nwt

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    713

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    N/A

  • Country

    United States

Posts posted by nwt

  3. On 5/19/2023 at 6:36 PM, lippy said:

    I'm just curious about the geek shit side of things.  What protocol would you be considering using to send that data back home, and would the added benefit (the debate on the value of that benefit being alive and well above) be worth the penalty in battery life?

    I have a cardiac monitor implanted under my skin, about the size of a AAA battery. It uses bluetooth and the battery is good for 5 years. It's a Linq2 from Medtronic if you want to read more.

  4. On 12/1/2022 at 6:21 AM, sfzombie13 said:

    i read the comment several times before replying as i did, and i am glad they did not let that factor into the decision.  as for the second part of the comment quoted above, i would think that they would be registered as an llc to avoid that scenario, but i also wouldn't have thought they would be registered in ny and couldn't find any articles of incorporation quickly so they may be.  there are no legal problems with mandating anything relating to parachuting by the uspa, as they are all nothing more than recommendations, or so i've been told by the resident legal expert i know.  he could be wrong though with the differing states' legal structure, and in that case, i'd say the risk was worth it. 

    serious question for everyone reading this:  is the POSSIBILITY of preventing a lawsuit more important than the POSSIBILITY of preventing a fatality?  if anyone in the uspa says yes to that they need to go.  it's not like any of it would affect the meat of the sport anyway, just the minimum of folks that don't listen well in the first place.  take that to it's logical conclusion and it seems like a minuscule chance of a problem.

    Dude. I don't know how you can read what you quoted, then explicitly acknowledge that we're not talking about a liability issue, and then go right back to the legal thing. I was talking about USPA going out of business from... a lack of business. This is a thing that commonly happens when a business does something enormously unpopular with its customers.

    Also strictly as an aside: forming an LLC doesn't do a single thing to protect an organization from liability, it's intended to protect *other* associated entities from *that* entity's liability.

    On 12/1/2022 at 1:36 PM, sfzombie13 said:

    all one has to do to get a waiver

    Restrictions sure do sound trivial when they apply to disciplines you don't practice, don't they?

    On 12/1/2022 at 6:37 PM, sfzombie13 said:

    i can tell you right now the collective opinion is wrong

    This has got to be one of the most arrogant things I've seen on this forum.

    On 12/1/2022 at 6:37 PM, sfzombie13 said:

    there are not too many variables for a wingloading restriction, ask the uk.

    Ask them what, exactly? What about the UK doing a thing implies that it was a good thing?

    I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the BPA has the power of law, hence losing business isn't nearly as much of a concern for them.

  5. 16 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

    if that is truly the case, and the reason the uspa isn't implementing wingloading recommendations is due to fear of being sued, then they very much need to stop pretending they care about safety. 

    I meant the opposite, that fear of being sued is not the reason they haven't done this. The reason is that if they start doing things that are unpopular enough among jumpers they will cease to exist.

    15 hours ago, wmw999 said:

    If they care about safety and get sued enough to go out of existence, or even be severely curtailed, then their ongoing ability is diminished. The best result you can get is the one with the resources you actually have, not the ones you wish you had. 

    Exactly. It's not the thought that counts here--if USPA goes out of business, they're dead and no longer able to care about safety or anything else.

    10 hours ago, chuckakers said:

    You quoted me, saying "In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes." and then replied with the above statement.

    You may have misunderstood. When I said no one I spoke with was against raising the deployment altitude BSR, I meant jumpers, not USPA officials or anyone directly involved with such decisions.

    I quoted both you and BMAC and then wrote the response. I understood that you were talking about jumpers and my point was that if USPA does something really unpopular among jumpers like what BMAC wants (but for some reason refuses to acknowledge that he even has an opinion on), USPA puts themselves in jeopardy. 

  6. 2 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

    Appreciate the response, @chuckakers. I’m still not convinced the implementation of a WL restriction for A, B & C License holders is any different. Based on @riggerbob’s response, I can see why USPA refuses to implement such a policy.

     

    4 hours ago, chuckakers said:

    In conversations I have personally had, almost no one was against raising deployment altitudes.

    In the US it's popular to blame lawyers for just about anything and it may even be true much of the time, but even if what @riggerbob said is true, the above quote is plenty of a reason--it could easily be the difference between an unhappy @BMAC615 and the downfall of the organization. To so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that is getting to be absurd.

  7. 2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

    it is possible that the new owners had every legal right. 

    What I've been trying to say so many different ways is that acting within the law doesn't preclude you from being a motherfucker. It's fine if you disagree, but why are you being so evasive and deliberately obtuse?

  8. 25 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    Maybe the lease was an at will situation

    Anomie has stated pretty clearly this isn't the case

    26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    Maybe the lease had defects the new owners didn’t want to adopt.

    This isn't a choice the new owners are entitled to make--the lease comes with the property.

    27 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    There are a lot of things, none of which I know.

    What I'm trying to get at is simple: Taking advantage of imperfections not contemplated by either side previously, for the sole purpose of undermining the spirit of the lease, makes you a motherfucker. Agree or disagree?

    • Like 1

  9. 15 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    Maybe your new owner is a motherfucker who is forcing you off the airport with his check book. But it's also possible that your lease wasn't solid and that is just the sort thing that a buyer might see as an advantage. 

    Sorry but what's the difference between these two things?

  10. 3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    Absolutely, but I haven't seen the lease, have you?

    What do you need to see? Do you mean to suggest that if the landowners were behaving in an obviously malicious way but might *technically* be within the lease that they are not motherfuckers? I would disagree.

    • Like 1

  11. 1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

    Property owners doing with their investments as they see fit does not make them motherfuckers. When it was for sale you should have made the buy. If you didn’t want the burdens or couldn’t find the money such is life.

    Property owners not honoring the lease are motherfuckers.

    • Like 2

  12. 1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

    This is the main reason we buy all our fuel from the airport operated cardlock pumps. That and the fact that fuel contamination and dealing with shrinkage is almost completely eliminated. A few dollars more for fuel is a small issue in the bigger scheme of things.

    Fuel is a major expense and the price can vary wildly between airports. I don't think you can judge someone for their purchase decisions without knowing details.

  15. 11 hours ago, wmw999 said:

    Most people don’t really think they’re going to take a significant amount of time to go from decision to action. So to them the decision altitude is the action altitude.

    I think this is what I've been trying to say.

  16. 3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

    nice.  i had to look up ambiguity to make sure i used the word correctly.  then i had to go back and read the entire thread to make sure i wasn't hallucinating or playing devil's advocate on something.  after all of that i am pretty sure that i have been saying all the time that the two phrases are pretty  clear to me, and included what i thought the definition should be.  i said that the uspa definitions are clear as mud, meaning that they are hard to understand, and they don't even use the term "cutaway", which is what they are supposed to be referencing.  perhaps that is what you mean. 

    Sorry I didn't mean to make you go back and read a bunch of stuff. Your definitions seem clear but both seem to mean the same thing to me, which I don't think is intended? I've said this before.

  17. 11 hours ago, bdb2004 said:

    I suspect that what In Stock actually meant was, "we have everything we need to make them in stock."  Which in hindsight totally makes sense

    As someone involved in manufacturing in a different industry, I strongly disagree.

    6 hours ago, mark said:

    I get that.  But I don't think it's a lot of money.

    I don't understand how anyone could even think 9 dbags is a lot of money to a manufacturer, or even that it makes economic sense to build them one at a time on-demand vs in batch. With their rig lead time being over a year right now, UPT shouldn't be worried about dbags going unsold...

  18. 15 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

    i just don't see the ambiguity between hard deck and decision altitude.

    I find this at odds with the rest of what you've been saying

    16 hours ago, al05r said:

    it's normal for written words to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

    normal doesn't imply safe or acceptable

  23. 4 hours ago, pchapman said:

    And if you have a 2000' decision altitude, you don't HAVE to ride a mal down to the 2000' decision altitude. And if you are at 1800', you can still make that decision to cutaway. 

    Exactly. "Do it at this altitude. Or higher. Or lower". Useless.

    1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

    decision altitude - last chance to make a decision, if you have not cutaway, do it now or don't do it at all.  hard deck - do not cut away below this altitude.

    Those two definitions sound exactly the same to me

  24. 1 minute ago, sundevil777 said:

    The use of the terminology hard deck and decision altitude should be avoided. So many convinced of what it obviously should mean but it isn't so obvious.

    I strongly agree. "I won't cut away below XXXX" is easy enough to say.