Gary73

Guys, the first time that TSA finds ANY kind of contraband in a rig, they're going to start opening BOTH containers on EVERY rig that any skydiver tries to take on an airliner. Please, people: show a little consideration for the rest of us, okay? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

What happened to the post about the Argus SB recalling certain cutter heads? Can't seem to find it anymore. And on that subject, why hasn't Aviacom had the guts to mention it on their own web site? Thanks "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Different dropzones use different training programs. Some are different enough from AFF that you won't be able to just do the level you were scheduled for at your home dropzone, but most likely you'll be able to do something close to it, particularly if you're fairly far along in the program. Then when you get back "home", hopefully you'll get full credit for your other jump. So yeah, definitely call them ASAP to find out what they'll want and to schedule that jump, but also talk to the folks at your current DZ to find out how they're going to deal with it all. Good luck! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I have the 1997 and 1999 manuals in .pdf format. PM me your e-mail address if you'd like either one. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

With USPA, all parachute jumps count toward license requirements. Used to be only freefalls counted, but they changed that some years ago. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Seems to me that the only safe place for a Vigil-equipped jumper to sit is ON THE DAMN GROUND! Seriously, folks, an accidental reserve fire can kill an entire plane-load of people, not just the guy who decided to save a few bucks on his AAD. We need to stop making excuses for Vigils and ground them all before there's a fatality. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Risers are supposed to stay with the rig they were made for, but in this kind of swap it's way quicker to keep them with the canopy. Functionally it usually isn't a problem, as long as the RSL rings are in the same place on both rigs, but you're certainly within your rights to ask the rigger to do it the way you intended it to be done. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

We fixed the royalty problem here a couple of centuries ago; you guys seem to be lagging behind so I thought you could use some help! Seriously, dude, if you want to bash America you're in the right forum, just the wrong thread. Start your own; don't hijack mine. Fair enough? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Please don't assume that I support every policy that my government has ever pursued. I'm an American, but believing in the principles upon which my country was founded means that I cannot help but be deeply ashamed at some of the things that it has done. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Yes, I read that part, too. Again, it goes toward mindset, but stating that we have Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness says almost nothing about the form that any future government will take. Now, can we get back to the original question? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

A lot of the same people were involved with creating the DoI and the Constitution, and certainly it can be referred to as a founding document and an indication of the mindset of the Framers of the Constitution, but no, it's not really part of the American legal system; it just gives the reasons why we wanted to be an independent nation and sets the stage for whatever government we chose to form after that. But even there, the authors made it clear that the right to govern comes from the people, not from any divine being. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and legal system, and doesn't refer to the DoI a single time. But all of this is not really relevant to the original question, which people keep avoiding: Are royal families appointed by God? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention God anywhere, and it's only mention of religion is to guarantee that the government will stay out of that business. Agreed. Check British law. The monarch actually has some real power in certain cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers But even if they were just symbolic, why should they have any official standing at all? That was the intent - to nudge people into actually thinking about how monarchs get their power. Few people ever think about that; they just go with the flow. Even here in the States we're raised on fairy tales which reinforce the belief that royal families are better that the rest of us. Even the evil or simply incompetent royals are acknowledged to have special standing, and there's no legal way to remove them from office. So yes, to me there is no middle ground: either the royals were appointed by God (not likely) or they simply took power on their own and brainwashed generations of people into believing that God appointed them. So which one is it? Actually I have, but as important as the document was in beginning the trend of limiting the power of royal families, it still states that kings, barons, etc., were endowed by God with the right to rule over the rest of us. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html So again: are members of royal families appointed by God or not? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some good points, but the violence and treachery I was referring to was the kind that was perpetrated by the royalty upon the peasants in order to get and keep power. What I keep asking here, and what no one has even tried to answer, is not how good the leadership is or how smooth the successions are, but rather the most fundamental question that can be asked of any government: "Who made you the boss of everybody?". In America, the answer is that really big "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution. In other times and places the royalty has claimed that some divine being has appointed them to be the leaders, after which they promptly killed anyone who said otherwise. So if you believe that royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

N/A

There's a difference between being narrow-minded and having thought about a matter long enough to have reached a firm conclusion. I don't need to think about whether 1 + 1 = 2 or whether a government derives the right to govern from the people. The governments you refer to are, I believe, more properly termed "constitutional monarchies", since the monarchs are restricted by laws imposed on them by the people, starting with the Magna Carta. But either way, the question is: "By what right do monarchs rule over their subjects?". Monarchs can't be voted out of office, so they don't get that right from the people. And If they don't derive that right from God, then they're just hereditary dictators with unusually good public-relations people. And how did these families establish and maintain their positions? Mostly with violence, treachery, and distinctly unholy alliances with whatever religion was most powerful at that time and place. Oh, WRT the current economic problems, those are mainly the result of greed and poorly thought-out government policies, problems which happen pretty much independently of time, place, and form of govenrment, unfortunately. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Sorry; can't buy that. By their very nature, monarchies deny the people the right to choose their own leaders, and are therefore inherently wrong. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Doesn't it have to be either 1 or 2? And if it's 2, why do so many people still fawn over them? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some valid points above, but for me the bottom line is that I have six or seven reserve deployments with Vector pilot chutes and they all went just fine, both high-speed and low. (Five were Vector Tandems, at my old dropzone, namely not my pack jobs, so no comments about packing lessons, please!) Also, as a rigger, I appreciate the very low pack volume of the no-mesh design. Some manufacturers seem to be going for maximum volume, what with unnecessary vanes, high-bulk mesh (the kind that looks like chicken wire), and long sections of material between the bridle attach point and the bottom of the spring. All that would be fine if that was necessary to get a good deployment, but it's not, so what good is it? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Can't get photo of jump tickets to upload. Oh well. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

All fanatics should be killed. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Erik - Are you maybe referring to the Parachutes, Inc., dropzone at Lakewood, NJ? I made numbers 41 and 42 there in '74. Had an AAD misfire at about 50 feet on # 42. Never got a chance to use my last two jump tickets. Think I can get a refund? The tickets say they're valid indefinitely! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thanks; that's what I figured, what with that being the way it is on every car ever built. I haven't seen the thing myself, but my mom is convinced that the one she just got has separate parking and emergency brakes. Sigh. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Are there separate parking and emergency brakes on that car? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Back around 1985 Lockheed looked into manufacturing a two-engine version of the C-130 Hercules, called the Twin Herc, I think. Unfortunately, they couldn't drum up enough customers, so the project was dropped. Not that it would have helped us; even a Twin Herc's fuel burn and maintenance cost would be out of our reach. Oh well. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan