NovaTTT

like the yellow lolon coated cable ? Not hard enough; the cable would be pulled into the grommet making it just like a bent pin, only worse. It could be reinforced at that point, perhaps, but there is already a solution for that: hardened steel pins. I'm interested in the Skyhook pin and its ability to withstand forces which would bend a standard reserve pin. Does anyone know of info on this? (EFS: edit for spelling!) "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Being a startup there are going to be some problems and glitches. I subscribed before the first issue was published and had a hiccup or two with BSM - but the BSM gang seemed to put everything aside and made sure they sorted out the problems. I don't think I'm unusual, different or special in this regard. I got the impression that keeping their customers happy is important to them. I don't always like what I see in the magazine, but I give them huge props for getting it up, running and growing, providing an independent voice. Keep the magazine going and continued best wishes from a satisfied customer. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

SHAZAM!!!!!! "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I'd like to see that TSO application. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Many, many great stories to tell - congratulations on a life lived! Keep those stories coming as you feel like it, Bill. You're that one in a million and I hope you're telling your stories for years to come. Blue skies Chuteless! "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I made the comment further up about an employer's investment in an employee. The point, and I think it was taken, is that as long as pot is illegal the employer has an interest in protecting their investment. But I suspect it's not just pot; presumably they test for narcotics, barbituates, meth, etc. What irritates about this, however, is the lack of testing for alcohol and tobacco derivatives. Those can be just as bad as the rest, I suppose. Does this make random (yeah, right!!) drug screening OK? As a lover of freedom I say no. If an employer has reasonable suspicion, test away. Insofar as the skydiving tolerance aspect: an employer may have the ability to take action if they've told someone they're not going to continue to employ a skydiver, but that seems unlikely because skydiving is not illegal. I am certain there are certain jobs and professions where risk management and security are of paramount importance, but for Average Joe it's not an issue. The overlying issue is arguably and likely economic. Robin makes some good points about the origins of the criminalization of hemp. I mentioned earlier and it's a known that hemp is a better fiber, provides a better oil and has an unknown number of useful derivative products that petrochemical, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries are afraid of. Of course, those industries could play the game and possibly come out on top of the hemp industry. The money made from the suppression of the hemp industry is in those small and already wealthy portions of the private sector. Maybe hemp should be released to the public sector and American entrepreneurialism will make a lot of people money - including Uncle. What surprises me most about this thread is that it remains in GS and hasn't been moved not SC! "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

The criminalization of marijuana (hemp) has caused a lot of issues and problems for America. IMO the war on drugs is a good thing, but the inclusion of marijuana in that war has clearly been a point of hot contention. In terms of recreational use I am a fence-sitter as I don't use and don't give any thought to who may or may not. I simply couldn't care if it's legal or not (as should be obvious in that I think only CA has restricted-decriminalization). But in terms of industry, medicine and manufacturing, hemp is a resource as useful as any other; probably moreso than almost any other. IIRC the hemp that is most beneficial industrially contains low amounts of THC and is therefore relatively useless recreationally. However, if the decriminalization of hemp for industrial uses means it must be decriminalized across the board, I say go for it. Regulate it (as ETOH), tax it (as everything else under the sun) and in the process of improving industry, medicine, manufacturing, etc., take a large portion of the tax burden off Average Joe. The burden on insurers and employers would also be lessened, in terms of extended and continued employment of human assets. But decrim, if and when it occurs, will open another can of worms of issues and problems that we're not considering or have yet to even originate. Nothing's free and it don't come easy. Furtherance of my .02 "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

To discuss or argue the merits of the reality of using pot vs ETOH vs the drug test results vs one's ability to show up to work on time and get the job done is all well and good, but ultimately, except in CA, pot is 100% criminalized and persons using and/or possessing are subject to arrest and possibly incarceration. An employer has an investment in its employees. It's not unreasonable to expect that employee to not engage in criminal behaviour that could result in their arrest/incarceration and thereby, cause problems for the employer to get that individual's work done. Between that an insurance issues, it's no surprise drug testing is as common as it is. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

The Dual Hawk has two separate closing loops. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Fred, I know you and know you are fair and level-headed. I also know your Racer had some problems that the Shack should have caught in the shop. For example, a cutaway system with cracked teflon should never be put in use by the factory, regardless the cause of the issue. I'm friendly with Nancy, too, and I know her to be fair and level-headed. I think she's a big Racer nut and it's no surprise that she's defending her product. Usually defending her product means she goes above and beyond to remedy any issue or problem. Your 2K3, Fred, seems to have been that one that's the exception to the norm. I hate it that you had those troubles but IMO it's not a point upon which to condemn the Shack or the Racer. It's definately a good reason for Nancy to have a talk with her production staff about standards and quality. The point that needs to be highlighted here, especially for downtoearth, is to understand the Racer RSL before jumping a Racer that is RSL equipped. Having a double-sided RSL means there are additional risks and considerations. For example, the lanyard might snag your helmet on breakaway. No need to fault the jumper; in dynamic situations looking at the handles might not prevent the RSL lanyard from riding up the neck and under the helmet edge. Most important is the need to disconnect the RSL in a two-out situation because if the reserve is in front the main could choke off the reserve on breakaway. This is a critical point anyone who jumps a Racer with RSL needs to know and practice. In fact John Sherman, the creator/manufacturer of the Racer, instructs the RSL should be disconnected on every jump after one has a good main. I like Racers and I like rigging them, but they are definately a RTFM H/C system. Edited to correct main to reserve "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I don't think the space is "reserved", but I do think defects is the only info *required* to be logged there. There's nothing in the FARs that tell us what we should not put there. As I mentioned earlier, I like to fill in the blank so subsequent riggers will know what rigging has been performed on the equipment. I haven't seen anything to make me think this is wrong. .02 "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

As you well know, Ski, CFR 65.131.c says: Each certificated parachute rigger who packs a parachute shall write, on the parachute packing record attached to the parachute, the date and place of the packing and a notation of any defects he finds on inspection. He shall sign that record with his name and the number of his certificate. (emphasis added) It is my practice to include more information than that on the PDC because I think every rigger who looks at that card after me should and ought to be able to understand what rigging has been performed on that equipment. From reading this thread I think you feel the same. But the FAR that regulates this makes it clear that the only records necessary to complete the PDC to FAA standards are the date and place, defects (if any), signature and cert #. Like so much in life, it comes down to theory vs practice. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Mistakes were made. Open mouth, insert foot. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

The manufacturer's service bulletin is for a mandatory modification to be performed before the next jump. I don't know about Swiss regulations, but in America it is not a legal rig until the SB is satisfied and it is illegal to jump it unless the SB has been satisfied. Aerodyne is footing the bill. I think you should get it taken care of now. The sky will always be there. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Dad was in Viet Nam with the 5th Special Forces Group. I asked him if he knew Sgt. Benavidez and wasn't surprised that he did. They were in country at the same time but were on different teams. Dad said Benavidez was a remarkable man and they were friendly through the years. Dad attended Sgt. Benavidez' memorial service and said there was not a dry eye in attendance. Dad is having serious health issues his VA doctor said are related to Agent Orange exposure. Let's keep all of our vets in our prayers and memories. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Yep - it's been done before. But I found my answer in another thread. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Can't help but wonder, then, why are you taking it? "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Good luck, Keith. Remember that the hospital is a dirty, dirty place. Be sure to get enough sponge baths. From the best looking RNs. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I know it's hard to have alcoholics in your life, and it's easy to pick up some of the blame or enable by making excuses. Sometimes extreme excuses. But if it's been going on your whole life maybe it's not the drink and your dad is just a mean person. My opinion is to help your mom get out, cut your ties to your dad and give him the opportunity to straighten himself out. AA is the place to start, but he has to want to be helped, want to get over his addiction. Sorry for your troubles. Good luck. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I have nothing to say about this thread, BSM, etc., but TAXI's comment is simply and obviously untrue. Don't believe me? Try opening a park called Disnee World, a pizza delivery joint called Papa Jon's or a computer S&S company called Macrosoft. You'll quickly get schooled in brand recognition and extended ownership rights. It's just not that simple. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

FIFY "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Congrats "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

I think the PIA TB simply states the obvious: a rig can be opened mid-cycle and a rigger always has a choice of whether to work on a certain rig or not. The main point is probably to clarify when the next AIR is due. But I believe the language indicates they are saying the rigger who sealed the last AIR should be the one who opens it for mid-cycle work and re-seals it. The comment about being responsible for the airworthiness of the system is where I believe they are casting a pall on the practice of opening another riggers work and re-sealing it. I could be mistaken, however. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Taken from TB-252 v1.1: "NOTE: A rigger may elect to re-close, sign, and reseal only a reserve that they originally packed. " (emphasis added.) Perhaps other riggers were not excluded in v1.0, but PIA now indicates they consider it the job of only the rigger who sealed the pack job to open it for maintenance, without performing a full AIR. But they don't pretend it doesn't happen: Also from TB-252 v1.1 "NOTICE: Before opening and re-closing a container packed by another rigger, careful consideration should be given to any and all legal ramifications." "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

PM sent "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73