tetra316

How about camo pants at your local surplus store? Comes in a variety of colors as well and very durable. You can get the light weight or heavy weight version. Plus much cheaper then $200 plus for "real" skydiving pants.

Ya might want to let up on the red bull if you drink it everyday. Four a day is asking for a heart attack.

So what made you decide this? Just curious.

Not sure there is much fun jumping in New Zealand or Asia unless you are on staff at a dz. Then it's only jumping with other staff sometimes. I thought these were more tandem factory countries. (although I didn't think Asia had much other than exotic boogies...?)

I have a lemon canopy with red ribs. Non cross braced but you can easily see the ribs since they are a much darker color then the top and bottom skin. If they are the same shade of color then they are hard to see but if you use a light color on the top and bottom and a darker rib color it usually works.

Not picking on you, Tetra. This is the problem with body wash. Even though you feel like it rinses off, you guys NEVER rinse off the smell. You come out of the shower smelling like a 2-bit whore stinking up the air for miles around...and don't even realize it. Well I hope you are not picking on me since I don't use the stuff

If you cut-away and deploy quickly enough, like with an RSL, we do. If you have a hard pull or no pull then there is no chance. If you have an RSL, skyhook or a normal manual pull, you should have the reserve open before you reach terminal velocity. In fact, I would say that the large majority of reserve deployments are sub-terminal. It takes 12 seconds to reach terminal velocity. If you wait that long after a cut-away before pulling your reserve, that's too long, and you're probably VERY close to the ground. A hard pull or no pull implies you are not cutting away before deploying your reserve. There is nothing to cutaway and you are already at terminal. As to the frequency of terminal versus subterminal reserve deployments, yes subterminal is probably more common but what about all the terminal ones. You have no chance to "set" your reserve before use. And yet I've never heard of a manufacturer advising a subterminal jump on a reserve to break it in. That is why I think the whole "set" your lines theory is BS.

If you cut-away and deploy quickly enough, like with an RSL, we do. If you have a hard pull or no pull then there is no chance. I'm inclined to think the whole "setting" the line is BS. If they are installed correctly, they shouldn't need to be "set".

So what's the harm in taking it to terminal then? You can still open higher but not right out the door.

That's why I use bar soap, Yardley's to be exact. I've found body wash to feel like it never gets washed off completely. Same with certain kinds of bar soap like Olay. Guess I don't like the whole moisturizer thing with soap. I'd rather use lotion instead. But it is liquid soap at the bathroom and kitchen sink.

There is a two page version and a four page version. It is up to the dz which version they use. Check your SIM, it has both versions.

Don't jump until after they are fixed. The pressure changes of freefall can make things worse. I've heard of people who have recent fillings losing them from pressures changes in free fall. Those who have recently had a tooth pulled also were advised to not jump until they heal up as the wound can reopen from the pressure changes. I don't know all the techinical jargon but it's the same thing as not jumping when you have a cold.

fyi-that is the same document I posted.

Appropriate is nothing over 1.1 on an AFF student (at least that seems to be the general idea). However, most jump gear under 1.0.

Kapowsin in WA has one, but she is also a staff jumper there. Does massages in between.

That would be a case of improperly classifying employees as independent contractors. According to the newspaper articles, that is not what was happening. ETA: Your profile says you are a CPA. How in the world you you need this to be explained to you? Yes I am a CPA. I'm also right and you are wrong. Read the court document I posted. Ask yourself these questions: 1. What is the company's date of inception? 2. What is the period under examination? 3. In the period under examination, was positive cash flow attained by criminal means? 4. If it was, how and what was it used for? 5. What was the end result for the employees? 6. What was the end result for the employer? I don't care. I just like engaging in discussions when I feel I have a vaild point. Yes what he did was wrong and now he's paying the price. End of story. Hopefully he doesn't do it again.

That would be a case of improperly classifying employees as independent contractors. According to the newspaper articles, that is not what was happening. ETA: Your profile says you are a CPA. How in the world you you need this to be explained to you? Yes I am a CPA. I'm also right and you are wrong. Read the court document I posted.

Ok, I take that back! Here is a summarized court doc. It states he failed to "WITHHOLD money form employees' checks." So his employees were getting paid more than they should have. Hart also used corporate funds to fund skydiving, which is a separate issue not related to the taxes. He didn't withold taxes so none were used to pay for skydiving. The interesting part is the last quote "As a result of these actions, SMS employees were not credited with the taxes that were supposed to have been applied". That seems to imply witholding but not crediting. But the document clearly says he failed to WITHHOLD. Interesting.

Ok, ok, I give up I guess I'm just over analyzing the wording in the articles.

I think it's clear from the situation that the deductions were made, and that the employees were led to believe that this was the case. That's the reason that the IRS went after Hart and not the employees. If the deductions were never made, then Hart would have paid the money out to the employees, and it would fall on the employees to pay the taxes. If that was the case, Hart simply would have produced employment contracts showing the rate of pay, and paycheck stubs showing that 100% of that pay was remitted to the employees. If the deductions were made, and the monies never paid to the IRS, then the IRS could simply pull tax returns from the employees showing that deductions had been made, and then demand proof that Hart did indeed remit payment to the IRS with those deductions. In the absence of proof of payment, they have a case against the guy. Seeing as he was charged and sentenced, you tell me which way you think it went. All I'm saying is it is NOT clear that the deductions were made. The articles all say he failed to COLLECT. In that case his employees would be 1099 employees and he would still be in trouble for failing to collect taxes. The classification of employees falls on the employer as well as the employee. Not just the employee. We all know how the media likes to sensationalize, so maybe in order to sensationalize they left out the part about investigations into the employees. It does seem likely he just didn't remit but if that is the case why do all the articles also say he failed to COLLECT? I just find this an interesting case. And no one has presented any evidence yet that e did indeed collect.

I understand that part, his failure to remit taxes. However, it is not clear on whether he actually collected those taxes from his employees. The articles say he did not, that he failed to collect as well. But then again it may just be sematics on that part. I would just like some evidence that he either did not collect and the employees knew he was not collecting or Hart messed with their paychecks so the employees thought taxes were being withheld. That is the part that is not clear from the articles. It's just semantics. The employer doesn't actually "collect" payroll withholdings from employees. The employee gets a paycheck for $1,000 (using very round numbers here), which is a net amount. The employee's gross pay is $1,500. $500 is withheld for FICA/Medicare/Federal Withholding/State Withholding by the employer, who issues a check for $1,000. The employer has the responsibility to remit those withholdings. In this case, the employer just kept the money and now he will go to prison for that. Or Hart could have issued a check to the employee for $1500 instead of their net amount of $1000. In essence not withholding. That is the part that is not clear. I don't know what the tax code says in regards to that but I do know I've seem some even more obviously incorrect accounting practices with surprising results.

I understand that part, his failure to remit taxes. However, it is not clear on whether he actually collected those taxes from his employees. The articles say he did not, that he failed to collect as well. But then again it may just be sematics on that part. I would just like some evidence that he either did not collect and the employees knew he was not collecting or Hart messed with their paychecks so the employees thought taxes were being withheld. That is the part that is not clear from the articles.

And that is one of the reasons I always ship everything of value to my work place. It will never sit outside in weather and has a much less chance of being stolen. Something to consider.

Most of these are not appropriate for an AFF student with an exit weight of 300pds. And I think you would have a hard time finding the exact combination of gear that is left.

Not really that unusually. How many skydivers pay taxes on those wages? But the reports all say he did not collect taxes which means to me that the employees had nothing withheld. However, that doesn't mean he could not be manipulating their paychecks to make it look like they had with holding then keeping the extra wages for himself intead of paying taxes to the government.