Scrumpot

I'm still here. I made right around 300 jumps or so, this past 2008 season. Are those the #'s you were looking for / any good? An annual summary comes out, and is published by USPA, I think in either the Feb or March issues of Parachutist - so that it can be available as well for all, on or about Safety Day each year. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The only problem with that, is that it obscures the "quick visual" I usually like to give everyone on a load with me, for those who cross their excess straps back over their tensioners. Of course for women, it just means I need to manually feel it, to obtain the confirmation I was looking for is all. Carry on. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

"I picked a bad day to quit methamphedamines...." I think the guy realized he botched it. Probably 1st thing he saw after the friendly local constabulatory dropped him off at the motel as a haphazard tipped canoe-ist was his face plastered on the cheap rabbit-eared 19" TV Screen! Why not from then - just finish this up with some "flair"?! - All 19 pieces!! Nobody noticed, he also had a red swingline in his pocket when picked up too, and that it didn't fool anybody, when he attempted his "suicide by cop" with it either? LOL. Yeah, I like the movie line references too, for sure! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

There's also a discussion of this going on in the pilot's related to the story, bbs, HERE FWIW. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Simply synch your chest-strap fully tightened properly through the tensioner one time, so that it pulls both sides of the MLW together. Then, take the excess chest-strap available, and give it as many turns THROUGH your D-Handle, as your method for securing it down tight to the left lateral MLW. Using a small stow-band, or even the standard keeper (keep creeping it along the strap until it's at its last turn, to tuck your end of the strap back into it) on the last turn of cheststrap to hold it there in place is fully sufficient. This way, there is absolutely NO QUESTION whatsoever, of you even possibly forgetting anything, or missing this on your destination-side, when you go to gear up. Because you can't get even into your rig, without 1st unwrapping the cheststrap this way, to get into it! Adding ANYTHING extra as "securing methods" to your gear, IMHO just opens up the possibility (no matter how slight it may seem) for just having something there, to potentially forget. Of course for those of you with pillow-handles, well - you're on your own with those. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The answer as to "why" this is being said is simple. Because a few years back, when USPA (Ed Scott in particular I believe, but maybe he can answer more directly himself) was working closely with the then "young" / relatively newly formed TSA on establishing mutually-acceptable and (supposed to be) RECOGNIZED procedures - this was agreed to be part of the protocol, and/or "suggested". Therefore, this is USPA suggested. Everyone seems to just tend to always do whatever they want anyway - so why not. Go for it. I can't believe you can fit all that stuff AND your rig in a single container, and still have it pass/size/fit as carry-on. That in of itself is a feat! Ahhh, okay, I just re-read now, you jump a frappe hat. I used to lay mine on top of the rig too, in the same carry-on as well, but any other electronics and such (incl altimeter) I'd have as my 2nd, smaller "personal item" (in a helmet bag). To answer your question though as to why, again - it is just simply because when USPA and TSA got together, these are the procedures that were suggested, when they came out of that meeting. But everyone wants to be a rebel, right? As you've already seen in all the threads (and there's plenty of 'em) there's lots of folks who will point out how many variables they actually practice and how much they can "get away with". So I guess "whatever". Like any of 'em I suppose, go ahead - go for it. As with anything else, YMMV. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Woo-Hoo! - Outstanding!! Congratulations "Granny"!! Rock on! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

The way I've read this - the original merchant selling this gear when it was new - FAILED TO FOLLOW APPROPRIATE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES BEFORE SHIPPING THE GEAR, and only found out that the card was either "bogus" or stolen AFTER having shipped the equipment out their doors. Chances are as a result - that they did not get ANY recompense from the credit card company, because THEY (the merchant/gear dealer) was in violation of their cardmerchants terms, and therefore have / had NO CLAIM. Does this mean that the merchant only now deserves to be recompensed, from an entirely non-culpable (or party to the original transaction) subsequent buyer? I dunno - and I'm not even entering THAT debate/touching that one with a 10 foot pole! If the current buyer is/was culpable in ANY way (sounds like he did all his "due diligence"), then that would be a much different, and clear cut story. Even ("legitimately") 'Receiving Stolen Goods/Property' in of itself is, in MANY states - a criminally prosecutable offense. I would consult with an attorney. Not the vast (and widely to be EXPECTED to be varying) merely (uninformed as to all the FACTS - incluiding myself/my own) opinions of the interwebs. You may in fact be LEGALLY obligated to return the goods. Then again - you may not. I dunno. None of us here, without all the full FACTS could possibly know, and taking your direction or advice from ANY of us (again - INCLUDING ME) under such circumstance, is probably not such a good idea. Seek valid, FULLY informed, appropriate counsel and advice on this. $4k is not (to any of us I don't think) just a trivial matter. Hopefully, an equitable solution - both for and to all involved, can be found. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Do this, to help determine if this is what could have been the cause: - With the rig off you, and laying on "its back" (Laterals and handles and chest-strap up/facing you), route and set the chest-strap about where you think it usually is when it's on you. - Then, by grasping the laterals on each side just below the mud-flaps, shake vigorously up & down on the laterals WITHOUT tension (without pulling apart the laterals at the same time) being placed on the cheststrap. Or with VARYING tension being applied to the cheststrap while you do it / it "flaps". - Do this with your "normal" keeper on the excess. - Do this with (an) extra band(s), as Davelepka has suggested to you. Does it work its way (shake/flap) "full slack" under the 1st scenario? Then the second one? Chances are, that there is nothing wrong with the friction adapter itself, as it sounds like it normally does its job for you as it is supposed to, and as it is designed - under load/tension. If you know you are planning on back-flying again for instance - adding the extra keeper band(s), or rubber-bands, or changing the way you stow the excess may be all that you want to do and be aware of. It all comes down to being aware of how your gear functions, then - applying it and configuring it however correctly as may be necessary, for your planned jump/situation. As others have already now said in here as a result of this - I think this can be an "eye opener" for people to consider. Not just for you, and not just for this specific isolated condition either -but overall too, in how they process maybe a little bit more, what they are doing, and how their planning for their specific jumps may be impacted as well. Thank you for sharing your experience! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

That's not true either. Sure you can. But you know what? We're just arguing semantics here. All I am asking is that with your thought process (and I absolutely respect your ability to think, choose, and even disagree) - you at least use the right analogies, and anecdotes with your logic & reasonings for your position/decisions. Okay, fine. Another anecdote. I don't disagree with this, and actually often wonder why anybody (especially who is an RSL proponent in the 1st place) would then try to reason, and use this anecdote as one supporting their "pro-RSL" position anyway. After all, if you have already chosen that usage of an RSL is RIGHT FOR YOU - why would you then start reasoning that you need to disconnect it once you have opened, and then take AWAY any chance of it being there (defeating it) right when if anything else happened - you are right, by that logic - the RSL proponent would then "need" it most? That supports your argument via illustrating an illogic, and is a contradiction in terms. Especially to the RSL proponent. But I am not one of those. My counter or argument for that statement would be: If you are worried about the need to disconnect it in such scenario, then why did you even have it connected in the 1st place? See? Where you're apparently big on analogies and anecdotes, here's one for you: All an RSL does for you (by pulling the reserve pin on a chop NO MATTER WHAT) is TAKE AWAY YOUR OPTIONS. Again - I absolutely respect your right to make YOUR DECISION, however is BEST FOR YOU. However, please know and FULLY consider what basis' you are making that decision upon is all. And then also respect other people's abilities to make their own decisions, based upon their own experience, perspectives and personal needs/desires with this too. Again - Choosing to jump without an RSL is not death on a stick. Neither is jumping with one necessarily either. If both such choosing jumpers have made their choices with full (and ACCURATE) information and basis' for their decisions, and further with full AWARENESS I will agree - of what the trade-off's may be, and as to potential consequences to each of their decisions. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I'm sorry Thanatos, but that's just not so. You are deluding yourself, and putting way too much faith and reliance clearly, on the RSL (as being THE solution) as indicated by making this statement. A standard RSL does not necessarily get a reserve out any quicker than a human (i.e. YOURSELF) CAN. The ONLY thing the RSL does (or is designed to do - it still can fail too, BTW) is get the reserve pin pulled "automatically". IF either of those jumpers you cite, had PULLED THEIR RESERVE HANDLE THEMSELVES in proper and quick sequence for the situation behind their chop, they would have had every bit the very SAME CHANCE they would have had, - had they had an RSL! I'm sorry for your friends, and for what you have witnessed to apparently make you think this, but please also understand this. The RSL is not (and would not have been for them either) the begin-all, end-all miracle cure to their situations. You are not just automatically F***'d if you don't jump with an RSL or choose not to. Neither going with an RSL or going without an RSL is such "death on a stick" as some of the extremes on each side of this opinion/debate would it seems, like to make it out, ...or by their anecdotal descriptions as such, seem to portray their oponents position to be. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

OMG - when I first opened the S&T forum, and saw right on the top of it, THIS thread title - - - I nearly busted through my screen! Glad to see all you other guys are already all "on top of" this! Man, it gets FRUSTRATING every time you see something you've debated over and over again, it seems for YEARS (like the 45' "rule" just to open up another example/instance ) ...yet it gets thrown back out by some low-timer (no personal insult intended Arsye) -as if it is "fresh", and yet too suddenly authoritative FACT somehow all of a sudden again! - - - Argghhhh!! Why is it, this happens, and how can we possibly help stem the ever ebbing and flowing tide otherwise just re-circulating, of MISINFORMATION like this? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Exciting, yes. ...However, have you ever read Bill Booth's Theory of Constants? I personally, am ever even more amazed, by that. No matter what we do, we just can't seem to get away from that. Kind of like the saying of "build it even more idiot-proof, and all that produces is bigger idiots"? It unfortunately at least seems to just be, one of those most basic, and intrinsic, human nature - absolute truth's coitus non circum - Moab Stone

One of 'em is a "free jump" for a tandem referral I once brought along with me. Does that count too? The ticket has a thick black stripe marked across the back of it, presumably to designate it as such. I don't even have any idea what I actually paid now, per ticket, for the other 2 or 3 I've still got, but sure - absolutely I'd be reasonable about that! No worries!! Maybe I'll actually even get there too, sometime within the NEXT 10 years again too, eh? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hey TK... I still have a few jump tix in my posession from like maybe 9-10 years ago. When Michael was up this way at STP in Sept for the 88-way, he bet me you'd still accept 'em. If that's so, and I can still use 'em (I've still got my laminated bar-code ID card too! ) let me know, and I just may need to make it a point to come on down & make a visit! Wow, it's been awhile. How time flies!! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Also - although not likely, the thought / scenario: - You've cut-away your malfunctioning main. It leaves nice and clean - YIPPEE!

Quick question... What is your hard-deck? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

1. Duffle Bag or Roll-on carry-on. USE ONE! There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, and it is better on so many levels and from perspectives I won't even begin. Also - it may take some "work" sizing-wise, but if your rig will fit in the sizing bin on it's own, you CAN find a tight bag, or roll-on to fit "around" it. There is no (and that is no) excuse. 2. Based solely on your narrative (these are your words), I think your next big mistake is in how you described it, when asked "what is that"(?). The answer of "A Parachute" quickly renders thoughts in Whuffo's heads of "what does he need a parachute for?" Is he planning to jump outa this plane?? Instead, IMHO when I am asked (and I have been - plenty of times), my response is still quick and simple, yet it separates the rig being carried through, from the event of you flying the airline, altogether. Ex. "That is my skydiving rig. ...I'm travelling to take part in a skydiving event at XXX". Don't use simply the stand-alone word it's a "PARACHUTE". IMO, if that is what you said - then that also is what got you held up for further inquiry. JMO, but being as LEAST CONSPICUOUS as you possibly can be, the better. There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON or "excuse" to be ccarrying your rig, slung over your shoulder(s), back-pack style. There is nothing but downside exposure IMHO, to doing that. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Do you think that your jumps, and subsequent trajectories, could have looked anything like this? *(see attached rough diagram) Simple enough, for each of you to think you were both tracking perpendicular to the line of flight, and ROUGHLY, each of you would have been right/"close". Maybe the moral of this story is if you are 2 solo's - DON'T TRACK! ...There is nothing else relative to you anyway, you should be "breaking off" from to "get away from". Do your skydive, and open in "YOUR" airspace. If you've already done sufficient and CORRECT separation from the get-go (at exit - see "x's" on the line-of-flight line), you should both be just fine. Even with the jumper ahead, supposedly opening a little higher. However, by both of you "tracking", even at what each of you may have THOUGHT was perpendicular to the line of flight, doesn't take too much of an error at all between you, for this diagram I don't think, to be plausible as a result. Now, if part of the plan of your skydive(s) is (are) to practice tracking - then PLAN the skydive better between you, and STICK WITH THE PLAN. I.E.: One tracks ONE WAY "perpendicular" to the line of flight, the other, the OTHER way. So your "answer" is probably 2-fold. Better Planning between you, then better (or more correct) exit separation (which I'm still not sure wasn't the problem with you in tihs case) as well. Hope the added possible perspective (and neanderthal drawing) is also of some help. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I never said it was isolated to just dropzone.com, as quite clearly and obviously, it is not. I'm also not trying to be argumentative either, so please don't take my input as such, incorrectly. Yes - your link provided also gives some other good background and further information which any of those who do doubt, should probably read. I've seen that article before too. None of it means though, that we still should not be ever diligent. In fact, I'm sure you will agree, it only means we probably should be even MORE-so is all. I think we're on the same page here, and again - I will compliment Jay and others, for clearly stepping up, taking action, and ...taking accountability. You take me wrong if you think I am casting aspersions. I am instead - actually quite pleased and positively impressed! It's just a shame we had to be one of those actually affected first (as so many others already had been - granted), before taking some of the steps we are now - that we quite easily could have, before it happened, if we were a little more pro-active is all. But that is all now also "water under the bridge". I think we've ALL now learned something from this. I was simply addressing one particular comment, that I thought could have been interpreted as simply "accepting it" - because clearly, it is something otherwise, that just "happens all the time". Collateral damage that is to be expected with any on-line forum experience. But it does not necessarily have to be that way. Our site has chosen to become a commercial venture, or be part of a commercial venture. As such, they should accept, and we (as "consumers" to the site) I think, have a right therefore to demand some accountability for that. Again - don't get me wrong, because Jay has CLEARLY accepted (and even stated it himself) that accountability. I do think that some of the users to this site though, until Jay did step in, from what I saw - on some level felt they were either getting dismissed, taken lightly, or somehow being "put down" though, when they voiced their concerns. You're going to get some people just grumble over the underlying fact that this site has "gone commercial" in of itself, and by itself though. Unfortnately, some of THAT also seemed to seep into this. I'm rambling now. We're on the same page though (I think). No, Dropzone.com is not magically immune from many of the issues that can (and do) plague many other sites upon the internet. But as a (especially now) commercial site - I think some will also simply expect - and not wrongfully so, that added due dilligence in return for that "commercialism" should be expected. it comes with the territory. And with that... I'm out. Blue Skies! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Real simple solution - once an ad has been put into the ad-revolver rotation, add a checksum based off of its ORIGINAL tested and approved source. That source changes - Ad no longer pops up and is omitted from the revolver queue until it is RE-VERIFIED. Problem solved. There is no need to simply tolerate ad sources that would allow their source-base to change or be "dynamic" at any time, during the contract term that their ad(s) is (are) scheduled to run. Stand up and REFUSE ad sources that choose not to adhere to well established and KNOWN appropriate security protocols in the 1st place! Just saying that "this sort of stuff happens all the time" and shrugging it off too - should also not be acceptable. Not that our site owners here have done that - but your statement as such could be taken by some still, to imply that. I know "we've" learned from this experience, and the admins are now taking the appropriate steps and trying to do all the right things. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they're not. I just too, would not totally dismiss or even discount some of the input you've gotten from some of the folks in here, as a result of this either is all. I think they are right to expect a reasonably "safe" browsing experience via their participation in here. No need to get reactionary (not directed specifically at you, Douglas) towards them for it. Thanks HH & admins - for no doubt putting in some "overtime" to both quickly recognize, and then take the steps needed to address this one, as you clearly now, have.

Well, I'll try, from strictly my OUTSIDERS perspective, if I might be so allowed... As I've even personally seen it, I think the problem is (was) that right up until something like 12:30PM EST just YESTERDAY, the directions as were on the websites pertaining to "Skydive Nashville" (www.skydivenashville.com) "Adventure Skydiving Tennessee" (www.astskydiving.com) and possibly others - all associated supposedly with, and for the benefit of the Clarksville dropzone you refer to - all, if followed, would have had the poor unsuspecting directions follower driving all the way down to someplace instead, just outside of Atlanta, GA! While all this has apparently just been "fixed" (just YESTERDAY) - I think, at least from what I've seen (yes, in that "other" thread, smart to get away from that other thread - it was getting UGLY in there ) - the advertising being referred to, was all promulgated and proliferated like what? - LAST WEEK? At the time the advertising was put out, only until it was just corrected YESTERDAY (for which I think Jumpdude has already thanked you for that correction and acknowledged) - it apparently, did not comply with those laws. That's at least as how I understand it, and how all this unfolded from the get-go. Sure - point to the sites, and ask incredulously what is wrong NOW. You're pretending like it never was as stated and hello Lance - c'mon now, you know better. P.S. I know nothing of Tennessean Redneck ass kickin tactics either myself. So clearly, I may just be misguided as well? Maybe that's it. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Hey Bill, no worries - This homey's good. I can handle myself thank-you-very-much anyway. Now that Peanut Rhodes Scholar dude... him, I think you need to keep a close eye on, crack down, and crack down HARD!! Hey Lance - I'm replying to BillVon, but I'm talking to YOU. Hey, this is fun, huh? And BTW, I'm a little less "out of touch" than I think you think I am. I know and have met Peanut before too. I am truly blessed. It's all good. I will step off though, because you are right, I am not "local" to this fight, nor do I know (or WANT to know) any of the "outside the loop" local "inside" stuff that may be further fueling this. I was only calling what I saw, the way I saw it, at the times I saw it is all. And yes (thankfully) - that has all been far removed, and from the outside of this. Fair enough. Y'all have all y'all's fun y'all like between y'all's selves down there in the southlands, fo sho. Homey, stepping off... Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I don't have a link. My info, as stated before (in the other thread - sorry, that's not clear) came from merely a friend of mine, who is a TSA screener at BWI. He told me about this as coming down as some sort of communication to him, about 60 days ago or so. Sorry, that's about as best a reference as I can give. Also sorry that I did not mean to sound argumentative. I realize and appreciate my friend could be wrong too. He's not a skydiver, but knows I am, which is why he mentioned it to me. I've always said with the TSA (in deference to one of my friends, clearly as well) - "YMMV" I think even he knows that as well. You are certainly right about that! Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Naw, 'nut. Not yet so far anyway. You're all good. Besides - who wouldn't otherwise just know your you? Being, well.... YOU? Pffffft to any mods, that would ever try 'n "take you down"!! I'll stand with you, brutha. - It's all good. Blues, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone