tetra316

Not quite. There is now load organizing at SDO most weekends, for both freeflying and RW. Hopefully that will bring more people around more often next year.

I know someone who had one a few years ago. Not sure if he still jumps as the dz is now tandems only.

The first three look like they are up in AK, at their summer solstice boogie, their glacier jumps....? I was up there one year and got to do that also. My favorite jump so far!!

How tight are the first two locking stows? Are they the right tension. I use the large rubber bands when I pack and double stow the first two locking stows. Works like a charm. Then I joined a team and proceeded to use a packer for a long weekend. All of the sudden it seemed like I had hard openings to the point where I was grunting every other jump. Turned of, of course, that the packer was not double stowing the first two rubber bands. I changed those to the small bands, single stowed and was back again to great openings. Check your stows and the tension.

I want to order an Optima visual altmeter but I see you have the option of a LED or LCD attachment. Since these are special order units I haven't been able to actually see either of these. If you have one which option did you choose? What are the differences for those that have used them? I have a full face I jump most often but do take the face shield off sometimes and just use googles.

The DZO and the one with the Mirage SB are two separate people.

I thought when it comes to aircraft manufacturers, they are not allowed to ground or declare any of their aircrat un-airworthy. Only the FAA is allowed to do that. So why is this not the case with parachute equipment? I thought this was not allowed in the aviation industry in order to prevent a conflict of interest.

This is an email I received that better sums up what I was trying to get at along your points. This is why he buys into the agrument: "I do. The manufacturers do not have the authority to legally declare their equipment un-airworthy. They cannot say that if you do not jump a pink jumpsuit, then your rig is grounded. The FAA is entrusted with that responsibility. Regarding the 'must follow manufacturer's instructions', that is in reference to packing and maintaining, i.e. repairs. Compatibility of components is left up to the assembling rigger to determine. AAD's are not TSO'd. All the FAA knows is aircraft and they treat parachutes as an aircraft. If Cessna issues a SB, it is not mandatory. only FAA issued AD's are mandatory. A good example is my wife's Mirage. I did not move the Cypres cutter location per Mirage's SB because I don't use a closing loop that is too long and a manufacturer's SB is not mandatory. Think of this, if SB's were mandatory, why would the FAA ever issue an AD? What's the point? Giving manufacturers the power to ground their equipment is a conflict of interest. That is why aircraft manufacturers do not have that power. Most skydivers simply believe SB's are mandatory or at least a good idea and riggers do not want to get caught out of the wrong side of a SB if something were to happen. Most DZO' require SB's to be followed to jump at their DZ. This creates an environment where SBs tend to be completed. So the FAA can leave it alone and not expend time money and other resources on a non-issue. Remember that most skydivers, including several DZO's I've talked to, believe that a medical is required to be a tandem Instructor. Get the FAA to say that they will not issue AD's for skydiving gear and that SB's are mandatory, in writing, and I'll change my mind."

That's what I mean. It is legal to jump an Argus in any container even if there are so called bans. But it doesn't stop some lawyer trying to get around of the law and sue based on industry practice. The CYA way would simply be to comply with any SB.

SBs are not mandatory. They are recommendations. If they were mandatory why would the FAA ever issue ADs regarding any skydiving equipment? And they have.

Your argument would presume that a mfg cannot make any changes to their manual/instructions/whatever after the original manual. That is nonsense. The SBs issued by the mfg specifically include previously made equipment. You don't seriously buy into the argument do you? I'm not sure what I think now. Again it's just strictly about following the letter of the law and what you can be held legally liable on.

He was saying that yes installation must be approved by the manufacturer at the time you purchased the AAD. Any subsequent changes do not apply because the "contract/requirement" is only valid at the purchase date. If it's legal then it remains legal until an AD is issued by the FAA revoking that approval.

The agrument meant you have to follow the manual that is in effect at the date of purchase for it's intended use. Any other manuals that come out after you purchased your equipment do not apply since the equipment may have been modified by the manufacturer since you purchased yours thereby leading to the subsequent bulletins. So effectively any service bulletins and whatnot issued after you purchase your equipment do not apply, unless approved by the FAA.

As to repacking a rig with a manufacturer banned piece of equipment, the argument was that is legal. The FAA approved each piece of equipment at that date of approval for it's intended use. That approval is valid no matter what the manufacturer decides after that date. If the manufacturer wishes to ban anything or modify anything then they need to submit such to the FAA and it needs to be approved by the FAA in order to be legally enforceable. After all, the riggers ticket is issued by the FAA, not the manufacturer. Again not sure I buy into this but I do see the train of thought.

I got into an interesting discussion with someone that none of these bans are legally enforcable. In order to be legally binding it has to come from the FAA. Meaning all gear that is initially approved for use by the FAA is legal. That no service bulletins issued after that fact, UNLESS also issued by the FAA, are legally mandated. The service bulletins are mere advice and would not be upheld in court since the FAA does not recognize them by also approving the bulletins. Some bulletins have been issued by the FAA but most come directly from the manufacturer. The manufacturer has no legal authority to limit what people do with their products. They can issue disclaimers but that's it. The FAA is the legal body in this sport. So what this means, is that there are no legal grounds to enforce service bulletins or manufacturer recommendations, unless also backed by the FAA. You cannot be held legally accountable for not following such, unless the FAA has stated you have to. The argument was that people do follow them as a CYA. But sometimes there comes a point where the cost of following such bulletins/recommendations outweighs the CYA factor. Then they choose not to adhere. Also, sometimes the bannings and recommendations seem to be knee jerk reactions issued without also issuing all the data that brought about the banning. Sorry for my lack of technical knowledge of the process but you get the picture. Personally, I'm not sure I buy into that argument since I tend to think that "standard industry practices", whether or not legally enforceable, would take precedence in court. Others think that the courts would strictly follow the letter of the law and ignore "standard industry practice". Either way it was a thought provoking discussion.

There is nothing wrong with Cadmium plating. Depending on where you jump of course. I'd rather save the couple hundred bucks it would cost. My new rig from 2003 or so has cadmium and about 1800 jumps and no where near any rust or problems. Stainless steel is overrated, unless you jump by the ocean.

I'd absolutely want honesty on the subject when it comes up. That said I'm not sure I want kids so dating someone who expresses a definite opinion either way almost makes it easier. Their view is absolute so then it's up to me to decide if that's okay with me or not. I've dated both but none every got to the point where that was a deciding factor.

Tunnel time is cheaper per minute the more time you buy, as with most things. So if the normal rate is $240 for 15 min then it most definitely will be more than $160 for 10 minutes.

I loosen mine all the way. And I even had a longer chest strap installed after the fact. I like the extra room it gives me and I feel it allows me to use more harness input. And no I don't swoop now. It just feels better and more natural to me once loosened. And yes I have landed it fully done up if pattern, other canopies, altitude doesn't allow me to loosen.

I have a pd143 loaded at 1.15. My mains have been anywhere from a 175 to 107 with the same reserve. I don't ever see downsizing my reserve no matter how small a main I may jump.

You really should not skip a size downloading, especially with your low jump numbers. And yes you can do harness turns loaded 1:1. Heck you can even fly your entire pattern at that loading never touching your toggles. I challenge you to do that. Sure it the turns are much slow but that just means planning your patter better. Which translates into more familiarity with planning and executing a pattern which will make you that much better when you actually downsize.

If you can't find a ride, check again or try some other rental companies. Most will take a debit card if you leave a deposit of a couple hundred dollars.

Love it!

Alright, too late. New bottle opened so I suppose we'll see how much gets drunk tonight. And I have absolutely no qualms about leaving a bottle half drunk in the fridge. Although now I've got a good excuse not too!

I'm guessing so but I don't know. Just that he was "bound" to use FFE aircraft regardless of where he jumped.