mark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    1,993

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by mark

  1. mark
    I agree with checking Para-Gear's selection of hook knives. I disagree with "you need at least a cheap plastic one." The plastic-handle ones are worse than nothing at all, because they give the illusion that what you have might work in an emergency. Spend a few bucks more and get one with polycarbonate or metal handle. Mark
  2. mark
    What size? Mark
  3. mark
    I do not know where Betty is. I know that both M---- and D---- were telling the truth when they said they didn't have her. Mark
  4. mark
    Because telling = teaching? Mark
  5. mark
    Check in "IRM Essentials," downloadable from the "Publications" page of the USPA website. Mark
  6. mark
    I own a Mirage G3/PR-143/Vigil and a Mirage G3/PR-126/Vigil. Both rigs now have concave-top reserve pilot chutes, mostly because I was concerned about side-flap deformation after I moved the cutters. I have not had any problem with the plastic inserts cracking. I could see where a motivated brute-force-and-ignorance rigger might create a problem, though. Mark
  7. mark
    Okay, I can see your idea about the nose. But isn't the tail flopped the other way, creating an equal line twist in the opposite direction? Also, I've tried flat packing by flopping the A's onto the B's, then stacking the rest like a common flat pack. That got the lines in the center of the pack, with about equal fabric on both sides. I don't recall any unusual turning tendencies, but I don't understand why not. Is this the same idea as why it's important to clear the fabric to the sides when pro-packing? Thanks, Mark
  8. mark
    Could you explain a little more, please? Why should the heading necessarily be at least 90 degrees off, and why would the possibility of line burns increase? Thanks, Mark
  9. mark
    Do you mean they shouldn't snap the shackle to the 3-ring cable housing? I've always thought that was a good a place as any to secure it. I'm open to counter-argument, and if this is what you mean, I'd like to be persuaded by your reasoning. Or do you mean they shouldn't snap the shackle to the base (harness) ring of the three rings? I agree they shouldn't, but I'll bet you can't make the rings jam just by snapping the shackle to the base ring. Mark
  10. mark
    If there's a name for it, we've seen it before. Intersection departures are common for light aircraft using airports built for jets. For example, the usable runway at Salina, Kansas, is 13,000 feet, suitable for designation as an alternate space shuttle landing site. The tower used to (and may still) suggest to pilots who landed at one end that they might want to take off and land again near mid-field (Flower Aviation, chocolate-chip cookies) instead of taxiing that distance. Mid-field take-off? No problem, and why not, with over 6000 feet of runway in either direction. In a fully-loaded 182 or similar, I think I'd decline an intersection departure with less than 2000 feet of runway available in the direction I wanted to go. I'd be okay with taking off from a 2000 foot runway, it's just that if there was 3000 feet available I'd just as soon taxi a little farther. Mark
  11. mark
    So, is the helo pilot is going to hover-taxi to the end of the runway? Can you insist that he follow the new rule, too? Or is he going to write an exception for himself? Mark
  12. mark
    The correct phrase would be intersection departures, i.e. departures from where a taxiway intersects with a runway. I don't think there is an FAA phrase "intersecting departure," which conjures up an exciting image of simultaneous take-offs on intersecting runways. If you use the expected, standard terms, you're input is less likely to be downgraded or discarded. Will they be prohibiting intersection departures for all traffic, or just for jump aircraft? Mark
  13. mark
    Unlike Cypres-1 which uses the same batteries for computation and firing, Vigil-1 and Vigil-2 use separate batteries. In Vigil-1, both batteries are sealed in the same battery pack. If one is unserviceable, both must be replaced. In Vigil-2, the batteries are separated, not sealed together. The cutter-firing battery should last as long as the processor and the cutter body, which leaves the processor battery to be replaced as needed. Mark
  14. mark

    safty day

    mark replied to JOHNBSKI's topic in Safety and Training

    It's not prefect, though. It has its lamentations. Mark
  15. mark
    Rigs sent to Mirage's service center came back without any paperwork except a notation on the data card. Mark
  16. mark
    I respectfully disagree, and I offer Mirage PSB-1204 as a counter-example. Drawings for the installation of pockets and channels for an AAD are part of TSO approval. Moving the cutter is an alteration of the approved configuration, even though it's a "minor change." Mark
  17. mark
    Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Mark
  18. mark
    Well, yes. If you can afford a lump-sum outlay, you are on average better off putting the equivalent of the premium into your own investments. Mark
  19. mark
    Not a good analogy, since both are arguably risky behaviors. I do not expect risk-averse vegans to pay for my McDonald's heart attack, and they shouldn't have to pay for your skydiving injuries either. For all of us, the expected value of our insurance benefits should be equal to the amount of our premiums minus some amount for admin fees. Mark
  20. mark
    Hello Jerry! I agree a manufacturer could produce any version of their product. But the way I read it, Sunpath's position is that because there is an approval for a non-RSL version of a C-23c Javelin, there is no need for further approval of a non-RSL version of a C-23d Javelin. Is that a tenable position? Mark
  21. mark
    Yes, although this is true for any rigger. If i return a rig to service after a repack, I am certifying it is airworthy and that previous repairs and alterations are acceptable. If I am a senior rigger, I am responsible for knowing enough to do an adequate inspection, even if I do not have the privilege of actually doing the repair or alteration I'm inspecting. Mark
  22. mark
    The intent is to get non-risk takers to help pay for our medical bills. They wouldn't do that voluntarily, so we'll use the coercive power of government to make them. It's for their own good, you see, as well as ours. Mark
  23. mark
    I'm not sure that solves the problem. Earlier Javelins were approved under C-23c, newer ones under C-23d. Mark
  24. mark
    I don't think your FAA inspector knows what he's asking. Installing the RSL may be a major repair. To be sure you are installing it correctly, you will need approved materials and drawings. OTOH, I wouldn't go back to that particular inspector with that question, since the answer is likely to be that the master rigger needs to install it in order to remove it. Crazy, isn't it? Mark
  25. mark
    Terry might have a different regulation in mind than I do. I'm looking at 65.129(d): [No certificated parachute rigger may --] "Alter a parachute in a manner that is not specifically authorized by the Administrator or the manufacturer." (My emphasis added.) I think the letter from Sunpath constitutes authorization for the alteration, and no further approval from the FAA is necessary. AC-1052c, section 8, "Parachute Alterations," can be read two ways. Construed broadly, even alterations approved by the manufacturer would need further approval by the local FSDO. Construed narrowly (and it is an Advisory Circular, after all), this section applies only to alterations where manufacturer's approval is not sought or obtained. Mark