riggerrob

Go review USPAs guidelines for jump-planes. The Australian Parachute Federation and British Parachute Association have also published guidelines. Piper Cherokees and Archers have been jumped before, but it is not straight-forward. I learned to fly in a Cherokee 140. The biggest hassle with an Archer is that the sole cabin door is forward and on top of the wing. If you leave the door installed, you will need the pilot's help - on rudder pedals - when opening the door. Removing the door requires a review of the pilot operating handbook and maybe an STC. STCs are expensive and complicated and not worth it for a single jump. The second hassle is avoiding hitting the horizontal tail, which is low. Asking the pilot to lower flaps will help raise the tail. I would lay on the wing root and roll or slide off to minimize my height. In comparison, look at the numbers of jumpers who have hit the tails of King Airs when they exited while the airplane was still in climb configuration. Consider that the earlier - and larger - Cherokee Six has been used routinely as a jump-plane at a few DZs. I made a couple of jumps from a Cherokee Six leased by the Saint John Skydivers (New Brunswick, Canada). The key difference is the large cargo door, just aft of the port (left side) wing. Since Cherokee Six still has a low horizontal stabilizer, you must remember to stay low while exiting. Nothing fancy, no poised exits, just tumble out the door. Hint: if you plan to jump a Cherokee Six on a regular basis, install a temporary sub-floor level with the bottom edge of the cargo door. The only low-winged, single-engined Piper that I would seriously consider jumping is the PA-32 Lance with a T-tail. Mind you, T-tailed Lances were only built in 1978 and 1979 and the model was discontinued because too many Lance pilots complained about poor pitch authority. Combine that poor pitch authority with too many skydivers cramming towards the tail and you could have "too much fun" on jump-run.

The only published photo of an "Adolf Hitler" tattoo to date. We might believe your propaganda if you publish a few dozen more "nazi" tattos. As an aside, the Azov Battalion held out for so long at the Azovstal plant because they knew that they would be beaten or killed if they surrendered to Russian invaders. One female refugee - from Mariupol - explained (to Western journalists) that she escaped along a "humanitarian corridor" with multiple check points where she was repeatedly strip-searched. She said that the scariest part was never knowing at which check=point she would be marched into the woods and raped or shot. This not exclusively a Ukrainian problem, nor is it a Second-World problem. Similar beatings awaited Mohawks during the Oka Crisis in Canada during 1990. Mohawks held out for so long because they knew that if they surrendered to Quebec Provincial Police, they would be beaten. That is why Mohawks held out until they could surrender to the Canadian Army (specifically the VanDoos infantry regiment). Mohawks knew that increased press coverage and the more professional attitudes of soldiers would mean fewer beatings.

International observers (e.g. retired American President Jimmy Carter) often monitor elections to confirm their honesty. I will only believe that Mr. Poutine's "elections" in Donyetsk and Luhansk are legitimate when some retired politicians (from neutral nations) declare that the election was free and fair.

What kind of idiot stops on train tracks????????????

I can still remember when the local radio station CKTS switched from country music to rock-and-roll ... during the mid-1960s.

Back around 1983 or 1984, I introduced the concept of wing-loading to simplify canopy choices. Back then we only had to select between 5-cell or 7-cell. Configuration was limited to precision landing competition or all-purpose. Reserves, canopy formation and BASE were all done with popular 7-cells. But new materials, planforms, etc. complicated the decision process. We really need a 3D or 4D chart to include all the variables related to canopy selection. Last time I checked, no one was publishing 3D charts. BSRs help to keep decisions simple for junior jumpers. Junior jumpers only need-to-know that "in that corner, death lurks." Few of them have the patience or depth of knowledge of many posters on dz.com.

Reference post # 1603. Few nations publish accurate casualty lists during wartime. They prefer to leave bad guys guessing as to casualties. As for accusing the Azov Battalion of being nazis ... yes, the battalion was founded by hard-right politicians back around 2014, but since then, the Azov Battalion has been absorbed by the generic Ukrainian Army and its most fanatical leaders have moved on to elected positions in the Ukrainian Parliament. As for the Azov Battalion using Nordic Runes an swastikas and other nazi regalia ... May we remind you that Nordic Runes were a popular alphabet when Norsemen took over ruling Kievian-Russ more than a thousand years ago? Both Russia and Ukraine claim Kievian-Russ as the foundation of both their countries. Various swastikas were fashionable in the Baltic, Bhuddist and Sioux cultures hundreds or thousands of years before Adolf Hitler perverted them for his own dastardly ambitions. Finally, dear Slim Jim, most of us are tired of you parroting Mr. Poutine's propaganda. I tend to read 6 or 8 different news sources (Al Jazeera, CBC, BBC, Epoch Times, Globe and Mail, Paris Match, PBS, National Post, Manchester Guardian, der Spiegel, Vancouver Province, etc.) every week and most of them disagree with Mr. Poutine's line.

The French Army had a robotic packing machine a couple of decades ago. It performed canopy inspections because it did not get bored like humans.

An FAA Parachute Rigger Examiner would be a long-term FAA employee (civil servant) who administers oral and practical examinations of potential riggers. While a number of FAA employees are riggers, few have the depth of knowledge to become Examiners. To fill this depth of knowledge, the FAA DESIGNATES well-respected civilian Master Parachute Riggers as EXAMINERS. These DPREs learn the finer points of FAA paperwork, then start examining potential riggers. DPREs operate semi-independently from FAA Flight Standards District Offices, setting their own hours and pay rates. However, the free market keeps fees similar across the board. DPRE travelling expenses are rarely an issue since it is difficult - bordering on impossible - for DPREs to gain approval to test outside their primary area (related to an FAA FSDO). Most DPREs do all their testing at a single - FAA approved - loft.

Yes, DPRE Jay Stokes and DPRE Bob Celaya said that it is difficult - bordering on impossible - to gain FAA approval for testing outside the USA. An FAA official inspecting the testing site (e.g. loft) is only part of the process. DPRE Mikey Morrill said - over the phone - that a letter of recommendation is no longer required. The FAA FSDO in Houston does not officially cover questions from Canada, but they pick up their phone more often than other FSDOs, so answer more questions. So a Canadian rigger applying for an FAA rigger rating must go through a similar process as a new American rigger: Form 8610-2, present logbooks to an FAA FSDO, "written" test and practical test. I did that whole process back in 1988 with the FSDO in Syracuse, New York and DPRE Dave DeWolf.

Folks, please remember that most of these recently-conscripted Russian soldiers already have a year or two or military training from back when they were conscripted as teenagers. Many European nations continued conscription of teenagers well into the 21st century. Some former conscripts have totally forgotten what was taught back, then while others may have longer military service. In any case, the latest batch of Russian conscripts still need some refresher training on the latest weapons and the latest Ukrainian tactics. The silly Ukrainian Army have discarded some Soviet tactics while simultaneously adopting a few NATO tactics.

Will someone please explain the logic of men who kill estranged ex-partners? I have been through a few "unpleasant" break-ups and the last thing I wanted was to see my "exs" for any reason. One "ex" used the courts to keep her hand in my wallet for 7 years after I left.

The problem is that the average BASE jumper does not understand the difference in risks between a sub-terminal deployment at 800 feet and a terminal deployment at 800 feet.

For many decades, CSPA, USPA and BPA avoided any involvement with BASE jumping because if its high fatality rate and the way the public could not tell the difference between skydiving and BASE. BASE gear may have become more reliable, but old skydivers do not understand the difference. CSPA has been through this whole "regulations versus recommendations" debate and now only recommends. The legal problem pokes up its ugly head when something is a "regulation" but is not rigidly enforced, putting CSPA at risk of a lawsuit for failing to rigidly enforce a regulation. Skydivers being skydivers means that they like to make their own decisions ... er ... hate being told what to do. Nothing good happens when lawyers get involved.

Does anyone have contact information for FAA DPRE Mikey Millor in Washington State? This relates to a question about FAA DPREs doing practical tests outside of the continental USA. Is that even an approved procedure? Rob Warner, FAA Master Rigger (back, seat and chest) CSPA Rigger Examiner Strong TIE

Back when I started jumping in 1977, we mainly used small Cessnas or World War 2 surplus military transports, all with piston engines. They took forever to climb to 7,000 feet. The beater Cessna 172 that I flew for a summer would top out at 5,000 feet during the hot and hazy days of August. Ergo. we rarely jumped from above 7,200 feet. That meant only a 30 second delay and no one wanted to waste altitude by pulling above - the USPA mandated - 2,000 feet. Back then CSPA put minimum opening altitude at 2,200 or 2,500 feet ... I forget which. The DZ safety Officer would "have words" with you if you failed to show a pilot-chute above 2,000 feet. Also consider that we started the 1970s with mainly military-surplus round parachutes and ended with Strato-Clouds which opened similar to the early square reserves. Come the early 1980s and Precision introduced the Raven series as both mains and reserves. With popular main canopies opening similar to reserves, you knew by 1,800 feet whether it was opening properly or not. Come the 1990s and tandem overwhelming the sport - turning it into an "industry" - DZs started flying more reliable turboprops (Caravan, Porter, Skyvan, Twin Otter, etc.) and it suddenly became practical and time-effective to consistently jump from above 12,000 feet. Altitude on the bottom end lost importance. Also consider that second and third generation zero-P canopies opened much slower and softer and tossing a pilot-chute an extra few hundred feet higher - at the bottom end - made more and more sense. Finally, the introduction of the first electronic Automatic Activation Devices (e.g. Cypres 1) in 1991 also encouraged people to raise their minimum opening altitude. Plenty complained about electronic AADs miss-firing, but the majority of those "miss-fires" occurred within the published envelope. USPA "upped" minimum opening altitudes around 2012 and CSPA followed a year or two later.

Russia detonating NBCW in Ukraine risks fall-out drifting over Russian farms and ruining their productivity.

If a parachute is even partly open in the plane, it creates a HUGE risk of inflating immediately outside the door and ripping the tail off of the airplane. That is why we keep the door closed. I have seen a few attempts at re-closing rigs in the airplane. Most were successful from a rigging point-of-view, but the user was too rattled to pull the correct handles in the correct sequence.

On the Eastern Front, both sides were brutal on Prisoners of War during World War 2. Hitler intended to clear Eastern Europe of Slavic untermensch to make way for good, upstanding German farmers. To that end, Nazis executed thousands of P.O.W.s especially leaders: professors, politicians, journalists, army officers, writers, poet, play-wrights, etc. in Poland. Meanwhile, the USSR starved thousands of P.O.W.s or let them freeze to death. They also deported huge numbers to labor camps in Siberia and kept them there for a decade after the war ended. Only a handful survived. Far more bled to death on the Eastern Front that while fighting in Western Europe (WALLIES included Americans, Brazilians, Brits, Canadians, Indians, Free French, Free Poles, etc.

LR-288 was originally built to compete for a West German Army contract. WEA wanted to be able to jump into East Germany and make messes if the Cold War ever went hot. They also wanted to be able to jump at night with rucksack, rifle, snowshoes, demolition charges, etc. ... well maybe not snowshoes. Kind of by accident, they found that increasing the aspect ratio of LR-288 - and the similar Manta 288, 9-cell - that they flattened the glide ratio and students were more likely to slide out poor landings than collapse like the sack of potatoes that they resembled under round parachutes. I believe that it was the change in ANGLE of landing that did the most to reduce student injuries (e.g. sprained ankle) during the 1980s.

I will take male anti-abortionists seriously when they post a $300.000 every time they prevent an abortion. Recent surveys show that it costs roughly $300,000 to raise a North American child until they are old enough to support themselves (18 ish years old).

If you had time to pull down on rear risers - to reduce descent rate - you also had enough time to do a rear riser stall. If you quickly release the rear riser stall, half the tension knots will fall out. I have used this technique to clear dozens of tension knots on tandems. If the student is heavy enough to stiffen risers into iron crow bars, I use toggles to pull the canopy into a deep stall, then let my hands up quickly. The canopy dives forward, lines go slack and most of the tension knots drop out. Please note that this technique does not work well on tiny canopies loaded more than 1:1 as the dive may be asymmetrical and throw you into line twists. The only way out of - tiny canopy - line twists is to cutaway. Whereas lightly-loaded student canopies just fly off on their merry way.

In the occupied territories of Donyetsk and Luhansk, Ukrainian partisans have been shooting at puppet mayors - appointed by Russia - and blowing up their cars.

A couple of free-lancers also offered to spray tired canopies with porosity-reducing sealants. I have only ever seen a single 8-cell canopy, it had about 240 square feet. It was made by APS. I only did one jump on it, but stomped the disc.

The Royal Family are still the largest land-owners in the British Isles. They can live comfortably on just the income from their numerous estates.