Andrewwhyte

That's hilarious. It fits him to a tee. Actually I kind of like how things are going; the gov is ruling as if they had a majority but they know if they really piss the peeps off (like getting too crazy 'bout Jesus) the Grits will grow a pair and throw them out, so it works out well.

Yes, we have the same side pouch on our gear (as do the previous two places I worked at). Nonetheless for simplicity's sake we have three scenarios: 1) the student has the time to do a full hanging exit. 2) the instructor has the pilot chute already in his hand (jumper # next only) 3) Student is going reserve.

I'm still confused. You're saying that some DZs teach students to pull 2 handles in an emergency exit? Am I reading that correctly? Which 2 handles? What possible benefit would there ever be to pulling 2 handles no matter which 2 they were? The benefit is that you teach one and one only procedure and drill it in good. It does follow the KISS principle. And yes, according to the poll results at least three people out there teach a full two handle procedure during an emergency bail out.

Everything is not shit these days; it is only shit where you are. I think it is because you hate the baby Jesus. Why do you hate the baby Jesus?

No, I honestly mean that I don't understand what cutting away has to do with emergency exits. 2 of your poll options involve cutting away. WRT teaching emergency exits, students at my home DZ are taught to exit as instructed, on main or reserve depending on what their instructor tells them. The instructor makes the decision based on altitude and rate of descent if the plane is descending. They are taught to place a hand on the intended handle when instructed and before exiting and to arch and count "one-thousand" before pulling. Right. That is the information I am looking for. There are some places that believe that on the first jump course you teach emergency procedures one way and one way only. Teaching them to pull two handles in one situation and only one handle in others can lead to confusion during an emergency. The fatality in Italy appears to be the result of a junior jumper pulling his reserve before the main cutaway. This led to a discussion about total malfunction procedures; this led me to expand the discussion here to include emergency exits.

Hmm, if the j/m has time to prep each pilot chute then I am not sure it is an emergency exit.

From that response I surmise that you teach them to use their main on an emergency exit. What do you teach them if the altitude is too low? Who makes that decision, the JM or the student based on an altitude you tell them in the FJC?

Hi, This is a branch from the Italian fatality thread. If you are using static line please use options 4 or 5 only. If your DZ uses SOS please use that option only; any other answer pollutes the data.

Excellent point. Should the perpetrators' behavior (illegal, immoral, stupid, or whatever) be tacitly encouraged/supported through such policies? Or does the state's interest in protection of the victims in this case supersede that of the state's interest in enforcing legal statutes? Or supersede the state's interest in punishing illegal behavior? The 'encouraging the perp' argument gains no traction with me; I put it on par with "condom availability encourages teen sex" or "if young women go about in public dressed like that they get what they deserve." The state is always wrong to sacrifice the welfare of some of its citizens in order to protect others. I will admit that there may be circumstances when it is the 'least wrong' solution, but I do not think this is an example of such. I believe a 'less wrong' action would be a law that provides for permanent removal of all children of first cousin or closer parentage. I am not sure what the law is in Canada, but I grew up in an area where inbreeding was a low level issue for old stock families such as mine; we were taught the second cousin rule not first.

Not for me

I must say I am a little disappointed with the pure crassness of Obama's pandering to Florida voters. It's obvious that he needs to be prepared for a re-vote in the FCOJ state; Obama just casually and cynically got the head start on Hilary on that one.

So who would be the plaintiff, the smoke free jurisdiction suing the enablers or the right to chose jurisdiction suing the source of all those drunk drivers?

Maybe because if he completes the training it will cost each and every one of you a dollar.

I don't get it. What do I need an ishelf for? I keep my CDs in my irack.

I don't know what price gouging is. I think it is a name people use when they lose. What happened to you might be breach of contract. If they are not allowed to contact the previous company then they have no basis for changing the contract. Call corporate affairs and see if you have recourse. At the very least write them a registered letter telling them you don't owe them any money retroactively and if they fuck up your credit rating you will sue them.

Thanks for clearing that up for us John.

If you are jumping at on of the Drop zones close to Vancouver BC (~200 miles away) you can't see Ranier after you fall below about 2000'.

I was completely unimpressed with Ron Paul's performance. Paul uses the correct constitutional division of power and thus responsibility as the centrepiece of most of his political efforts. I think it is very hypocritical of him to use a congressional hearing as a venue to stump. The venue was a hearing that is empowered by congress to question public servants for the purpose of gaining insight into the efficacy and appropriateness of their actions and of public policy. Mr. Paul disguised his speech as a series of questions that not only did he not expect any answers to, but that, like the one he did allow an answer to, were not appropriate for the particular public servants present to answer. I would argue that none of those questions were appropriate for any civil or military servant to answer. They were questions for the Congress and the Whitehouse (and perhaps the courts) to answer. It was a waste of the committee's time, a waste of the General's time, and a waste of the taxpayers' money. A hellofalot more would get done in Washington if congressional leadership would reach across the isle and shut this sort of bullshit down. If Paul wants to make a speech he can do so on the lawn.

I remember that happening as well. The problem is that is an example of one. I also remember a tandem going in in Abbotsford BC where the TM executed a cutaway high and stable but went in because he didn't pull the handle (possible student interference). When an RSL causes a problem is is definite that the RSL caused the problem; when the lack of an RSL is a cause it is generally one of many ways the problem could have been alleviated. In the 70's we used to hear the same arguments about seatbelts in cars. If you made a decision due to one incident I would suggest you were hasty. Bill never called it stupid before the Collins lanyard came out. The man is, after all, a salesman. Wow. If that is the only time you have agreed with B.B. I can hardly wait for you to bring out your rig.

Aviation is a hard business. Every time the economy has a hiccup the weak fold. There seems to be no helping it.

The number of people who have had reserve mals due to instability is very small compared to those who have successfully cut away and gone in without a fully deployed reserve. If you are spinning you get line twists. That happened to someone I know last summer; he landed before he could deal with the twists and was badly hurt. Since he didn't have time to deal with line twists what do you think his chances were of getting a reserve at all if he did not have an RSL? I agree that a skyhook is a superior solution, but until I get a new rig my RSL is done up.

I don't understand the question. You need to read what you have written before you post it.

FOOLS! You guys don't even know where we get our power and pride. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080410/sports/curl_world_men