obelixtim

This is the Cresco, from which the XL750 was developed. We used to jump the Cresco back in the early 80s, although only for larger boogies, the hopper had to be removed before we could use it for jumping, which was a bit of a hassle for the operator. Back then quite a few of our weekend jump pilots had day jobs driving these things, as well as Fletchers, Pawnees and even the old DC3s. I remember jumping the Daks they still had the hopper installed, and even though there was plenty of room inside, 10 or so skinny jumpers had to leave their rigs in the back and squeeze through the gap between the hopper and the fuselage into the front of the plane for takeoff, to get the W&B right. At altitude, went back and donned their rigs. I remember one time with a new pilot (first time with jumpers, although he had 13000 hours or so cropdusting) being up front, and at 12000 ft he was really nervous, because he was not used to flying so high, prolly spending most of his flying career below 500 ft AGL. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

https://www.facebook.com/Homegrownfarmfresh/videos/381674295619992/?fref=mentions Cropduster in NZ.....fast turnarounds. (Can someone make it a clicky) My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Cilliers today on the stand. Claiming that it is possible somebody else sabotaged the gear. Somehow, I don't think that one will fly with the jury. Prosecution basically laughed in his face..... Not doing himself any favours and prolly digging himself into a hole. Making that statement means he is basically acknowledging that the rig was sabotaged, which blows any defence he may have had claiming that the slinks might have been incorrectly installed. Surprised his lawyer let him make that statement. I think his goose is cooked...... My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

But we want to watch! top Agreed - the most entertaining thread in a ling time. Aww man! I just got the popcorn out of the microwave! Bunch of shit stirring spectators, the lot of you!!! Surprised it took Bill so long to come along with the big stick. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Apologies for the pissing contest, it does nothing for me either. In other news, it looks like the defence has begun its turn in the trial. Its going to be interesting to see how this pans out, but I think he has a chance when it comes to reasonable doubt. The main parachute problem seems to be line twists, and he is accused of putting in the line twists. Line twists by themselves don't guarantee a cutaway, so if he did mess with her main, why not put a proper tangle in it to guarantee an malfunction? Especially as he's been described as an expert packer. Something doesn't add up. Victoria Cilliers obviously has an axe to grind with him (and fair enough considering his cheating) that predates the incident, but some of her statements seem to give him the benefit of some doubt, and the defence will probably jump on that. I think he may have a chance of getting off. Hypothetical question: If any rigger, anywhere, did not check slinks as vigorously as he said he did, and something like this happened, what would his likely response be to questions about doing so? I think it would be a very difficult thing for any rigger to admit. Career and trust ending probably. A good case for videoing each stage of your checking procedure, as someone has suggested. Something for every rigger to consider. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Damn, I promised myself to ignore you, but as you are obviously intent on confirming idiot status, I can't resist. Since you asked, I responded to a PM on here from a student who was struggling, and who asked for my advice. We exchanged PMs and met up in London for a few hours where we discussed the problems she was having with the AFF wanker at Hinton, and how to solve the problem she was having with her FF. I advised her to GTF out of the UK and go to a DZ in Europe, and gave her contacts of several DZs in Europe, in Holland, Germany and Spain. She went to Spain and flew through her AFF course, and regularly PMs me about her progress. So we simply talked. I realise such a concept might be difficult for you to understand. You don't not teach AFF at Hinton by any chance? If so, I'd like a word with you, face to face. In the meantime, have you stopped licking windows yet? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

My ratings are not current in NZ, I never said that....but then I don't live in NZ and haven't for some time. But you didn't know that, did you.... Like a few other things you don't know. I'm done with you. Go cook some eggs. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

There are plenty of people who can substantiate my experience. You know so many people, why don't you ask them. I was talking to the NZ PIA boss a few months ago..... I do know when the last static line course was run in NZ, because the DZ that did them were leasing 4 of my student rigs at the time. They were returned to me when the DZO sold his business. I do know when that was. I still have all my student rigs, why might that be? I'm not answering your questions because I choose not to dance to your tune, not because I can't answer them. I don't have to justify myself to you. To quote yourself...."I can't be arsed". But it is to me......you have come on here, slagging me off, making claims about what I said, I explained that point to you, but not good enough. I've asked you to put up....now you claim to not be able to find it. The answer is obvious of course...because there is nothing to find. You are full of BS. Ex military are you? Catering corps I expect..... Now sonny....stick to the topic, or.....GTF off my thread! Edited to add: And thanks to a couple of posters who have backed me up a little. I didn't intend this thread to become a shit fight, at least until this clown showed up. Apologies for that. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Why would they need the army with Superman on their side? He could clean up the baddies all by himself. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I can answer your questions. But not yet. Right now, I'm waiting for you to substantiate your claim first. Who is the bluffer here? I ask you again...put up. Two can play at that game. As to the trial, IF you want to discuss it, did I read it right that Victoria has said that the main might not have actually malled, but she had severe line twists, and might not have needed to chop it? Chopping from severe twists is not unusual of course. I wouldn't blame her from being unsure on that point, after going through what she did. I had a friend who went through a similar hard impact that should have killed him, and he has no memory at all of what went down. I can see the defence leaping on that one. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

It is an interesting case, nothing more than that. I was also interested in the Stephen Hilder (Hilditch?) case, and the one in Europe where there was a bit of a love triangle. Skydiving murders are pretty rare. Some of the quotes from various individuals seemed to me to be a bit less than balanced in this case. (And I did read the BPA report) I've stated clearly that BPA is not my flavour of the month, hasn't been for many years, not sure why people get their knickers in a twist over it. It really isn't a big deal. I'm still waiting for you to produce the quote from me stating I've witnessed many deaths in skydiving. I've stated what I've seen, but you haven't produced the evidence you promised. I'm very glad I haven't been holding my breath. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Put up then. I'm waiting. If you look at the first couple of lines of my first post on this thread, you will clearly see I am commenting on reports from the BBC. Nowhere have I said I am in possession of new facts about the case, apart from the fact there was an incident that may involve sabotage. I assume the defence team will already have an expert or two to rebut some of the prosecutions statements. Its prolly a bit late to enter the courtroom fray at this point. You have my permission to point the defence team at this thread though. I am merely commenting on aspects I see as weaknesses in the prosecutions argument. Its my opinion, OK. You do understand what an opinion is? You enter the thread all guns blazing calling me out, questioning my credibility and knowledge, to which I replied, outlining some of my history in the sport. Why go on the offence? Seems like a rather defensive posture on your part. Are you just trying to shut me up? Why might that be? Can we not discuss an incident which has generated a lot of interest around the world? Especially after the Stephen Hilditch case a few years ago. Apparently you don't want to allow that. To me that points to you being firmly in the "under the bus" camp. My opinion of course. And yes, it is all about reasonable doubt. That was my original point. We agree. I'm not interested in arguing with you any further. Please allow me to watch the case unfold, and express my opinion if I choose to do so. Is that OK with you? Or do I have to tug my forelock, while bowing and backing slowly away as well. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

You do understand, I am merely commenting, not making a case for or against either party. I find it interesting, no more no less. You don't have to take it as a personal attack because I question some of what I've seen. Its clear you have a leaning towards Cilliers guilt, that is fine. I probably concur, but need a little more convincing, that is all. An expert making a judgement on a photo, or photos of a "similar parachute" with lines detached is not evidence to me. Are such photos good enough for you? I think I have clearly said that I'm going on what is reported. Of course I have no first hand knowledge or evidence, how can I? I am nowhere near the UK. Are you saying some of the quotes I have seen were not made? Did I imagine them? Quotes are not evidence. And evidence proving Cilliers sabotaged the gear seems to me to be no more than circumstantial. The preponderance of circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict him though. Of course I expect the prosecution evidence to be biased in their favour, as has been pointed out, that's how courts work. I just don't see opinions as necessarily facts. Do you? I think the prosecution could make a good case without some of the embellishment, that's all. I won't hold my breath then! You'll be looking for a long long time.... My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

And I am going to call you on that! Point out where I have said I've seen countless deaths and injuries. Stop making shit up! I've seen two incidents in 43 years which resulted in death, One a solo student, and one a tandem. I have seen a few injuries, as you would expect after many years on the DZ. I have investigated 5 fatal accidents at the request of NZ Police/CAA. I have been a rigger since 1979, Instructor 1980, CI since 1981, Instructor Examiner 1982 both rigging and Instructing, trained numerous Instructors and Jump masters and have trained more than 10,000 static line students. I learnt a long time ago that taking things at face value is not a good method of investigating any incident, and preconceptions are to be ignored and dismissed in every case. I've stated many times I have historical issues with BPA, mainly due to attitudes I have encountered, the "old boys club" being sufficient reason in itself, besides the pedantic application of a principle I would describe as: "lets find a reason why you can't do something". I make no apology for that. I hope, it is as you say, that attitudes have changed, but as recently as a year ago I helped British student who was been given a real run around, was ripped off, given the bowling speech, as someone who was a danger to herself and others and who was impossible to train. I sorted her issues out very quickly, and she has now done over a hundred jumps. Safely. The instructor she dealt with was nothing less than an arrogant arse who took her money and then brushed her off. Total wanker. So forgive me if I am a little sceptical about BPA. Anyway, I would be quite happy to appear for the defence, and I'm sure my credentials would easily match anyone the prosecution puts up. I doubt they will give me a call. I'm wondering what is your issue. I've already stated if Cilliers is guilty of the crime, he needs the book thrown at him, and I would happily turn the key on him and throw it away if that is the case. I am looking at all that has been reported from an impartial viewpoint, and I've already pointed out that what the press reports needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It seems to me you haven't really read my posts carefully, or simply don't understand what I have said, but have simply jumped in swinging, in defence of your beloved BPA and infallible experts. Do you understand where I state that the prosecution may actually be hurting their own case? I think not! And NZs safety record, while good, hasn't always been so. Sport jumping is much more limited that it used to be, so incidents are not so prevalent. Your bat! My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

For some reason, I can't see the point in this. What is the problem with having a pilot? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Oh my! I bow down to experience!!!! I have just over 300 jumps and no reserve rides.

Is this really so outlandish? If the reserve is needed on around one in 700 jumps, and if a reserve malfunction occurred at the same rate per use, a reserve malfunction would occur on one in 700 x 700 = 490,000 jumps. Technical reasons (e.g. system design, reserves packed more carefully) should mean the chances of a reserve malfunction are considerably lower than a main malfunction. If half as likely, a reserve malfunction can be expected on one in 700 x 1400 = 980,000 jumps and that looks like a reasonable (albeit very much over-simplified) basis for the one-in-a-million claim. I realise that raw incident statistics won’t come out like this because a reserve malfunction is (often? nearly always?) a consequence of the main malfunction. So a lot on the precise definition of “reserve malfunction”. But if thinking about situations where the main malfunction does not contribute to the reserve malfunction (e.g. bad maintenance/rigging of the reserve, sabotage of the reserve), the one-in-a-million claim does seem reasonable to me. BTW, I agree with you completely that the expert opinions should steer well clear of anything sensational, misleading, or plain wrong. I’m just not sure this one-in-a-million thing is a particularly good example. Very happy to learn if I’m grabbing the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not sure about your maths, but I've seen a few reserve malfunctions, and I certainly haven't seen a million reserve deployments. I suspect what she really meant, was malfunctions caused by slinks breaking/incorrectly assembled, i.e. specifically in her case. That would be more believable, but even then, one in a million strikes me as being too high. The media have prolly jumped on part of her statement. A malfunction can occur to any parachute, perfectly packed or not. Reserve or not. Bad body position can cause a malfunction. I had a reserve malfunction on my 6th jump (a round reserve), which inverted completely and burnt about a hundred small holes in it. I landed safely, but the reserve was destroyed. Square reserves are more reliable than roundies however. So for me personally, its 1 out of 2. But, a jury is liable to interpret her statement literally...as in: out of a million reserve deployments, you'll only get one malfunction. They will most likely take her statement at face value, more so because she was the injured party. That puts the defendant in a very deep hole. IMO the reserve malfunction rate would not be far from the main malfunction rate, probably a bit more....its just that reserve deployments are comparatively rare anyway. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I'm not upset, but I am uncomfortable with some of the expert testimony. Some of that comes directly from the BPA. I am aware of how courts and lawyers work. Some of the statements from the skydiving experts precede the court case though, which suggests to me, they clearly have an agenda of their own. I'm not quite sure what that is, but it seems to me there may be a bit of arse covering going on. That would not be unheard of. Some of those statements, as most skydivers would recognise, over egg the pudding rather. Which I would say, damages their credibility big time. A decent defence lawyer would drive a truck through some of those "facts". Just yesterday, the victim was quoted as saying a reserve malfunction was a "one in a million thing". That is just absurd. I can see how a lay jury would believe that BS though. I can't believe she actually said that. It is likely the reporters are editing her comments, they have lots of form for that, especially with skydiving, so what is reported, are quite likely carefully selected and edited quotes, as you say. Sensationalising things is the media brief. I think they could present quite a strong case without over emphasising what they found, and putting their own spin on things. Some of it is pure speculation. I hold no brief for Cilliers, and if he did do it, I hope they throw the book at him. Sabotage of someones gear is a dog act. As I said, in the other thread, all the defence has to do is throw reasonable doubt, and the way the prosecution has gone, I think they could do that. I would hate a guilty man to walk free because the prosecution went too far, equally, I would not like an innocent man be found guilty on spurious testimony. FWIW, I think he will go down, and on balance, I think he probably did do it. What is your take on some of these "facts"? My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

And a full quote for just this, nothing to contribute to the topic? Sad. No, what is sad, is you care so little for the life of your client that you willingly choose to flirt with tandem terminal, and brush it off as something inconsequential. Especially when we have had a spate of tandem fatalities lately. WTF is going on in your head? Tandem terminal is not somewhere any TI should go if they have a choice. Its a dangerous place to go, and better TIs than you have discovered that fact. Are you invincible? If you choose to be careless with the lives of others, I would suggest you hand in your tandem rating before you kill some trusting innocent, as well as yourself. The topic itself is frivolous, and is of little enough importance that I wouldn't bother adding to it, even though I could. Your statement caught my eye instantly. Witnessing a tandem fatality, tends to make me notice these things. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

OK, I'll ignore that part then. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Just to repeat: Comprendez? I do understand your points. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

I disagree. Electronic components have a limited lifespan, that varies a lot depending on a large number of factors. Would you be at the receiving end of a misfiring AAD? Because that can very well happen if people start pushing the life of their AADs with the mindset of "it will probably be ok and I won't accept this throwaway culture and the bullying to make me buy another AAD". For sure AAD manufacturers are in business to sell units. But that is no reason to disregard their recommendations. Maybe airtec determined through internal testing that their units are safe for up to 20 years. Take 30% from that to be safe for each and every unit out there. That's 14 years lifespan. Maybe they decided to add an extra 1.5 years just to sell more units. Ok. But I honestly prefer to be tricked into buying a new AAD 1.5 years ahead of time, than to fool myself thinking that I (or any other external company not endorsed by the manufacturer) know better than airtec (or vigil, or mars, or any other). Its a discussion point, not a fixed position. And the throwaway culture is real. Things are not designed to last, as was once the case. But, do you not think reconditioning is a possibility? Should it be investigated? Of course Airtec and their peers will not be happy with that. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Flirting with tandem terminal is not a good idea. Get stable, throw the drogue. That is your job. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Nah... AAD Recycling Company,LLC or Money For Nothing AAD Repair,LLC You must have watched an lot of cartoons way back when....:) But honestly this is something that I have thought about. So called "expired" Cypres' have been used in other parts of the world for several years now without any known issues. At least none that I am personally aware of. I do think that you do have to draw the line somewhere on age, but it is clear that 12 years is not the real number. I am thinking more like 20-25 years.I have several boxes of Cypres units made from the early 1990's and later that still function perfectly. One of them is 26 years old. It still works just fine if you put a battery in it. Question: Has anyone heard of or personally experienced a problem with an "expired" AAD in other parts of the world? MEL Beep Beep..... As I said, they are in business to sell units. No one has properly investigated expired units, as the company has successfully pushed the line that they will no longer function. Its the throwaway culture in action. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

The other thread is locked, so its not possible to comment on it. Not sure why. But......just reading the BBC coverage of the trial, and so far it is only at the stage of the prosecution witnesses testifying. I'm a little uncomfortable with what I see from the skydiving experts. Now, Cilliers may well be guilty, but reading through coverage of the trial so far, it seems to me that the prosecution witnesses testifying about the skydiving side of it all, are not covering themselves in glory. Most of what they are saying, can only be described as rather loose speculation, which may have a huge influence on a jury who know nothing about skydiving. To look at a few examples: (from the CI of the DZ) "Never seen a main parachute so tangled". Really? Cutaway canopies can tie themselves into knots, as anyone who has untangled a few well knows. I've sorted out a few with a heap of tangles. "Slinks have never been known to fail". Incorrectly assembled ones do, and there are examples of that. "There has never been an accident in the UK where both main and reserve have failed". Wut???? "That reserve had never failed". The rig only had 250 jumps on it. It had never been deployed before. The expert testified that he'd seen photos of the reserve, after the incident. How could he then make a valid comment on the integrity of the slinks before the incident? "The packer had never packed a mal after 2 years working as a packer" That means nothing. Always a first time, and mals are not always caused by bad pack jobs. "10 different riggers had packed that reserve and had not found problems with the slinks". Riggers miss things, especially if they are not specifically looking for something, and can easily assume that because the rig had been looked at by someone else, everything was OK. Then we have photos of the CI inspecting a parachute "like the one used by Mrs Cilliers". That shows a parachute with several lines disconnected. Prejudicial much? Also the CI in a video demonstrating how he could sabotage the canopy in 5 minutes. Again, very prejudicial. As I said, Cilliers may well be guilty, certainly there are a lot of other things that point the finger at him, and he probably will be found guilty, but based on what I'm seeing vis a vis the parachute evidence, a lot of it is rather flimsy, and it seems the parachute "experts" are really throwing him under the bus. They certainly don't seem impartial. I have thoughts about that, but I'll keep those to myself for now. If the defence comes up with a parachute expert who knows his stuff, I'm sure they can cast doubt on nearly all the prosecution allegations. FWIW, I think, on balance, he probably did do it, but I don't think things are open and shut from the skydiving POV. Have a look at the BBC website. My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....