mr2mk1g

If my best friend has his reserve PC pop near the door I am going to rugby tackle him out of the door. Its the best shot I have at saving his life. It's that simple. Just because he's now outside the plane does not mean he's going to die - the reason he's outside is because his parachute was about to deploy. As soon as he's out there, chances are his parachute is gonna do just that. If he stays in the plane there's a high chance he's going to get pulled straight through the fuselage by the deploying parachute. There is a high mortality rate associated with traveling through the fuselage of a plane. It's that simple. Can I, as a skydiving lawyer rule out legal consequences? Nope. I'd be extremely surprised if anyone tried to prosecute me however. I'd be even more surprised if they actually succeeded. But I'm not dumb enough to say it couldn't happen. Your poll choices are based on the misunderstanding that pushing the premi jumper out somehow endangers his life. The choices should be: "kill one, kill all" (ie, do nothing) "save one, save all" (ie, kick the guy out) Pretty easy choice when you look at it like that, no?

Over here the move is being billed as a direct result of his association with and perhaps more importantly, his promoting of that screwed up little lunatic's cult that he's joined. I'm inclined to agree personally.

As Billvon has pointed out; you're not describing Creationism. Creationists believe that God created man from dirt and woman from one of man's ribs. Evolutionists believe that man evolved from an ape-like creature through Darwinian evolution. They believe this happened all the way back to single celled organisms and before that, simple organic molecules. Belief in evolution does not necessitate any particular belief in how those organic molecules came about. It is true to say that many evolutionists do not believe that God any hand in any of this. But it does not follow that Evolutionists do not believe in God or in some theistic theory regarding the creation of life. If this is what you believe then it is possible that you are an Evolutionist... but you most certainly are not a Creationist.

A shit-house is an outside toilet. Usually these would be a wooden shack affair at best - kinda like a poorly built shed. A brick shit-house on the other hand would be one of uncommonly fine manufacture, sturdy, comfortable and capable of withstanding significant destructive forces. Thus a person who is “built like a brick shit-house” has all of the above qualities. I must say however, I've never heard a woman referred to as one... such a title conjures up the image of a Russian shot-putter rather than anything favorable... As to the subject of the thread - no, we shouldn't close our borders to EU migrants. If we want to be in the club we must sign up to all the club's rules. A really important one of those is that there must be free movement of people within the EU. (Whether or not we ought to be in that club is perhaps a different thread).

Just so you all don't get too worked up over what is essentially non-news... the story details a tiny little legal wrangle at the begining of the main case. The NRA hasn't won yet, (though I don't doubt they have a good case), the report simply indicates that they have simply managed to not loose at the first hurdle. Don't confuse this with a comment on the actual substance of the case however - I'm simply pointing out what an early stage the case is at.

Isn't the release of this information specifically required by many of the non-proliferation treaties entered into by the US and Russia?

. Can you show me where I said that John? Quote me saying anything even remotely similar to that. Re-read my posts and you'll see I've posted here exactly the opposite to that. I've been posting to try and diffuse what I see as a retarded argument based on people's failure to actually appreciate the meaning of simple English words. You're acting like a rabid dog biting; at its own leg because it sees enemies everywhere. Quit attacking people who are posting broadly in support of your position. Hell, this whole thread was started because you jumped down someone's throat based on semantics in a post he made that was actually supporting precisely your above contention! Calm down, take a breath, focus on those people with whom you actually have a dispute, really READ their posts and argue about THEIR words NOT words you have put into their mouths. Do this and I'm sure you'll see this whole thread is actually far less of an argument than you would really like to imagine.

Here's a bin... try to hit it...

Consider the following to be a demonstration of the futility of arguing about semanticts. kinda... they were almost cetainly invented for hunting animals for food, which I'm sure would be considered, for the purposes of this thread, to be entirely distinct from the killing of people. Which of course has absolutely zip to do with modern firearms, which for C100 years have used cordite... a chemical whose smokeless and uniform burn qualities caused it to be specifically invented for use in military firearms... which are almost universally and specifically designed for use in killing, (or wounding), people. As I said though... all of this is simply a demonstration in the art of argument... this thread is little but a pointless discussion on the minute definitions of different English words. It has very little to do with the actual ethical efficacy of modern firearms.

Cripes - lets not get bogged down in silly semantics. Guns were invented to kill people, pure and simple. The hand gonne was invented as a nice addition to an army's siege equipment; despite its obvious drawbacks when compared to the longbow or crossbow. Shortly thereafter, the matchlock musket was invented and popularized because peasants with 2 days training could achieve the kind of kills that would take a longbow man years of practice... that and they could shoot through a French knight's breast plate, (c'mon – we can at least unite in our hatred of the French). Fast forward a few hundred years and we have a large number of weapons which were invented to kill people more efficiently than the version that went before them... however they are also invented for many other reasons - to shoot snipes, (water birds), for example - huge great guns actually built into the body of small boats, or forward even further - shoot as accurately as possible even after the shooter has just finished skiing cross-country as fast as they can. Now lets look at another term - "designed" - pretty similar to "invented", though subtally distinct: firearms today are designed to do many other things than to kill. Some are just cool looking, or fun to shoot, or extremely accurate etc etc. Not all sure, but it would certainly be true to say that many are designed to be cool/fun/accurate etc. Hell, to rely on semantics, some guns are designed to disable military vehicles - not necessarily to kill their occupants... they just do that coincidentally. It's probably still true to say however that the majority of firearms manufactured today are designed to kill. Be it from a military stand point, (though technically this would usually be to wound - the NATO M855 round, (as used by the M16 et al), for example is specifically designed not to kill but only to wound), or for personal or home security, law enforcement use etc. All could be put to down to being designed to kill/cause serious injuries. Hell, most range guns which are owned simply because they are fun/accurate/cool were designed to kill but then found their niche as fun/accurate/cool guns used by the average Joe to do nothing but put holes in paper targets. Their end use however doesn't necessarily mean they weren't originally designed to kill... but then that would just be arguing about semantics. Equally, the fact that they were originally designed to kill doesn't necessarily mean there were actually manufactured, (our final term), to do so... but again, this is semantics. Most guns are probably manufactured to sit in a draw or gun-rack and be practiced with occasionally, polished less occasionally but never actually used in anger... but once again - this is just semantics. Let's not start a silly argument about whether or not guns are designed to kill or merely to accelerate a projectile. They are not all designed to kill - most are, but not all, for sure. And yes, they are all designed to accelerate projectiles; in just the same way as cars are designed to accelerate human beings... but I doubt many people would say the Ford F-150 was a brilliant accelerator-of-people device... they probably simply prefer to drive one. I suspect at the heart of this thread we'd simply see a simple misunderstanding based on errors creeping in through translation.

I cannot comment directly on the US but in England, photographs showing dead kids may well not go into evidence, though there will be circumstances when they may. The question before the jury is whether or not person a) killed person b). Generally, it matters not how horrible the killing was or how mutilated the bodies were - the jury simply has to consider if a) killed b), (as well as things like intent etc etc). How horrific the killings were generally only really becomes an issue during sentencing - a matter for the Judge alone. Therefore those photo's usually don't go before a jury as there's nothing to be gained from them seeing them - but an awful lot to be lost. Lawrocket posted above some of the requirements for such evidence to go before a US jury - they are extremely similar to the requirements to be considered by English courts, save for the wording. Here the court must consider whether or not the "probative value of the evidence would out way its prejudicial effect". On this basis, either US courts are more prone to find that there is probative value to even very prejudicial evidence, (perhaps based on some minor difference in the differently worded tests to be applied), or there simply was a good deal of probative value in this particular evidence going before this particular jury. For example, what if there were distinctive cut marks or something which could not be dealt with through simple expert testimony? Maybe there was something of forensic importance? Who knows - we weren't there, (and I certainly don't know as I'm not even familiar with the media reports of the case that prompted this thread). This is the one huge problem with second guessing courts - none of those doing the guessing were actually there to hear all of the evidence. Hell, even if they were there, there are usually arguments going on behind the scenes dealing with this kind of stuff. It's certainly not the kind of argument that gets heard before the jury. On the face things though... I have gained the impression that US courts are more open allowing this kind of evidence to go before juries than are their English counterparts... but I must stress that this impression is based on a very lop-sided exposure to the US vs. English legal system. As such I can't exactly guarantee its accuracy.

hey mate. The camera should work as an intermediary for you to record VCR footage onto the MiniDV tape and then firewire it onto a PC. The link to the manual posted above should help you with exactly how to do that. Or you could use a video capture card on your PC. They're pretty cheap these days and you may even have the feature already on whatever graphics card you have. If you're doing a one off - hell, use the PC105. You may have to fiddle with cables a couple of times but so long as you have an S-video cable or set of phono leads or something it should work fine (note that s-video to scart is notoriously a pain in the arse often results in a B&W picture). If you're looking to do this semi-regularly then I'd consider spending the £10 or so it'll cost to buy the capture card. Try ebuyer.com or something if you want to do it "right"... but I don't think using a camcorder in the middle on this occasion will lead to any quality problems - you're only taking it off VHS anyway. Give me a shout if you get stuck with it; I'm sure I could sort it out my end for you if you need it.

Bill Booth is actively seeking a more reliable RSL shackle design - he has posted as much on here at least a couple of times, inviting any ideas that may be forthcoming. His main focus is on finding a shackle that more reliably stays connected when subjected to force whilst still being at least as easily released as the current design. It would appear that his concern is that the current design is too prone to releasing when under a load, thus representing the weak link in the whole RSL/Skyhook system. Whilst his focus is on exactly the opposite element of the design that you're concerned with - who knows, maybe the next version of the shackle will inadvertently deal with both concerns?

My answer would be simply - don't walk through the swoop landing area. You don't have to walk through it. I don't recall people regularly swooping much past the inflatable arrow, so keep to the far side of that. Or wait till you're sure everyone's landed from the left that's currently up.

As far as I'm aware there are no minimum exit altitudes in the UK for emergency situations. When it comes to emergencies you do what you have to, following instruction from the pilot via the JM, to obtain the least-worst outcome from any given situation. There will be occasions when that means bracing for impact as best you can in whatever time you have left. On the other hand, there will be occasions when that means I keep lobbing static line students out of a very front-heavy glider right down to 500ft – because I can't get out until they're all out and personally, the least-worst outcome for me in many situations is going to be taking the chance that my reserve will open within its TSO limits. That should see me good even after I chuck the last S/L out at 500ft. And S/L students should all be fine even at 500ft – so long as they don't have a mal... but if that's a better bet than landing with whatever we have left of a plane, then that's the bet they need to be taking. But as indicated above – we're all just shooting shit now. In the real world, the bets are all off when that wing comes loose (or whatever). The key thing for someone at your stage of your skydiving career to remember is that you need to follow instructions from the JM and/or pilot as the situation dictates and be ready to do whatever it takes to obtain the least-worst outcome for the given situation. Possible emergencies are so varied that there's little more specific advice that can be given I'm afraid.

As far as I'm aware there are at least 2 DZ's in New Zealand offering full skydiving degrees which are fully recognised by the state and even open to state funding for students. ...not that that probably helps you.

On a purely financial level; it costs more in gas to lift heavier weights. Put simply - a lightweight chick costs less to fly to altitude than a musically bloke does. It might suck, but I can't see why a DZ shouldn't be able to charge more for the musically bloke than the skinny chick when the bloke costs them more than the chick does to fly.

I am what you Yanks would call an Attorney. For what it's worth, in my opinion this whole situation screams that the lawyer contacted the client rather than the other way round. I freely accept however that it could easily have been the other way round... but in my experience the situation described in the article would be extremely unusual if it had been. I'm afraid however, that you will all have to console yourselves with the fact that we'll probably never know and that we are all left to simply guess. ...not that it actually really matters in the grand scale of things.

Cool! Argentina had courts like that. They put people in Skyvans. If they used Skyvans it must have been a good thing.

I've seen it. About this time last year I watched a girl land her reserve at Cark with a bag-locked main trailing under her all the way to landing, despite the fact she had cut it away before deploying her reserve. (lucky girl considering she had to deploy her reserve past the lot). The gear was inspected by a rigger friend who determined that the main risers had not let go because of the set they had taken. Incidentally the bag lock was caused by a shagged out PC - more evidence that the kit simply wasn't well looked after. While you'd have to wonder if maybe the set wouldn't have held against a properly functioning PC, it was strong enough to support the weight of a packed main canopy (about a 210 ish) and resist a shagged pc.

Difference is here though that whilst it may be an English couple bringing the lawsuit, the tactics used by this US lawyer simply wouldn't fly at all in England. He'd be out of buisness inside a couple of years if he worked like this in England.

Just goes to show that Tom Cruse is a pussy and Goose died for nothing simply because Tom wouldn't get the snip.

Sometimes I just don't get the US legal system. There's a law which says AT&T can't give the Govt. this information wihtout a warrant and provides very specific guidance on just how customers can and should sue, as well as detailing the redress which people can expect (including specifying actual $$ ammounts) when they sue under that very legislation. And then when people do what that legislation tells them to do - ie sue AT&T... it's them who are "in the wrong"? Like I said... sometimes I just don't get the US legal system.

Sure - it's pretty much the only time you can guarantee you're not gonna get her knocked up.

Where's the money in that though?