chuckakers

Yep. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not sure if scary is the right description but I hung myself from a 182 by my main bag once. I dislodged my main pin while moving from the "back to the dashboard" position to the "sitting on the strut" slot for exit and my bag went over the strut and began deploying under my feet toward the tail of the plane. Me and my buddy went ahead and launched a 2-way and a split second later I was in tow. I got lucky and it cleared and deployed before I could cutaway. My buddy deployed when he saw what was happening, which gave us plenty of time to throw a little CReW together on the way down. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I guess you aren't too well-versed with some of the more scandalous in our sport's past. There have been DZO's - even a few famous ones - that have committed indiscretions that make the ones you listed look like parking tickets. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think he's the kind of guy who would drill a hole in a sinking boat to drain the water. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Don't have a clue, but good luck to all the invitees, including my kid! Go big, swoopers! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Yep, just found the same thing last month in the loading area on a Mirage that had less than 100 jumps on it. It had a burr in the cutaway cable housing grommet. Making matters worse, the broken section of the locking loop was on the side facing the rig, and was lying flat with the grommet on top of the loop. I only caught it because I noticed a slight amount of wear at the edge and looked closer. His gear had already been checked - more or less, I suppose. Gear checks, folks. Gear checks, gear checks, gear checks. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Not sure it will help, but I had some contention from city officials on a few issues that involved improper restrictions under the federally-funded airport thing when I owned a DZ on a muni here in Texas. I found that in every case, a private one-on-one with the city attorney took care of the issue. When the "city guys" (councilman, airport board members, etc.) are out of the room, the attorney will actually speak frankly about threats vs. legal standing. When I made it clear that I knew the law and that they were heading in a wrong and expensive direction legally speaking, the problem seemed to get instantly solved with a phone call or two to the appropriate city officials. City officials and local - often "loco" - politicians talk tough, but the thing they fear most is legal action when they could lose. They also don't like to get procedurally spanked by the feds for not playing nice with a federal protected aeronautical activity. Looks bad on future grant applications. Or you just burn down city hall. That would probably get the point across. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Funny, my reserve side instructor found his glove in my leg strap after my first and second AFF jumps - in 1985. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I'm not sure how that gear was set up. Some student equipment is rigged to cutaway the main and deploy the reserve whether the cutaway handle or reserve handle is pulled. Apparently this wasn't the case here. Given the main-side instructor was gone and the reserve-side gave clearing the main about as much of a try as he could, I don't see that he had any choice in the matter. And yes, that situation could end badly, but dragging a bag lock to the ground doesn't sound like a good choice either. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

As he is supposed to. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Arch, relax, and trust physics. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe my memory isn't so good, but I thought the FAA has always required tandems to be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements even before they "approved" it (as in not by experimental waiver), which I think have required AAD's for many years. Am I getting that wrong or do I not understand the details? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them “stupid”. The rules are there keep people from dying. Have you ever heard of Dave Wildes or Terry Reed? At the time they were current world champions in 8 way. Dave was a rated TI. They were 2 highly experienced skydivers on a tandem rig. They both went in with nothing out. They were better jumpers than you hypothetical “experienced jumpers” will ever be. There is a big difference between 2 on a tandem and 2 jumping sports rig. If you can’t see that maybe you should rethink who it the “stupid” one. Sparky Was there no AAD on the rig? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes. That's partially correct and partially incomplete. A more complete way to describe it would be: Violations of FARs are deemed to be prosecutable violations of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 - which is another way of saying "aviation-related crimes". In terms of enforcement and prosecution, the FAA would be the initial investigating agency, as well as the referring agency. FAA would refer to DOJ. DOJ would probably assign the FBI to investigate and, if need be, arrest. If FBI determines a crime has been committed, they'd bounce it over to the US Attorney's office for prosecution. Maybe my point was a bit simplistic, but we are saying the same thing. There are many (most, actually) FAR's that would get laughed out of court if a criminal prosecution was attempted. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

"Law" has become a sort of generic term. What most people refer to as a "law" means a federal statute passed by Congress or a state statute passed by a particular state's Legislature. Regulations, on the other hand, are "promulgated" (i.e., written and enacted) by federal or state agencies (like, for example, the FAA or a state's Department of Transportation). And my point is that for an FAR bust to be a criminally prosecutable offense, it must violate specified provisions of US Code. The most the FAA can do is refer a case to the Justice Department if they believe the infraction is in violation of US Code. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

There are also possible criminal penalties: The FARs are regulations issued (by the FAA) under the provisions of the Act. The prosecuting authority would be the Department of Justice, but the alleged criminal act would be the violation of FARs. As long as it's recognized that busting an FAR can, in and of itself, be a criminal act, then what you and I are saying need not be mutually exclusive, but can be harmonized. I think you are hitting on my point. Any criminal prosecution would come from busting the specified provisions in US Code, not an FAR itself. That's why the FAA can only refer cases to the Justice Department if they believe a prosecution is warranted. The most the FAA can do to those who bust FAR's is fine them (civil penalties), pull ratings, etc. If the violation breaks US Code, then it is criminally prosecutable. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The operative part of that phrase is "may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution". Any criminal prosecution would fall under Title 49 of the US Code, which ARE laws. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

If not law, then why can/do peace officers arrest airline passengers who violate FARs? Because they aren't violating FAR's. They are violating any variety of federal laws under the US Code. For example, these idiots that mess with flight crews are typically prosecuted under Section 46504 of Title 49, (USC), which makes it illegal to interfere with a flight crew. It has nothing to do with FAR's. When someone busts an FAR, there are possible civil penalties. When someone breaks a law covered under any of several US Codes, they are breaking the law and by such can face jail time depending on the seriousness of the offense. The FAA can't criminally prosecute you. They must refer your case to the US Justice Department, which then decides if any actual laws (under USC) were broken. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What is your definition of "law"? Since you can be punished by the government and in court for violations of FAR's, I think that puts them into the category of "law". It's not my definition that matters. You may call it punishment, but that doesn't mean the infraction that gets you "punished" was the breaking of a law. We get punished all the time for things that aren't laws. Kids get suspended from school for breaking "rules", you get penalized if you pay your property taxes late, etc., etc. Ever know anyone that went to jail for an FAR violation? Me neither. Breaking the law is a criminal (loosely used in context) offense, breaking FAR's is not. The FAA can only issue "civil penalties" for FAR violations - in addition of course to removing privileges issued by that organization. The federal government calls FAR's regulations because they aren't laws. If they were, we would follow FAL's. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

B.O. would never let that happen...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Oh yes I do. Luv U buddy! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

That reg is only in violation if the person in front was not a TI. .. .................................................................. I disagree. Unless the skydiver wearing the instructor's harness is a certified TI (on that system) or jumping under the supervision of a Tandem Examiner, he is violating a law. Tandem rigs are far too expensive and far too complicated to be used as TOYS. Tandem rigs are TOOLs and cost "x" number of dollars every time they leave the ground. Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What the hell are you talking about? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX