mr2mk1g

We've all got our little something extra's for the weekends eh.

The only retards about are those who think that's a site devoted to a real hobby.

Now THAT's a good rumor.

ok... who's gonna photoshop Bin Laden into the waterskiing scene?

Just remember that in the UK you're required to have at least 200 jumps before you even make your first camera jump ever. Say you spent your next 80 jumps working with a camera flyer who was willing to teach you (or at least jump with an RW jumper + a get tips off a camera guy on the ground) then it may just be possible for you to start filming people at that point. If: You're able to demonstrate you have the skills to keep the tandem pair safe - ie good belly skills. You're able to demonstrate the ability to get the shot when you need to. Probably also you're able to find a tandem master/DZ who is willing to take you on as a protege' A friend has just done essentially this. He started doing tandem video at about 220 jumps because he had a tandem master friend who was willing to let him try it and he had the £££ to throw at the gear. Some of the video I've seen is fucking scary. I mean seriously scary. He's now on the video rotation for at least 2 DZ's so it is possible. The last video I saw was a passable product and with the camera he has you'd have to be a blind monkey not to be able to get at least a good couple of shots. So that's the skill set you're going to have to have before you can even do your first tandem jump. 80 jumps at £18/ jump is £1440. Next you will need equipment. If you're going second hand say at least £400 for the video. £400 for the stills. £300 for a new helmet. £200 minimum for some accessories bite switches, mounts and other crap. That's £1300 on gear before you think about a suit or media to record onto. So figure £2740 before travel and misc. or any coached jumps you'll need to get your skills up. Sorry if this sounds like I'm beating up on your idea - I'm just trying to give you a realistic idea of what you're going to have to shell out before the CCI is actually going to even listen to you. If you're serious, start coached jumps now (more ££ unless you have a friend) and start ingratiating yourself with some tandem masters and the CCI. Also check out a thread in the camera forum about all the little things about camera flying - the pro's there do a much better job of outlining the money involved in the equipment than I have done. Sorry this probably isn't the answer you wanted to hear.

So... essentially what you're saying is... you want your country to wage war on Islam. That's what you're saying isn't it? (or rather those who are misusing it... which you conclude above includes most current Islamic states in the world).

Well actually it's a beautiful sunny day and I'll probably go fly a flexifoil tonight before having a crisp, ice-cold Kronenberg Blank in the White Bear but... eh wouldn't want to disappoint anyone by spoiling a stereotype.

Not really. We Brits are famous for our stoicism. I'm sure I'll be able to soldier on with a stiff upper lip and a nice cup of tea, despite the terrible malaise I feel at being physically forced to read this forum. After I've walked home in the drizzle I shall have a warm beer and gaze out at the fog...

I often feel let down by people's posts in the SC. I rarely hold out much expectation for anything greater.

both and neither. The eye protection I wear look just like a set of sunglasses but actually have foam protection round the frame and an elasticated lanyard running round the back of my head which I can clip on and off from the arms. I have the best of both worlds... although I've yet to be able to find a place which sells an exact replacement... all the one's I've found so far are similar but crappy versions of the same thing. In the UK I think by far the majority of people wear goggels, although I know several people who are quite happy with normal sunglasses and rarely have an issue. As I said though - it's when you do have an issue with them that you want to worry about. If you don't feel comfortable dealing with that in freefall yet don't put yourself in that position.

Until you're licensed you will be required to wear clear goggles anyway so that your instructor can see your eyes. Once licensed its up to you... though I suggest you stick to goggles till you're completely comfortable with the idea of doing an entire jump with the wind blowing in your eyes because you glasses came off/are ineffective. You'll also often find that RW coaches or just people on RW jumps will want to be able to see your eyes too so bear that in mind.

If it helps, it would appear that Adrian commenced his maneuver at approx 1800ft. (as per results from cypres investigations posted recently). Not an answer to your questions, but is at least a piece to the puzzle.

Nah, the best one there is to say: "You take your shoe off and shove it up your arse... [pause and admire puzzled looks on faces]... It'll give you something to do and at least you can laugh at the thought of the accident investigators sleepless nights as he trys to figure out why your shoe got stuck up your arse."

You're in the UK. Tell them that the vast proportion of skydiving deaths are very experianced skydivers either deliberately increasing the risks they take for fun. (true) Tell them that we have only ever had one student fatality during an AFF program in this country ever. (true) Tell them that more people are killed each year by stepping out in front of a bus than are killed skydiving (true) (I then often introduce them to my friend "Crazy Mike" who's a bus driver). Then actually address their question. People die. They're generally experianced. Pure equipment failure is very rare. Double mals are almost unheard of. It's generally a fuckup by the jumper - that's why training is important - that's why we give you a whole 8 hours training before we let you anywhere near a plane - that's why the first jump course costs as much as it does - because we give you all this training to keep you safe - that's why subsequent jumps cost as much as they do - to give you more training to keep you safe. ie address their question in a serious and honest manner, then divert their attnetion from death to the tranining given to keep them safe, and use that as in positive maner to explain why the FJC is so expensive (which is generally the whuffos other main concern when talking to you). btw, when faced with costs questions talk about exp. jump prices first - ie "once you're qualified it cost as little as £5 a jump". Have them realise that its not as expensive as everyone thinks. Keep things funny. Tell women they can afford shoes as well as skydiving. Tell men they can afford beer as well as skydiving, in fact tell them it's a requirement. Then move backwards through student training (again focusing on how they're buying training and instructor time) then finish up on their FJC cost explaining that it's all the saftey training that makes it that expensive. After all - they wouldn't want to go without that saftey tranining would they, even if it is a little expensive.

Ok, at the risk of shamelessly violating the manufacturers intellectual property rights, the difference between the A and D lines on my kite is roughly: 0. That's right, nothing! The first set of lines (from center) are roughly as follows (in inches from canopy to cascade for the each pair – ie there are two A lines, two B lines etc etc): A: 36 B: 35 C: 35 D: 36 Each attachment point is 7" from the next meaning there is 21" between the A and D lines. There are 3 further sets of lines, each with the same relative lengths although they become progressively shorter towards the outer edge of the canopy to produce a slightly crescent shape to the wing edge-on. The last set of lines goes straight to the edge of the wing. Each A/B/C/D line splits 18" from the kite into two before attaching to the bottom skin in the normal way. (ie there are two 36" A lines, two 35" B lines and so on as I have given the measurement for the lines from canopy to the second cascade where the A lines meet the B,C and D lines). The brake lines are separate and adjustable so there's no point me telling you their length. Needless to say, just as with a canopy they need to be bowed out slightly in normal flight but you should be able to easily stall out the side of the canopy if you wish. The lines are attached to handles which are bent away from you to allow for easy control of the brake lines. You're probably best off taking a look at a kite here, or even better would be getting a kiting lesson so you know how the thing should handle... hell there's even a "right" way to hold the handles to allow for effective control over the wing. An alternative control mechanism would be to attach each suspension line to the end of a bar and create a pulley system for the brake lines. Id guess this may even be best if youre building something very big. All the suspension lines come together in staged cascades within the first meter or two of the kite. After that there is simply 1 line for each side of the wing with all ABC and D lines going into just one line for each side. When you turn the kite you are effectively doing what would be a harness turn on a parachute - there is no such thing as front or rear riser turns with a kite (unless you wanted to build it so you could of course... it's your project after all). I hear though that harness turns are the most efficient turn you can make (so I hear anyway) so it makes a lot of sense to me to have a kite set up this way, especially given the fact your essentially flying a parachute with a wing loading of about 20:1. Brake lines are of course separate (giving you 4 lines in total) but are not the primary method of controlling the kite. They are however useful for re-trimming it, reversing it or stalling out a side to produce a fast spin and can be used to control the amount of power your kite produces. *now the obligatory warning* Be fucking careful. I damn nearly killed myself this evening in winds which would be legal to skydive in. I was flying a 10.5 square foot kite (although they're generally measured in meters). It can easily lift me off the ground if I want it to and I generally spend my time being dragged about the field at speed. This kite is one of the smallest in its class as I bought it to fly at the DZ on days I was winded out. Im now thinking that may just be a tad too fecking dangerous anyway. Kites are commercially available anything up to sizes above that which Luigi would be comfortable jumping! Build yourself some "kite killers". Seriously, this isn't even a joke, you MUST do this. These are a pair of leashes just like on a surf board. You put one round each wrist and the end of the leashes go to the brake lines of the kite. If you're ever in trouble (which I damn near guarantee you will find yourself the first time you try to fly this thing) simply let go. The leashes will ensure the brake lines are pulled right in and the kite simply collapses, flying gently to the ground. Without this bit of kit you will either lose your kite or hurt yourself. Seriously! Now, have fun and post pictures.

Think about the way the harness is made. There is a given distance between the bottom of the leg straps and the chest strap. This distance is determined by the length of the webbing that runs down your sides (which can often be adjusted on student gear) and also in part by how tight you do up the leg straps (thus changing their length). If this length exceeds the length between your legs and your neck you're gonna have the kind of problem you experienced on your last jump. Its as simple as that. Do up your leg straps as tight as is comfortable (not so tight as to cut off circulation though). Also tell your instructor about your previous problem and ensure they tighten the webbing on the sides of your harness where appropriate/possible. Try and replicate the problem on the ground by having your instructor lift the rig up while you're wearing it. If this causes a problem then you can take steps to rectify it before you jump. If not then you can relax, secure in the knowledge that you're probably not going to have the problem. Hopefully this will ensure that you're longer than your harness.

no no, not at all. I specifically stated that I wasn't saying any of this was going on, just observing that some here are complaining that the new laws make it easier to happen. I personally have no complaint either way - just trying to clear up the argument others are putting so as to clarify the issues between the two sides.

no quarrels with me there.

Yes yes, that was supposed to be included in the etc etc. I didn't want to have to write out an exhaustive list of everything a construction company has to take into account in costing a contract. That would indeed be legal. Skimming a government contract funded by taxpayers money though? I don't know, I'm not that kind of lawyer, nor from the states... I do question it on moral grounds though.

Ah I see. You want to ensure profiteering? I think you probably mean you want to ensure profiting. That's good - profit is necessary in a capitalist economy as you rightly point out. Profiteering in these circumstances is where companies get paid by the govt. with public money (ie your taxes) and they are paid say (for example) based on their paying workers $30/hour plus overheads materials etc etc and a fair profit on the contract. They then employ workers at $10/hour (again simple example figures) and pocket the difference. So they’re pocketing $20/hour/employee. This law ensures that is possible because they are able to pay below prevailing wage. If they had to pay prevailing wage there would be no way to companies to skim off the top and jip the taxpayer out of their money. This way, you end up with big businesses pocketing millions of dollars of tax payer's money. That in these circumstances is profiteering... and it's your money that's going into their pockets to buy them their yachts. Profit - good Profiteering - bad That is of course, not to say this is actually going on... just that this law makes it easier for it to happen. That's what people are getting in a tizzy about.

I'd attack the hijackers on principle... unless it appeared that there may be a non-violent solution; in which case such action may simply be needlessly endangering the rest of the passengers... but in a 9/11 type scenario, rig be damned I'd say "lets roll".

The likelihood of survival is probably quite poor. You will often find you have to clear wings/engines before you get clear which would not be possible. That's without the issues with the speed you'd be going... 500mph wind isn't exactly friendly. That said, I can well imagine a plane/exit point where it would be possible... and a chance is a chance. On the other side of the coin is landing with the plane. Statistically you have quite a high chance of survival given the number of people who have walked away from crashes... but again I can easily see a situation where it's quite obvious you're going to die on impact. I guess if you've got the choice you could take the chance if it were nessasery... but in most situations you're probably simply endangering yourself further than if you just stay put and belt up.

That's what he asked you isn't it? You then made a statement about minimum wage... which isn't the issue here, only "prevailing wage" which Bush has just created a law to waive (ie... what this whole thread is about). Kallend is asking what has been done to prevent companies hiring workers and then profiteering... essentially the same question you ask if you don't care about whether or not the workers are being paid above or below the prevailing wage... either way no one's any the clearer about whether or not something is in place to stop companies profiteering.

Well a little bit of everything. (from memory so will probably be a little inaccurate here and there) 2 helicopter jumps hanging from the skid. 2 demos 3 hybrids 6 FF competition jumps 5 training 3-way FF jumps 5 filming 3-way belly jumps 5 accuracy competition jumps (all DC's) 10 training 3-way FF jumps 12 2-way FF jumps in Russia out of an MI8 helicopter. And my next jump will be another demo (assuming the weather's ok at the weekend).

The matter really can be seen quite simply: Were the Basra police acting legally when they handed prisoners over to terrorists? The answer here has to be “no”. No police force in the world can be said to be acting legally in handing a prisoner over to a terrorist and illegal organization to detain with the hope that they will be able to exchange the two soldiers for terrorists legally captured earlier in the month following a terrorist attack. So we have a situation where we know the Basra police have acted illegally, and those illegal actions have caused the lives of two British servicemen to be threatened. It should therefore follow that British forces have the right to use force against those rogue elements of the police who are acting illegally in order to secure the safety of servicemen who have been placed in the hands of terrorists. Here’s some questions for you: Y’a know how the Warrior vehicle broke through the wall of the police station in order to free 6 officers who had gone in to negotiate with the police and subsequently been held hostage? What legal authority did the Iraqi police have for holding those 6 officers prisoner? What law had those 6 officers broken which entitled the police to detain them rather than hand them over to coalition forces as Iraqi law requires? (You do realize it was 6 negotiators held hostage who were busted out of the jail right, not two SAS troopers yeah? The troopers were held in a house in Basra by terrorists; not in the jail.)