SethInMI

I made a cover for my tube handle out of some extra tie dye material last year to prevent the stuck finger problem, others have plugged the tube with a bit of foam from a pool noodle or I have heard the use of cork from a bottle. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4116530#4116530 It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

stu, does this awesome mspaint image get close to your orientation during the spin? Thanks for posting the article by the way. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Reminds me of the Hawaii 5-0 episode from last fall. The plot: A well trained killer is bumping off ex-SEALS and making the deaths look like accidents. One of the intended victims is going to make a skydive, and is met by the killer who is working as the diver driver. The killer offers the jumper a drink, which is drugged. After getting in the plane, the jumper passes out, and the killer then cuts his reserve cable and AAD control cable with pliers, takes off, and once at altitude pushes the unconscious jumper out of the plane. Meanwhile, the hero has somehow got to altitude and jumped from another plane. He docks on the victim, hooks him up and deploys so they land like a tandem. Fun questions: 1. How did the killer get to be a jump ship pilot, who is permitted to take off with only one jumper on board? 2. Why cut the reserve cable and AAD cable if you want the death to look like an accident? With Hawaii 5-0, the skydive scene is actually closer to reality than many other parts of the show, which often have sequences so impossible or improbable you just have to laugh. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Don't forget the static pressure adjustment that AADs have. They are designed to fire at 750ft for a belly to earth orientation. This means the pressure sensor on the back of a jumper sits in a low pressure burble. The sensor will fire at a lower actual pressure (I think equal to 1100-1200 ft, IIRC) to account for this. This means that a jumper that is head high (under a sniveling canopy) may have an AAD fire at an altitude higher than 750ft. Also the act of rotating from belly to upright causes a pressure change that to the AAD both lowers the perceived altitude of the jumper as mentioned above and also increases the perceived speed, making it possible to fire an AAD even though the actual speed is less than activation speed. Just something to keep in mind. I for one would like to be able to increase my AAD activation altitude permanently by 500ft. I like flying my canopy, so I don't pull below 3k. If for some reason I can't pull, whether it is because I am incapacitated physically or mentally (loss of altitude awareness), I want to give my AAD every possible chance of saving my sorry ass. John Sherman can imply that if a reserve won't open in 300 ft it also wont open in 800ft, but can imply that it very well may. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

"A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe —- by word or deed." John Paul Stevens in a 1988 dissent. Other SCOTUS decisions refer to this analogy as well, according to this article Criminals should use combinations safes The article also mentions the fact that encrypted information is nothing new, the founding fathers were familiar with and most likely used encrypted documents during the American Revolution to hide data from the British. Seems to be a good analogy for encrypted drives. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Ok I actually read the cnet article. Even reading that brief overview shows how tangled this is. A quote: "Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings." The woman was not being asked to tell the password, but to type it in and unlock the hard drive, so that would be a close analogy to providing a key to a safe, which according to the article is established law. I wonder if that existing law extends to combination safes instead of keyed safes? It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

To me a better comparison seems to be the police search your house and find a safe deposit key or a note that says "the safe combination is 64-23-34" and then ordering you to tell them where the safe deposit box or safe is located. In that case they have the "password", but not the "data". In the hard drive case, they have the data and not the password. In either case it feels like a 5th amendment issue. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I guess for a first AFF jump, an instructor chest view would be better, but not much as they are close and on the side the whole time. Or maybe stratostar is running an IAD or SL program? I can't tell, his DZ.com profile is not helpful... It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You would get a good view of the area in front of the student. I attached a pic billvon took (and posted) with a chest cam from the 2006 400 way as an idea of what a chest cam shot may be able to see. I think you would get good shots of the plane exit and canopy opening sequence and any time an instructor was in front of the student. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That is a seriously awesome pic. You mean from an anatomical point of view? I can count her ribs without a problem... She's almost skinny. I love real women and real women have feminine curves The pose she is in lifts the rib cage up and out, so it exaggerates the rib definition, making her seem slimmer than she is. I think with a normal pose she would look well, pretty normal. But the excellence of pic is not just the woman, it is the pose, the drink (cognac?) in her hand, the rain on the window, she becomes la femme mystérieuse...I instantly felt she was looking out the window of a private car on a train as it rolled by, like the Ezra Pound's famous poem, a "petal on a wet black bough". Thanks for the reply, it gave me another opportunity to shamelessly ogle her! It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That is a seriously awesome pic. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yeah, that's right. My original post wasn't clear enough. I was drawing attention to the fact of the OFF command, not the stowed command, but I did not do that as well as I should have. Anyway, I think it's a narrow point, but good to clear up. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Thanks for the details Bill. For all, what rules for passenger behavior would you like to see? You need to balance safety and passenger liberty/convenience and cost, the same tradeoffs that get made for trains, buses, cars, etc. Here is my ideal: 1. No sleeping/no headphones below 10k. 2. Pay attention during the briefing. No reading magazines/books/Sudoku or viewing electronics. 4. Phone Radios off in the air, CRT TVs and FM radios off the whole time. 3. Stow large things (laptops, big heavy books/bags) under 10k. This hurts my heart a bit because it is nice to be on a laptop but ok. I would use a weight limit for this. TSA uses the 100ml volume limit, so I would add a weight limit, say 2-3 lbs. FAs have final say. Other than that, whatever you want to read or play with, go for it. Downside to my rules, projectiles in a crash. This is a calculated risk based on several odds. 1. Odds of being in a crash where a warning cannot be given 1 minute prior to impact. 2. Odds of a loose cell phone killing someone in said crash. Anyone else want to have a go? It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That may be true, but at least on United and USAirways, the FAs were adamant that devices had to be OFF and stowed, not just in "airplane" mode or "sleep" mode. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

It is the e-Books issue that I think many frequent flyers find most annoying. I just (finally) got a Kindle and it feels made for travelers. It is small, light, very low power and can store tons of books. In the bad old days (about 6 months ago), I would carry 2-4 books on a trip. Usually library books, which are bulky, heavy hardcovers that would take some abuse during the trip. Now with a Kindle I have a reading source that is much like a book but on a short flight can only be used about 1/2 the time. Why not the whole time? Kindles use very little power, so not an interference issue. Kindles are about the weight and size of a book, and function like a book, so for any other reason they should be treated as a book, and allowed where books are allowed. But they are not. Is that the end of the world for me, no, but I find the lack of logic in the rules annoying. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I was flying home yesterday, and while stuck at the gate for 45 min waiting to be deiced after the "turn off electronic devices" announcement had been made I had some time to ponder the wisdom/efficacy of this ban. I wondered about several things: 1. If interference is a serious concern, why allow electronic devices on an airplane at all? 2. If the concern is interference, why can calls be made with phones after landing, but I can't read a Kindle while rolling to the gate? 3. Why can't we build airplanes that will be immune to interference from electronic devices? I poked around the internet a bit, and found some anecdotal reports that static could sometimes be heard during communications and a few things like a report of instruments showing the plane was upside down after the pilot let the passengers know the US had invaded Iraq (the assumption was mobile calls were being made in large numbers). Personally I don't worry about it. I turn off my device radios (airplane mode) and read my Kindle and play my Angry Birds whatever altitude I am at. Just wondered what everyone thought, esp people with training/exp in flying airplanes or mods that work for Qualcomm. Sdc It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I think the SIM text and drawing do intend for left and right to be used at the same time. 6b says the "The turn from base leg to final is the most hazardous because of opposite approaching traffic" implying both can be going at once. IMHO, they show the bases coming together because that is how people would be flying when "forced" into using both patterns. Usually there is a preferred pattern direction and entry point, and only if one cannot reach the preferred point would one fly the other pattern. So having the two patterns start from the basically the same point makes having/allowing both totally redundant. Most DZs do not allow left and right patterns together in the same landing area regardless of where you land. But occasionally you may see people who cannot get to the preferred entry point to fly the correct pattern direction land with the opposite pattern rotation on the edge of the main area like the SIM drawing shows. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Something along those lines has existed for some time in the military community for use on HAHO jumps. I figured there must be. A quick google search turned up this device: http://nanohmics.com/content/experience/commercialization-successes/glideline-systems/ One of the features is "collision avoidance with other jumpers". Nice. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Nigel, I should have said "a polar curve" instead of "polar curves". A Polar curve for a given canopy and wingloading is pretty simple: a plot of the horizontal distance travelled vs. the vertical distance lost for a variety of canopy inputs. The result can be used as a simple visual method of determining what input to use for the amount of tail wind or head wind the parachutist finds herself in. To generate a curve you only need to know the descent rate and horizontal travel rate for a range of canopy inputs. http://avia.tion.ca/documentation/polar/ has some background. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I have wanted to generate some polar curves for my canopy for some time, but have not got around to it. Nigel has the right idea, you don't need to know the winds aloft to determine the airspeed of the canopy as long as you fly in a circle or in several directions at a constant trim (full flight, etc). A spreadsheet or a simple program could remove wind effects. Once you knew the full flight airspeed and glide ratio, determining other flight modes glide ratio and airspeeds (half brakes, full brakes, rear risers, front risers) would be easier, just fly at full flight at a given altitude, and then your spreadsheet/program could extract the wind speed from the known airspeed, and then used to determine true glide and airspeed for any subsequent flight modes (assuming wind stays constant over the next 1000 feet or so, not always valid). If you generate polar curves, you can determine which flight mode is best for a given wind direction and speed. Of course the cool thing (I think) would be to have a GPS device that could tell you what flight mode to use for the situation you found yourself in and estimate what altitude you would arrive at the pattern entry point for the programmed LZ. If the estimated altitude was too low even with the best flight mode, it would flash a warning "find alternate landing area!!!" Flysight's have some customizing ability, but I just don't have the time to work on something like that. And I digress... So good luck, Nigel, let us know what you determine. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

He convinced me to switch from agnostic to atheist. Always enjoyed reading his work; I got to see him debate his brother in person once. He did not always fight fair, his penchant for sarcasm could lend his retorts a distasteful negative tone but his wit made them entertaining. Goodbye Hitch, I sure hope I never see you again, because that means we were both wrong...:-) It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Ah. Thanks for digging that up. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I feel that the most likely event chain went like this: 1. Plane comes to a stop, pilot shuts off engine and gets out. 2. Pilot helps passenger out. 3. Passenger goes over to greet waiting people, hugs, chats, starts to walk away. 4. Meanwhile, pilot gets back in plane, fires up engine, prepares to leave. 5. Passenger hears engine fire up, realizes plane is about to leave, "Oh I forgot to say goodbye!" rushes back over to plane. 6. WHACK. This jives with the observation that it is difficult to exit with the pilot in his seat, and it would be odd to leave the plane running with the pilot outside the plane, and the reported fact that the pilot was preparing to taxi when the injury occurred. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

If you post a picture or two of your pack job it would help me see if you are doing it the way I do it. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Call or email UPT. They will help you figure out what the right size bag is for your Icon and then sell it to you directly. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".