mr2mk1g

C-206 – possibly the most common skydiving aircraft in operation so yes, very usable for “regular skydiving”. Probably ideal for smaller/start up DZ’s given how many places start off with one and indeed maintain one as their second plane. Most take 5 max although that itself depends on which version of the 206 it is as some have wing extensions and wider bodies or up rated engines which effect the load capacity. I’m sure others can give much much more detailed info if required. Whatever; it's always a tight fit in there. It takes oh about… ages to get to altitude. I think you’re looking at an effective ceiling of about 10,000 though… not sure if can run it to 12,000. If you have the cargo door launching 4-way is conceivable if difficult – but not exactly great practice for the bigger door you’d have in a comp. If it’s just the small door forget launching pieces as you’re effectively looking at freeflown exits from strut hangs etc only. There aren’t really alternatives in quite the same price bracket. Islander or Porter would perhaps be the next step up but I don’t have a clue on prices. I hear you could find a Turbolet stupidly cheap at the moment (£250,000 ish) but you’re still looking at a twin turbo prop so running costs go up through the roof even if the purchase cost isn’t that bad. I also have no idea if they have the appropriate ticket over there. A PAC 750 would be great if you could afford the initial outlay/loan but I doubt you’d be able to get your hands on one soon enough because of the waiting list.

The US and Switzerland has had an agreement guaranteeing bilateral recognition of each other’s copyright since 1891… that ought’ a count as established law. So if you own the copyright in the US, it’s just as good in Switzerland. (As a side point, it’s actually the same agreement that covers copyright relations between the US and the UK). Hmmm… you seem to be suggesting that you had some kind of agreement with the producers. That could make this as much a contact dispute as one based purely on copyright infringement. See if you gave them your footage and permission to use it; that may not count as copyright infringement. Instead your argument may be that you only gave them permission on the grounds that they would pay you money in return… that may make this a pure contract dispute in that you provided them with a commodity and they’ve defaulted payment. It all depends on exactly what was agreed. Consider what agreement you had made and what they were supposed to do to hold up their end of the bargain. Consider what evidence you have of the existence of the agreement and of it’s content. Consider if they’re actually disputing the existence of the agreement or if they’re just being difficult about paying up. Your tactics should depend on exactly what they’re actually disputing – if anything.

My post was a joke - of course the film about the actual sinking was not shown during the sinking itself... I suspect Kallend's post was also a joke - Bismark of course being one of Germany's pocket battleships of WWII. I sincerely hope that lemonjelly's post was also a joke, because as you pointed out the Titanic pretated the movie by half a century... that's precisely why I made a joke about his post. Get it?

You're wrong - the film showing when the Titanic sank was "A Night to Remember".

his other point was that the "M" in ATM stands for Machine... there's no need to duplicate it.

That is a major ouch... Amazing people still try to FF in old gear.

True. True.

Yeah, it's still pretty confused. Reuters are currently reporting that it kicked off when the insurgents started fireing on the kids when some tried to escape. Faced with that you can understand why they went in... still bad ju ju.

Crap. The hostage takers started shooting and the soldiers had to go in… The report below suggests 100+ dead and 400 wounded. This only just happened so expect updates on figures and details. On top of that - they didn't even get all the hostage takers in the process: "Rebels fled with soldiers in pursuit." The fighting's still going on as I post this! http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=576635§ion=news

I wouldn't chase anyone to impact. I would try to the point that I'm significantly increasing the risk to my life (ie tempting my AAD), but not to certain death - not for anyone I know. I'm also not saying I would actually "chase". But if I'm already docked on them and struggling to dump them out I might hang arround past 2k... I think that's quite different matter as it's not really reliant on my skill or lack thereof. I also don't see anyone here saying it isn't foolish; I think all agree it is - highly. The thing is we weren't asked if we thought it was foolish or a good idea, just if we would do it not withstanding the fact that it's foolish. Some of the people here are simply saying that they'd feel compelled by their concience to do something really stoopid... or they simply wouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror again. It could be likened to running into a burning building to save a kiddy. Obviously stupid? Yeah, very. Should only be done with training and practice? Definately. Would some people stand by and say it’s too stupid and dangerous and we’re always told not to go back into a burning building? Of course they would. Would they be right? Yep – that’s the right thing to do, you wait for the FD. Would some people ignore how stupid it is, and ignore how unlikely they are to succeed and go back into the burning building and try to get the kid? Yep, there are probably some people who would. Would they be stupid? Yep. Would they know it? Yep, probably (or at least hopefully). You can apply it to all sorts of emergancy situations. You're NEVER supposed to enter the water to save someone drowning - you help from the bank. Some people do go in... and some people drown themselves as a result. Yes it's foolish, but some people just have to do it, for themselves as much as for the person they're trying to save. Are these people risking their lives for no good reason because they have no chance of success? I don't think so - they're risking their life so that they can look themselves in the eye... even if there's no chance of saving the person they've still saved their own sleep.

I think you'd look lovely in that.

My useless factoid is that the small British town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is technically at war with Russia and has been so since 1853. When Britain declared war on Russia for what became known as the Crimean War, whether the town was part of Scotland or England was in dispute. It was therefore listed as a separate entity on the declaration of war. Three years later however at the conclusion of hostilities, the draftsmen negligently omitted mention of the town from the peace treaty. The town was thusly left in the curious position of being in a permanent state of war with the Asian giant. That was of course until the 1960's when the Mayor of Berwick signed a peace treaty with a Russian diplomat, assuring the diplomat that the Russian people could now rest easy, secure in the knowledge that they were no longer threatened by the awsome power of Berwick-upon-Twead.

The law your referring to makes it legal to shoot a Welshman in the grounds of Hereford cathedral with a Long bow on Sundays. The same rule exists in Chester but only after midnight and a similar law was enacted in relation to Scotsmen inside York’s city walls after dark. I have to warn any would be archers though; it's a myth. Whilst the laws did exist, the doctrine of implied repeal would mean you'd find yourself caught by the Homicide Act 1957.

Exactly! You never saw the last film where the Karate Kid gets his third "K" and goes on a rampage through Southern America cutting holes in bed sheets and setting fire to crosses... ?

Apparently I'm William Wallace... not bad I suppose. http://www.liquidgeneration.com/quiz/images/william_wallace.jpg

I say do it in a Tim the-tool-man Taylor style and install a huge turbo charged heating element and really soup-up that dryers power. More power arh arh arh arh... Just remember - there's only a 0.003 risk of death per million hours exposure to a house fire!

Anyone know if it's gonna be in B&W again?

Hehehe – didn’t realise the fatality rate for exposure to fire was so low. Now I know I’m not likely to die from exposure to fire I can play that game with the gas burner and cuddly toy. I knew my parents just wanted to keep all the fun for themselves when they told me not to play with matches.

Then maybe you should join my pressure group from back when I was at collage. We've been campaiging for years now for the abolition of both September and October and the institution of one super month - Septober. (We'd be in it now if it wern't for those pesky kids!)

eugh... I hate IP. In general the rules are pretty similar throughout the West... I'd be amazed if you didn't have a cause of action arising out of the use of your footage on TV wherever it was used. Copyright infringement is a pretty common concept. Let me know which country it was used in and I'll give you a starting point. It might also be useful to know how they got hold of your material (if you know yourself of course). Don't be sue happy - it's a pain in the arse and far from necessary 99% of the time. Your first step is to find out which TV co. made the program and contact them. Keep a record of all correspondence and remember a letter is far more likely to be taken seriously than e-mail or a phone call. It's highly likely that they will try to deal with your complaint rather than simply giving you a flat "piss off" (although may well be a tactic you encounter). If they're a big company they are likely to already have a procedure in place to deal with this exact situation and things could go quite smoothly. Chances are you're not going to need to quote law at them - it's quite a simple point that you can't just use someone else’s footage without permission. If there's a dispute at all it'll most likely come down to facts or value. Useful information for you to find out would be the standard rates for freelance footage in the country where the program was shown. Perhaps also the company’s standard rates – often found on their own website. Also google for the local ombudsman who may have the ability to receive a complaint from you. There’s also likely to be a local copyright protection agency. Depending on how much money you’re looking at, you may want to consider instructing a local lawyer to assist you. I don’t know how fee arrangements work over there but if it’s anything like here you could make use of a no-win-no-fee arrangement or an insurance policy to cover your legal fees until after you recover some money. Be very aware though that these could easily swallow a big chunk of whatever fees you recover, so try on your own and understand that formal advice is probably only worth it if there’s a lot at stake and you find yourself getting nowhere on your own.

That's a classic symptom of a main canopy smaller than the container was designed for. Other than that my limited exp. is outa ideas. Let us know what it turns out to be.

Yeah we agree on a few things. On religion we're right there. You even shocked me the other week when you replied to one of my posts laughing in agreement with what I wrote - that was on religion... I'm still not sure you realised it was my post. Our biggest differences come in expression... you just gotta calm down man... find that inner peace.

I demo’ed both my main and my reserve before I bought. I’ve also already demo’ed the canopy I’ll be downsizing to next. For the smart reserves our club owns though we went on the recommendations of exp. Jumpers alone (including some from these forums). As the reserves are not owned and jumped by anyone in particular but by a club, personal pref. doesn’t enter into it, only whether or not they’re a good reserve. We’re far from qualified to make that call so we relied on the opinions of those who are – people with 1000’s of jumps and exp with reserves and knowledge of their manufacture. (edit to add: but my first set of gear was bought without having demo'ed either canopy - simply on the advice of exp. jumpers... sometimes that's all you need).

Both true - but I don't see that simply possessing a camera and simply re-enacting a combat scene tell you much about his ability as a President... IF he played with it to the detriment of your troops then sure, that’s a slur on his character... but that's not what's being claimed. (oh and like the Bush family couldn't afford a camcorder at the time?) News just in - Kerry once owned a camercorder and larked about with it in his free time. Oh the humanity! Dear God, what is the world coming to? This monster once owned a camcorder! What are their policies on the national deficit? What are their policies on adult illiteracy? What are their policies on health? More importantly: why does nobody actually care what their policies are... only who once owned a camcorder?

So she's saying he's a freeflyer? Is that really all that odd? Given the kind of camera's we have access to today I'd bet many of us would if we found ourselves at war. Does it make that much difference that his camera didn't have a flip our tft screen?