mr2mk1g

How about this simple scenario to answer your question? Two people are on different canopies. Person A is on a 135 loaded at 1.33 Person A is on a 190 loaded at 0.95 They are coming in on final; see another canopy hooking towards them, panic and turn hard and low. Who is more likely to walk away? Who made the more conservative choice? Change the scenario to A and B both having to make an off landing in a back yard surrounded by a 6ft fence. Who is more likely to walk out of that back yard? Who made the more conservative choice? Canopy choices should not be made on what you do in ideal conditions or where and how you would like to land. They should be made with the worst possible scenario in mind. If you think you can pilot the canopy though that worst possible scenario then it's a conservative choice. If not, then you are risking your life on it, because you may not have the opportunity to land in ideal conditions.

Hmmm... 30 mil to make 970 mil. That's 32.3 mil made for every mil spent. If F9/11 wants to do better than the Passion on a bang for bucks rating it has to make 194 mil worldwide... It did well over a tenth of that in it's first weekend... hmmm... Now should the total be before or after book sales?

I think he means that no one forces them to choose between those two only. There's always the third option of landing the larger canopy straight in.

I think the question you pose in your post is significantly different than what the poll choices would indicate. You actually ask if it is more conservative to wring out the most performance on the canopy you are currently on or to downsize and try to “stay safe”. This is not really the same as “what is safer, a hook turn or a smaller canopy?” Well I have to say learning your current canopy has to be safer, even if that involves learning HP turns on it. What are you gonna do, learn HP turns on the little canopy after a load more jumps? You’re gonna make a mistake on that learning curve at some point despite those extra jumps. You’re far more likely to walk away from that mistake if you’re on something bigger even if you have fewer jumps. Now what if you’re landing off, amongst hazards? Under the big canopy you can simply not do a HP landing. Under the smaller one, what are you gonna do? You can’t suddenly go back to the plane and start again under something bigger. This same principal holds for the time your in bad traffic or get caught in squirrelly winds or whatever “bad thing” you can come up with. In my lowly opinion, staying big and maximising your canopies performance will always be safer than downsizing quickly. You can’t undo your canopy choice when you find yourself in a bad place, but you will always have the option of not increasing the speed of your bigger canopy.

Accepted, but are they really differences you are actually going to notice? They're both going to fire at 750 at the same speed and with an acceptable reliability factor. I don't see any practical advantage in the newer model but for possible price differences/water resistance. Of course, all things being equal you'd take the 2 because as you say it's made with slightly more modern components. But the simple existence of a newer model doesn't immediately mean the old one is suddenly unsafe. It sometimes seems like that is being suggested and I think it’s a false concept to propagate. Where you can save jump money... is there really a reason why someone should spend more to get essentially the same thing? Are we going to be advised soon that we should abandon our 1 units in favour of a "safer" 2?

The come shipped on a section of card with 6 holes; 4 for each line set and 1 each for the breaks. The lines are then attached round the edge of each hole so they cannot become tangled with each other or themselves. See if you can replicate this, being aware of any sharp edges that may damage the lines, the slinks or the canopy itself. Some strong card would probably be the best bet again. My housemate used one of the brackets for my old car stereo once to store a canopy like this as it had the perfect number of holes. I wouldn't have been comfortable shipping it like that though in case it was able to damage the canopy. If you mark whatever you use so the recipient knows which set of lines is which line group I bet they'd be appreciative.

Remember the Cypres 2 offers no technical advantage over the Cypres 1. I don't hold with people's immediate assumption that the Cpyres 2 is an "improvement" on the Cypres 1. The only practical difference is that it is water resistant, and trust me, you wont want to be getting your gear wet anyway. It offers a slight financial improvement in that it requires battery changes half as often. Thats litterally it. There's nothing wrong with a cypres 1 if it's priced right, but it is worth taking account of its running costs vs. the cypres 2 running costs in this decision. One is not any safer than the other, it simply comes down to a difference of only a relatively few dollars over the course of it's life.

Whilst that I suppose is one solution, it certainly was not the point of my post. I merely suggested that the idea of allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves in this country has no real logic, as (by and large) it is not law abiding citizens that are being affected by the majority of gun crime. Giving guns to grannies simply would not have any impact whatsoever on 99% of the gun crime. Since criminals appear to be able to arm themselves adequately in spite of our laws, it is not further legislation that is necessary, but better enforcement. Here, anyway.

Agreed, it did here. Don't get me wrong guys, I was criticising the arguments put by the Administration, not the judgement itself. I firmly believe that the best defence a nation has against itself is a strong and independent Judiciary. So long as a Government can be held up to scrutiny and held to account for its transgressions, there will be order and tyranny will not be countenanced by the public. The arguments put by the Administration in the linked article seek to undermine that fact. That those arguments were put in the first place is, in itself, a very bad thing in my opinion.

Are they brass grommets on the slider or a lighter metal?

Demo. There are a couple of other canopies in this class which you may like just as much or more. That's a call really only you can make. They are all so similar it comes down to which you like the feel of most. SabreII's a good canopy, I like the way it flys. I wouldn't hesitate to recomend it. However I can also say that about both it's main competitors, and personally would take either of them over the sabreII... but that's my choice. Go demo all three and see what your choice is.

(all emphasis mine) Are people really ok in America with the concept of being arrested without charge, and not being able to challenge that arrest in court? Does that not worry anyone? The concept that a President can do what he likes regardless of the law and no one is allowed to even question it? er... I'm confused... I thought the Geneva convention was all about enemy combatants... And wasn't the administration arguing these men were not combatants a while ago? Have they not even heard of the separation of powers? That is one of America's major constitutional tenets and this statement flies in the face of it. That is such a ridiculous comment from a legal standpoint it is hard to believe it has been made.

Glad they got those 50 airguns off the streets of Wales. Gun crime is really running rife there. Damn those BB gun toting kids! Note how it's a statement off the back of Operation Tridant... which is... oh, that's right; the Met's attack on Yardie gangs.

I make it a point to never bitch about a movie until I've seen it. I might just be talking arse and not know it. That would be very embarrassing. I don't think that principal changes simply because a movie is about politics as opposed to a child left at home over Christmas on his own, to defend the family home from a pair of bungling burglars whence hilarity ensues. If you've not seen the film, your comments are a tertiary insight. You might just find yourself talking arse.

I was once firmly told that I must not psycho pack a demo canopy from a large skydiving outlet. The guy from the shop was really quite animated about the issue for some reason (even before I said anything that could possably provoke him). "No problem" I replyed, "It's your canopy, I follow your rules with it, I was just making sure". The guy appeared to get a bit angry with me when I explaned I only asked as it was the manufacturers reccomended way of packing (Icarus) and that I simply wanted him to confirm for me that he was specifically telling me to pack the canopy against manufacturers reccomendations. (ok the manual says a pro-pack is acceptable but clearly recomends the psycho pack). The shop guy cited the "fact" that you can't see the lines and lay them out like with a propack and got even madder when I questioned his assertion by reminding him that a psycho pack is exactly the same as a propack until you lie it on the ground and thus affords exactly the same opportunity to work with the lines. I retreated gracefully. As I said, it was their canopy, I would do with it as they wished even if the reasons for their opinion seemed a little inexplicable. To this day I'm convinced he must have thought I was talking about a trash pack rather than a psycho pack. Why else would he have been so vocal about his opposition to the idea? Is a psycho pack really that much "voodoo" to some people?

Yes, it's "between you and me" But I would re-word it altogether. How formal is it? If I was writing to a solicitor to confirm an arugment I'd just had with them I would put: "We write further to our telephone conversation of the 25th June, (MPB/BFI)..." (Where the letters are the initials of the participants in the conversation. It's "we write" because I am writing as merely an agent of the firm and not as an individual). If it's slightly less formal try something like "further to our telephone conversation of the 25th June, I confirm that..." That's a nice construction.

Yes - there is a change in the types of crime going on. This has been a very swift change and is intrinsically linked with the growth of Yardie gangs over the past 15 years. It's difficult to think of another time when the UK crime models were so significantly shifted in such a short space of time. Over the past 15 years we have seen a power struggle develop between our indigenous drug suppliers and Yardie gangs who have moved in to take over. I’m not sure if the US is familiar with the Yardie style of operating? Yardies are a Jamaican crime syndicate similar to the Mafia or Yakuza but this time it’s young black Jamaicans. We’ve seen a massive influx of these people and they have taken almost all aspects of organised crime in the area’s they’ve targeted. It is this single trend, more than any other that has driven up gun crime in this country. We are not seeing a gradual drift towards illegal gun ownership by members of the public; nor are we seeing a gradual drift towards gun use by small time criminals. We’re simply seeing an influx of foreign gangsters who bring with them their culture of gun use; a culture that is in its self, foreign to the UK. The Yadies have taken over the supply of drugs almost completely, mainly because they have guns and their competitors do not, or at least did not. The Met (London police) created operation Trident a few years ago to tackle the problem, and they succeeded in making life so hard for the Yardies within the capitol that many moved on. One of the first places they hit was Bristol, where I live, just 100 miles along a major motorway. Our gang crime went through the roof a few years ago. We started to see shootings - something that we’d never really seen in the city before, at least not in any numbers. I remember speaking to the coroner about this – he was a wealth of knowledge on crime trends because he sees every single murder victim in the region for the past 30 years (yes we need only one coroner for the whole South West). The thing is, we’re not seeing grannies shot for their pension, we’re not seeing bankers shot in robberies, nor are we seeing dozens of dead burglary victims. What we are finding though are young men with links to the drugs trade and young Jamaican men with gang links executed in their flats, or involved in shootouts with rivals. This trend has been repeated all over the country. There are Yardie groups in most of the major cities; Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham have been badly hit. The Home Counties (the area immediately around London) has also been badly affected. Scotland even has its fair share of problems from these gangs despite it’s distance. When people cite a change in British crime trends, they are right – we have seen a major change over the past few years. These people often point to the fact that this jump roughly correlates with the banning of many types of guns after Dunblane. But where they are wrong is that this correlation does not indicate causation. These figures have jumped purely and simply because of this single foreign influence, and not because law abiding citizens have suddenly been stopped from carrying pistols around with them, (a right we have never had here). We have seen an influx of violent criminals who carry guns. They carried guns before they came to Britain, and they continue to do so now. This is the reason why we have seen a jump in shootings. I am sick of being told that giving back guns to law-abiding citizens would affect the operation of the Yardies. It’s a ridiculous premise, as by and large it is not law-abiding citizens who get shot at by Yardies but other criminals. It seems they are willing to acquire guns in any case. And this is why I say we need better enforcement as opposed to a change. Read up on the problems we have had in this country before you start pointing to rough trends in cold figures. The linked article is a good place to start. And quit telling us what we want. We are quite capable of deciding on what we want ourselves; we’ve been doing it for a few thousand years now. http://www.crackcocaineincamden.co.uk/pages/crack%20cocaine%20news/news%20pages/0200/0106.htm

oops. typo, and a funny one. Ok, T-shiRt contest.

Christ Greek police really are behind the curve... I remember seeing video of stuff like that years ago on programs like "Ayia Napa Uncovered". It's been going on for years and is openly shown on UK tv in fly-on-the-wall style docu-soap programs.

Go enjoy yourself with the pictures posted earlier. You were specifically asked at the start of this thread not to try and begin one of your little crusades. Listen to me very carefully when I say this. WE DO NOT CARE. You have your views on gun legislation, and we have ours. We are happy that our views are in place in our country and don't give a damn about your concerns. What happens in your country and does not affect us. We are happy that it is illegal to carry concealed firearms here. We don't want it to be legal. We don't care that you do. Please take your whining elsewhere. Start yet another thread if you really feel you have to but quit prattling on here; you were given your photo’s by the first poster.

I don't want guns kicking round. A kid might blow his own head off. I will lock them up. If that costs me my own life, I am happy with that fact. Please take this trite elsewhere; we just don't care. As a nation we are happy with our gun legislation. You point to problems with the enforcement of that legislation, not with the legislation itself.

Perhaps that's not a bad way of describing a dive loop to a whuffo.

He has not read it all wrong. One of the key points that article makes is that Moore claims more guns = more crime. That is not the conclusion of Bowling for Columbine, as the previous poster indicated, Moore points out that there are more guns in Canada.

Nothing says “Good Morning” like oral sex. I go You go We're both happy

A sadly SFW wet T-shit contest game: http://www.collegemix.com/content.php?q=2&id=2077