mr2mk1g

First let’s just ignore any potential waivers that may or may not have been signed or cover such a sale. That would introduce a different argument. I think there are circumstances where the courts might consider it appropriate for a duty of care to exist. High risk examples may include where the seller is the buyer’s instructor, or perhaps even AN instructor. There could also be a duty of care where the seller is a DZ shop or equipment dealership, a rigger or any of the DZ staff. At lower risk would be someone who’s advice could normally be relied upon (a class that could potentially include any relatively experienced jumper). It really depends on where the court wants to put the bar… it’s difficult to second-guess, as the courts can be quite iritic when faced with something as far from their understanding as skydiving. Remoteness also factors into it. There aren’t that many steps to the chain of buy canopy – jump canopy – hurt yourself. It’s obvious to a seller that if they sell the 30 jump wonder a sub 100 cross braced canopy there’s a good chance they’re gonna hurt themselves. I would think that this allows the vendor to be “close enough” to the buyer to satisfy this requirement. There remains only the possibility that the court may consider there to be a good reason why there should not be a duty of care in this situation. This may be because it’s the buyers own decision what he jumps the canopy, or there is no guarantee that they would be safe on a bigger canopy. A court may even conclude that such a ruling could effectively shut down the canopy market and that on policy grounds there should be no duty. Whether or not a duty of care exists would probably be one of the greatest hurdles in any such litigation. In the UK there is also a requirement that the imposition of a new duty such as this be “fair just and reasonable”. This may well cause a significant problem… is it really reasonable to impose that sort of responsibility on a vendor? I don’t know what the precise wording of US law is but I would imagine it takes a broadly similar stance. Should a court find that a duty of care exists, then selling something wholly unsuitable for the buyer’s level of experience could easily be a breach of that duty of care. If there’s injury and that injury can be shown to be a result of the breach (in this instance this may not be that easy – eg: it could be argued that the injury is due to their mistake as opposed to due to the canopy on which they made that mistake) then there could easily be legal liability. The big points that would cause any claimant’s difficulty are the concept that the canopy may represent an obvious risk, of which you have no duty to warn (after all it is obvious… but is a VX 90 obviously dangerous to a 30 jump wonder...?) and the concept of volenti where the claimant voluntarily accepts the risk of injury when using the canopy (no body asked them to jump it, it was their choice) – a staple concept of skydiving and sports legality in general. I’m by no means saying it’s a legally clear-cut situation because it’s not; but I would defiantly say there are arguments open to any potential claimants out there. If someone dies in this situation, and there is money to go after (often not the case in this sport) then I can foresee a family starting an action. In fact, I’d put money on it happening sooner or later… just as where victims families go after firearms manufacturers. Now whether or not they’d win their claim is another question all together… My answer to the question would therefore be: Yes, there [I]could[/I] be legal liability for the vendor… no one (to my knowledge) has yet tested that question to find out. I must point out that this is my take on the situation from over the pond and is based solely on UK law. Whilst our two legal systems have a great many commonalities, my points may or may not stand for an action within the US.

one of the most blatant ever... or this guy is really one of the dumbest ever...

C'mon... that arm-dance thing they use to do at the end with the clapping and the flapping arround was incredibly cool... er... ok. I never really did get why they thought it was fair having a team of two vs. just one... even if there was one less hex...

Yes, if I moved to the US I'd own firearms. But then I own a limited selection of firearms in the UK and used to (back when I didn't live in a bloody city) enjoy shooting on a regular basis. They'd be owned for recreation, historical and aesthetic reasons though, not for home defence; the same reasons I keep them in this country. They would be kept in a locked gun cabinet when not in use, just as they are kept in this country. If one day they happened to be of use to me to defend my life or the life of another... well, so be it.

google tool bar

We've got the same thing in colour over here . If I put in my postal (zip) code it circles my house for me. You'll forgive me not doing so on line though. Here's the neighbourhood though: http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&x=360500&y=179000&width=700&height=410&scale=5000&out.x=12&out.y=10 edit: and this is where I used to live... much nicer out in the country side: http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&x=501715&y=414424&scale=10000&width=700&height=410&multimap.x=576&multimap.y=257

ditto

Of course, those reasons makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what you don't agree with though. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be able to cite cause for going to war... just that to invade would be to draw down upon them the might of several western armies... That seems dumb to me, regardless of what their reasons are for going to war.

Our soles are all the same. Our souls are all the same.

It's just that now they'd risk the wrath of the US/UK and possably even the UN et al. Before we'd have probably stayed the hell out of it... now it would kinda be our fault and we'd already have military units in the combat zone possably getting shot at. It would be a lot more dificult for us to stay out of any shooting match...

best place for a knife? any DZ shop will carry them starting at arround £5 for a cheap plasticy thing. This will pass a flight line check and get you on the plane but most people here who have used them will tell you it will simply break the first time you need it. There are some very good metal ones to be had, try www.Square1.com or look in the Mag for some adverts. These are a little more pricey at about $25 + shipping but it's your call. If you're going to be doing CRW or other high entanglement risk activities then you may want to look into one of the larger knives available out there. These are not really practical to cary though unless you're a CRW dawg.

I just noticed that what makes it worse is the fact that the "Gear" "Classifieds" and "News" pages still have the old layout on top... so when you do hit the wrong button, you end up having to reinforce your old habbit.

If you are in the UK it is a requirement for you to carry a hook knife on every single jump you make. You should not be allowed on the plane without one somewhere on you, your rig or your jumpsuit. If you are unsure what it is there for, or what you would do with it and under what circumstances, grab an instructor and ask for a hook knife brief. If you are jumping in other ares you should check local rules, but the UK is one of the few places where it is mandatory.

I was sent a couple of free hook knives last year and some lengths of riser to play with. The knives went through the riser like... well like a proverbial hot knife through butter. It was quite remarkable how easy it was. My favourite option in this situation is to put a line twist in the lines and then cutting all the lines in one go. I guess this would have to depend on having a reasonably stable canopy above me though... I figure if it were stable enough to deploy my main without entanglement it'd be stable enough to put the twist in. If its not stable enough then I figure the risk of my main entangling with it is simply too high anyway and I'd have to do something drastic regardless of the risk... In that situation I guess I'd have to do my best to take out the risers... whatever you do its hardly a great situation to find yourself in. I guess that's why we do so much to ensure prevention as opposed to cure. It's still nice to have options though; knives start at £5.

It’s been on the evening news... there were 3 patrol boats and they showed footage of similar boats. They're open motorboats, maybe 20ft long, no fixed weapons, just a hull and a big motor. There were 8 navy personnel on board delivering the boats to the Iraqi's who they'd been training to carry out stop and search missions on suspected smugglers. No official word on why they were where they were, its just a suspected map reading error. Seems a pretty big error to make mind given the fact that all they had to do was not go past a big river entrance. Political opinion is that this will all be sorted in a day or two and that Iran is just as eager to defuse the situation as anyone. The general consensus is that Iran is sending a firm message to the coalition that they have interests in the area and that we should not forget that when sorting out the running of the waterway. I just wonder if they might use this as some kind of excuse though given that there are rumblings that they may want to invade Iraq in the power vacuum after the handover… if they really are that completely insane of course.

I just wanted to add to my comments lest I completely demoralise you with your recent purchase. My thoughts were (for what little they're worth at my low level) that it's a very good buy for a first rig and you've got yourself a really nice bit of kit that will last you for a good couple of hundred jumps... just take a little time getting onto that canopy and do it in a safe and sensible manner with the help and advice of instructors and your CCI. That and bow to more knowledgable advice than mine.

This comment is so common it's almost a trol... but I have to bite. Just go read this page: http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

surely the sign of a true PW

try this thread from about a week ago. We went through a lot of the fuel alternatives and their merrits. I think the basic conclusion (if any) was there are a couple of viable alternatives that give the same power and ease of use... just no one's doing it yet... (hope that summary doesn't kick off another argument) Edited to add the damn link http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1094536#1094536

The Wings is a good container. It should not factor into this. Is it a very tight fit on the main or could you put something bigger into it for a while? Your canopy progression scares the hell out of me. There's little consistency meaning you've never had the opportunity to learn any one canopy before moving on. On the positive side, the wing loading is not that high, and the saffire II is not super aggressive... it is lightly elliptical though... I'm not sure how a CCI would look on someone with only 19 solo's jumping it. I know you've done a shit load of RAPS jumps, but those canopies are designed a world apart from this one, and literally twice the size. Talk to instructors and to your CCI. Don't just say you have 100 jumps, but really tell them about your canopy progression and what sort of jumps you’ve done. Tell them about how well you landed your recent canopies. And please don't downsize again till you are reliably landing your current canopy in a safe and controlled manner. I don't get how people can possibly say: "oh... I messed that landing up and it hurt like hell... I think I'm ready for something smaller now". Why downsize when you have yet to even master your current canopy size? 1. Ask a CCI/instructor who has seen you fly. 2. Yes easily and quite cheaply. Talk to your local rigger. 3. Body position on deployment is the most likely cause. Downsizing and changing from a merit to a saffire II will only make these twists easier to produce and far more difficult to deal with. Please think about practicing your basic freefall skills before introducing this sort of risk.

You two crack me up. That is the funniest non-argument I have ever heard. Tuna – you really need to actually read the question Benny is putting. Benny, try putting it in other words for Tuna and isolate the issue so he can’t miss it. Tuna, try this version of the same question you’ve been asked a dozen times: Why does the 12th amendment make BC ineligible for VP? Try answering without reference to the 22nd amendment and without simply stating that he is ineligible because you say so, or because of someone else’s opinion. You appear to be of the view that it is the 12th amendment that makes BC ineligible… precisely what about the 12th makes him so?

technophobe? technically not quite right, but it'd fit till you could come up with something...

Ok, so the buttons have been shifted round. I can see the logic in that and it’ll only take us a few days to get used to the layout… but in the meantime force of habit sends my mouse up to the top middle of the screen to navigate back out of a thread. For those of you who use the same method of navigation, which button do you keep going for? What other "force of habit" mistakes are you making following these changes?

Sounds like they've pinched three rigid raiders or something of that ilk, especially as the three appear to have had a sum total of 5 crewmembers between the 3 boats. I don't know if I'd describe them as "vessels" as the article does. It later describes them as "boats" which would befit their size a little more. Harbour patrol probably, Navy perhaps, but warships… pfft!?

Perhaps add in a little on aesthetics such as things like stainless actually being marginally worse from a safety perspective than non-stainless hardware and that we all jump mini rings when they also increase the cutaway forces, (although perhaps their choice is mitigated by comfort/function). Ok so neither of these choices are likely to kill anyone, (that fact in itself could arguably render them insignificant) but the figures speak for themselves... we actively choose less safe systems.