Hooknswoop

I don't think that is the issue. It isn't about which component is stronger. The issue is wether or not the harness is TSO'd for the maximum force the reserve can put on the harness. Under TSO C23d, the reserve is required to be placarded with the average peak force from the drop tests. If that force is higher than the harness was drop tested to, then the harness and reserve are not compatible, or at least that is what the AC is saying. "(3) For a single-harness parachute system, the strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests." In other words, if you are lifting a 1,000 lb object with a sling rated to 500 lbs, you have a problem. Derek V

Legalities/compatibility of major components. For example, it could be argued that a PD-113R reserve canopy is not compatible with a Mirage harness/container since the reserve produced more than 3,000 lbs force during testing and the harness is only certified up to 3,000 lbs force. Derek V

From AC-105-2D; "(3) For a single-harness parachute system, the strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests. The rigger who assembles the system should record these limits in a place accessible to the user when he or she dons the assembly. For tandem systems, there may be additional limits for each harness. Some manufacturers may also specify minimum weights or speeds for safe operation. (a) In the case where the harness is certified under the TSO-C23b “Standard” category, and the canopy is certified under TSO-C23b and TSO-C23d, the system is limited to the performance limitations of the canopy and may be determined by comparing the placarded force generated on the canopy to the 5,000-pound force capability of the harness. If the canopy is placarded at or above the 5,000-pound level, then the system is considered “unlimited.” (b) In the case where the harness is certified under the TSO-C23b “Low Speed” category, and the canopy is certified under TSO-C23b and TSO-C23d, the system is limited to the placarded performance limitations of the canopy or the structural limitation of the harness (3,000 pounds), whichever is lower." From AC-105-2E; "(3) For a single-harness parachute system, the strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests." "b) In the case where either the harness or canopy of a single-harness system is certified under TSO-C23b and the manufacturer has not specified operating limits, derive the maximum pack opening speed for that component from the strength test table in the National Aerospace Standards Specification (NAS)-804, Parachutes. 1. For the maximum operating weight of the TSO-C23b component, use the highest weight in the table less than or equal to the maximum operating weight of the other component and use the corresponding speed in the table as the maximum pack opening speed of the TSO-C23b component. 2. For the maximum pack opening speed of the TSO-C23b component, use the highest speed in the table less than or equal to the maximum pack opening speed of the other component and use the corresponding weight in the table as the maximum operating weight of the TSO-C23b component." From PIA's response to AC-105-2D; "The PIA proposal deliberately omitted the phrase “the strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests.” The intention was to remove an obsolete, unsupported, and ambiguous impediment to combining components approved and still manufactured under different standards. The industry has over 25 years of experience with such cross-TSO combinations, and has experienced exactly zero incidents attributed to different certification standards. That is not to say there have not been equipment failures. There have been. In each case, though, the failures have come from operating the equipment outside the designed and certified operating limits." It seems to m that if the harness is certified to a maximum of 3,000 lbs force and the reserve parachute can generate more than 3,000 lbs force during deployment without structurally failing, the harness is not certified to accept the forces generated but he reserve during deployment. The letter also states; "With respect to 13.c.(3), The requirement for the harness to be stronger than the canopy appears in AC 105-2C, but nowhere else. There is no particular reason why we should prefer canopy failure to harness failure, and inclusion of this phrase results in operation limitations that do not contribute to safety. And it is, in fact, an unworkable and impractical standard." I think the PIA missed the point here. It isn't that one component will fail before the other, it is that the reserve can generate more force during deployment, without failure, than the harness is certified to handle. Furthermore in the letter; "Also, as mentioned above, the C23b 3000-pound and 5000-pound forces generated during testing are minimums, not maximums, and it is possible for a test article to be capable of exceeding those minimums by a considerable amount." I agree that the harness may be able to handle much more than the 3,000 or 5,000 minimum, that is what the harness was TSO'd to and we do not know how much more the harness can handle. Specifically, we do not know if the harness can handle the maximum force generated by the reserve during deployment. Obviously this is not currently a safety concern. They are many of these TSO C23b, low speed category harness/containers in use today with reserves that are placarded with over 3,000 lbs average peak force. We are not seeing harness failures during reserve deployments. The solution is to, once again, rewrite AC-105 in plain language, clarifying compatibility of major components. One last note, does anyone know why Raven-M reserves omit the average peak force data from their placards? Derek V

PDR 113 - 3639 lbs Optimum 106 - 3951 Optimum 126- 3951 So what happens if you put one of these reserves into a container that was TSO'd under C23b, Low Speed (3000lbs) category? Does that mean the reserve is capable of producing more force during opening than the harness is certified to? Derek V

Our armed forces are more capable with the knowledge that no effort or expense will be spared to rescue them if they are in dire straights. Our PJ's motto is "That Others May Live". The fight against Ebola will be won or lost in Africa. If the Doctors and Nurses are left to die, will they continue to travel to Africa to stop the spread of Ebola? In short, what are the long term reprocussions of doing nothing? Derek V

Having tested this exact scenario with the FAA, Stratostar is correct. Derek V

Denver post. The bolded & braced comments are mine. Derek V

Colorado’s Cowardly Gun Fighter By David Freedlander 5 hours ago The Daily Beast . Colorado’s Cowardly Gun Fighter How dire is the political situation for supporters of gun control? Consider the case of Colorado, which saw two horrific mass shootings in the past 20 years, and in response, passed meaningful gun-control legislation last year. But last week, Colorado Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who made those measures a centerpiece of his first term, backed swiftly away from them in a meeting with a group of county sheriffs. Hickenlooper told the biennial meeting of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, who represent rural communities in the state and who vociferously opposed the measures, that he regrets signing the bills, and would not have done so had he known more. “I’ll tell you the funny story, and it is a weird… I think we screwed that up,” Hickenlooper said, according to a videotape of the remarks that one sheriff in attendance posted online. “So we were performing legislation without basic facts, which I think is a bad idea in every case. It took almost a month to get the facts. By that time I had pissed you guys off… There was passed legislation that I had said I was going to sign.” “I apologize. I don’t think we did a good job on any of that stuff,” Hickenlooper added. When pressed by one member of the audience, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, Hickenlooper worked blue. “What the fuck?” the governor said. “I apologized!” The governor’s office told reporters that Hickenlooper was joking, but Smith wrote on his Facebook page that he did not find the matter funny. “I’m a big boy and I won’t pretend for a moment that it’s not language that’s foreign to me—but I found that type of attitude and response to be well below the dignity of the office of governor,” Smith wrote. “This was a sitting governor, in a public meeting, responding to another elected official.” The measures that Colorado passed in 2013 limited the sale of high-capacity magazine clips of the kind that made the violence and destruction at the Aurora movie-theater shooting much worse than it ordinarily would have been. [I understood that the 100-round magazine jammed in an ironic twist where use of the high capacity magazine resulted in less carnage]The bills also included increased background checks on gun purchases and a limit of sales to people convicted of domestic violence. To the sheriffs, the governor expressed doubt that the high-capacity magazine ban could be enforced[i cannot see how the law can be enforced. I can legally fly or dive to another state, buy as many 15+ magazines as I wish, and then fly or drive back to Colorado.], and said that the only reason he pushed for it was because a staff member had said he would, and the governor then felt obligated. At the time of the passage, Hickenlooper was hailed by gun-control activists, especially New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group. Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, however, that Bloomberg had nothing to do with what happened in Colorado. Conservative news outlets revealed this week that in fact phone logs from the governor’s office showed that Hickenlooper had several conversations with the New York mayor. A spokesman for the governor clarified the governor’s remarks to a Denver television station. “The governor often jokes about his ability to put his foot in his mouth, because he does,” said Eric Brown, the spokesman. “It is well established that Gov. Hickenlooper spoke with Mayor Bloomberg, as well as NRA President [David] Keene and many other stakeholders in the gun-safety debate. In fact, the governor released phone records on this matter.” “When the governor told an audience of sheriffs that he had not talked to Bloomberg, the governor was attempting to convey he never had a conversation with Bloomberg that influenced the decision he made,” Brown added. “In no way did the governor intend to mislead the sheriffs or anyone else.” After the gun-control bills were signed into law last year, Colorado became ground zero for the fight over gun safety, with gun-rights activists pushing for the recall of two state lawmakers who supported the measures. Both lawmakers were defeated, despite a major infusion of resources from Bloomberg and other gun-control supporters. Hickenlooper is up for reelection in 2014 in a state that remains deeply divided politically. Yet most political prognosticators do not think he is likely to lose this November. Perhaps for that reason, even some of Colorado’s most ardent advocates for gun control were muted into their criticism of the governor. “I don’t what to make of it,” said Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was murdered in the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, and who has met with President Obama to push for more gun-safety laws. “It is certainly a very contentious issue. I think that for the average person they think there should be a right to bear arms, but they also understand that there should be limitations on guns. But in the political world, there is so much hand-wringing. It is tough to get things done.”[This is the basis of the pro/anti gun debate. The balance between no guns (the 2nd amendment prevents that) and buying and owning anything you wish and wether or. It the current balance point is where it should or should it be adjusted. My impression is that most on the pro gun side are ok with where the balance is currently and the anti gun side will not stop. I was going to say, "will not stop until", but realized there is no until. More laws will not stop shootings. The anti gun side will continue to push for more laws using shootings as evidence of their necessity. There is always a price to be paid for freedoms. How many people are injured and killed on our nation's roads? We don't bat an eye at that number. It's not even a debate. As a society, we have chosen to accept those injuries and fatalities as the price we are willing to pay for the freedom to get in our vehicles and drive where we choose. The 2nd Amendment comes with a price.] He noted that the governor hailed the measures while signing them, and suggested that perhaps the governor was just playing to his audience. “I am just confused,” he said. Eileen McCarron, the president of Ceasefire Colorado, the state’s leading gun-control group, criticized the sheriffs for saying that they were not involved in the planning and drafting of the bills, but declined to criticize Hickenlooper for not standing behind his previous actions and words. “These comments were largely about process issues,” she said. “This was a conversation between the governor and the sheriffs and we don’t have a comment on it.” The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, seized on the comments as proof that Hickenlooper is tailoring his gun message to his audience, calling the remarks part of a “desperate tap dance.” “By doing one thing as governor and then saying another on the campaign trail, Hickenlooper is clearly demonstrating that he has no credibility when it comes to protecting our Second Amendment freedoms,” said Catherine Mortensen, spokesperson for the NRA. But perhaps another errant remark by Hickenlooper recorded at the meeting sums up the whole imbroglio best. “If we had known that this was going to divide the state so intensely,” Hickenlooper said. “I think we would have thought about it twice.” Derek V

After several days of fallout over his comments on gun control laws to a recent gathering of county sheriffs, Gov. John Hickenlooper has managed to baffle both victims-rights advocates and Second Amendment supporters. The governor's conflicting comments on his support for a controversial 2013 law limiting ammunition magazines has added traction to the argument from critics that he's unwilling to take definitive stances in his role as leader of the state. "By now we are all used to the way the governor thinks out loud," said Tom Sullivan, whose 27-year-old son, Alex, was killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. "But what I do know is that as Coloradans we are all too familiar with gun violence, and these laws were written in response to repeated tragedies we have faced in our state." Sullivan added: "Unlike me, there are fathers across the state who were able to spend last Sunday with their son because of the laws we passed to make Colorado safer." Hickenlooper, in wide-ranging remarks last week in Aspen at the biannual gathering of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, said that of the small handful of gun laws passed in 2013, he felt conflicted about supporting the measure that bars the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, but one of his "staff made a commitment" to signing it. Moreover, he said that he was unaware the sheriffs wanted to meet with him in 2013 to discuss the proposed gun laws until it was too late; that had he known the law would divide the state, he would have reconsidered his support; and that he wished he and his staff had more facts before he signed the bill. Hickenlooper on Thursday declined to comment despite multiple requests from The Denver Post, which sought to have the governor explain his comments and their apparent contradiction with published accounts of the debate and the gun laws' passage. Supporters and opponents of the magazine limits expressed dismay at Hickenlooper's comments. Officials with the National Rifle Association called Hickenlooper's comments a "desperate tap dance to try and have it both ways on gun control," said Catherine Mortensen, a spokeswoman for the NRA. Hickenlooper told the sheriffs he never spoke to then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a key financial backer of the gun-control measures. But phone records unveiled by a conservative blog revealed he did speak with Bloomberg when the debates were at their peak. Hickenlooper also talked with then-NRA president David Keene when Keene came to visit him during the debates. Also, Erie-based Magpul, an ammunition-magazine manufacturer, made elaborate public appeals against the ban. Yet Hickenlooper last week recounted to the sheriffs that he was told his staff went back and got facts they "should've had from the beginning," which revealed "roughly 300,000 magazines that carried more than 15 rounds" were already in Colorado. Hickenlooper's office has been unable to explain how he learned of that statistic. Four Republicans vying to advance from Tuesday's primary to challenge Hickenlooper, a Democrat, have assailed his support for gun control measures. On social media Thursday, Republicans attacked Hickenlooper's comments. Even the liberal blog Colorado Pols questioned the governor's comments. Denver political analyst Eric Sondermann said Hickenlooper's actions fall into a pattern "where the governor tries to have it both ways." "In this case, you can't have it both ways. The governor signed these bills into law. He has to own it," Sondermann said. Hickenlooper has been criticized and labeled as an indecisive leader by both Democrats and Republicans. His temporary reprieve of death-row inmate Nathan Dunlap upset both proponents and opponents of the death penalty. Also unanswered from Hickenlooper's visit with sheriffs is which staffer made the commitment Hickenlooper mentioned. The bill's primary sponsor, state Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, said no commitment was made to her. House Speaker Mark Ferrandino said "several conversations" over the gun control measures took place, but he does not recall any commitments the bill would be signed. Then-state Sen. Evie Hudak resigned her seat in the midst of a recall effort waged because she supported the gun laws. "I don't regret my support for those bills one bit," Hudak said Thursday. She added: "It's reasonable reforms, and I think the governor truly does support putting limits on these magazines." Derek V

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/hickenlooper-admits-background-check-law-passed-without-basic-facts/ "An attempt by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper to mend fences with some of his sharpest critics has turned into a PR disaster for the Democratic incumbent. Hickenlooper attempted an awkward apology to Colorado’s elected county sheriffs, who are vocally opposed to Colorado’s new gun control laws, by saying he wasn’t aware the sheriffs tried to speak to him while the controversial legislation was being debated in 2013. He also said he had no idea that a new law requiring universal background checks would be controversial, despite the fact that hundreds of people turned up in protest of the bills — including dozens of county sheriffs, who’ve complained that Hickenlooper ignored them during the debate. “I didn’t find out the sheriffs were trying to talk to me until a week afterwards,” he said in comments late last week to the County Sheriffs of Colorado during the association’s meeting in Aspen, portions of which were videotaped. “By that time all the, whatever was going to hit the fan had hit it.” The gun laws — including one that limits the size of ammunition magazines — resulted in the sheriffs spearheading a federal lawsuit to overturn them. Gun-parts manufacturers publically disavowed the laws and have moved out of state. Two Democratic state senators were recalled and a third resigned over their support of the legislation. The sheriffs have long complained that when the bills were being debated in committee — while protesters circled the capital waving signs and honking their horns — they weren’t given time to testify against them. When pressed on the issue in Aspen by a sheriff who reminded Hickenlooper that he tried to see him in the governor’s office, Hickenlooper interrupted. “How many apologies do you want?” he said jokingly. “What the fuck?” Hickenlooper also said of the background check law, “I think we screwed that up completely and I think we did a disservice to you and a disservice to ourselves.” He said the law was passed without having had all the facts, even though he’d promised to sign the bill when it reached his desk. “So we were forming legislation without basic facts, which I think is a bad idea in every case,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks reported by Red State. “[It] took almost a month to get all the facts. By that time, I pissed you guys off, you know, they already passed legislation that I said I was going to sign.” The new law requires a background check for all gun transfers, even between private parties. Sheriffs have said it’s unenforceable. Hickenlooper apologized to the sheriffs, but the Denver Post reported that his attempt to “charm” them backfired. “Isn’t this so John Hickenlooper to try to ‘Aw shucks’ and slap his knee and good ol’ boy his way out of an awful situation?” GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez told the Post. “This is what failed leadership looks like,” Beauprez’s campaign wrote in an email."" Derek V

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales? If yes, how would you enforce such a law? Derek V

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales? If yes, how would you enforce such a law? Derek V

I agree. I'm not following you. If I sell one of my guns to a friend of mine, how would law enforcement ever know? There is a new law in CO requiring background checks for private sales. The sheriffs oppose it, since there is no way they can enforce it. I'm not against background checks for private sales, I just don't see the point in passing a law requiring them. We have that in CO and it is pointless, doesn't change anything. Derek V

I know you are not. You cannot require anything. That is not what I asked. I asked; "Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales? If yes, how would you enforce such a law? " Derek V

Are you for requiring background checks for private, person to person firearm sales? If yes, how would you enforce such a law? Derek V

Which riser is the RSL connected to? Derek V

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/colorado-sheriffs-join-peers-saying-gun-laws-not-viable.html?cmpid=yhoo

The proposal in universal background checks, not just gun shows. How would universal background checks be enforced? Derek V

How would a universal background check be enforced? Derek V

OK, I am honestly confused. This is legal?!?!?! If this is currently a legal scenario, then I agree, we must fix this. Derek V

Will you teach me the street smarts? Derek V

I was curious what your ideas were. You refuse to share them. I'm not going to wet any more time giving your opinion any credit. Derek V

I think I can safely assume you will not repost your solution(s), post a link, or supply search terms that can be used to find your post(s) on the matter. You continue to not answer the question and instead attempt to change the subject. If you didn't want to discuss your ideas, you should have just said so back in February of last year when I first asked you. I can only conclude your ideas are not worth discussing. The only change I think is needed and will support is ensuring those that have been determined to be a risk to themselves or others by medical professionals make it into the national database so that they will not be able to legally purchase a firearm. Derek V

"But gun rights advocates cried foul, accusing the CDC of practicing politics rather than science, and Congress agreed, stripping the agency of funding for gun-related research." "The federal Centers for Disease Control has cut firearms safety research by 96 percent since the mid-1990s, according to one estimate. Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years." "After the government largely withdrew from financing gun violence research, private foundations picked up some of the slack for a while, researchers say. But they didn’t come close to making up the difference. Today, Rosenberg said, there’s “substantially less money available for [gun-violence] research.” Each article says the same thing, Congress, not the NRA, stopped funding the CDC budget for gun research. I would like to hear Congress's explanation for their actions. Derek V