mr2mk1g

Actually I don't think that's quite what Brian's getting at. Using rear risers directly adjusts the angle of the wing to the relative wind. As such, if you go too far with this direct adjustment you can stall the wing out very easily. Using brakes isn't a direct adjustment to the angle of the wing to the relative wind. It simply adds drag to the canopy which slows the wing itself down while you continue to travel at the same speed as you were before pulling on the brakes. As the wing moves rearward relative to your body it's angle to the relative wind gradully changes, thus reducing the risk of you inducing a dynamic stall. The sensitivity of rear risers comes because you are directly controlling the angle of attack of the canopy by pulling on them. With toggles you don't, you merely causing a system to indirectly alter the angle of attack, which takes time. At least... that's my take on it. I guess maybe someone needs to PM Brian...

Was her pimp pissed?

Let it be known he came on to you in the store room... and was touching himself... that sorta thing.

Still no good. Doesn't allow me to disconnect the RSL shackle in order to cut the main risers away and switch main canopies. As that is not an "emergency situation" or an attempt to "avoid a possible emergency situation" it is presumably an "alteration" and as such requires a Master Rigger to sign off on it. Though of course one could argue that it doesn't really matter much as I then undo the "alteration" when I snap the shackle back up before enplaining... so effectively the FAA would never know to be able to pull anyone's tickets.

No, if you extend Sun Path logic re the RSL shackle that couldn't occur... ...because releasing the RSL shackle in anything other than an emergency situation would be an alteration... which may only be done by a Master Rigger etc etc So if Sun Path are right then you are effectively prevented from ever removing your risers from the container ever again... unless of course you are a Master Rigger and record the un-snapping of the shackle on the Data Card as an alteration etc etc...

Ok, so a manufacturer can be the party making an alteration under AC-1052c, but according to Sun Path any such alteration has to be recorded on the packing data card... which Sun Path didn't do... so Sun Path sold containers which by their own definition were unairworthy at the time of sale??

The rig is only "unairworthy" by FAA standards. If you're in Africa surely you only need worry about whatever the local regs say about the rig? On that note, does anyone have any idea what's going to happen with this issue in other jurisdictions? What do the UK CAA regs say about alterations??

Would have been much quicker to just ask the CIA for their test results rather than to do their own study. Would probably been more reliable too - the CIA were supposed to be spending $500,000 a year on it rather than the a paltry £18,000 one-off sum.

My mobile phone/PDA has GPS built in and runs TomTom and Copilot.

Interesting. Cheers!

I said that requiring people wear green shoes would be bad for business.

What civil rights? It's private property - if they want to require everyone wears green shoes they can. It'd be bad for business sure... but there's not a lot you can do other than whine if people want to impose prerequisites for your stepping foot on their private property, (save for where there are laws against it such as requiring the person to be of a certain colour/creed etc).

This won't work, for two reasons. Firstly you're simply replacing one form of expense for another. OK everyone has personal accident insurance because it's a BPA requirement, the BPA third party liability insurance cost goes down dramatically as no one needs to sue BPA members because they simply claim off their own policy. Great, I no longer have to pay £100 for third party insurance as that only costs me £60. I do however now also have to buy personal accident insurance which costs me £60. Total cost for the year is £120... I'm now paying more. Secondly, the personal accident insurance contract will have a subrogation right in it allowing the insurer to sue in your name. Fine, you're not suing the instructor who dispatched you, but your insurance company will in order to recover the money they paid to you.

No, quite the opposite actually. Before the Act, (to cut a very long story short), if a Judge found that if the packer, rigger, DZO, CCI, Pilot or instructor, (etc), should have done X, Y or Z and that if they had then the accident would have been prevented, then the BPA insurance fund could take a hit. After the Act, once the Judge has found the above they can go on to ask themself a further question, (assuming parachuting as a sport is a "desirable activity", (there's simply no guidance yet on what that is – recreational sports certainly could fall under the heading). The Judge can now ask themself: "Will a requirement to do X, Y or Z mean that it becomes impossible to conduct sport parachuting, to a certain extent, or in a particular way, or will people be discouraged from undertaking functions in connection with sport parachuting?" If the answer to that question is: "Yes – no one's ever going to want to pack a parachute again if I find this packer in front of me today negligent because they didn't do X". Then the judge can take that into account and find in favor of the BPA insured, when prior to the Act they would have found against the BPA insured. I must stress though that all of this is still speculative - there's no guarantee that skydiving would even be considered a "desirable activity" and at the end of the day, even though the Judge has statutory authority for considering the impact of any findings on the sport as a whole, they can still quite easily find in favor of the sorry looking crippled claimant in front of them who's simply asking for a big, rich, faceless insurance company to buy him a wheelchair and a bag to piss in.

So that's why Iran uses a different calendar...

I was under the impression that one of the claims arose out of first jump, (or very very low jump number), RAPS student who broke her back on landing leading to permanent disability. Sure it sounds to most of us who have heard the rumors that it was all her fault... but it'll take time to demonstrate that to her lawyers or a court, if indeed that is actually the case. The problem is that you simply cannot simply waive liability in the UK for personal injury, not even for member on member liability. It's illegal. If you want that to change it's not the BPA or CAA you need to speak to, it's the Government. I can tell you now though that you're not going to get very far. One small change that has happened recently which I hope will alter the balance a little in our favor is a tiny provision tucked away in the Compensation Act 2006, an act which otherwise deals with mesothelioma and asbestosis litigation. A little amendment, (which incidentally apparently broke the record for the fastest passage through Parliament), provides that when a court is considering liability it must have regard to whether or not a finding that the defendant should have done something differently would effectively prevent a desirable activity from taking place at all. Now I've not yet seen any relevant cases referring to this act come to court yet, (it's simply too new), but there certainly is the potential for it to help defend litigation against BPA insurance holders. It all depends on how open the courts are to actively using the provision and how tightly they interpret the meaning of "a desirable activity". Time will tell.

At the end of the day it 's the insurance that is driving the cost up. So: a) Find an insurance cpmpany that'll cover us for less than £100 a year... (easier said than done - for either individual policies or the group one we currently have). or b) Stop having claims against us... (easier said than done - and again, claims against others would affect even the premiums of individual policies). Sucks doesn't it, and I'm not sure there is actually an easy answer. I guess at some point we've got to come to terms with the fact that getting third party insurance is simply an expense that we have to accept. Driving down the premiums on that policy is a duty on all of us... but again, that's about as much use as saying driving down the premiums on motoring insurance is a duty on all of us... it's easier said than done.

Nightingale, there were 46 homicides in the UK involving firearms last year. Just let that sink in a moment – 46 out of a population of more than 60 million. That's the lowest level we've had since the 1980's. Yes overall gun crime has been increasing in this country. Much of the statistical increase however is related to the fact that all incidents involving imitation weapons and BB guns are now classified as "firearms offences". The statistics you quote regarding violent crime in the UK are just plain wrong. Crime in general in the UK, together with violent crime, has dropped significantly over recent years. To quote the most recent Home Office publication on the subject (for reporting year 05/06); "Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.4 million fewer crimes, with domestic burglary and all vehicle thefts falling by over half, (59% and 60% respectively) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period."

I think Kallend mixed up his threads and was actually referring to this one which took place at about the same time - see here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2657534#2657534 and http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2658662#2658662

I think the beeb article header about sums it up "Harry Iraq deployment no surprise". We've a long history of our Royals serving in combat. There's coverage but no one's really surprised by him going out there. Prince Philip, (Queen's husband), saw active duty during WWII and was actually mentioned in dispatches, (a gallantry citation). Prince Andrew, (Queen's son), was a helicopter pilot who saw active duty during the Falklands war. It's not really much of an issue over here. I guess it's maybe seeing more coverage in the States because there's often criticism in the US media regarding the lack of service from families of US heads of state and politicians in general, but that's not really something that gets much press over here.

Am I the only man polite enough to turn his phone off/silent when on a date?

I wonder if US Cops would get a call about a French chick sunbathing topless while on holiday in the US Bible Belt. Sure, you and I might not call... but I bet many would do. Frankly there's a thin line between the two sets of circumstances. Canoodling in public is illegal there but legal here, (in the West). In Europe topless sunbathing is no big deal... but you guys have laws against it. It's horses for courses. I don't mind much what your laws are - they're your laws. I damn well ought to obey them though when I visit next month. Active recruiting of spies takes things rather far... but then it's already every good citizen’s duty to report illegal behavior anyway. This all leads to lines that get kinda grey and hazy...

If it's reasonable under the circumstances - of course.

I meant the comments he made immediately after the vote to accept the accounts as they stood at the time of the AGM. That's when he said, (after the vote had already passed), that the AGM voting to accept the accounts meant there would be an EGM once the insurance element was known and that that was the only real option. I think recall him even saying that the Council didn't want to be in a position where it was given carte-blanch to accept whatever figures were put forward and there were looks and nods exchanged between him and other council members who were sat to his right-rear. At least that's how I understood it before I started drinking that night... As you say, in reality it simply doesn't make a difference as clearly an EGM would have had to accept the figure... it just surprised me, thats all.

Biggest costs to us is the $4,500,000(CAD) third party liability insurance we get with our membership. Plus a mag...