mr2mk1g

Yes that does make a difference to the AAD... but then again... how do you end up going 91mph horizontally? Does this not involve going 91mph vertically then pulling out of the dive? (seriously - I'm guessing there)

It could actually make a huge difference given that this is based on telephone conversations with people all over the world each speaking different languages. If you say "assault" to a Scotsman they might well think you're asking them about how often they have been put in fear of the immediate application of unlawful force. What about if you say "wTypm" to a Russian? "aanval" to a Dutchman? or "angriff" to a German? What kind of interaction do they imagine you are asking them about? Different cultures and more importantly different languages are going to have very different interpretations of the meaning of "assault" or even of the term "violent crime". Unless a survey like this is done very carefully there could indeed be massive variation in the results simply due to linguistic differences alone.

Kinda - it's so there is less distance between the bites on each side of the bag (left and right), thus the bag rotates left and right less during its movement to linestrech. The concept is that the reduced tumbling movement promotes a cleaner, on-heading opening. Others have made their concerns known that it means more line bites and closer line bites down each side (closer front to back). This means there is potentially more risk that one bite will lock over the next causing a bag lock.

I'm a big guy and have recorded an average of 104 in flat wearing an FF suit. With a PC in tow I might go slow enough to not fire an AAD set to go off at 105mph. If I have a baglock slow enough to stand me up I bet I'm going too slow to fire it. Also note the speed quoted on entry to the competition gates as being 91mph in a post above. 91mph is close enough to 105 mph to worry me if I were going that fast. Besides, how soon will swoopers be hitting the gates at 105mph? It only took a couple of years for things to go from Airtec telling people it won't happen to us seeing a fatality from it. I don't think this is the route to go down. I think your other idea however about having an algorithm which can recognize the characteristics of a parachute opening or descent is perhaps better... although there are many hurdles to overcome such as it being able to recognize a mal as a mal and a swoop as a swoop. Perhaps the other idea about a deactivation button is the best all-round, putting control back into the jumper's hands. At least then if their AAD doesn't save them it'll be their fault for switching it off rather than the AAD's fault for thinking they were swooping.

Sorry Deuce, we don't have any sticker or licence which shows you're good to jump camera over here. There are skill based stickers demonstrating competance in things like CF, RW, FF, and the like but nothing that simply says you're headsup and experianced enough to jump a camera. The best you'll get is an endorsement in your logbook from a CCI as there is a requirement that you're "cleared" by the CCI... though I doubt there's that many out there who actually bothered to get such a signiture.

I'm guessing you hold a foreign licence rather than a British "B" licence. In which case the CCI is able to transpose you to what you would be in the UK and thus you're able to jump camera. If you're on a British licence though you might want to get that looked at rather soon.

That's what I said. "If 1" as in 'If a Safire 1'... then it's 7% smaller. "If 2" as in 'If a Safire 2'

hehe, whod'a thunk it - Scots a violent. I thought I'd put up the counterpoint too since I heard it on the radio this morning: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1959952005 Apparently the Cheif Counstable questions the results because they're based on old data and phone calls. I'm surprised he's not questioning it based on the fact that the same survey also shows Northern Ireland to have the lowest crime rate in the world. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1487052/posts

Safire I or II? If 1, note its sizing probably isn't comprable to the Sabre but 7% smaller than ticket... I'd take a Sabre II over a Safire I. If 2, search the forums. You will find several thousand (I really am not kidding) posts about Safire II vs. Sabre II... I'd take a Safire II over a Sabre II. Just my opinions, no one elses.

Yeah I saw that one - and thought of the graph I posted earlier today. Funny that.

Is there a clawback clause in relation to expenditure on non-essentials?

Saw this and thought of this thead: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm So Bush has spent at a rate of $13 trillion faster than the US earns? Man I wish I could get that kinda credit.

Do I get a cut of the incredibly large stakes that ride on this game? If not: sorry, you loose, you're wrong, your friend's right.

How longs a "short delay"? It all depends on that. Sometimes my protrack will log a hop and pop and sometimes it wont. It all depends on how long I delay out the door. It'll work exactly the same on a cutaway - if you've left it long enough to trigger the protrack to think your back in freefall it'll log it as another jump. All it does is sense pressure; it doesn't know or care what's causing the change.

No I'm not.

I'd take a possible leg fracture over a possible spinal fracture leading to permanent paraplegia and pissing in a plastic bag for the rest of my life. Regardless of what you call it, a Parachure Landing Fall or a Parachute Landing Fuck-up - landing on your feet rather than your ass almost always a good idea.

Oh no I'm not.

I'm not.

Conversly though the US administration is convinced they KNOW that humans are not having an effect on things... the Greenies would probably be happy with them saying it's possible and just perhaps it might be an idea to guard against that possability given the serious ramifications of that possability being true. And that's why you can not argue with them...

Does that mean that since not every knee bows to Him that Niche was right?

That's because you've not been touched by His noodly appendage.

If I'm required to say them and I simply hide at the back of the group reciting the pledge and hope none of the officials notice that I have simply remained silent while everyone else said "under God" the officials will believe I have also said "under God". They will tick their little box which says I recited the pledge in full and for all the world would think I said them. That is allowing people to believe something that is not true. That is lying by omission. That may not be important to you, but I hold truth and honor in very high regard; especially truth to myself and especially during such serious ceremonies as a naturalization ceremony.

I would do so if I end up going down that route. For the moment, what I have been led to believe is enough for me in a discussion on the web on a lazy friday avo'. hehe

PLF

I hold my religious views very dearly. Whether or not I vow to be under a God is quite important to me. I wouldn't want to lie or even lie by omission during such a ceremony. And as I understand it, it is not simply optional whether an immigrant recites the whole of the pledge or not . I dunno - at least you let black people emigrate to the states... those with genuine religious convictions which conflict with those espoused by the pledge of allegiance are evidently not at all welcome. I'm not at all trolling - it quite a serious analogy. As I said, discrimination is discrimination regardless of the grounds.