Hooknswoop

They are threads in the BASE and Bonfire forums. Derek

Ah, OK. I see what you are saying. I don't think it is an issue or we would have heard about 2-pin rigs with Cypres's failing from broken wires. I think it is better to have a 2-pin Cypres in a 1-pin rig than no Cypres with almost no chance of it failing from the second cutter breaking. Derek

Is that photoshopped? I've never heard of adding a 3rd engine in the nose of a DC-3. Edit: Found this, "Another DC-3 turbine conversion is the "Tri-Turbo Three" with three 1,174 eshp Pratt and Whitney of Canada PT-6A-45s driving five blade propellers. This conversion was by Aircraft Technical Service Corp. of Camarillo, Calif., on behalf of Specialized Aircraft Co. The airframe used was the old Conroy "Turbo Three" with the additional engine in a lengthened nose. First flight was Nov. 2, 1977. In spite of three engines, the lighter weight of the PT-6 powerplants plus other changes resulted in a great reduction in empty weight and a payload increase of 660 pounds to nearly 12,000. And in spite of its three engines, the "Super" was only a part-time tri-motor, with the center engine used mainly for takeoff, climb and high-speed cruise. With three, it cruises at 230 mph at 10,000 feet. With the center prop feathered it cruises at 180. Unfortunately, as in the case of the Conroy, the tri-motor did not find an eager market. A civil operator did buy the demonstrator, but in spite of a variety of options offered (including the ultimate tricycle landing gear) there were no other buyers. The Tri-Turbo Three very like will remain another one-only. THE LONG-NOSE TRIMOTOR DC-3: Called the "Tri-Turbo Three," it still has the old military cargo doors, but the cabin windows have been modified. This photo was taken on Boeing Field in May, 1981. CLOSEUP: Because of the nose engine, it was not necessary to move the side engines as far forward as on the two-engine turbo conversions to maintain the center of gravity location. Note the unique five-blade propellers." Derek

That woudn't affect anything though. Maybe I'm confused. Derek

Then you realize there wouldn't be a continuity problem and wouldn't be adding a failure mode. Derek

I think he is saying coil the cutter in the Cypres pouch, not disconnect it. Derek

Well, a 2-pin Cypres has 2 cutters for a rig with 2 closing loops and 2 pins. Derek

LOL- relaxing and taking a deep breath is how I get to the bottom. If I stop working hard to tread water, I sink. It's my fat head. Derek

I mean in just a wetsuit, I sank even with a full breath. I have to work my ass off to tread water. When I was diving, I had to keep some air in my BC to stay neutral. This was at the NBL in Houston. Derek

I did, at least in freshwater, with a wet suit. Derek

Because they are very similar sports. They are both 3-D They both require much different movements to move within the elelement. They are both gear-intensive If you run out of air in either sport, you're screwed. Communication is difficult beyond body language and hand signals. They are both time-limited (air supply/altitude) SCUBA diving is like skydiving slowed down. Derek

You guys keep making up FAR's and inferring things. If the FAR's don't say it, then they don't say it. No where in the FAR's does it say anything about a jumper exceeding the max exit weight or speed or that they must follow the manufacturer's instructions or exceeding the max weight or speed voids the TSO. It isn't in there. Derek

Here they are. The tunnel looks awesome. Derek

No where in the FAR's does it say you have to stay within the TSO max weight or speed, both of which are frequently exceeded. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean the jumper must stay within those limits. If a vehicle must be able to travel at 65 mph to be legal to drive on the freeway, does that mean you are breaking the law if you drive 66 mph? Not on a 75-mph speed limit road. The FAA wants to make sure that reserves and containers meet minimum qualifications and certify the gear up to a maximum weight and speed. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean it is illegal to exceed those parameters. If someone can show me an FAR that says a parachutist must not exceed the max TSO'd exit weight or max TSO'd speed of their reserve or harness, then I'll be wrong. Until then, there is no FAR that says that. Derek

NIOCE!!!!!! Derek

Right, riggers have to follow the manufacturer's instructions for packing the reserve. There is no legal requirement for the operator to follow any instructions. There is a lot of myths and mis-understanding of the FAR's and TSO's. For example, you can certify a reserve to a lower weight under TSO-C-23D (220 lbs) than you can under TSO-C23C (254 lbs). Or that there is a minumum descent rate for the test weight, which is higher than the max certified weight that applies to all sized TSO'd. Or that technically Raven-M's are not legal to pack because their label does not include the average peak force from TSO testing as required by the TSO. Or that you can't legally pack a PD-113R into a Mirage because it produced more force on opening during tests than the harness is certified to. What is smart isn't always legal and what is legal isn't always smart. Derek

It isn't. There are 3 weights usually. 1) The actual test weight, which is higher than the TSO'd certified weight. 2) the TSO'd max weight. 3) the manufacturer's max exit weight. I agree, but it isn't prohibited by the FAR's. Derek

OK, or the mini-brewery again Derek

Go to: http://www.garmin.com/outdoor/# and click on "New eTrex® Family Showcase". It'll show you the different units and you can find the one that fits your needs. I have the Etrex Vista. It includes a barametric altimeter and magnetic compass. I can also download and upload to my laptop, including showing my current position on the screen over very detailed topo maps. Sounds like you don't need all that and get get one of the other models. PM flyangel2, she has the Gecko, which is very light and inexpensive, but full of features. Derek

The material you quoted doesn't mention maximum weights or jumpers. It addresses minimum performance standards and manufacturers. That definition is like saying a car has to be able to obtain XX mph to be approved to drive on the highway. That does not also mean it is illegal to exceed the speed limit. That is an entirely different law. Just because the manufacturer must meet minimum performance standards does not mean it is illegal to exceed the max TSO'd weight of a reserve. Apples and oranges. If you look through the FAR's, there is very little requirements put on the jumper. There is nothing mentioned about exceeding max weights or speeds. Derek

I guess I missed it, where in there does it say a jumper cannot exceed the TSO certified max weight or speed of a reserve canopy of harness? Derek

What, exactly, are you going to be doing with it? There are a lot of brands and models that do different things. They all tell you lat/long. Derek

Until I see the FAR, it is marketing. Derek

That is not what I was told when I asked PD. Derek

There is no minimum pull altitude FAR, only a BSR, which carries no legal weight. As long as the DZO doesn't care, you can legally pull as low as you wish. Did you get my PM about the mesh? Derek