yoink

So just because we had low pull contests back then is a reason to remove the deployment altitude recommendations now then? Just because we didn't have seatbelts in aircraft, we should probably stop insisting people buckle up on take off? This 'we did stuff 30 years ago so x" line of reasoning has to stop. It's ridiculous. There has to be some common sense involved. I'm against an arbitrary figure, but I'm also against a free-for-all. I think a DZ could offer a course of instruction for new camera jumpers which would include coach jumps for a couple of hundred bucks. It's as much to act as a mental barrier to entry as anything else. "OK. You want to jump a camera? Fine. Lets talk about how to do it safely, and then you have the opportunity to prove it to me", rather than people just sticking a camera on and going for it. It forces a little bit of 'take this seriously' mentality. It's not a profit making opportunity - It's an educational one.

Super cool!

I've worked in software development and you're a far better engineer than I am, so you'll know where I'm coming from when I say the more functions you add to something, the more potential for unforeseen interactions there are...no matter how much testing you do. GPS? MMS messaging?... really? THAT'S what we want from an AAD? Please - at least make a model that just does what it's supposed to do (cut the reserve loop) with 99.999% reliability with a decent battery life and I'll buy it. It's like me not buying a phone which has automatic sync to facebook and email. I just want to make phone calls and charge the thing as infrequently as possible. Everything else detracts from the main purpose...

What about people nearby intended targets? Do they count as collateral? I suspect the more explosives being thrown around, the greater the potential for one of them to miss its target... I think the technology is cool. I just think the video of swarm attacking a building is terrifying.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32330382 My favourite bit of the piece is the statement "It will enable the navy to carry out what it calls "precision low-collateral damage strikes" while the video shows a graphical representation of 3 buildings being repeatedly pummeled by a multitude of these swarming drones...

Careful what you wish for, this could end with a requirement for a camera rating and a $1500 course you have to take before taking the test. Nonsense. But maybe a $250 course of instruction with a handful of coached jumps. I'm all for that.

Skydivers are much more practiced at thinking they're better at something than they actually are... 100 jumps used to be a large number in the 70s. You'll agree we've learned some stuff since then? As we learn, we change our understanding of the sport. Recommendations for canopies and gear has changed as we've leart more about what to do and what NOT to do with it... Recommendations for best practices in freefall have changed as we've see trends of what has got people hurt or killed... Not everyone who wants to jump a camera early falls into the 'mad skillz' category - Only those who insist that they know better than far more experienced people do. Others just need some education and don't get that moniker.

Really? I've used some heatshrink tubing in electrical work which constricts at pretty low temperatures. A 4-5 seconds from a hairdryer on medium usually does it.

I wonder how much money this very, very simple solution has cost people so far? Look, if it makes you feel any better, a lot of that goes to lawyers.

Why would aliens go to Atlanta??

I wonder how much money this very, very simple solution has cost people so far?

Nope. Even if this was a black guy, the officer almost certainly wouldn't be in the shit for it. The guy was a threat. the officer stopped it. Good job. However, if it was a black guy who was unarmed, running away down the road & out into the desert and then the cop mowed him down. In THAT case. Yeah. That'd be controversial... There's no race element in this.

I'm not sure about the slow enough part yet. Maybe little thruster rockets at the top of the main body to stabilise the top would help.

So if we give him $701, will he start backing Mile High and telling the media what a terrible person Kim Gibbs is? Who wants to bribe a councilman?

Maybe methodology is the wrong word. If you're testing equipment provided by manufacturers and are then asking the manufacturers for comments on the results of those tests, I just doubt that any will accept negative comments... I look forward to reading the report if it's made public.

New equipment - Alarm bell #1... Rushing to make a load, on unfamiliar equipment - Alarm bell #2... Conlcusion #3 - rushing to make a load is rarely a good idea. It's so easy to make silly mistakes from just forgetting stuff like taking your altimeter to doing up your harness properly (done both of these), to messing up a pack job. I've seen lots of people make similar mistakes for exactly that reason... You've enough experience to know that anything new in skydiving introduces complications, and that you need to take the time to think them through. The PC is just one example - had you thought through the change in flight characteristics of the new canopy, for example? Probably not, because you were rushing to make a load...

So I have to ask - isn't sending the report out to them for comment a bit of a conflict of interest? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. I'm just not 100% convinced on your methodology.

Just so we're clear, if the cop had a tazer used against him but was functional enough to still be able to stand and draw, you think that makes it justifiable to shoot someone running away from you multiple times in the back? What happened to the ' use lethal force if the person is a serious threat' line...? I've seen people on jackass videos get tazed for fun. He didn't run off with the tazer so there was no risk to the public that he was going to go on a rampage with it. IF this really happened, all it changes is that the cops motive goes from 'racist murder' to 'revenge murder'. No everything above this sentence is what you said not me. Your words: 'it would be useless to try and tell that to anyone here' in regards to your belief that you saw tazer wires dangling from the cop. You don't state WHY it would be useless (basically demeaning everyone who posts here), and the first time someone questions you about it, you get defensive. I'm asking you that even if that was true, do you think that changes anything or if it makes the actions of the cop more defensible? It's a straightforward question. Because I think you're just using it as some sort of pointless shot at people you class as 'liberals'. Note: Edited so I don't get shot in the back.

I really don't get the 'I'm going to delete my original post' mentality... So now I have to guess - You have had a bad experience with Freefall Suits, but why wouldn't you want the details out there?

Just so we're clear, if the cop had a tazer used against him but was functional enough to still be able to stand and draw, you think that makes it justifiable to shoot someone running away from you multiple times in the back? What happened to the ' use lethal force if the person is a serious threat' line...? I've seen people on jackass videos get tazed for fun. He didn't run off with the tazer so there was no risk to the public that he was going to go on a rampage with it. IF this really happened, all it changes is that the cops motive goes from 'racist murder' to 'revenge murder'.

That's on a bad day, or an exceptionally subtle troll.

Are the participants the manufacturers of the PCs?

Pros: Lets your canopy fly better. An inflated PC had a tonne of drag and that basically acts as a sky-anchor for your wing. I think it's also been said that it reduces the wear-and-tear on the top skin of your canopy. Cons: You have to remember to cock it every time you pack. It's not a big deal until you forget... Not really. Stick to a main brand and there shouldn't be much of a difference. This one is more of a personal taste thing. Personally, I think you've trained on a handle and your brain has already started associating the metal feel with 'reserve out'. Changing it to a soft handle at this point resets that mental training. It may not be a big deal, or it may be a huge one... I also think that soft handles have more of a tendency to tuck under the webbing than metal handles, but have no data to back that up. Proponents of soft handles will cite the increased risk of snagging on a metal handle vs a pud, particularly in complex VRW formations and at exit. I think that can be mitigated by being careful on your exits and not jumping with people who get grabby... A mini-D handle may be the best choice.

"the gear weight restrictions are set by the parachute manufacturers and the FAA who issue the TSO on reserve equipment. At my dropzone, I enforce those standards based on my experience and concern for the safety of the person in question. I believe they are in line with the vast majority of every other Dropzone in the country..." Seems simple enough to me. I honestly think you're seeing a lawsuit where there isn't any. No one is discriminating against the guy because of things which are out of his control. He's not being refused a jump because of his age. He's being refused because of his weight... His weight and his age combined present a much greater safety risk together than for someone younger. That's just a fact.

Well now... If you're bbqing in the UK and you want to do it more frequently than the 2 sunny days a year we usually get you're going to need to learn a new set of grilling skills. Brits are world champions at bbqing in heavy rain and driving wind... Get an oversize golf umbrella and pick your spot to grill to minimize the wind!