dudeman17

That is probably the most practical advice for the OP. Worth at least a nickel.

The way people think these days is mind boggling. To a degree, I suppose, but really no. And you've been around long enough to know that. This isn't Disneyland. Skydiving is a blatantly elective activity, and it's a blatant act of self-reliance. It isn't for everybody. It's really not for many people at all. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and what happens to them at a dropzone. I say that point is when one first decides to take an fjc. Sure, if one has different rigs for different disciplines, or if one is buying a couple rigs at the same time, there are things that should be considered. But the OP appears to be a fun jumper who's wondering if it's ok to keep his old rig when he gets his new one. A rig he presumably has jumps on and is familiar with. (And his mains are similar.) There really shouldn't be a problem with that. Sure, he has to pay attention to what he's doing, but that is a requirement anyway. If that is beyond someone, then they really shouldn't be doing this. I mean, is it black death to take your spouse's car to the store because it's parked behind yours in the driveway? If it is, you should sell the damn things and use a ride-share.

If you're buying multiple rigs at the same time for a specific purpose such as team training, sure. But someone keeping an old rig when they buy a new one shouldn't be a problem, as long as they pay attention.

If you 'have' that other Sabre, I'm guessing that you've jumped it regularly and are familiar with it? If so, then I don't see a problem. Well... I think Deimian makes a fair point about that, but the point is not that your two rigs need to be identical, but that you need to pay attention to which one you're using.

Are you sure there was another card? Unless I missed something from the more recent posts, I don't see what the difference is from before, when the different numbers indicated that the rig left on the plane and the one Hayden got back were possibly not the same rig. I recall those numbers coming from the documents that describe it as a 'second' canopy from the same rig, 'an integral part' of the parachute. That description sounds like they got the numbers by looking at the contents of the rig, which would have required them to open it. That description sounded to me like they were describing the pilot chute, and it was a typo saying it was 24 feet, rather than inches. Again, I recall those other numbers as coming from the document that didn't specifically mention a second (back chute) card. Did I miss something?

Ha ha, yes I do. Doing the squeeze up against the wall of a literal brick shithouse.

That is absolutely a valid point. It's why I said... ...but it bears reinforcing. On one hand, you certainly do not want to develop incorrect muscle memory, but on the other hand, the more practice, the more familiarity, the better the result. So if someone was to do this, they absolutely want to work with their instructors to make certain they are doing it correctly before practicing at home. (Is the OP still reading this?)

A lot of manufactured training harnesses I see just aren't that accurate. Often the pilot chute is too high on your back, and with simple handles just velcro'd on, students often want to just grab and pull them in a manner that is not accurate and may not work so well in reality. A possible alternative that I would suggest is see if you can find an old out-of-service container that someone would sell cheap. You can put foam in the containers and tie them shut. But with the cutaway and reserve handles actually having cables routed into housings, that will give you a more accurate feel. Practice with an instructor to make sure you're doing the pulls accurately.

I think that last sketch was of Josh Gates, the host.

I don't know about the others, but I don't watch anyone like a hawk. (Well, except my AFF students, and that is somewhat literal.) So I guess I did miss your split. I just figured you were moving to that house you posted pictures of a while ago. As for Cooper stuff, I just peruse here and the forum.

Either that's one of the longest engagements on record, or making it official was part of the deal for the house. Ha! Either way, congrats! ...?

I agree with that a thousand percent. Ain't nuthin' like a radial. The Harley-Davidson of airplanes.

Wasn't that the all amputee group? Among them Al Krueger, Larry Yohn, Jim Statzer...? Definitely Al Krueger there.

Well, no and yes. My comment was a tongue in cheek response to gowlerk's comment that the 'greatest movie ever' was Fandango, ostensibly based on that scene. I was saying that 'Proof' was the greatest. 'Proof' was director Kevin Reynolds' film school project when he was at USC. When he wrote and directed 'Fandango', he inserted that script into it and re-shot it with his new actors, including the young Kevin Costner. And yes, he used the same guy for Truman Sparks. I still use the 'two shots at that mutha' line in my fjc's.

Actually, 'Proof'.

There's a pretty limited market for parachutes. If that store used Cossey for repacks, it's possible that they also got used gear from him, possibly the ones Hayden bought. Not saying that's what happened, but it's not far-fetched. There were two chutes found left on the plane, the unused backpack and the 'real' reserve that he cut lines from. Each should have a packing card. Was there a third card found? I know there are some different numbers in the reports, but I don't think I heard of a third card?

That one could be expected. Cutaway was written, produced, and directed largely by skydivers.

Maybe but not necessarily. Changing or moving a ripcord handle isn't that unusual. If indeed Cossey used that rig for putting out students and wanted to get the handle further from their potential grasp, that would make sense. The BS part is that it would make the rig 'too difficult to use'. As you and I have both said, if that was the case, he would never give it to a pilot (such as Hayden). It would be too easy to change it back. Also, as I said 'over there', if indeed that handle was mounted 'outboard', that could be the very reason that Cooper chose that rig. It would better get the handle out from under things he may have tied to his chest.

Yes you did. I think that's also his seaplane with him flying it. If I remember the story right, supposedly Tom Cruise learned to skydive at Deland while he was in Florida filming Days of Thunder. I guess he liked Bill and thought his beard was filmogenic, so he found a place to use him. I knew a guy who used to work for one of the major film set catering companies, one that Cruise requested on his sets. Cruise knew my friend was a jumper, so a couple times when they were on location, Cruise had him (secretly) find a nearby dz he could jump at on days off.

That's right, I stand corrected. Actually, after I wrote that, I figured you'd correct it by saying "...and back".

I can see kleggo kneeling in the road, fingers stroking his chin, checking conditions, temperature, winds, choosing his bike the way a pro golfer chooses his club. Ha! I remember when he would ride his bike over the Ortegas from Pendleton to Perris.

You're getting good advice on here, especially about the reserve size and working with your local instructors and canopy coaches. But, as zombie said, if it's truly too good of a deal to pass up, then buy it and stick it in your closet until you're ready for it. If you also buy something else more appropriate in the meantime, you shouldn't have too much trouble re-selling it when you're done with it. There are always people coming up behind you that will need it.

That's interesting stuff, Flyjack. I have to chuckle a bit, you say you don't see the FBI as involved in a coverup, but what you describe sounds a lot like that possibility. It raises a couple questions, though. And I don't say this in any way to refute your theory, just curiosity. If they cover Hahnemann for Cooper, yet shortly thereafter they convict and jail him for the next one - why? Wouldn't the same circumstances apply? Maybe they cover him for one, but when he does it again, they say 'we can't keep doing this'? But if that's the case, then why not go ahead and out him as Cooper? And why does he do it twice? Does he need more money? Did he lose the money in 'Cooper'? If he did, might that contribute to the Tina Bar find? A lot of possibilities...

Like I said, I was just making conversation based on the recent exchange. We don't know who or what the Cooper case was. Which means we don't know what it wasn't. It could be simply for cash. It could be the most intricate conspiracy in history. It could be just for cash, but everyone involved 'had' some things on each other. We just don't know for sure, and fifty years later, maybe we never will. The vortex spins...

Well, I don't know, but for the sake of conversation I'll hazard a guess. I don't think Flyjack is saying that Hahneman is absolutely Cooper. I think he's saying that H is a better suspect than any other, so he's working that angle. The key statement I see in this exchange is... If Hahneman was Cooper, and the FBI came to know that, but the public wasn't supposed to know because... ...then I could see where the FBI just doesn't say anything about him, which seems to be the case. But since the Cooper case is so prevalent in the public eye, then the FBI has to keep up the appearance of 'looking for Cooper', but they never get anywhere, which also seems to be the case.