Hooknswoop

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I have used the search function several times without success. I have asked you several times now what to search for and you have not responded with any search terms. I am trying. I am putting forth the effort to have a conversation. I haven't called you any names, or talked down to you. I am not even asking you to copy and paste your solution(s). Just point me in the right direction and the conversation can move forward. Again, what do I search for in order to find your previously posted solution(s)? Derek V

I sent y of this on 25 February, 2012; "I agree with you that the gun show loophole where a felon or certified nutter can buy a firearm without a background check needs to be closed. Quote I won't waste my time answering that again. Use the "Search" function. Can you tell me what to search for? Derek V" You did not respond. Then you accuse me of being lazy. Rather poor form, I would think. Derek V

I PM'd you a while back asking you what I should search for to find your idea(s) for how to stop mass shootings. You didn't respond. I have looked for your ideas and I couldn't find them. I don't know what else you want me to do. I'll ask you again, what are your solutions to stop mass shootings? Is it really that much effort to state them again? That will move this conversation forward. Derek V

That is your solution? I don't think that will actually make any difference. Derek V

What are your ideas? Derek V

Not changing my tune. If no new guns laws were passed, I would be ok with that. You didn't answer my question; "I am open to ideas that will prevent these shootings. So far I haven't heard any ideas that would. Do you have any?" Derek V

No more than kids dying in swimming pools, traffic accidents, etc. I am for ensuring if some has been determined to be a risk to themselves or others that they cannot pass the background check to purchase a firearm. I am open to ideas that will prevent these shootings. So far I haven't heard any ideas that would. Do you have any? I don't oppose scientific research. Scientific research is great. Derek V

So what solutions do you have in mind? I think things are fine the way they are now. Derek V

You want to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to buy time for victims of mass shootings to escape? How much time would it buy them? Would it make a difference? Derek B quade -

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/white-house-nra-to-meet-amid-push-for-new-gun-control-laws/ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/08/exclusive-cuomo-close-to-announcing-sweeping-new-gun-control-laws/ If the gun law proposals won't stop mass shootings, then what are they trying to accomplish? No wonder gun advocates are feeling like these proposed laws are nothing more than an attempt to confiscate guns. Derek V

The recent mass shootings have been the catylist for the new gun laws being considered. Yet, no one can tell me how these laws would prevent future mass shootings. Seems to me that recents events are being used to garner support to tighten gun laws, not prevent future mass shootings. Derek V

Can anyone explain to me how any of the new gun laws being discussed will prevent mass shootings? Derek V

That's what I thought. Derek V

How does registration stop someone from going on a shooting spree? Derek V

Sure. Compare firearm crime/homicide rates, firearms per personae rates, and how stringent firearm laws for each country. What I have shown with the Philippines article is that the issue isn't so simple as laws and crime rates. Someone mentioned Switzerland and how a lot of people own their military service rifles aft leaving the military and they have a low firearm crime rate. They also have a good health care system. We could pass a law that makes any semi auto rifle illegal. Theses mass shooting would still happen. People would still get illegal rifles. The law would not prevent mass shootings with those rifles. The shooters couldn't care less about any laws. A law is only effective if the consequences of breaking the law are enough to deter someone from breaking it and the chances of getting caught are high enough. If you have no intention of surviving the event, consequences mean nothing. We need to go to the source of the problem. Guns are not the source of the problem. Derek v

http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-shooting-spree-illustrates-global-gun-violence--190043649.html Or not...... Derek V

"In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation based on your or Brian's or Bill's risk tolerance? I was undecided at first, but the more I think about it the more firmly I come down in the "education" rather than "regulation" camp, mostly because you folks haven't made a convincing case for why your numbers are the right numbers except to say that Brian knows his stuff, nor have you come up with any kind of implementation or enforcement plan." Derek V

I don't think that they are certified to any weight or speed or or force, I agree with you. They are certified to either ow speed or standard category using the 3000 or 5000 force value. That doesn't change my original point that PIA made the argument that it doesn't matter which component is certified using a higher test force value, but that isn't what the AC is saying at all. PIA's argument reads like they mis-read what the AC actually says. My second point is that the old AC says the same thing, this is not a new issue. The AC is saying that if the canopy produces 6000 lbs of force (NOT was tested using a 6000 lbs of force value) and the container was TSO'd using 3000 lbs of force, then the canopy can produce higher forces than the container was tested to. Under the old and new AC, the PD-113R and Mirage combination isn't legal. Derek V

AC-105-2D is an open matter, but the current AC -105-2C has the same requirement; "e. The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than --m---m the maximum-force generated by the canopy during certification tests. (1) In a case where the harness is certificated under TSO-C23b and the canopy under TSO-C23c, the maximum generated force.of the canopy must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e., Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 Tbs.). In this instance, no additional marking on the container is necessary. . (2) In the case where the canopy is certificated under the TSO-C23b and the harness under TSO-C23c, the strength of the harness must be equal to or greater than the certificated category force of the canopy." "must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e., Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 Tbs.)." This language isn't new to AC-105-2D Derek V

The helmet fits snug enough that I don't think I could have the camera pointing in a different direction each time, even without the chin cup. The Velcro wraps around the handle, it is secure, hasn't been an issue at all. Derek V

AC-105-2D: "13.c.(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." PIA's Response: The FAA is not saying the canopy must be stronger than the harness, they are saying that if the canopy produced an average of 5000 lbs of force during test drops, then the harness must be certified to at least 5000 lbs of force. The harness/container must be certified to at least the forces generated by the canopy. This means that the harness will be able to withstand the forces generated by the canopy during deployment. This does not mean that the canopy is certified to 5000 lbs of force. For example: A PD-113R label shows the average peak force of 3639 pounds. The Mirage is TSO’d under TSO-C23b, Low-Speed Category (3,000lbs.). This means that the canopy produced more forces on deployment than the harness/container is certified to and therefore is not a legal combination. As far as I can tell, this is only affects TSO-C23b harness containers, which are certified to either 3000 or 5000 lbs of force, and TSO C23d reserves, which are required to have the average peak force generated during tests on the label. As a side note, Raven-M's are under TSO C23d and are missing that information on the label. If I was using a crane to lift an object that weighed 500 pounds and the cable was certified to 1000 pounds and the shackle to 750 pounds, it doesn't mean I want the shackle to fail first, I only care that all the components in the lift are certified to at least 500 pounds. If the shackle is certified to 250 pounds, I have a problem. Derek V

I think what Nelyubin is saying (and Nelyubin, please correct me if I am wrong), is that with the Cypres, the sensor gets checked once every 4 years. With the vigil, the unit can display what the sensor is currently reading and that value can be checked against an accurate barometer. This is two different approaches to dealing with the same issue. The choice is then personal preference, which is better to you? I personally like the idea that I know that the Cypres's out there are getting checked every 4 years. I have no idea how often, or if at all, if Vigils owners are checking what the display is reading against a barometer. I have never heard or seen anyone with a Vigil do that check. Would be interesting if it was a required maintenance for the rigger repacking the reserve with a Vigil to verify that the reading is within 10mbar at each re-pack. Derek V

I have the Cookie MXV. The side of the chin cup with the 2-ring release has three holes in the webbing were it attaches to the helmet. Once I figured out the correct one, then all I have to do is snug down the chin cup on the other side and it is centered every time. With the dual buckle designs, you have to center the chin cup every time you don the helmet. Cutaway handles, like your canopy cutaway and reserve handles are always a compromise. You don't want the handle to release too easily, resulting in an accidental helmet cutaway, but you want it be easy to use when you need it. These are two conflicting goals. I feel that the Cookie MXV does a good job with that compromise. I recently managed to get a steering line hooked around my Opteka lens while in a deep stall on a Stiletto 150 before an intentional cutaway. I briefly considered that I might need to pull that cutaway handle if I couldn't get the line off from around the lens. Comforting knowing it was there and that I could have used it, if needed. Derek V

Yes. We perform better and learn faster when we are not stressed. With tunnel experience, the free fall portion of the skydive tends to go much better than without. The student tends to avoid sensory over load. This allows the student to learn to fly their canopy in a much better mental state. Their awareness is much better and they are less freaked out. Derek V

I think you missed my point. I think that regardless of SB's/AD's, whatever, you stand alone in court. That is besides the point of this discussion, which is are manufacturer's SB's mandatory. The short answer is that they are not. Derek V