dorbie

Yep, but saying that any idea needs a heck of a lot of testing is easy. Context is important and the alternative scenarios should be weighed in the ballance. People didn't wait all those 14 years to jump with AADs, there were scores of lives saved in the time it took to confirm the anticipated problem with swoop activation. P.S. I have no sympathy for an argument that says swoop without an AAD while pointing out scenarios where an AAD will not fire if you jump with a modified AAD. That's not an unknown or surprising sidefect, it's merely a "glass is half empty" analysis of one side of the problem.

That would depend on your rate of descent when you chop. Turning it off guarantees you'll have no AAD save, having no AAD guarantees no AAD save. Increasing the descent rate after an initial good openning moves you away from the danger zone for swoop activation (for now) while preserving the value of the AAD under a range of scenarios where disabling it or having no AAD offers no protection. It's an imperfect world, all options are far from ideal, my suggestion is no different, but it seems like a reasonable compromise if you've already elected to take the extra risks. P.S. notwithstanding the risk of forgetting to toggle the switch or jumping with it in the wrong configuration. A significant issue, but one where I think a speed toggle is safer than an on/off toggle under all circumstances. Jumping with no AAD you're not going to forget to turn it off and have an accidental 2 out, that seems like a choice for the jumper. Tie a knot in your slider to remind you

If I was a swooper in the danger zone I might. An on off switch is no less complex to operate than a two mode switch. Tell you what, you can call it an on off switch and make it do what I've described.

A more practical compromise might be a switch that a jumper can trigger once under a good canopy that will increased the software's activation speed. It's a compromise and the chosen speed will be a moving target but there may be an reasonable upper bound somewhere below terminal that will endure for a while, or even programmable at the jumper's choice.

In this case that's just incorrect.

Weren't they a tandem factory anyway? They'd only let you sport jump there if you graduated with them. Tell your brother's friend to try Skydive Mesquite http://www.skydivemesquite.com/

How much is a coffin and a funeral service? If it's cheaper maybe I shouldn't execute my EPs, I'll need to ask my old AFFI about that one.

I've seen video of a skydive from a tandem paraglider, now that was cool. Ever since seeing this I've entertained thoughts of trying it but it raises a few questions. Paragliding isn't regulated by the FAA, and my understanding is that regulation of general and commercial aviation is the pretext for regulation of a skydive. So hopping off a paraglider at a gliderport might be a demo jump from one perspective, or just the routine conclusion of an unregulated free-flight from another perspective if you were also a paraglider pilot. Something I'm still puzzling over

Well try a tandem paragliding flight in the USA instead then. My local gliderport in California will happily take young children up on a 20 minute ridge soaring paraglider flight. I even know a qualified pilot that isn't allowed to take a skydive in the USA because he's considered too young, and he's a damned good pilot. He does XC, some acro and numerous tow clinics. Same country different sport, different rules, not necessarily less risk depending on your choices.

In the USPA you have a membership number and license numbers for each level of qualification. It seems you actually retain all your license numbers or at least they're on file. All mine were listed on my recent membership renewal form along with my unchanging membership number. Only my member number and highest rating appears on my card though.

This ignores the social consequences of leniency and of having those 600 people free the street to continue to prey on the rest of populace. It also suggests there are only 6000 prisoners of all sorts in the entire UK, I seriously question that number. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Is there a legal fund I can contribute to? I'd like to send AZ a few bucks to show support and help with their legal costs.

So THAT'S what chuteless looks like!

There's less of them around now so maybe the ones who made it really ARE better? I'm sure many who didn't survive were better than me and about half of those would almost certainly have been saved by an AAD. It's a no brainer. Any jump you go on you could go in with a no-pull. If anyone really thinks otherwise they should reevaluate what they're doing and maybe take something up where poor risk asessment is not so life threatening.

I'd get a retrofit if one was available and I perceived it was engineered right and not just thrown together as a stopgap. If I knew then what I know now I may have chosen an RW rig. The devil's in the details and starting a skyhook retrofit with (for example) no collins lanyard, might be a bad idea (I don't know, but it's the sort of thing that crosses my mind when I contemplate a retrofit). As for patents, AFAIK there is related prior art in some base jumping rigs (e.g. the Sorcerer from Vertigo (although hand deploying the reserve pilot disconnects the RSL)), and patents can be licensed. One key (& probably novel) thing about the skyhook is the cantilever hook for the main riser bridle connection and that seems like a critically important feature to release the main so the pilot chute can do it's job under all the circumstances it needs to. I'd bet dollars for donuts that's the magic ingredient other manufacturers would have to license unless they come up with an alternative system of automatically disconnecting the main when the reserve pilot chute wins the tug-o-war.

Never did Bill, I've never once mentioned her divorce, in fact you brought it up. I do notice you relish telling people on the right what they can and can't say you have no bother with her saying anything she likes. It's a double standard. You can't have it both ways, if she can run around calling someone a murderer and lying about the President's conduct (as demonstrated by her own earlier contradicting remarks) then when she gets as good as she gives she has invited it upon herself. Her family discord is relevant public record w.r.t. the public letter from many of her family members asking her to stop and claiming that her son believed in what he was doing in the armed services. She's created this fiasco by using her son's memory like this and some of the family has publically repudiated her, that is absolutely fair commentary. I know those on the left would like to hide the inconvenient facts and pretend this is just about the mom and how she'd have us perceive her son. You seek to restrict this debate because you don't want the glaring holes in this contrived pantomime pointed out. Besides all this, the whole concept is unballanced, I don't doubt that in any war you will find mothers like this, should they have been paraded on the front pages and national broadcasts during WWII? Where's the attention to the mothers who support the cause their son's sacrifice was made in? If nothing else this is disproportionate attention but it's much more cynical than that, and not surprising given the way her story is being exploited to meet a political agenda. All the time we're suppose to treat as serious news that Bush is being asked meet a political enemy and a campaigner who has called him a murderer like it's a serious proposition. One who has exploited his last meeting to attack him with demonstrable lies. It's just a political stunt that meets the goals of protestors.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

The stigma of anyone criticizing her is being exploited here. If we ALL have the same free pass then, I'm happy with that. It's just another way of stating the exact same presumed equality, so semantic games don't alter what's being done here. Her motives are fair game, especially if her recent comments are wildly inconsistent with contemporaneous remarks as she calculates her soundbites to do the maximum damage to the President. As for talking to her last, I've heard many many statements by her including long audio recordings, I don't need to discuss nuances with her when she makes the unequivocal remarks she has. The implication that I now have to have a discussion with every political figure before forming an opinion based on their multiple lengthy public remarks is utterly ridiculous and just more of the nonsense surrounding this issue. She's making these statements to influence opinion, you seem happy when the opinion goes your way but when it doesn't somehow a personal dialog is required. Rubbish! It's not the outrage of the right that's made this the big issue, it's the headline publication of Bush being called a murderer, and an insensitive guy who acted like he was at a party meeting families of the fallen etc.

This is a free country, if she wants to call the President a murderer and side with the cause of her son's killer's then her son's sacrifice doesn't get her a free pass. There's a lot wrong with this picture, from her inconsistency over time to the rest of her family's assertions w.r.t. the son's own personal beliefs that conflict with hers. Everyone is acting like this woman is untouchable as she makes the most outrageous, unfounded and extreme accusations. As the left laps it up, the exploitation of this woman's grief and pain is a sorry spectacle. The administrations policies are intended to prevent future loss of life thorugh long term political reform in the Middle East, looking at one side of the equation and drawing conclusions based on emotional manipulation doesn't make for smart decisions. If you think the commentary isn't calculated by the left just read the blogs where they get their slide rules out on the grieving mother issue. If this woman's requests to see Bush were genuine I'd have more sympathy but the spectacle of her calling Bush a murderer and then being taken seriously in requesting a meeting is stomach turning. The son is no longer here to speak for himself but citizens have every right to vigorously question her motives and challenge her political statements as she thrusts herself into the spotlight. There's something awfully manipulative about trying to use a grieving mother as a stalking horse to make and promote the most outrageous and derranged accusations and lending them extra credence while exploiting her position and her son's sacrifice as a shield against all criticism. So try the guilt trip somewhere else, there's plenty of shame to go around here.

You do realize that the intel developed was based on data mining experiments like an early experimental version of the now shit-canned Total Information Awareness program, you remember, that project that was killed after all the political scaremongering. I saw some details on what that would actually have been, I'd categorize it as 'trying to be smart', but that's too alien a concept I guess, especially for politicians. Looks like there was nothing to fear, even when they found a terrorist and he's wasn't a citizen and was breaking the law in multiple ways and he had links to other terrorist cells they couldn't do a damned thing about it and the "rules" didn't let them share the analysis with anyone. This for me really highlights how ridiculous all the sinister conspiracy theories are. All evidence points to the government being unable to find its ass with both hands and a copy of Gray's Anatomy.

This is complete bullshit Rhino. Less Art Bell, more Physics. Here is a 3D java applet that animates the orbit of 2003 EL61. It has been well understood since the time of the announcement so you can be absolutely certain that any "experts" proclaiming this as some big disrupting influence on the mechanics of the solar system are charlatans. You'll also notice it goes the same way as other planets. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003el61.html Scientists have predicted the existence of a 10th planet for decades and have predicted far more. Sitchin's cosmic billiards is not grounded in sound physics, it's complete bullshit. He doesn't merely claim that there's a disrupting planet (the tidal forces of the moon are far more severe than those any exo-planet could exert). He claims all sorts of unfounded orbital wackiness like planets being ripped from their orbits and captured by other planets etc etc. It's vannishingly unlikely to be effectively impossible for all practical purposes. FYI something orbiting the opposite way doesn't make very bad things happen, that is more complete bullshit offered as fact. The only issue is proximity to other planets and there the "big sky" rule applies. There's a lot of empty space and there are thousands of objects that cross our path but have missed us for billions of years. Finally if there is something else big out there on a highly eccentric orbit that does not make Sitchin prescient. There's a whole cluster of claims surrounding his theories that have no foundation. Finding one thing that correlates would not make the rest of it true. In this case there is *NOTHING* that correlates with his claims, in fact you might ask why he completely missed a 10th planet sized object in a stable solar orbit in his predictions.

I dunno. Total number of people who died seems like a pretty good yardstick for measuring who "lost" a war. Nonetheless a flawed one, it does highlight the dichotomy given the earlier claim that the Soviets won the war by virtue of the casualties they inflicted on the Germans.

On the contrary, it's not just about the viability of operation Sea Lion (which the Germans never properly anticipated and were never geared up for), there was the long Battle of Britain and the siege by the wolkpacks. There was continual resupply of Britain by America, and help with radar and sonar development which kept Britain viable and then of course the direct massive intervention for the final European invasion, openning the second front Stalin begged the Allies to open. But let's assume that the American's hadn't gotten involved at all and the Soviets had marched all the way to Paris, (taking your claim at face value). What you're really saying is we'd all be speaking Russian by now if it wasn't for the Americans. Here's the scoreboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin.

Ahem... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/098882.php The cat seems well out of the proverbial...

To me it's a case of playing the odds. The benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages. There's a tendency for some to think they have the skills to handle situations that have killed other very experienced jumpers. Even if a skyhook could increase my risk in some situations, my perception is that there are far more situations where is increases my chances of survival, and since few jumpers actually choose what kills them in skydiving the decision on a skyhook is a simple one. This is why my next rig will have a skyhook or equivalent system.