BMFin

clicky !

A few guys have been building compair8 type of plane here in Finland for some time now. I dont know much about it, but I have understood it is to be used in skydiving. From the rumours I hear it should be ready pretty soon..

Well I stopped using it when it stopped working. There is not much corrosion inside. The brown substance in the front is somekind of slicone/plastic sealing that belongs there. What does not belong there is the thin layer of corrosion on the metal. No way to detect it exists before you open the rubber sealing.

Well, even if you would desinfect the exterior of the biteswitch every night, it would have no effect on the inner parts corroding when coming in contact with moisture and oxygen.. It is a chemical reaction which happens anyway when water and oxygen are in contact with metal and does not have much to do with "hygiene" as you suggest. If you are very sensitive, you can always use hand remote.

Thanks for the tip. How long have you now used it ? How does it work ? Im thinking about trying the same thing. My bite switch stopped working and I opened it to see what was wrong with it. (see the picture) It turned out the problem was it was rusted from inside and therefore didnt conduct electricity. I didnt take a picture of the switch before I opened it, but I can tell you there were no visible holes in it really, though obviously there was at least one tiny hole in it since it had gathered moisture inside. I used the switch for one summer. (maby about 5000-6000 shots) Had there been something covering the switch a little better, I think it would still work as normal...

My main lift web is pretty tight. If I would want to have it made larger would it have to be totally replaced ? If so, how big of an operation is this ? How much does this cost ? Can it only be done by the manufacturer ? Should I rather consider selling the whole Harness/container and getting a totally new one instead ? It is a Mirage G4

About LLC and liability : Someone suggested LLC protects your assets or even from a criminal prosecution.. not true.. Google the words piercing the corporate veil Like with anything in life, just do everything downright and you wont have to worry about legal issues. If you do, then you need to consider moving to another country. (obviously your country isnt a Rechtsstaat if this is the case) The question it self is too wide to be answered sufficently. Its like asking, if Im driving a car what are the possible scenarios that might get me sued ?

I definetly agree with you on this. However, over all regarding insurance over gear, I have often had multiple insurances. (homeinsurance, travelinsurance) All of them have a maximum reimbursment value that is less then the gear is worth, but together they will cover the whole value..

You still havent told me why does the person wearing the rig have more control ? I on the otherhand did argument that the passanger has more control of the relative wind when the tandem is on its belly. Dont you think this is the case ? Surely you must be aware that the passanger also has the possibility to deploy and steer the canopy on his own ? With chicken handles you can even cutaway and deploy reserve. (I guess even without them it isnt necessarily impossible) I dont have so much experience on tandem gear so someone please correct me if Im mistaken here.. Nevertheless IMO this isn´t really relevant when talking about manufacturers liability. It could only be relevant if we were to talk about the liability among participants and even then it is a faint change of it actualizing.. I dont think so. Two participants performing any stunt what so ever often rely on each other in many occasions. Also when performing MR.bill And this actually is only relevant when talking about the liability among the participants them selves. Not really relevant when talking about manufacturer liability in relation Sunt performer - manufacturer. Please try to distinguish these two different things. Im sorry but you fail to assure me on this one. You take what ever previous proceedings and try to form an analogy without the slightest effort of finding Ratio decidendi.

I may not be a law student but even I know that different countries have different laws regarding liability and different ways of those laws being interpreted. people in some countries (i.e the USA) like to sue for any reason they can. So while the liability issue may be bullshit in Finland that doesn't mean it's bullshit everywhere. Yes, you are right. The legal system does differ to some extent. However, the major principles are similar. You dont need to be legally educated to understand the irrationality of LloydDobbler´s claim. I gave you an example about the car manufacturer. Think about it, Im sure you are able to understand how crazy it sounds, and how irrational the statement is.

I have seen when a fellow skydiver takes a skydiving holiday on the other side of world and the airline looses his check in baggage. The result is that he just spent piss load of money to go skydiving for a few weeks and he doesnt have a rig. I have also heard that someone had his reserve pocked holes through it, opened or otherwise tampered while he checked in his rig. Now even if you would eventually get your rig back after a week or even if your insurance company would cover your loss, it wouldnt help you if your left without a rig on your two week holiday and therefore unable to skydive at all.. Thats the reason why I always prefer carry on..

1st thing: Why do you think the person wearing the rig is in charge ? Actually I would say the "passanger" gets better acces to relative wind when bellyflying. The passanger has better means to control the two of them. However, I would say this is kind of irrelevant because next you might argue that the "passanger" might be held liable for killing the person wearing the rig. So let us focus on the manufacturer liability issue once more: Basically your theory was that if the person wearing the rig is held liable than the also the manufacturer could be held liable. I dont understand the logic here. To me it sounds as crazy as if Volvo would be held liable for a pedestrian fatality when some drunk driver runs her over with a car manufactured by Volvo. I just cant see the logic there. As I have said before tandem manufacturers would be very very unlikely sued if something was to go wrong with someone performing a stunt like this. I quote my self: actually one might argue that tandem gear manufacturers are actually much less likely to be held liable, since they have produced so much protocols, recommendations and training programs for how to use their gear properly. And so if someone chooses to act against, they are on their own.. I wonder why no one pulls off this liability card when talking about MR.bills or some other stunt not involving tandem gear ? As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues. Im willing to hear more argumentation if you can reason your statements however. So far Im not convinsed.

has been discussed here also. Lots of info if you google it. personally I would take the 450D, but not really much difference between the two. 1000D is a little bit lighter, but only a few grams.. And yeah. Good optics and learning photography makes a lot of difference..

May I ask why is this ? btw. it seems this turned into a tandem camera flying thread instead of camera flying thread.

Strong parachutes is making one also.

Actually, though maby rather sad, I think any reportage of a skydive fatality will actually bring more intrested people towards the sport.

I tried to squeeze the essential point in your post to a shorter: + I think here we are now approaching most of the reasons why the whole consept of tandem is so sacred and taboo-ish and why it creates such strong emotions that are difficult to reason. I agree that offering tandemskydiving for the wuffos does benefit our sport. I agree with what you said about this part. However, Im not so convinsed that if someone dies trying a skydiving stunt, it would jeopardize the existence of tandem industry overall simply because it involved a tandem rig. If you think the governing party fails to see a distinction between a stunt and a student tandem, why would they still manage to see the distinction between a swoop fatality and a student tandem? Dont you think any swoop fatality might also jeopardize the future of tandems as the "ever so straightforward" public sees our sport too dangerous ? Also I wonder what exactly makes the governing party immune for any factual information of the incident at hand, even if some misinformed individuals might jump to conclusions after such incident(s) ? I think this is the second real argument against the actual issue of experienced jumpers performing this stunt. (the first argument was that someone might want to emulate this stunt without realising the dangers) I think both of these arguments are quite weak indeed, but Im curious to hear more arguments supporting your thory about the "publics perception" and futhermore what effect it might have. I admit, this is a very difficult question to answer comprehensively. Im curious to hear arguments pro / contra on this issue you brought out..

I see your point, but I cant help to add that if someone actually starts to skydive with a RED (which ever model), in terms of equipment I would consider it quite professional and quite far from hobbyist. 5D Mark II on the otherhand could be the optimal choise of the hobbyist looking for quality

I dont know what type of canopy you jump, but it sounds like it has a quite positive recovery arc. (in other words youll end up high if you start too high) I would say it is someworth less essential to initiate a turn at a precise altitude if you are flying a canopy like velocity that doesnt have such a positive recovery arc. Therefore you may keep it diving a bit longer if you need to. And therefore you wont have to worry so much wheter your initiation altitude is +-100ft btw. Atmospheric pressure does vary on sea level also. Ofcourse the scale of variation isnt more than a few hundred meters.

So how does that change the fact that I have personally seen a few and heard about a few more ? For your information misfire doesnt necessarily mean it happens in freefall. It can be happening under canopy too and it could be fatal even more likely than misfire in freefall.. I have seen someone land with the reserve PC in tow. I would be scared shitless if it happend to me..

I wasnt talking about one of the stunt participants suing another participant. I was talking about someone suing the manufacturer, after something went wrong during the stunt. Now you mentioned Bill Booth. As far as I know hes involved in both, regular sport gear and tandem gear. Why dont you think someone might as easily sue him after someone gets hurt doing a MR.bill with normal sport gear from Relative workshop ? What makes tandem gear so prone towards prosecution ? EDIT: actually one might argue that tandem gear manufacturers are actually much less likely to be held liable, since they have produced so much protocols, recommendations and training programs for how to use their gear properly. And so if someone chooses to act against, they are on their own..

Ok.. so even if that would be possible, why arent people afraid of lawsuits when someone does a rodeo birdman or a Mr. bill for example ?

After tandem mfg´s have made it clear that this stunt is unapproved by them, how on earth could they ever be held liable for someone acting against their instructions ? Its almost like you´d sue kawasaki after someone decides to try a wheelie @ 100mph speed and looses control..

I wonder what exactly makes the possibility of liability higher with tandem gear manufaturers compared to normal sport gear manufacturers ? (not talking about student jumps here)

The link you posted brings me to 50D review, not 5DMKII