billvon

If the rears are going slack, then you are _definitely_ changing the canopy's trim.

If the S+TA was there. If the S+TA knew what happened. If the DZ has an S+TA. If not, you'd need the people involved to report it.

>Please let me know how you would interpret this new BSR. You have to send a report to USPA if anyone's AAD fires during a student jump.

I guess no (significant) holes is a good criteria, although I figured that would be somewhat of a given . . . I'd also suggest checking canopy trim on any Spectra line canopy. An out of trim canopy can fly very poorly and be hard to land, and a reline is relatively cheap. A quick and dirty way to check is to start packing and compare length of the D lines. They should all be the same on most canopies (you can check the line length docs if you're not sure; many of them are on line lately.) If there's more than a few inches of difference it might be a good idea to replace the lines first.

I got a laser pointer and mounted it in line with the camera, so that the dot is dead center when the camera is focused on something ~10 feet away. Then before I get in the plane I turn on the laser and just make sure it is hitting the center of what I see in the ringsight.

I will start with two minor notes from posters: 1) No way to chronologically order search results 2) No way to post a poll

Two notes: 1) Unable to edit post after a few minutes (bug) 2) Unable to easily tell quoted text from body of message (probably a 'feature')

Depends on the method. That might work for one hand per handle, but would be dangerous on the two hands per handle method.

I am certain if some tech-savvy skydiver showed up at a BOD meeting and said "let me set up streaming for you" they'd be all over it. Any volunteers?

>In fact, if you can prove that a patent is insufficient for someone "skill in the art" to >replicate the invention, you can have the patent invalidated. Yes, that's the theory. In practice, companies put as little detail as possible in the patent. They do this because if they DID put enough detail in it to easily reproduce the invention, China would be building them within a few weeks. And yes, you might be able to have it invalidated if you challenged it. It would, however, be a long court case, with one panel of "skilled in the art" folks claiming they could not have duplicated it, and another panel of "skilled in the art" folks claiming they COULD duplicate it. The folks that claim they could duplicate it, of course, often base their learnings on a reverse-engineered product rather than the patent itself, so the defense will claim that's how they got their knowledge. 11 months and 7 million dollars later, you might indeed be able to invalidate the patent. Most people don't have 7 million dollars and 11 months, which is why such patents are often as general as possible. That's one of the reasons that patenting things is beginning to not be the primary way to protect IP. Indeed, if it's something that's a combination of microcode and ASIC design (i.e. very hard to reverse engineer) often companies don't even bother any more. They rely on the difficulty of the reverse engineering process to protect them - by the time the competition reverse engineers the product, they are on to their next generation.

>To all: Does anyone know someone who has installed a larger slider on a Sabre 2? Nope. I went through a lot of funky sliders for a few Sabre 1's (dome slider, pocket slider, bigger slider) but I've never seen one on a Sabre 2 or its relations by other manufacturers (Safire, Pilot.)

>How does a reserve not fully inflate? All the same ways a main doesn't fully inflate. Tension knots. Lineover. Massive line twist. Canopy damage.

>It may not be easy to set up initially, but once established will more than justify >the time and money spent on it. Go for it! I am certain the BOD would welcome your assistance.

>It is my understanding that you can make them & give them away for free without >violating the patent. Legally, no. Practically, yes. =========== 35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent US Code (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. ===========

Not in the US. In fact, in general patents are written to be as general as possible, with none of the detail that would allow you to copy a product using the concept embodied in the patent. That's on purpose. Well, the purpose of a patent here is to allow the inventor to control his invention for a short time, specifically to monetize it (i.e. make money on it.) Specifically the purpose is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." But yes, patents do get copied, and a patent is indeed a record of the basic concept that can be used for that purpose. (Which is why patents are becoming a problem nowadays, because it's essentially an invitation for a country without patent protection to try to duplicate it.) It is illegal to use a patent in that way in the US. However, you can almost always get away with it, because the license holder isn't going to care if you build something small for your own personal use, because they aren't going to lose any money over it. That may be changing with the advent of 3D printing and rapid prototyping, because now if you post a 3d printer file to build a widget, and a million people download it, the license holder CAN lose money from lost unfulfilled demand - and a court would likely agree. Also, in the US at least, a patent is effectively just the right to sue. No police force monitors the use of technology, so the license holder has to notice you using their IP before it even becomes an issue.