mjosparky

You appear to be using this thread to draw attention away from serious threat to skydiver safety. Do you think that by blowing smoke you will a 270 in the normal pattern any less dangerous to other people landing? You are making yourself look foolish. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Any discussion that relates to ways to avoid a canopy collision is relevant to this thread. And FMD can lead to a collision. If you know details post them. If not your statement offers nothing to the discussion. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Tell Bob Holler that. It takes 2 to have a collision but only one to cause it. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

And the best in the business have killed others doing them. Spiraling down on a big way in stupid not mention arrogant. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

wasn't it in one of the skies call books? Thats where I saw it. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I merely asked why it would be a bad thing. Bill has outlined a reasoned argument for why it would be a good thing. I just want to know why the other poster (or you for that matter) thinks it would be a bad thing. Let's have a reasoned debate. State your case, give evidence and then we'll all be wiser. You haven't answered my question yet. Because that is treating the system not the cause. A skydiver who finds themselves at AAD altitude has already made some serious mistakes. Raising AAD altitude by a couple hundred feet will not change that fact but will create problems for others. If there is a need for equipment modifications you need look no farther than containers. A reserve pilot chute has a heavy steel spring in it. You compress it and then cover it with up to 6 flaps. It uses up a great deal of it's energy just pushing aside the flaps. What energy left has trouble launching the p/c far enough to clear the burble. That is just enough to add 1 to 2 hundred feet to deployment at terminal. All the flaps are driven by fashion not function. The manufactures try and deliver what the customer wants. Most jumpers what the rig to look good but haven’t got a clue what makes it work. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

What was I saying about "old school"? My very first thought was your link was going to be one out of an airplane. Surprise, surprise! Here is the mount for one of those. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/DSCN0291.jpg My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

FIFY ???? Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Never put it past Cal OSHA to dig in to find a way to fine a business. I've prevailed at three administrative hearings where status as an independent contrator was challenged. And OSHA is hurting for money. Since neither one survived the incident I would say it is a moot point. There is difference between Cal-OSHA and OSHA. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I didn’t say or even imply they were. NAS 804 4.3.3, issued in 1949, is the first reference to “3 seconds” that I know of. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Looks an awful lot like a commercial survey for a particular product. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

You are probably wrong. They worked as independent contractors and be of little interest to OHSA. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

I am shocked herein to learn that there is (apparently) no established drop-testing STANDARD. Am I alone now in being dismayed, if not maybe even maddened somewhat, that mfr's can CIRCUMVENT the 300' "rule" with such "trickery"? I personally find that actually, the more I am now typing and thinking of it, actually - REPREHENSIBLE. I mean really, ...using the "throw" (and doing this seemingly INTENTIONALLY) of the airplane to SKEW (or at the very least obfuscate) the results so as only to say "they complied" - when "they" know very clearly and well, how it is otherwise considered by the jumpers who may RELY upon that equipment (and the "300 ft covenant") - on at least some level here now, just doesn't seem to set right with me. Am I alone in my thinking/now reaction to this? If you are going to have testing, and performance covenants, and then testing so as to certify pieces of equipment to those specific certain performance covenants - one would have already assumed that at the very least, also TESTING STANDARDS would have been (and quite clearly) established too! Wow Bill... you have now floored me, if this is so - and that mfr's are actually able to 'get away with this' ...and skew/obfuscate their "testing results", with this little tidbit. That is why most manufactures will test to the 3 second requirement not the 300 feet. 3 seconds will always be 3 seconds but 300 feet can vary greatly depending on speed. Attached is the standard use in testing to TSO-C23d. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

How many rigs manufactured today do you think were around when square reserves arrived on the scene? Seeing that they are a “reserve” they would be considered “integral to the system”. The system being the harness/container, a main canopy and a reserve or “approved” canopy. Anything else is not “integral to the system”. See Part 105.129 Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

He’s absolutely sure he’s right. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Way to go. Maybe you should look up the word inconvenience Nor do I. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

But I enjoyed you taking the time to meet me in Elsinore for lunch. Thanks. Every day I wake up and both feet hit the floor it’s going to be another great day. I don’t run as hard as I used to but I can still kick dust with the best of them. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Do you have a source for this? Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

You gotta just keep poking. If it doesn't matter why bring it up? Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

You are way out of line Nick. You and your buddies may have been heads but not everyone in country was. Those that used drugs in the bush got others killed. They signed up to be Marines and didn’t have the balls to do the job. Get off your high horse and face reality. You were not the only one that served. I resent your reference to “Sunshine Patriot”; I know what I did but have no idea what you did. Sparky HM2 USN 2nd. Batt. 3rd. Marines Northern I Corp 1968/67 My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Just keep laughing ass hole. I don't consider military service a joke. Sparky My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

There is nothing that requires that the test be done with a TSO’d harness and container when test just the canopy. You can make the “pack” any way you wish. All it has to do is contain the canopy, bridle and pilot chute in the manner it was designed to and allow it deploy as designed. A very knowledgeable rigger friend of mine, who has received TSO certification in the past, suggested that you could use something like this. See attachment. The trick is understanding how to “read” the regs. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Pack.jpg My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Rob, it is 3 seconds or 300 feet not both. Sparky 4.3.6 Functional Test (Normal Pack All Types): For all 4.3.6 tests the maximum allowable opening time for parachute canopies with a maximum operating weight of 250 lb (113.4 kg) or less, is 3 s from the moment of pack opening. For parachutes with a maximum operating weight of greater than 250 lb (113.4 kg) the maximum allowable opening time shall be increased by 0.01 s for every pound of maximum operating weight in excess of 250 lb (113.4 kg). Alternatively altitude loss instead of time may be measured and the maximum allowable altitude loss may be calculated as follows. For all 4.3.6 tests the maximum allowable altitude loss for parachutes with a maximum operating weight of 250 lb (113.4 kg) or less is 300 ft (91.5 m) from the altitude at pack opening. For parachutes with a maximum operating weight of greater than 250 lb (113.4 kg) the maximum allowable altitude loss shall be increased by 1 ft for every pound of maximum operating weight in excess of 250 lb (113.4 kg). My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals