Scrumpot

Interesting that you should mention the Texas connection. Here's something more on that, and related, I think, to what we could be talking about. Just some further food for thought... From "Avweb - the internet's aviation e-magazine and news service": ___________________ FAA Sets Building Limits In Crawford Until President Bush leaves office, anyone wanting to build or erect anything more than 50 feet tall in his hometown of Crawford, Texas, will not only need the normal building and zoning permits, he or she will also require FAA approval. The purpose of the rule, finalized February 6, is to ensure that new construction doesn't get in the way of the various low-level flight patterns the Marines and Secret Service have worked out to make sure President Bush gets to his ranch in safety and security. It's not only pilots that face restrictions in President Bush's hometown. Now that the comments (all three of them) on the rule have been received, read and pretty much discounted, the rule has been finalized. The rule has actually been in effect since last April 22 but was considered an interim rule because it was enacted without the normal 90-day comment period. The comments received warned of impact on the local business community and one commenter questioned whether every future president would cause changes to his hometown's local building standards. The FAA isn't ruling that out, but it also is stressing that each project is considered individually and, if it doesn't pose a hazard to the president's flights, will be allowed to proceed. ___________________ Hmmm..... Hometown. Summer-home. Current Prez. Ex-Prez. Wonder how much these lines might be able to be blurred with such things? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Good information in the other previous posts so far, so I will try not to be redundant & only touch upon a consideration that I have not yet seen mentioned. 1. If you are going to have slinks, make sure your toggle keepers on the risers are "hooded". What I mean by that is that the bottle-nose of your toggle is completely covered and protected when stowed. This will reduce the liklihood of a toggle being knocked loose on a brisk opening, as well as ease the travel of your slider grommets over the toggles during manual pulling-down. Some risers have just a simple keeper band, which leaves the "nose" of the toggle exposed. This not only makes collapsing of the slider behind your head more cumbersome when pulling past your toggles, but also increases the chances of potentially bumping a toggle free, or binding one as you describe. Hope this information, along with the other previous posts also helps! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Shit, that just makes for a better naturally built-in arch! Just take a look at my own avatar, man I believe there are several reserve/harness combo's that can by TSO accomodate more than 250lbs single pax. However, I will defer to others with probably greater knowledge on that. Safety is always the #1 concern. Depending upon student equipment type availability, and always the discretion of your jumpmasters on site, size definitely can be more of a challenge. That said, I think there were some threads in here, may be some time ago now, that discussed DZ's that had both the equipment, and the ability to handle larger students. ---Might be worth a search to find. It's not just the "strictness" (or therefore implied - "looseness") of the DZ at all. If it's just a matter of losing a few EXCESS pounds, I'm sure you'll be okay ---and will be better off overall anyway for actually doing it! Good luck to you in your endeavor to get out there "on your own". -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I have used them in temps close to 0-f on the ground, meaning well BELOW 0 at 'tude with full comfort. Luckilly, my hands aren't all that sensitive to cold in the 1st place as most it seems, and the relative low time of exposure hasn't pushed over that threshold of tollerability at all. Now once, after an out-landing in the cold and walking back with them on, my hands THEN became entirely too cold (although still functional). I think that for the amount of protection needed relative to the length of exposure, they seem to work just fine. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Do you guys really hold hard & true to 225 absolutely? ...What about the guy who may be 6'4" but athletic / in excellent shape at 250? 260 and a heavyweight body builder or football player? Shoot, good thing I've already been in it for a while I guess, or I might be pushing "sorry Charlie" territory now myself! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Please be careful with 2-way RF and Cypres'. ...I don't care what they say about this problem having been fixed! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What's going to happen when he gets voted out of office this fall, retires, and then more permanently domiciles himself up there? I do beleive that even ex-prez's can (and in this case probably will) get the same considerations as the current one. ...Something to think/potentially worry about now? P.S. ...Congrats on the recent engagement there Barry. Ahh, to be young and impetuous once again. Never again for me though, personally. But congrats to you & your betrothed none-the-less!

Completely understood. And now that I've read your profile (something I did not do prior to my last post) I realize my "fishing" expedition was also completely out of line. Thanks for humoring me though, none-the-less! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Why do you think it would have a likelihood of only one side having been released? Don't disagree with your actions at all, but I am wondering just a bit about this aspect of your perceptions and thoughts on this event. Please elaborate on that for me if you would. THANKS! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I beg to differ Chile. Although there are SOME canopies that CAN snivel for this long, considering 900'-1000' snivels as "not uncommon" would be a gross misperception. By and large, and in reality, 1,000' snivels have instead been proven to be noting more than urban legend. And claimed snivels of longer than that? ...Sorry, but those, IMHO are rather, MALFUNCTIONS! coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What is it that makes you feel you should arch so incredibly especially hard, to the point of being (from the sounds of it) even more so than any other time during your jump right now at pull-time? -Just wondering. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Please... just be careful with that "confidence", okay? Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

EEK! ...Not good. So again, how many people do you think may have been under similar mis-impressions?? Thank you Conway for sharing! ...This is a prime example, as I don't think it would be unfair to say that up until right now, you yourself were also "pretty sure" too, weren't you??? This is precisely what I feared. Like I say now: EEK! Thank y'all's for all y'all's clarifications. -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Or being done by those (from SKydiver51's post): Who further is also determining that?? coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I didn't paraphrase you Don, I actually cut-n-pasted directly out of your (okay, albeit initial) post. And this IS exactly what you said: Okay, now in re-reading myself, and considering some of your since posted responses as well, perhaps I could also have been misreading your usage of "them" in the above sentence as well. I took it to mean them -as in the participants. If what you are saying is that you meant instead them -as in the accidents; then I can see your point. I know you are feeling picked on here now as a result of your wordings (and others interperetations), but in here unfortunately that's really all we have. This is how I took (and I think reasonably so) what you said. Unfortunately we've heard many more (and as I pointed to) whuffo's before attempt to make some of pretty close to the same statements, at least as I had initially taken yours (ie: "we've got to prevent those people from hurting themselves and perhaps even also edangering others") as they can tend to be made by those who have chosen not to participate, and therefore clearly, also do not understand. I'm afraid you set yourself up for that perception out of me by starting off your post with the emphatic statement too that: Maybe now you understand my response to you that resulted, just a little better too? Is it worth having discussions on how to potentially avoid fatalities in either of our activities (skydiving by itself without "swooping" and/or skydiving with "swooping")? Absolutely. On that we do not disagree at all. Some of your other implications in here however, at least as I (and apparently several others too) have taken them, I think, are off the mark. Perhaps you can better clarify those positions and/or statements, as it does appear in here that you are attempting to do now? I do appreciate the dialogue! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Thanks ripped, for all of the clarifications! An actuary, eh? ...EEK, you people give me the willies! Opinion... Do you think it conceivable that the act of skydiving could therefore be considered an "exclusion" as being considered an act of unloading such vehicle? Seriously. I've seen wackier determinations made! And Conway, as to the "act of god" potential exclusion... Perhaps your voluntary and own personal deliberate decision to throw your own self bodily from an aircraft may not be. However, those winds that "blew you off course" (etc.) most certainly may be! Word to the wise under any claim scenario placed under such incident ...be very careful of the actual cause (and verbiage) being listed accordingly! Thanks Y'all's! -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

What difference would comparing MY extra 1,000 ft of hard-deck (asuming that's what I have) have against yours? I agree with you, that if I were passing through my hard deck, with something that were un-landable to ME, I'm gonna chop it too! That's precisely what your hard deck is all about, and in that regard, you did ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Now to rephrase answer, what it is I think you are asking of me: Back when I had 120 +/- jumps, I used to think if I looked up and saw a line-over, that I would immediately CHOP. And at 120 jumps that would probably have been the correct action to take. A line-over from the ground may also look like it was a landable canopy, and at that level, like I had a lot of material over my head from that observation point even too. ---but I digress. At around 120+/- jumps, I am grateful and lucky enough to say that I never had that pre-pictured line-over mal. But at ~730 jumps I sure did. Now I can tell you (AGAIN) that if this were below my hard deck ...I would have chopped it! No bones about it. But it was, as you are asking for this type of feedback, at this time well above my hard deck. Having now had more experience with working certain "opening characteristics" open that some students may have (and appropriately - for THEM) looked at as "mals", instead into fully opening and flying/controllable canopies, I did indeed instead (at THAT experience level) clear it. Your canopy was unflyable for you, at your experience level. I was not there, it may not have been even flyable (or more importantly, landable) for even me at mine. ...Or anyone else at theirs. It's hard to know exacty what type of mal you had, just by your printed word description of it. It was not one of the "text-book" apparently types of mals. It may have just been a hung slider, which MAY have cleared with a few aggressive pumps of your toggles. Then again, it may have been a tension knot on the steering line, which pretty much assuredly would NOT clear, no matter what you did. Could you have landed that (apparently) big of a canopy under rear riser control, and/or offsetting toggle controls? Perhaps. But you decided AT and for your hard deck that you had not yet figured this one out, and unless you were SURE ...you ABSOLUTELY, 100% most assuredly did THE RIGHT THING!! People have been known to go in under canopies they have been trying to fix for too long, when they have had instead right there on there backs, UNUSED, a perfectly good reserve just waiting to save their lives, if they only called on it to do so!! Second guessing a novices actions under a canopy that MAY have ben marginal for a more experienced jumper, IMHO can potentially lead you in turn to instead the next time around consider doing precisely what I have described above. I too (like Bill) can whip out anecdotal stories of jumpers on the entire other end of the spectrum, who were apparently criticized for having chopped a main that others felt they could have worked with more; who then later may have taken that "advice" and gone in! Keep learning. ABSOLUTELY! ...But one of the most important lessons, that you have apparently already learned, don't "un-learn" it. And that is that your hard deck is your hard deck, is your hard deck, is your hard deck..... Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Oops! ...Reposting this entirely, in case it gets somehow otherwise "buried" (who ever re-reads posts ...other than me that is, anyway ) ----------- PLUS, (and I just went back & re-reviewed myself a personal liability clause in my own H/O policy) personal liability CAN also be limited to claims within one's covered domain, or residence/property. Then, if "off premises" will only cover those losses to YOUR OWN property. For instance, I do know of several jumpers (including myself once -ahem) who have recovered for replacement of their rigs after having them cut-off by paramedics due to a landing accident. However, (and again, this is a BIG however) this is NOT personal LIABILITY coverage (to others)!! Instead, this is personal property coverage (for YOUR OWN property). It will not, and DOES NOT cover OTHERS property in this type of claim. Let's say for instance, as a part of my accident I crashed through somebodies fence, or roof. That damage, I am going to imagine would NOT be covered by my homeowners policy (as my rig was)!! Conway, sorry but now I can not even find where in a homeowners policy, this type of coverage might be applicable, or afforded. Granted that Homeowners is not a type of coverage provided at all by my company, so is not my area of expertise. So maybe you can enlighten me? ---------- -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Good for you, and that is YOUR CHOICE. Others obviously also make their own CHOICES too! Skydiving itself is a dangerous and "PREVENTABLE" activity. Most people don't CHOOSE to skydive either, and they stay on the ground. Because they don't do something, along the same lines as your argument that you do not, that others clearly feel they either should have the right, or the ability to do (same as you as choosing to be a skydiver, right?), yet from time to time they fuck up and die as a result of that activity they (meaning all others) should be prevented, right? Your argument then sir is the epitome of hypocrisy! Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

I never could get those southern colloquialisms down right! ...Thanks for helping me out with that Conway. BTW, even with your homeowners personal liability language, which I agree, is in most policies, you may be well served in re-reviewing it for an "extreme sports casualty" or further "acts of god" exemption clauses. Some policies still, even refer to a SEPARATE, yet binding "master escape" exemption policy, which you may or may not even have full awareness of or direct access to (it is the company's own internal procedures policy further defining those ever so illusive "acts of god" I just mentioned). I've seen claims negated in the past based upon just such "escape" (read: OBSCURE) clauses! FWIW. PLUS, (and I just went back & re-reviewed myself a personal liability clause in my own H/O policy) personal liability CAN also be limited to claims within one's covered domain, or residence/property. Then, if "off premises" will only cover those losses to YOUR OWN property. For instance, I do know of several jumpers (including myself once -ahem) who have recovered for replacement of their rigs after having them cut-off by paramedics due to a landing accident. However, (and again, this is a BIG however) this is NOT personal LIABILITY coverage (to others)!! Instead, this is personal property coverage (for YOUR OWN property). It will not, and DOES NOT cover OTHERS property in this type of claim. Let's say for instance, as a part of my accident I crashed through somebodies fence, or roof. That damage, I am going to imagine would NOT be covered by my homeowners policy (as my rig was)!! Conway, sorry but now I can not even find where in a homeowners policy, this type of coverage might be applicable, or afforded. Granted that Homeowners is not a type of coverage provided at all by my company, so is not my area of expertise. So maybe you can enlighten me? Thanks again for the "grammatical" help y'all (is that applicable to an individual, like in this case, as well?)... -Grant Edited to add my "PLUS" language paragraph... coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Sure Bill, but those cases were extreme, and you know it! This jumper had knotted steering lines and (to him -or is it her? ...no matter) an "uncontrollable" canopy at his/her hard deck. My bones are with those that second guess a newbie jumper for cutting away a canopy that might have been (legitimately) questionable to THEM (ie: more experienced but not there). Not a total absolute DOH --bonehead "I saw that my RSL clasp was disconnected", and they did not know what that meant, so their action was to chop! Of course in that case you have a talk with them, to EDUCATE them. Those 2 illustrations are complete apples & oranges Bill. ...You're just trying to be contrarian in here now. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Plus, for the level she is at, having only ONE set of EP's trained, ingrained, and in muscle memory, more assuredly predicts TIMELY and effective actual results. Actually, again at this level, the "split second" it may take to consider this, and think this through (not even considering "brain lock" potentialities, which believe me in high-stress situations can and DOES happen), may be in atuality much LONGER than the "split second" spent in effectuating an ingrained/trained procedure. Thus for many, the proponents of the "single method" (at least for student/novice phase) procedure. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Anyone else, who was not right there, in the saddle WITH YOU, while you were passing through your hard deck with a canopy, that for YOU was unlandable, can just STFU, -PERIOD. Ditto to what Hooknswoop writes. Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone

On the front page of your-all's Dropzone Log on Screen, there is a current poll asking whether or not any of us has (carries) PERSONAL LIABILITY insurance, other than that provided via USPA membership, which would cover damages caused by us to OTHERS property (etc) resultant of our skydiving activity. So far (1/5/2004 @ 4:45 EST) there are 115 respondents who say they do!! I doubt this very much (I work for an insurance company, and understand intimately how difficult obtaining specifically this type of coverage really is!) and am wondering how many of you may have confused having your own personal "insurance coverage" (in general, or for life, health or disability) with this VERY SPECIFIC form of coverage that this poll is trying to compare and extract statistics to? So, now potentially reconsidering this, MY poll question to you all is as follows: Did you understand completely the dropzone.com public poll currently running on our front page (log-in screen) of dropzone.com? Feel free to vote "annonymously" without having to post any commentary/reply in this thread at all, if you so desire. coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Ahhh.... the Big Pat and Pyrotechnics memories! Yes, indeed, one could go into an entirely different/new thread's worth there in that regard, for sure. Thank you for having shared that with me Bill. Thread "hijacking" mode now again [off] Blue Skies, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone