mr2mk1g

Why do you say that? The cypres manual says that it measures and locks in the altitude where it is set. Thus it would not be effected by a flight ascending and then descending. It goes on to say that if a single jump lasts more than 1 and a half hours the cypres will function normally but should be reset before the next jump - so here it would have functioned normally on this jump. The other requirements for flying refer to flying below ground level or below the level you have set the cypres to believe to be the ground. It doesn’t say anything about ascending then descending again above ground level. Is there something not in the manual we should know about or have I missed something in the manual?

My 92 Jav was fine. The only mod it had on it was a bridle cover - which this 96 jav may or may not have. It's a tiny mod to get if it needs it. There should be no velcro already and everything's closed with tuck tabs. It should be perfectly fine. Designs have come on a little since then, but it's a long way from something people would generally describe as "unsafe" for freefly.

Replace the word "Curling" with "Freeflying" and I believe this statement still works...

An unexpected hop+pop caused his stress levels to go through the roof, this could have directly contributed to his failure to recognise and correct the problem with his gear. He should have stayed in the plane if he was unable to do the dive he had planned.

You didn't answer either question! I'm not confused about how biometric's work - they work EXACTLY the same way as a photo does - in fact a photo is a form of biometric data. It is simply a way of confirming with reference to physical attributes, that you are the correct holder of that card. The only difference between the two is that a machine scans my retina and compares it to the encrypted data on the card. If the two match I am who I say I am. With a photo - a person (fallible + corruptible) compares my face to the data on the card; just the data is in pictorial. It’s also a lot easier to find two people who look alike than two people who have the same fingerprints or retina. You also seem to be under the impression that once someone has my card I can no longer use MY retina scan or fingerprint. Why? That data is still assigned to me. I get a new card, I can continue being me. Unless someone can replicate my actual eyeball and actual fingerprint then they cannot pass themselves off as me and that technology is far beyond even science fiction. If my card is stolen I notify the authorities and the chip number that is on that card is registered as stolen. The number is unique to the chip not to me - it registers the chip as stolen not me and not my data. Any card reader that card is swiped through now flashes red and gets the holder arrested. The stolen card is now useless and cannot be used to impersonate me. Unless you're talking about being able to A) break into the gov't computers and adjust the data, or B) replicate my body tissues its gonna be hard to mess with the system. How hard is it to stick another photo on top of my current photo driving license and pretend you're me? Ok, so let’s say you've stolen my biometric id card. It's got encrypted info about my fingerprint and retina scan. How are you going to use that card against me? Lets say you’re a common crook out to steal a couple of hundred $ or perhaps an asylum seeker just looking to pretend you’re a citizen so you can get handouts. How are you going to break the system? At the moment you could blue-tack a photo of yourself on top of the card or forge my signature and all of a sudden you are Mr. Smith. But now you have this funny chip…how are you gonna crack it?

That would be because we've been living with a terrorist threat for the past 75 years. If you put bins out in public places some fuck will put a bomb in it and kill people. Thus there are no bins anywhere where the IRA might like to plant a bomb - like prety much anywhere in London. It's something you might find youself having to get used to in the near future.

Cool, he made you do a dock. I only had to do a weed whacker instead. A dock would make more sense as it demonstrates the ability to make hand movements without disturbing your position. Another variation I've heard of is requiring overstated alti checks where you bring your alti right in front of your face to see it - achieving much the same thing.

seekfun is right there the contraction is correct but I stuffed the first unless you pronounce "bonfire" like this: "bon-fi-yer" but that would be wrong

But we have a lot of diesels... so if they're legal here they should be legal there? Perhaps "particulate emissions" regulations are stricter, but they may be different to "emissions" regulations. Which could explain why they are allowed here but not in the US. I'm just speaking off the top of my head there though so I may well be wrong.

five syllables fist then the next line has seven then you're back to five this thread's so being moved see slotperfect's sticky post this thread's for bonfire

Some people would suggest that the US gov't isn't too worried about emissions either (if they were they would actually have ratified the kyoto agreement, wouldn't let their citizens drive round in massive trucks and curb the ammount industry does to produce airborn polutants). Some might also say that their reluctance to introduce diesel might have less to do with emissions and more to do with the powerful gas lobby. At least that's how some people's argument would go. I can't say I know enough about the gov'ts internal workings to either agree or disagree, but I do note the argument.

That's true - but I do not think that the average US citizen is terribly worried about emissions just yet. If they were they wouldn't be driving round in the massive trucks they do.

True - BPA ops manual says: But it says nothing about any cloud between your exit point and you opening point. You can pass through as much cloud as you like (per ops manual anyway) so long as at the time that you exit you can see both your opening point and your landing point. There are plenty of circumstances when you can pass through cloud on the way down but still be able to see your opening point and the DZ from the plane.

I don't see the problem with diesel and moving to biodiesel. There are tonnes of diesel vehicles in the UK and Europe and they work fine. They have about as much power as petrol cars and actually have more torque so are better for things like trucks (in fact I think you'd have a job finding a petrol truck/tractor/industrial vehicle round here). The technology for biodiesel is just about there. You can even run conventional diesel cars on it with no need for a conversion of any kind. I welcome the day when we all run round in cars run on a fuel we grow in the fields we currently pay our farmers to "set-asside".

hehe - answered it about 10 secs before you asked it

Yes, terrorism is a little different but if you start making exceptions to the rules just because you're dealing with terrorists you can end up messing up the whole system in a rather serious way. With an unwritten constitution (as we have in the UK) we rely on precedent. There has never been a retrospective law before, so no one is really sure if parliament could actually pass one... although parliament is supposed to be able to do whatever it likes. It would take years of arguing to get it through if it was at all possible. If we did pass such a law, that would be a precedent to allow later retrospective laws. We wouldn’t be able to prevent later gov’ts from passing such laws, as one parliament is not able to limit the powers of a later one. Each parliament has supreme power… (except with regard to matters enshrined in our ethereal constitution as this is). Trust me, you don’t want retrospective laws. Constitutionally, we as citizens are allowed to do anything we like unless there is a law against it. Practically, how are we supposed to know we're not allowed to do it if the law hasn't been written yet? Constitutionally, public bodies are not allowed to do anything unless there is a law that says they can. What if a public body does something illegal and is held to account, then the gov’t simply passes a law which said what they did was legal? You end up with a gov’t that can do anything it wants and cannot be held to account by anyone. Retrospective laws don’t work. I know it only seems like a little bending of a minor rule in a special case, but it really would have massive implications for the UK constitution if we tried it.

For the most part, UK courts only have jurisdiction to hear cases involving crimes committed in the UK. The big new change is under the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows courts to hear cases involving certain terrorist offences regardless of where they took place or who they involved. The problem is that if the illegal act took place before the Terrorism Act came into force you can't prosecute them under it. That wouldn't be fair because at the time they committed the act, it would have been legal - (eg if tomorrow there was a law which said driving is illegal and that it was to be retrospective, we all would have committed a crime driving to work this morning without knowing it). UK courts deal with things that happen in the UK, American courts deal with things that happen in the US. It doesn't matter what nationality the person doing the act is or where they now live, only where they were when they did the act. If you reverse the rule and have your national laws follow you abroad you have some very bizarre situations - (eg a US citizen could be jailed in the US for drinking at the age of 20 whilst on holiday in the UK even though it's perfectly legal to drink here from the age of 18). So basically yes, legally if he didn’t do anything here we can’t prosecute him for it. If we know about it though we can deport him for being a toe-rag and tell on him to the people who can prosecute him. I think that’s possibly what’s happened here. Possably. The other possibility is that he had done enough here to warrant prosecution but the only evidence we had against him was intelligence intercepts. As these are inadmissible in a UK court there was no real prospects of actually getting a conviction because we would not been able to put any evidence before the court.

No, a Barrister - civil law. But I spent around 5 years studying criminal law at law school. It's not something you forget that easily and besides, half my job is being able to quickly find out about any given law regardless of it's sphere.

I guess the difference is we're allowed to bust clouds in our full faces. That's virtually guaranteed to put a sheet of ice over the outside of your visor if it's cold enough. That said the rational behind the rule is defiantly restriction of the view of your handles. There's a lot of people who think the rule is a little outdated given the care most of today's helmet manufacturers take to ensure the handles remain visible.

We had evidence sufficient to revoke his citizenship and deport him. This had been done and there was simply his appeal outstanding. As a democratic nation that believes in the rule of law he had to have the right to appeal the home secretary's decision or else Mr. Blunket becomes a de-facto dictator. The reason why he didn’t come before a UK court is because the evidence against him is from intelligence intercepts. These are inadmissible as evidence in UK courts. They are admissable in US courts, so he can be tried using that same evidence over there. The gov’t is currently looking at changing the law to allow intelligence intercepts to be admissible in court. Whether or not intelligence intercepts should be admissible is a different argument. Like most things, it’s a double-edged sword.

Can only comment on Perris as thats the only place in the US I've jumped. It will fulfill all of your requirements and more. Everything you mention in your post is there on the actual DZ. Tunnel, Jim Slaton's canopy school, tunnel camps, BMI's, FF coaching with the Flyboyz. They may even have the jet running by the end of the hol if you're lucky. They also have great accom on the DZ and balloons 100yrds away if you want a novelty jump. I guess the same will be said about Deland. Probably elsewhere too. I can only help to the extent of confirming Perris will be perfect... but like I said, elswhere might also be.

I saw a guy wearing one at perris. It's flexible like the Gunner and articulates to a degree where the two halves meet, so I can't see the chin protection being up to anything but nocks and scrapes.... so I guess on a par with the protection afforded by any skydiving helmet.

For some reason the Times is pissy about people who aren't in the UK reading their papers on line. I set up a password a while back for people to use - username is "Dropzonedotcom" password is "jump". No one ever told me if it worked or not. This is the article referenced:

Bollocks!

Please explain to me how a card containing digitally encrypted data of my retina and fingerprints will help someone steal my DNA. Please explain to me why someone stealing my biometric ID card is worse than someone stealing my photo ID card.