Hooknswoop

Because that is the same thing. Derek V

The loop wasn't cut and it didn't break, so the pin had to have been pulled. If the seal thread would not go back around the end of the ripcord pin and it didn't break when the pin was pulled, something is off. The only way I know that is possible is the BPA reserve seal method or if it was installed so that it wouldn't break if the pin was pulled. Did the rig have a Skyhook? What type of reserve handle? How much slack in the reserve ripcord cable at the reserve handle? How did the rig fit you? Derek V

Any non-belly flying on the skydive? On the ground, can you take the end of the seal thread and pull it past the end of the reserve ripcord pin? Derek V

What type of container? What type of AAD? Was the reserve closing loop cut? Did anyone do anything to the AAD on the way to altitude? Did you check the AAD back on the ground? Is the AAD a multi-mode AAD? Was there any sharp edges o the reserve closing flap grommets? Derek V

What 6 month stretch? Where in the manual or the FAR's does it say anything about a 6-month stretch? The FAA says that if installed, it must be maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions. If a rig has a 12 year, 3 month old Cypres2 that has met all Airtec's maintenance requirements and the reserve was packed within the last 180-days, it is legal to jump. If the Cypres2 is older than 12.5 years or the reserve was packed more than 180-days ago, it is not legal to jump. If I put a Cypres2 that has 30-days left in it's lifespan into a rig, then that rig is legal to jump for the next 30-days because it meets al the requirements of the FAR's. i.e. reserve packed within 180-days and AAD maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions. Derek V

You would have to ask the FAA for a legal opinion. But the way I read; "(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." Is that if the AAD is installed in a rig, it must be maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions. Airtec's instructions say that for the Cypres2, it has a life span of 12.5 years and after that cannot be used. The FAR doesn't say; "if it is installed and turned on". It says, "If installed" To me, if an AAD is over-due for maintenance it is not maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions and cannot be legally jumped, even if it is turned off. By the same token, if an AAD has met or exceeded the manufacturer's life span then it is no longer maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions and cannot be legally jumped, even if it is turned off. There is no exception to jump with an AAD not maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions if it is turned off. Derek V

FAA FAR 105.43; "(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." It's an FAR, not a technicality. I don't do that, I do offer to open (a reserve I packed), remove the AAD, and re-close it. FAA FAR Part 65 and 105 are very short, not much to them. As a skydiver, you should be well versed on the FAR's that cover skydiving. Derek V

If the DOm is 7/2003, the unit expires on 01/31/2016. Cypres2's have a 12.5-year life span. I just make a note on the card that the AAD expires on such and such date. Derek V

Sharpie has a new pen out that works best for me. http://www.sharpie.com/enUS/Pages/stainless-steel-pen.aspx Derek V

I'm still thinking just ban non commercial private airplanes. No more of my taxes going towards someone's hobby that they don't need. Why would anyone need their own private airplane?!?!?? Derek V

I checked the rules, http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=142088 Nope, nothing about goal posts. Yep, either ban or tax enough to cover the cost of non-commercial aviation. I might consider allowing private ownership of ultralights, but only after extensive back ground checks, including a physiatrist examine the potential pilot firest. Wouldn't want to have the wrong sort owning one of these things. Derek V

Well, you would make exceptions so that the military and police could keep their firearms, right? So I can make an exception for commercial aviation. Private ownership of aircraft should be banned. No reason for our taxes to pay for someone's HOBBY. No one NEEDS their own private airplane. Derek V

Nope, I'll make exceptions for commercial aviation. But for non-commercial purposes, who NEEDS a private airplane? No one. Maybe should ban them. Our taxes would go to better use. The skies would be quieter. Less pollution. I wouldn't have to worry about some crazy pilot crashing into my house. We should ban non-commercial private aircraft. Why are my taxes paying for someone's HOBBY? We could put that money towards education. Who NEEEDS a private airplane? Derek V

I'm not going to do the work for you, you can google it. That's because the fee schedule was too small. How about 56.6% tax on fuel, $1000.00 per landing fee, etc. up the fee schedule so that it covers the costs of General Aviation instead of tax payers paying for a completely unnecessary private ownership of aircraft. I'm calling for the ban. Who NEEDS a private airplane? Derek V

General aviation doesn't cover their costs 100%, the tax payers pick up the tab. Maybe this should change. A per use fee for ATC, per call to 1-800-WX-BRIEF, per flight plan filed, increase fuel taxes to cover all maintnence, improvements, etc of airports, fire stations on airports, etc. On second thought, maybe we should just ban private ownership of aircraft. Why does anyone NEED their own airplane? Derek V

100LL taxes does not come close to covering the costs of general aviation. Try again. Derek V

That is an option. It is a slippery slope though. Maybe we should tax aircraft owners to pay for airports, air traffic control, the FAA, and for the costs associated with aircraft accidents. Why should tax payers cover those expenses? Derek V

Looks very cheap to me. Derek V

I'm sorry John, I am not going to answer any more of your questions until after you answer mine. That is how a discussion works. Derek V

No, I want to discuss the price of freedoms/privileges. Specifically the cost in lives of gun ownership vs. restrictions of gun ownership. Reducing the cost, means more restrictions. At the far end of the scale (0/day) is no guns. At the other end, no restrictions, will be more than the current 30/day. There is a balance point between the cost and restrictions. For guns, to get even a small reduction would require large restrictions. I feel we are currently at a good balance point between the cost and restrictions. I feel the same way about vehicles. We could lower the 90/day number, but that would require large restrictions for small gains. There isn't much debate about that issue. Same thing for skydiving. A few years ago, there was a push for canopy restrictions, that I was in favor of. We probably would only have gotten a small decrease in cost for fairly large restrictions. There was a lot of opposition against the restrictions because skydivers accepted the cost with the current level of restrictions. John Kallend was in this group; "Almost all my friends and family think skydiving of any nature is an unacceptable risk. I choose to accept the risk. Some people accept the risk of jumping under tiny canopies. Who am I to criticize?"- John Kallend 6 June, 2003. "The burden of taking action is on those who want action taken. Personally, I think adults should be treated as such."- John Kallend 10 July 2010. The debate over guns is an emotional one, on both sides. For me, it is very simple, is the current cost acceptable when compared to the level of restrictions? For me, the answer is yes. Reducing the cost will will require too much restriction of freedom. Derek V

Looks like you have moved on. That's OK. I now know you do not want to actually have a frank back and forth exchange. I will not attempt to discuss this in the future with you. Derek V

You said, "Not to mention the 30+ people murdered with guns in a typical US day." in response to someone with a concealed handgun preventing a car jacking. Your point (correct me if I am wrong), is that one save isn't worth 30 people dying per day by guns. I am making the point that 90 people a day die from driving. You know where I was going and are intentionally pretending I am discussing traffic accidents to avoid discussing the real issue: The price society pays for certain freedoms and is society willing to pay that price. There is no where near the level of disagreement over 90/day for driving as there is over 30/day for guns. It comes down to is society willing to pay the price for the freedom? We have no problem with 90/day for driving. You refuse to answer that question, but we both know the answer. You, just like me and everyone else, accepts that 90/day die as the price of driving our cars. Now, if you want to discuss the issue, fine. Let's discuss it. If you refuse to answer my questions, even after I answer yours, and you continue to intentionally misunderstand my posts, just say so, and I'll move on. Derek V

If you don't want to discuss the issue, you should just say so. Derek V

i am discussing guns. I am making point that is directly related to guns. I asked you a simple question, after answering your questions. To move the conversation forward, answer my question. That is how a conversation works. Derek V

OK, you don't really want to discuss the issue. Never mind then. Derek V