Andy9o8

Way to go there, Miss Congeniality. Thanks for being a welcoming diplomat for the sport to eager students.

I was not in the US Army & have never been Airborne rated. However, every rig used for this application that I have seen in over the last 50 yrs have had a pilot chute in the reserve container. The early ones had what we called a 'spider' pilot chute. It used a multi-spring system that folded up somewhat like an umbrella. I never thought that goofy pilot chute could ever pass any testing standard; but it was good enough for those Airborne folks. And from the lowest bidder. ***Shot and a halfs were originally designed for post-landing usage My thinking is that Capewell needed to come with an answer to Security's One-Shot riser release system. Security patented the One-Shot system so Pioneer could not use it on their 'soon-to-be-developed' Para-Twin rig. IMO the Army was quite happy with a 2-shot release to deal with being dragged upon landing. Just the thoughts of an old guy, JerryBaumchen Hey, I found these: Origin of the Capewell Release: Part I Origin of the Capewell Release: Part II

I dispute your premise. Meet me in Speaker's Corner tomorrow at High Noon.

10. Emergency vasectomy.

I was trained on & jumped both systems. You mean IN the direction of spin, right? At least, that's the way I was taught - to reduce the chance of the reserve wrapping around your body due to the spin.

Seems like it'd be better than trying to throw the nylon out there and hope. By PCA, I mean it's got a spring loaded PC that will kick out the canopy, not that there is some sort of MARD or anything. I'm sure a military rigger could fill in here. I was just the operator and it was before I was a civilian rigger. Oh, I see; I actually did think you were referring to a MARD-ish kind of set-up. But still: I thought the conventional wisdom was that dumping a pilot-chuted reserve without cutting away the main had a high risk of main-reserve entanglement. So how has this thinking evolved more recently?

The military has been moving to a pilot chute assisted reserve. There was a fatality while I was at jump school of a Marine (and several of the marines in the class were in his unit) that died on a streamered main and I recall them saying that the reserves they had weren't PCA but they were moving that direction. Really? I don't dispute you're correct, but it makes me wonder: since combat jumps altitudes are sometimes in the hundreds of feet, do they really want a PCA system at that altitude? Just seeking to learn here.

I'm presuming it's because the rigs used in most lower-altitude mass airborne drops use reserves that don't have pilot chutes, and are designed to be hand-deployed while the main remains attached, so they don't want a set-up that's too easily cut-away prior to landing. You don't want an airborne jumper who might jump below 1,000 feet under combat conditions to be jettisoning his main at 400 feet. Shot and a halfs were originally designed for post-landing usage, to jettison the canopy to prevent being dragged. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me right quick.

Maybe I'm not listening, at least I think that's what my wife says, but, I've NEVER heard anyone say that because of their emergency devises, ( AAD, Skyhook, RSL, etc.) they were lowering their opening altitude. Maybe in jest, but not in actuality. First, few people would admit it even if they recognized it. Second, the post to which you're responding refers to cutaway hard deck, not main opening hard deck. So yeah, +1 to your wife.

No, they are. Just that the UK is very much against the EU and has been, pretty much from the beginning. France can definitely be considered a major player. Maybe I overreacted but OP made it sound like there was a major right shift, surprisingly it didn't happen. Well, in fairness to the OP, when the vote was first announced, that's the way the collective news media were initially reporting it: https://www.google.com/#q=eu+vote+right

shot and a halfs

Well, you're close. Standards to be admitted to practice are set by each individual state's governing body. The ABA issues recommended guidelines, standards, codes of conduct, etc. In turn, most (possibly all?) states do voluntarily choose to adopt the ABA recommended standards - sometimes in whole, sometimes in larger part. There is a bit of variance from one state to another, but widespread (albeit voluntary) acceptance of the ABA's guidelines has led to a great deal of standardization nation-wide. And, the applicant's background check is done by each individual state to which s/he seeks admission. So yes, the ABA's guidelines do carry a lot of persuasive weight. But at the end of the day, the ABA itself has no actual governing authority, and technically the ABA's guidelines are recommendations only.

LoL I almost feel sorry for you.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/04/01/every-man-should-carry-a-pocket-knife/

Of course, we landed the LEM with retro-rockets.

I give up, Ron. How?

I generally agree with your point as a matter of prudent practicality... but you can see the "slippery slope" argument that comes from it, of course... Should DZOs do general criminal records checks on all their instructors? How about all their employees/contractors. And what prior convictions do and do not get included in the "don't hire" category. And not just the serious ones.... For example, say a TI was convicted, say, 10 years ago on a petty marijuana possession charge. Not a big deal, right?.... mmm, until the TI and his student go in, and the the tox report shows THC in the TI's system. So where do we draw the line?

I watched the entire sermon and only caught one reference to homosexuals when Phil quoted a scripture reference. The message was being born again. Watch and listen for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhnxDSOxfss Nah, having to endure the ramblings of some Religious Afterbirth is not something for which I will volunteer. My post was directed toward Amazon. This gentleman may be more to your understanding. Marvin Rosenthal Not that he needs anyone to cover his 6, but I rather doubt he needs help "understanding". BTW, the agenda of that site, notwithstanding the sheep's clothing, differs little to none from that of the previous one you posted.

OK, well you might get a better sampling if you asked in the TI Convicted Sex Offenders forum. fixie.

That made me curious. Here are the hits I got from a quick Google search: https://www.google.com/#q=faa+class+III+medical+criminal .... and here's the link for the following hit at the top of the results list: (Note: the bold emphases are mine.) http://www.leftseat.com/ame993.htm

http://geek-news.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/keep-beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

Really? That claim is highly disputable, and "something that King biographer Taylor Branch has found no evidence or mention of after years of exhaustive research." Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/01/08/288365/-Dr-King-A-Registered-Republican

You're full of historical shit. How many times are these revisionist historians going to keep saying this nonsense in Speaker's Corner? How many times do I have to give these brain surgeons a history lesson? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4634284#4634284 For the zillionth time, people, it wasn't "the Democrats", it was the Deep South Dixiecrats, descendants of the Reconstructionist era Democrats who were anti-Lincoln/Republican, who because of the 2-party-system monopoly were forced in the post-WWII era to remain aligned with Northern Democrats.... and who eventually began to shift over to the GOP in the late 1960s. Please stop talking to us like we're morons.

You're welcome, all you knuckle-dragging Third-World Neanderthals. Never pass up an opportunity to emulate society's murderers as closely as you can.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-05-22/