Leaderboard

You two sure are cute together

Actual parachutist here… not as qualified as RiggerRob or JerryBaumchen, but back in the day I did own and refer to a Poynter book. C9’s (28’ flat circular canopies) and 24’ flat circular canopies were more common for Air Force and Army paratroopers. A 24’ flat circular puts you down in a pretty noticeable hurry, but in those days it was rare for the main not to open at all; instead they’d open and throw the reserve out into a malfunction to get more fabric over their heads. The Navy conical (a gold standard of early reserves because it landed slower than the 24’ and packed smaller than the 28’) was generally packed into an NB-6 container I believe. That’s a back container, but remember that WW2 didn’t have a lot of Navy guys who planned on jumping… At the time of the hijacking, a 28’ flat circular with a 24’ flat circular reserve would have been common, and readily available from any local DZ or rigger. A 26’ conical reserve or a 28’ flat circular reserve would have been slightly harder to get, but not uncommon (but maybe not the first things volunteered, as they were less common). A 24’ canopy in a main (back) container would have been unlikely. Mainly because most jumpers jumped for fun, and few people who were heavier than Twiggy would deliberately choose a 24’ canopy. The 28’ reserves were desirable because the big boys needed them, and the 26’ conicals because of what I already said. So a 28’ main and a 24’ reserve would be what I’d have offered 7 years later, when I was an active rigger. Enough pedantry. Back to the topic Wendy P.

I found "P2" printed on the WSHM container.

They still are

Hi Robert, I doubt that the $5,000 is the issue. I am thinking that the issue is that this is the first step for the judge. Then, when he gives Trump some time in jail, he can justify it by saying that he gave Trump a chance with the fine. The first step is always the beginning of the journey. Jerry Baumchen

You made a very incorrect statement that I don't like to answer questions. The reality is that I refuse to get suckered into dead-end conversations with the "yeah, but" crowd. Look through the forums and you will see that I answer questions routinely for anyone with a desire to have a sincere conversation on any subject. When I sat down to write this, I planned to address your post in great detail. After re-reading my own words, I've changed my mind. I will not take the bait. You know as well as I do that there is no acceptable level of injuries or fatalities in skydiving. There is no skydiving discipline designed or intended as a tool for growth, so making a connection between them and any intended promotional value is a false narrative. Here are the facts: CP is a legitimate, internationally recognized discipline. In accordance with USPA bylaws, we support all ISC recognized disciplines. CP is dangerous. Statistically it's more dangerous than other skydiving disciplines. Welcome to reality. All forms of skydiving are dangerous. I wholeheartedly support all of them. Finally, you suggested that I must either believe that CP injuries and fatalities are "worth it", or that I haven't "actually thought about it seriously". Brother, you are way off base. There is NOTHING in skydiving that I haven't thought about seriously. Pretty much every moment of every day. Anyone who knows me and my priorities knows that. Five left and cut.