timmyfitz

Really? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3002353;search_string=bias%20fox;#3002353 You win. I missed that post. He still didn't claim FOX to be biased or unbiased. He just wrote what was reported about FOX news. Your claim still doesn't hold up.

Really? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3002353;search_string=bias%20fox;#3002353 You win. I missed that post. He still didn't claim FOX to be biased or unbiased. He just wrote what was reported about FOX news. Your claim still doesn't hold up. Still two more post dates to address. Next. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

"Interpretation: you have no coherent argument with the content of his post and you can't compromise the legitimacy of the source." Yeppers. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

Oops, you forgot this part..... What is in that post that you are trying to use to make a point? Nothing there that I can see where he has said FOX is biased or unbiased. Please point it out. Nothing there either Kallend No post made by rushmc on Nov 2, 2007 at 4:15PM Are you just making stuff up again? I can understand why you would want to redirect since you are just making stuff up. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

What is in that post that you are trying to use to make a point? Nothing there that I can see where he has said FOX is biased or unbiased. Please point it out. Nothing there either Kallend No post made by rushmc on Nov 2, 2007 at 4:15PM Are you just making stuff up again? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

I now understand why you are posting and pushing this.

Would you describe the current political makeup of federal elected office to also be the result of the average dumb American voter? Of course not. Those were the smart voters because he agrees with the results. They are only dumb voters when he disagrees with the results. Haven't you learned how the game is played yet? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

True. Because crime never happens outside of gang territory, at any hour. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

Nothing funny about that. Buy things with credit you can't afford to buy immediately with cash or buy an expensive house or car outside of your budget to keep up with the Jones. Then when you get a raise and make more money, buy more stuff. In the end you have "I make the most money I've ever made, but yet, I have the least "mad money" after i balance the checkbook as I have ever had".

I guess you did not IIRC. I guess I RC'ed good enough. I guess not.

Bad example. The accused still gets a trial. In the example from Dave, there is no possibility of a trial. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

I guess you did not IIRC.

It's 1.5 times smaller after you pack it? I would love to see that trick but if it's 1.5 times smaller in the end I guess you wouldn't see it.

Did they really tell you to fuck off or are you trying to embellish your story a little? I guess it would be the latter. I do agree with you though about Western Union. It is a risk for the buyer, not the seller. If the person selling the gear went to Western Union and was not handed cash, then they don't ship the item. Pretty simple. A lot of people have become apprehensive to use Western Union because of the scams that are sometimes associated with it. As a seller receiving money from Western Union there is very little to no risk.

And then the prediction is it will get MUCH worse in 2011. This is very dependent however on whether congress decides to increase or decrease punishment on large and small business AND whether the current level of fed spending is maintained or increased You guys have been wrong all year, esp Stanley with his market predictions, now that the GDP is smoking hot and unemp stabilized, you guys are focusing in 2011. Great for laughs. I guess if your current predictions or past predictions of today tank, you have to make new predictions for future years. _________________________________________________ Hey Lucky it looks like your wrong again.GDP has been dropping and unemployment has been rising. He is not wrong, he was just misquoted. Trust me, it's real and legit. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

I never said it wasn't possible to fly your canopy under the next group. I said it was unlikely if you started out with adequate separation at exit and everyone involved kept to their own airspace in freefall. Of course it's possible. It happened. The question is what factors may have contributed to that problem and may need to be addressed in avoiding such problems in future. Avoiding flight up or down jump run immediately after deployment will help, but so will avoiding movement up or down jump run in freefall and adequate separation to start with and canopy flight alone is unlikely to be the sole contributor. Okee dokie.

I'll say it again, under most conditions, if you have adequate exit separation, it is simply not possible to fly your open canopy underneath the next group before they deploy. The canopy simply doesn't have sufficient forward speed. The exception to this is if you have a large difference between winds at exit altitude and deployment altitude, then it may become possible. Taking a simple example case of no winds, 85 knot jump run, 20mph canopy air speed, 7 seconds between groups, jumpers fall straight down and track 200' from centre at break off. If we have two jumpers in adjacent groups tracking towards each other, they're deployment positions are still 600' apart. In the 7 seconds it takes the second jumper to get to deployment altitude, the first jumper could fly about 200' closer to his deployment position, but that still leaves them 400' apart. The distance can get smaller as you increase the upper winds (or more correctly, the difference between the upper and lower winds), however, the difference has to get pretty significant before you start to get people over top of open canopies - like about 40+ knots difference. That could happen, but I can't recall any time I've seen that and considered the ground conditions as jumpable, so at best, I'm thinking that is rare. Could avoiding flying up/down jump run immediately after opening mitigate these risks further? Sure it could. Is that something I'd want to rely on? No. Who knows what direction your canopy may be flying in if you're kicking out of line twists or some other correctable canopy issue. If you're finding yourself opening above other canopies, you need to look at the exit and freefall to resolve the problem. It is possible to fly your canopy under a group that exited after you. If you can't see how it's possible, sorry. Just about everything is possible so never say never. And as you pointed out, there are always exceptions. In a perfect world we would all be perfect. But it is not and we are not.

I am curious what your reasoning is that you stick with a split bag for F111?

should take your own words to heart then! Ladies and gentlemen, may I present "the troll". virgin-burner's favorite things are skydiving and causing trouble. It says so on his profile! uh-uh, you're really a mind of genius; still like to insult people via PM? tells me more about you than my profile does about me.. That's some funny shit VB. I guess you forgot about the PM you sent me titled "go" and the body of the PM only contained the words "fuck yourself". LMAO! I gotta remember that one! How did you reply? I didn't because I couldn't. He blocked me from PM's right after he sent his.

From your link it says it reduces bag "rock" not bag lock.

Airplanes still have collisions in the pattern, no matter what rules the FAA has established. At least there is a plan. Right now there are no rules, just an informal agreement that changes with the wind! I guess you missed my point. I guess I did too. What WAS your point? - Rules are useless? - Rules are made to be broken? - Rules are for sissies? - We don't need no stinkin' rules? - ????? It was inferred that by mandating more rules this will "fix" the problem. I am not against standardize rules for landing patterns. I am all for them. Having standard rules for landing patterns is good and will reduce the possibility of collisions. I am just not naive enough to believe more rules will "fix" the problem as my example shows.

should take your own words to heart then! Ladies and gentlemen, may I present "the troll". virgin-burner's favorite things are skydiving and causing trouble. It says so on his profile! uh-uh, you're really a mind of genius; still like to insult people via PM? tells me more about you than my profile does about me.. That's some funny shit VB. I guess you forgot about the PM you sent me titled "go" and the body of the PM only contained the words "fuck yourself".

Under most conditions, your exit separation should be sufficient that people should not be able to fly their canopy underneath you before you deploy. My guess is that this was probably caused by one of the following: insufficient exit separation. How long did you leave between groups at exit? one or the other group flying up or down jump run in freefall. Most likely causes are newbie sitfliers backsliding all over the sky or people tracking more than necessary from their group. Keep in mind that all you need is adequate separation. You don't need to track a mile to get separation from a 4-way. Ridiculously high upper winds. For example, if you had 65 knot winds at 12000' but only 10 knots at 3000', your exit delay would be long enough that a canopy would have sufficient time to fly underneath you before you open. That said, this is a fairly unlikely scenario that I don't think you would see very often in most places. If something like this happens again, it would be worthwhile talking with the other jumper to figure out why this happened so you can avoid it better in the future. It sounds like you did, but I think this was most likely caused by something in either your or his/her freefall or exit, not from his/her canopy flight. Or it could have been due to what he said in his post:

There is not an FAR that requires a pilot of a skydiving plane to wear a parachute. That is a requirement of the STC. There is an FAR that requires all occupants to wear a parachute if the plane is banked more than 60 degrees or exceeds a pitch angle greater than 30 degrees.

Seems as though he was talking about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.