mr2mk1g

Simple solution is to have someone take a photo of you as you land wearing the T-shirt. You can geek the camera and show off the logo all with a ground based film crew. All you need to be able to do is reliably pull off a nice landing while under pressure (don't do it if you can't) and the ability to land pretty much where you intend to.

...at Bristol's Balloon Fiesta (see link). Over my house no less. There were also demo jumps into the Balloon fiesta from a helicopter. I was tempted to go along with my rig and see if I could join in. Last weekend there was a harbour festival here where demo jumpers deliberately ditched in the harbour. All things being well I should be involved with the next demo the city sees. http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?command=newPage&nodeId=144912&contentPK=10766369

I guess we've all seen these before right? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=14858; http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=14859; Presumably this was a near terminal impact and the bird can only have weighed a couple of oz. Objects that have come off your team mates may weigh more or less than this bird depending on what they are, but they will all certainly impact with much less speed (given that they are also falling, just slower than you are). Thus I can’t see impacts being [I]that[/I] bad… but I’m not bloody well volunteering.

See it don't work like that over here. That happens, but it's always been phrased so that all the court is actually doing is simply naming something that's always been there. Perhaps people haven't been using the principal or the principal has never been correctly applied... but it had always been there (apparently). And as I said, they're always careful to point to instances of the principal previously being applied. Perhaps this stems from our constitutional Supremacy of Parliament whereas in the US it's fairly accepted that courts can rule legislation invalid on constitutional grounds.

That's not the stance the BPA has. They feel that your A proves you have demonstrated the ability to fall through the air without killing yourself. Once you have your FS1 you have demonstrated you have the ability to fall through the air without killing anyone else. That's a big difference. What the USPA does is a different matter altogether of couse. But I can't agree that two 25 jump wonders have the skills required to not bash into each other occationally. Sometimes they'll be fine of course... but should "sometimes" be enough?

The red and green triangles do not have the same angles - they don't form a straight line down the length of the hypotenuse in the large triangle formed in the first pic. In the first pic the hypotenuse is concave. In the second as the shapes are reversed the line is convex. The difference in area between the concave and convex lines created by the two hypotenuses is equal to one square on the grid.

Do they express it over there as if it's a discovery? Here it's usually expressed as though the law has always been that way, it's just we no one ever realised it. The court will then point to authority for why they say it has always been so. Or they simply interpret the legislation and state that is how parliament intended it to be read... Openly making law though... they're a little more jumpy about that. Unless you look at the incremental approach taken in true common law cases but then there’s no real statutory background there, so at least it's not flying in the face of the legislature. We've just had a bit of a constitutional hoo-har over the judiciary's ability to over-rule parliament following the creation of the Human Rights act. Courts are supposed to refuse to apply subsequent legislation that does not comply with the requirements of the Act. Difficult really when Parliament is supreme. To get round the fact that this would in effect require courts create law superior to an act of Parliament. To prevent Parliament's toes getting stepped on we've hit on the odd solution of having the court issue a declaration of incompatibility while everything stops until Parliament can rush through an amendment to the act. Silly really, but it's all so the courts don't create law.

I don't think noobs jumping together is a good idea. UK we have a system whereby there can only be a maximum of 1 person on any dive who does not have their FS1. FS1 is a freefall qualification obtained by demonstrating all sorst of formation skydiving abilities, culminating in being able to pull off successful 4-ways. The logic is that so long as there's only one person who can't control themselves everyone else will always be able to get out of their way. If there are two noobs on a dive... they could hit each other. Plus everyone else has to concentrate on two places at once. People express the same gripes about newby FFers. It's commonly accepted that two people who can only just hold sit/HD shouldn't be in the air with each other... despite the speed differences, why should it be any different with flat?

Yeah your right it's f=ma... I think in this instance acceleration is physics speak for what the knife's doing relative to you... or something It's a little beyond my recollection. My head's far too full of stupid things like movie quotes and what has happened in the Simpsons for me to be able to remember inconsequential little things like the laws of physics.

I prefered Big women like to get laid 3 personally. Sorry - not really a subject to joke about but I couldn't resist. Besides - he started it!

Sure? I thought Force = Mass X Velocity. (Force of course being the thing that hurts/damages you) In that equation, Mass and Velocity have an equal impact on force. Double Mass, you double the force. Double Velocity, you double the force. Or is it more complicated than that?

You're too funny. Judges don't "make" law; they interpret it. And don't think I'm playing word games with you because I'm not. There really is a big distinction between the two.

No, not the collegiates... UWE. (possibly anyway) They may be at uni, but they're not quite the same cut as the BCPA rabble. The focus is generally on jumping as opposed to drinking.... well.... generally.

1) The skyhook doesn't factor into terminal reserve deployments. If you deploy your reserve without having a main out the skyhook simply unhooks itself from the reserve system - hence the name. Therefore terminal hard deck will never change due to this development. 2) It's not really likely that people will rely on the skyhook to the extent of lowering their cutaway altitudes to such extremes anyway (you'd hope anyway). There's simply too much going on during a deployment to say conclusively it will definately work in time @ 200ft simply because you have a gizmo. Chaos theory and Sod's law combine so that when you really need that snap opening, something might just snivel for a bit due to a weird bit of wind, an odd bungee or whatever. Then again, if the main's not landable @ 400ft, it's not landable.... you'll do what you have to and the skyhook will help to stack your deck.

Now that is funny!

Like I said - skyhook equiped rigs consistently produced an open reserve in less than 100ft during testing. No one is going to start relying on those figures just yet though - even the manufacturer doesn't advertise them or seek to rely on them. To adjust emergency proc simply because of them would be silly, it's better to keep that margine of error. Perhaps in a few years time when we all have modern reserves and skyhook type systems in our rigs people will routinely be able to chop lower... but to rely on it to that extent just yet is not a good idea. Still in development? Not really, the technology's already there; its simply got to earn our trust before people will start relying on it to the extent of lowering their cutaway altitudes.

I'm going to be going there on Sunday for an initial visit with a few friends. Our club's thinking of moving there for this next year. That would mean an extra 30 odd people, roughly a 50/50 mix of FF and RW plus perhaps 40 some first jump students. I hear it's always mainly been demo jumpers and some RW. Now it has a bigger plane it has a couple of teams jumping there and a larger contingent of free flyers. It has a Let410 now so it's going to be doing something like 16 or 17 to altitude in about quarter of an hour - about as respectable as you get. Don't know a great deal about its facilities. I understand you must have demo clearance to land in the exp accuracy area and they're big on getting people through their demo accuracy. Think it's £10 membership and £17 to 13k or something but for some reason they don't cater for exp jumpers on their web site. No accom, but free camping.

I dated a Belgian girl for a while a couple of years back. Sorry.

Well I guess it's here now in a way. With the skyhook you reportedly have an open reserve in 78ft. That's not a figure you'd be wise to rely on mind.

Presumably that developed seperately under the same name over there or is it based on the same High Trees House case as hear?

So you equally condemn the US govt for relying on evidence gained from torture?

The Danish? http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/08/11/a2.int.denmark.0811.html

Then we have a difference of opinion which is fair enough.

He's not complaining about being fired for missing work - he's pointed out that that is an aside. He's complaining that he's been told he will be fired if he ever skydives again. I'll ask again; would you be ok with it if your boss told you that you would be fired if you ever did another skydive, even if you didn't hurt yourself?

You'd be happy if your boss told you that if you ever did a skydive again you would be sacked? Just in case you hurt yourself? What if your boss told you that you were not allowed that nice powerful car you drove but you had to trade it in for a 1 litre model? Just in case you hurt yourself? Where do you draw your line?