.

There is no compromise. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Texas, we shall fight in Kansas and Utah, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our principle, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

I don’t know about Jerry’s, but mine is that when you have a direct conflict between the well being of two beings (or people), how do you choose? It sounds like you automatically choose against the woman, robbing her of the ability to determine her future. Yes, the fetus’s future is dependent on her, but who gets to choose? I realize that as the only woman in this discussion (albeit no longer bearing childre) I have nothing important to say, but I still feel compelled to say it Wendy P.

Right. But here we have a case of a single system (Icon) having a problem at a single loft (the one in the video.) In addition, we have seen the problem of unidentified pieces falling out of the container during opening, generally indicating a rigging problem rather than a design problem. In the US we had some problems with Racers along similar lines. It wasn't one loft but it was a small number of them who had serious problems getting them packed and functional. This was generally traced to the fact that Racers are packed differently than many other rigs out there, and riggers were just plain making mistakes. The training was out there - Jump Shack did a "how to pack a Racer" course at pretty much every PIA show there was, and the training was readily available both in the manual and on line. Was that the fault of the Racer or the rigger? The riggers involved insisted it was Jump Shack's fault. Jump Shack (John and Nancy primarily) insisted it was the rigger's fault. Racers certainly CAN be packed and operated safely, and have been used for decades. So who was at at fault there? Sounds like there may be a similar issue here.

I used to use one for demo jumps in Savannah in the seventies. It was fine for two to four jumpers but was a bear to spot. No hooked up exits. Door too small and tail too close. Jon

I use to fly a Seneca lll. It was a pretty good airplane. The ones and twos were underpowered. I wouldn't fly jumpers in any of them on a regular basis just because of the tail. I wouldn't fly jumpers in a S3 on a regular basis because of the turbos. Low volume + high maintenance costs = you're broke even if no one takes the tail off.

Maybe you'll get no real-world operational feedback, because there is none? And maybe too... there is a reason for that? You almost sound like the 100-jump wonder with this... fishing around for that one illusive "answer" - which is only the one - that he really only wanted to hear. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Original Seneca I has 180hp Lycomings. The Seneca II & III has Turbocharged Continentals rated at 200 & 220HP, which would help with ROC, but would require lots of $$ in maintenance. Would HATE to lose an engine on takeoff in a light-light twin with full load of jumpers. I would think that flying it with the door off would probably make it a little squirrely near Vmc.

Thanks for the replies. These are all opinions and I was really looking for some info on a real operation. With a full load of fuel (720#'s), 2 people it climbs at about 1200FPM to FL 6K. started to fall off after that. Yeah, it's a more complicated bird with the gear, engines etc. but, it seems for just a tandem operation it could work. Thanks

The navajo and the Seneca are 2 entirely different airplanes, they do not share any interchangable parts. A seneca would only carry 5 or 6 jumpers max. It only has 4 cylinder 360 cubic inch Lycoming engines ranging in horse power from 180hp to I think 210 hp.

I've jumped a Cherokee 6 - IIRC, once it began jump run, it fell from the sky like a brick. Does. Not. glide. =========Shaun ==========

A quick look suggests it is just an updated version of the navajoh (PA-31 vs PA-34)? If so the Navajoh is used in a few countries already for skydiving and having done two jumps out of one I will never jump another. Super fast jump run with a ton of prop blast and tiny door (that from memory had to be closed for descent) with not that great of a climb rate. Probably ok if just lobbing tandems out otherwise, in my opinion, crap. No idea of the running costs but given it is a twin piston engine i'd imagine something like running 2 182's but only getting 6-8 jumpers instead of the 8-10 (wide body) you'd get in a 182, though I guess you're not insuring/registering and maintaining two airframes ...

Disclaimer: I may not know what I'm talking about since I'm not a pilot or otherwise involved in aviation other than skydiving. I would suspect that, even if it could hold 8-10 jumpers, that 1) the low tail could be an issue and 2) with piston engines, the advertised climb rate of 1550/min would not be close in reality with a plane full of jumpers. Anyone with better knowledge feel free to dispute!

A seneca is a twin engine , retractable landing gear version of the Cherokee 6. Basically the same airframe. How many cherokee 6's do you see flying jumpers? Now throw in 2 engines and retractable landing gear and you have added weight and more stuff to go wrong mechanically.