Hooknswoop

Ya, that worked well for the guy w/ the 120 and the broken back. Derek

It is probably your reserve pilot chute top. If you can 'rock' it back and forth, the reserve closing loop is too long and needs to be shortened. I'm guessing you mean your main closing loop, then no, that wouldn't affect your reserve. Derek

Thanks. Derek

Ya, but new TO's didn't have -27 or -34 engines either. Derek

Where does the FAA define a hook turn? Derek

The strangest drogue mal I've seen was on an Eclispe rig. The dacron wrapped ring that served as a stop on the drogue kill line hung up on the bottom of the drogue where it attaches to the bridle. Derek

They really don't get much lighter, my old Micron V304/Vx-60/PD-106R weighed over 20 pounds. The smaller rigs have the same harness and the canopies just don't make that much of a difference. I do know that aircraft over 12,500 pounds max take off weight require the pilot to have a type rating (a FAA check ride) and the TO is certified to 12,500 pounds so that it does not require a type rating. I suspect it will perform fine (with -27/-34 engines) over 12,500 and 12,500 was selected to avoid the type rating issue. This may be one of those cases where even though against the rules, it isn't unsafe to load a TO over 12,500 pounds. Derek

The membership dues, which pays for the magazine and more. If USPA can't afford 30-odd memorial pages a year (if every fatality resulted in enough interest in a page, say 50 signatures on an application), upping the dues (again) would easily cover it. The magazine is for the members. If the members want a memorial page or 2 every month max, then that is what they should get. It’s not like USPA is doing their job anyway, they could at least do this. Derek

Ya, for demos you have to have your stuff wired, but for normal, DZ, night jumps..... Derek

And that is how those magzines make money. Parachutist is a membership benefit for it's members, a completely different tpe of publication. Derek

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_40_18/ai_n6283703 http://stoenworks.com/A%20Weighty%20Issue.html http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/RAA/RAA_04/raa_arcweighsp8.html There may be resistance, but the fact is average passenger weight is above 170 pounds and above 175 with parachutes, etc on. I'm guessing that means Twin Otters that just fueled and take on 23 pax are overweight? Derek

175 pounds? No way. Derek

Um, sure, why not?. As long as they work, it's not like the FAA is going to check. Derek

I don't think anyone inured or killed in a conflict is happy with the outcome. Even alot of those physically un-injured aren't happy with the outcome. War is ugly. Don't let loose the dogs of war and expect a made for TV mini-series. Laws of warefare? Hah! Rule #1: Don't die. That's it. Everything else is gravy. Derek

That's it, now can you explain to others that think we are nuts? Derek

Since when is watching any sport a sport? You are confusing spectators with participants. Is football a sport? That doesn’t mean watching football is a sport. Derek

http://www.kriana.com/ These are cool too. Derek

If you find one, let me know Derek

I did read it and by USPA's standards he can't. This was before I realized it isn't a USPA DZ. dropzonefool: First point: Even if it was a USPA DZ, the USPA a) can;t really do anything about it except maybe revoke the S & TA's appointment which doesn;t really mean anything, and b) USPA probably won't do anything anyway for fear of losing membership dues. Second point: DZ's are supposed to comply witht the FAR's by law. BSR's have no legality to them and are purely voluntary and most DZ's violate them with impunity. Since the DZ is no a GM DZ, they haven't 'pledged' to follow the BSR's. Since it isn't an FAA requirement for a AFFI, IADI, or S/LI to be rated, the FAA doesn't care a bit, they aren't violating the FAR's. Third point: You have to make a choice, a big choice. You can either look the other way, if your integrity can handle that, or you will probably be banned from the DZ, and maybe others, if you try to say/do anything about non instructors training students. Understand 2 things, you'll find B.S. like this at almost every DZ, and no one really cares enough to actually do something to change things. If you try, you'll be outcast and nothing will change anyway. I speak from experience. Derek

No, an S & TA cannot allow some to act as an AFFI or TI if they are not rated. Derek

5-mph OVER the speed limit. Driving faster because you have an air silly. Making a skydive you shouldn't because you have an AAD is silly. They both negate the increase in safety the airbag/AAD offer. Derek

No, I didn't overload my reserve, I was 30+ pounds under the max weight. So much for that theory. Wrong again. Do some research into TSO's and you'll find the answer. Derek

I have also cutaway a perfectly good main, have something like 54 intentional cutaways, intentionally deployed 2 canopies for a 2-out situation (one of which wrapped up and caused the use of the last reserve), etc. I know how fast my reserve deployed from actually using it. I am/was also able to make real-time decisions about altitude, landing areas, deployment altitude/time/traffic, etc because a cutaway was a non-event for me. It was a leading question that really has nothing to do with the Skyhook or reserve deployment altitudes. I was trying to use it to illiustrate my point that because you have an AAD, you shouldn't increase your risk level the same way you shouldn't drive faster only because you have an airbag. I see a problem in 2 cases. 1) The driver that can handle 5-mph over the speed limit, but increases that to 10-mph over because they now have an airbag and, 2) The driver that can handle 10-mph over the speed limt and consideres the airbag strictly a back up, but decides to go 20-mph over and justifies the decision because they have an airbag. In both cases they are negating the added safety benifit of the airbag by increasing their risk level. I don't see a problem with someone that can handle 5-mph over the speed limit and doesn't drive more than 5-mph over the limit, but feels they really should have the added safety benefit of an airbag and won't drive without it. Derek

Right. The driver that was only willing and capable to drive 5-mph until they got an airbag and with that being the only change, now drive 10-mph over shouldn't drive more than 5-mph over even with the airbag. There are some jumpers that exceed their abilities-driven risk level because they have an AAD, audible, etc. That is my point. If you are only capable of driving 5-mph over the speed limit, an airbag does not mean you can now drive 10-mph over. People think they can though. The 500-ft faster deployment so you pull 500-ft lower is the perfect example. The willing to do a 100-way is an imperfect example. Derek

The trianles aren't the same size. Look at the bottom triangle, at the top left corner of the yellow piece. Compare that to the same part of the triangle above. The top one has a gap, the bottom one doesn't. They are slightly different sizes. Derek