champu

It really depends on how loosely or tightly you define "anger" as emotions are really a rat's nest and not as severable as our language used to describe them would suggest.

Do you consider that the AAD can kill you, in a situation where you would have been absolutely fine if you did not have one? there are always two sides to the coin... Sure... That's why it remains important to look into misfires. As I mentioned in another thread, unspecified performance is really the only thing that worries me and, yes, I understand that in the past all the manufacturers have had issues. As of today I'm comfortable enough with the behavior of the Cypres 2 to use it. I can't say the same for any of the other AADs.

Holy crap, is anyone is this thread NOT trolling?

Because he loads his reserve at 1.7? When I was demoing an OP-126 as a main a while back that's actually something I didn't think to try out at the time. Leave the brakes stowed and chest strap cinched as I would have it in freefall and lean all my weight on one side of the harness. I think I'll shoot PD an e-mail and make sure they bring one out for Bridge the Gap so I can give it a shot.

Actually, looking into it a little further, they're not. They provided a bunch of computer infrastructure and technology to the ONS who are collecting the census data. They shouldn't be involved AT ALL Okay...

Actually, looking into it a little further, they're not. They provided a bunch of computer infrastructure and technology to the ONS who are collecting the census data.

My last couple posts were snotty, sorry about that. There's a layer of distinction that I want to drive home regarding some of the problems AADs have had. The way I see it, there are four things the device can do (these are, of course, not mutually exclusive) - Perform as desired (what you want) - Perform as specified (what they're selling you) - Perform as designed (what they're offering) - Not perform as designed (??? - who knows) I think everybody is on the same page regarding what should be done by companies in situations where the device doesn't perform as designed like cutter failures and faulty pressure sensors. The units need to be recalled and the components need to be dealt with. The instances where the Cypres fired during a swoop is what happens when a device performs as specified, but not as desired. The back and forth Airtec went through in skydiving magazine was them defending the specifications they choose. "We don't think you can fly your canopy fast enough to set it off while swooping." They have since been proven wrong, but the "rules of the game" were right there for everybody to see the whole time. They've also introduced a new unit with different specifications for those that desire different performance. The instances where Vigils have fired in airplanes, car trunks, or (one that I witnessed first hand) just sitting on the ground in the packing area is what happens when a device performs as designed but neither as specified nor desired. When AAD says, "The Vigil performed exactly as designed" they are completely missing a fundamental engineering concept: no one cares how highly you regard your broken design. It's time for them to either fix their design or change the spec to better reflect what they're offering.

If the website, users manual, etc. said, "Will fire when transitioning from at most X Pa to at least Y Pa in less than Z ms." then I would agree with you. That's not what it says. That's not the advertised specification. I don't care if their problem is a lame software algorithm, a mechanical design flaw, or a manufacturing defect, if the thing fires outside of its advertised specifications, it's a malfunction. /edited to add: by the way, I'm aware that AAD has responded to the incidents by saying that their device performed exactly as designed. That tells me they don't understand the above concept either, and that's why I will never buy nor recommend one of their products.

This thread has a pretty good discussion of the reasoning and trade-offs.

I'm interested only if it's a Raven Dash-MZ

Nonsense. Here is Airtec's page describing the Cypres firing parameters. Here's AAD's page describing the Vigil firing parameters. The advertised parameters are speed and altitude. Of course we all know that these parameters are calculated based on a pressure sensor and an internal system clock, but the specifics there are not advertised nor published. If your AAD fires for any reason whatsoever and you were not descending faster than the advertised speed and within the advertised altitude range, then it constitutes a malfunction, period.

Well sure, he'd have to ...what with being wrong and all.

You are painting with a broad brush here. I have some libertarian leanings and am against the state being involved in regulating relationships between adults (including marriage as a default civil contract). I believe couples should make their own contracts between themselves if they wish. I also believe the government should treat people equally as individuals. I do not support these things because I am somehow otherwise against gay marriage. I have stated that I would prefer state and federal government recognize gay marriage rather than continue the unequal treatment that exists now. I believe that time is surely coming quickly. I also realize that the state doing away with marriage is fairly unlikely. That doesn't mean I have to stop supporting it as the preferred outcome which is consistent with my personal beliefs and philosophy. Thank you for forcing me to clarify. I think (1) as a standalone goal is perfectly valid and I didn't mean to suggest that everyone who takes that stance is doing so as an insincere gesture of support for equality. The key difference in your case is the clause, "...in the meantime, treat homosexual couples equally."

I would hope that if one has been in the 100k range for the past three decades that they saved enough money and had enough networking contacts that they (alone or with partners) could open their own company and create more jobs. Or retire. You'd hope for that many years he's been squirreling it away using 401k or some other savings/investment vehicle. Well, even if he or she hasn't been working for that long or doesn't have a long list of contacts to start something up, going from $100K+ to a starbucks gig takes a lack of imagination. Hopefully the person would have some sort of secondary skill set (think: computer skills, writing, event organization, management) that they use at their job (and are thus current at it) that can be adapted to an otherwise unrelated field for, say, half what they used to make instead of a quarter or a fifth.

Through the tax code, the government encourages certain behaviors including... - Buying a house (write off mortgage interest and property taxes) - Investing in a retirement fund (401(k) and other tax deferrals) - Getting married and having one person be the primary bread-winner (joint filing and no imputed income on partner health coverage) - Having children (dependant deductions and, again, no imputed income for health coverage) - Putting your kids through school (write off education expenses) Which, to me anyway, starts looking like a list of someone's idea of "normal." I'm not saying there's a hand-kneading troll behind a curtain somewhere making this list up, but just that between the government tending towards stability and people tending towards getting perks for things they were going to do anyway, this is the kind of list that emerges. The monetary tax perks related to being married, as well as a number of other rights associated with being married, are not available to homosexual couples whether they have a "civil union" or otherwise. The simplest solution for this imbalance, to me, is to let homosexuals get married. Some people, however, don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married for whatever reason and so they do one of three things: 1) Suggest that we remove some or all of the perks and advantages of being married, saying that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. 2) Suggest that we create an entirely equivilant thing called "civil unions" or "garriage" or something with all the same benefits and rights as marriage (but don't call it marriage) 3) Protest soldiers funerals with signs that say, "God hates fags." The reason the debate is so exasperating is because 1) and 2) are political impossibilites. And you can explain to the people that suggested them why they're never going to happen, and they'll probably agree with you. But then at the end of the discussion they'll still insist that homosexuals not be allowed to get married and that, "Hey, I suggested 1) or 2), it's not my fault it didn't work out." all the while happily enjoying the imbalanced benefits and rights.

only reprehensible if you get caught. Taking THOUSANDS of pictures is a good way to get caught... It's worth noting that the court marshall / investigation of these soldiers (and I believe at least one negotiated guilty plea) had been going on for quite a while before Der Spiegel obtained / published these photos. In other words the photos were indeed evidence but didn't have much to do with them "getting caught." I say that because it's my opinion there is a material difference between the military self-policing and the military only doing something because the media outed them.

Does anyone else's brow furrow just a little when the rebels rush over to the wreckage of a US aircraft and stand all over it? http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/photo/07ai1LcgKB7Yh?q=Libya Other photos show the wings and vertical stabilizers largely intact but it's difficult to tell if any US markings are readily apparent, so I suppose they might not know to whom it belonged.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Have you tried to pull a main slink setup through a #5 grommet? It would be interesting to see if it is possible. I'm assuming a #5 is 5/8" ID. I wonder if a pull-through is a real problem. The bag will still extract and the canopy will deploy. The kill line may not function, only a problem on highly loaded canopies. Most (but by no means all) highly loaded canopies are small and light so the snatch force that could result in a pull-through is relatively low making a pull through less likely to start with. The photo I posted in the other thread was a main slink through a #4 grommet (which is smaller than a #5, though just barely if I remember correctly) My concern regarding a pull through would be that the pilot chute collapses after the pin is extracted but before the bag is extracted or before line stretch. This could result in a number of problems.

There was a discussion about this a few months ago but the exact setup you're talking about (#5 grommet; Cazer PC; reserve slink) didn't come up. I keep forgetting to test out a reserve slink so while I think it should probably be fine I can't say for sure. I will say I would definitely not use a main slink.

Looks like a MiG-23... so... it could be anybody.

It is.

Literacy.

Well, you have my regards for trying.

Agreed. And someday the general public will wonder why our generation had a hard time accepting gay unions as marriages. You've done a good job explaining your viewpoint, I understand it, and I'm not going to come at you over it, but this comment brings up a question. If the definition of marriage has evolved, and you feel it may again eventually, then what is your stance on amending constitutions (state or federal) to "lock down" the definition to being hetero-only when it appeared to be undergoing said evolution (i.e. after gay people started getting married)? As an aside, I can appreciate getting put in a defensive stance. I got "yelled at" for something I didn't even write. (see post #60)