Andrewwhyte

I think that it would likely benefit our country to have our "best and brightest" in government service. That entirely depends upon what they are tasked.

The blame for Randy's death lies with one and only one person- Randy. He was a B licensed skydiver who neglected to open his parachute. I am aware of the CSPA individuals at the meeting and I know one was for it because of belief that the regulations would shut down smaller dropzones and drive more business his way (regarding commercially operated aircraft). Actually you don't seem aware of much. There was only one CSPA individual at the meeting so clearly your knowledge of the meetings is flawed. More importantly there was nothing at the meetings in question regarding aircraft; these meetings happened about ten years after commercial operating certificates became required for skydiving operations. The meetings you are thinking of were the CSPA Transport Canada committee meetings in the early nineties. Have you been skydiving that long? Ian Flanagan, the individual you have decided to trash without naming, was in fact, on record as being against fighting transport on this issue. If you were around the sport back then you would no doubt remember his statements at the time that he thought it was a lost cause and that we would be better off insuring that Transport kept their noses out of the parachuting side of things. At the Annual meeting in Pitt Meadows BC around that time (I can't remember the exact year) there were two motions on the floor. One was to express support for Transport's efforts to regulate the sport and one to resist their efforts; the one to oppose Transport was motioned by Pacific Skydivers as articulated by Ian Flanagan. So your theory about him changing his spots is in fact wrong. There is no doubt that he pissed a lot of DZOs off with his position on the commercial OC and I know it had a lot to do with the drop zone in Gananoque leaving CSPA (at least that's what the DZO told me some years later). Whether that is what convinced Gerry Harper at Vancouver Skydiving I am not sure; Smiles would know better than either of us. I have also heard the argument that he did it as part of his evil scheme to take over skydiving in Canada. Since Vancouver Skydiving was then and is now bigger than Ian's place I doubt that is an argument coming out of Harper's mouth. I wonder if you mean the other DZ in the area, the one that, when they lost both planes to accidents within two weeks, had their evil competitor supply them with a plane for the rest of the season. Well, I think the way he weaseled his way into power was by volunteering on the Coaching Working Committee for six years including several as the chair, running unnopposed for the regional rep slot and getting elected president by the board. I am not sure why you call it weaselly since anyone who was paying attention knew he was doing it at least a year beforehand. It seems to me that you are the one who is rumour mongering, you are the one who is ill informed. Your experience with CSPA as far as I can tell consisted of one year on a very disfunctional board. Since you consisted 20% of that board I think you can wear some of the blame for that.

Carbon credits, indulgences; I can't see a difference, can you see a difference?

Looks about right.

You working on the premise that people are individually responsible for their own understanding of morals and ethics; this is the very heart of protestant heresy. Since the Catholic church doesn't operate on that premise, indeed their raison d'etre is the antithesis of it, your argument is askew to their operation.

I would suggest that most environmental 'sins' are a form of gluttony; we are wasting our resources. By bringing attention to these it gives catholics a chance to bring them up at confession. This in turn will lead to them thinking about their sins while they are committing them and, hopefully, changing their behavior. Of course it does no good if less and less catholics are going to confession, but I guess they do what they can.

My only issue is with you referring to "poor product design" in your OP. Just because an improvement is available does not mean the original design was poor.

Does Jeb know about this?

I would submit that one of the hallmarks of a society in trouble is when their best and brightest are disproportionately assigned to non productive things such as "shiny metal death."

Do you recommend a 270 or something bigger when you are under your reserve under these conditions?

When I see the plane go up after having to do a go around due to wind, I am on the ground until they find a smarter pilot.

Is it abnormal to do a poised exit on a king Air? The reason I ask is because I have about 1000 tandem dynamic, head up exits on a King Air; I think this amounts to the same thing as a poised exit. Also I have done many AFF poised exits as well as many RW exits where the centre float was poised.

My thoughts exactly.

In Canada they do- From the BSRs: 2.4 Parachutists shall not jump unless wearing shock absorbing protective headwear throughout the freefall and parachute descent. At the discretion of DZ Operators, ‘D’ CoP holders may choose not to wear protective headwear, except while in the role of Coach or Instructor (3.9).

Ding! Ding! ding!

If I was in that position I would likely opt for trial by judge; depends on the local laws. I don't disagree that it is a drawback of the jury system, but that is a different discussion. If the guy dies from a head injury but his body isn't really fucked up then it is a good argument the helmet would have probably helped (remember whether in criminal or civil court probabilities are still what count; it's just a difference of degrees), likewise a broken leg, some skin abrasions and a permanent brain injury.

If the injuries are not to the head then failure to use a helmet is not a mitigating factor. If the injuries are to the head, whether fatal or not, then blame can rightly be cast upon misuse of the vehicle by the operator.

It seems to me that if someone is operating equipment in contevention to the manufacturer's operating instructions, the liability for the extent of the injuries in excess of what otherwise would have occurred falls to the negligent user.

Is that a legal use of campaign funds? Is it allowed under DNC rules?

This is clearly the result of socialized death. Had death remained entirely in the private sector it would not be rationed like this.

The DNC could have decided NOT to disenfranchise them. But, the DNC (like any governmental entity) will punish regardless of blame. I think it bears repeating the the RNC disenfranchised the voters delegate selectors in both Michigan and Florida as well. They chose to not seat half the delegates from those states. This more measured response seems wiser in retrospect, but if the Dems had done that would the controversy be any less intense given the closeness of the contest? I don't think so; every single delegate is precious in this race and both teams are going to use every tool at their disposal to get them.

You just begrudge the thought of giving Lions fans anything, don't you?

How is Bill "dragging" FE and SAE into it? Do you mean the plaintiff is suing the aircraft owner as well as the manufacturer of his rig? I don't think that was Bill's call was it?

The story in the media was about a guy in Ontario. When you add universal government health care to the equation it really does become a different question. This truly is the price of socialism. I was actually quite surprised to see the case go the way it did; Minority religious rights and freedoms are generally very well protected in the Canadian courts. The government just canceled a program to pay for people who want to challenge laws based on their charter rights so he will have to find an organization with some bucks if he wants to appeal.

Why should the voters duffer the consequences? Because they are not actually voters; they are party members. If they don't like it they can become republicans.