Gary73

Please don't assume that I support every policy that my government has ever pursued. I'm an American, but believing in the principles upon which my country was founded means that I cannot help but be deeply ashamed at some of the things that it has done. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Yes, I read that part, too. Again, it goes toward mindset, but stating that we have Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness says almost nothing about the form that any future government will take. Now, can we get back to the original question? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

A lot of the same people were involved with creating the DoI and the Constitution, and certainly it can be referred to as a founding document and an indication of the mindset of the Framers of the Constitution, but no, it's not really part of the American legal system; it just gives the reasons why we wanted to be an independent nation and sets the stage for whatever government we chose to form after that. But even there, the authors made it clear that the right to govern comes from the people, not from any divine being. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and legal system, and doesn't refer to the DoI a single time. But all of this is not really relevant to the original question, which people keep avoiding: Are royal families appointed by God? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention God anywhere, and it's only mention of religion is to guarantee that the government will stay out of that business. Agreed. Check British law. The monarch actually has some real power in certain cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers But even if they were just symbolic, why should they have any official standing at all? That was the intent - to nudge people into actually thinking about how monarchs get their power. Few people ever think about that; they just go with the flow. Even here in the States we're raised on fairy tales which reinforce the belief that royal families are better that the rest of us. Even the evil or simply incompetent royals are acknowledged to have special standing, and there's no legal way to remove them from office. So yes, to me there is no middle ground: either the royals were appointed by God (not likely) or they simply took power on their own and brainwashed generations of people into believing that God appointed them. So which one is it? Actually I have, but as important as the document was in beginning the trend of limiting the power of royal families, it still states that kings, barons, etc., were endowed by God with the right to rule over the rest of us. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html So again: are members of royal families appointed by God or not? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some good points, but the violence and treachery I was referring to was the kind that was perpetrated by the royalty upon the peasants in order to get and keep power. What I keep asking here, and what no one has even tried to answer, is not how good the leadership is or how smooth the successions are, but rather the most fundamental question that can be asked of any government: "Who made you the boss of everybody?". In America, the answer is that really big "We the People" at the beginning of the Constitution. In other times and places the royalty has claimed that some divine being has appointed them to be the leaders, after which they promptly killed anyone who said otherwise. So if you believe that royals were appointed by some kind of god, then fine, go ahead and believe that. But if they weren't appointed by a god, then they're just ordinary mortals, and nothing that they've done to get or keep power is morally defensible. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

N/A

There's a difference between being narrow-minded and having thought about a matter long enough to have reached a firm conclusion. I don't need to think about whether 1 + 1 = 2 or whether a government derives the right to govern from the people. The governments you refer to are, I believe, more properly termed "constitutional monarchies", since the monarchs are restricted by laws imposed on them by the people, starting with the Magna Carta. But either way, the question is: "By what right do monarchs rule over their subjects?". Monarchs can't be voted out of office, so they don't get that right from the people. And If they don't derive that right from God, then they're just hereditary dictators with unusually good public-relations people. And how did these families establish and maintain their positions? Mostly with violence, treachery, and distinctly unholy alliances with whatever religion was most powerful at that time and place. Oh, WRT the current economic problems, those are mainly the result of greed and poorly thought-out government policies, problems which happen pretty much independently of time, place, and form of govenrment, unfortunately. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Sorry; can't buy that. By their very nature, monarchies deny the people the right to choose their own leaders, and are therefore inherently wrong. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Doesn't it have to be either 1 or 2? And if it's 2, why do so many people still fawn over them? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Some valid points above, but for me the bottom line is that I have six or seven reserve deployments with Vector pilot chutes and they all went just fine, both high-speed and low. (Five were Vector Tandems, at my old dropzone, namely not my pack jobs, so no comments about packing lessons, please!) Also, as a rigger, I appreciate the very low pack volume of the no-mesh design. Some manufacturers seem to be going for maximum volume, what with unnecessary vanes, high-bulk mesh (the kind that looks like chicken wire), and long sections of material between the bridle attach point and the bottom of the spring. All that would be fine if that was necessary to get a good deployment, but it's not, so what good is it? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Can't get photo of jump tickets to upload. Oh well. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

All fanatics should be killed. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Erik - Are you maybe referring to the Parachutes, Inc., dropzone at Lakewood, NJ? I made numbers 41 and 42 there in '74. Had an AAD misfire at about 50 feet on # 42. Never got a chance to use my last two jump tickets. Think I can get a refund? The tickets say they're valid indefinitely! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thanks; that's what I figured, what with that being the way it is on every car ever built. I haven't seen the thing myself, but my mom is convinced that the one she just got has separate parking and emergency brakes. Sigh. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Are there separate parking and emergency brakes on that car? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Back around 1985 Lockheed looked into manufacturing a two-engine version of the C-130 Hercules, called the Twin Herc, I think. Unfortunately, they couldn't drum up enough customers, so the project was dropped. Not that it would have helped us; even a Twin Herc's fuel burn and maintenance cost would be out of our reach. Oh well. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I'd definitely call that a variety of PCIT. I've seen it happen (from main side) even with new 38" pilot chutes, but only when the main-side instructor hangs on after PC release. So our policy is now for the main side to turn and track the instant the student releases the PC. Gee, just like in the AFF-I course. Maybe those AFF I/Es know a thing or two after all. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

The wealth of a society (namely the whole world, since we're so interconnected these days) has nothing to do with how much metal is sitting unused in a vault somewhere. Wealth is the result of productivity, and the money supply should be kept in sync with it. Gold in a vault doesn't put food in your belly or shoes on your feet. Farmers and processing plants and shippers and grocers get you the food, and shoe factories and shippers and shoe stores get you the shoes. The amount of each commodity available is proportional to the level of productivity at each stage, which is proportional to the advancement of technology, which is proportional to advancements in science. Therefore, wealth is proportional to science, not metal. So no, wealth is not a zero-sum game unless we let it be by failing to invest in scientific research and technological development. And yet, what do governments and corporations always cut first when there are economic problems? R&D, of course. Morons. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Welcome back! If you have a D license you're theoretically allowed to determine your own level of currency, but most DZOs will want you to sit down with an AFF-I, review the FJC, and do a refresher dive. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

On most rigs the BOC stitching is well clear of anything structural. Also, part of the training that a rigger should get is to know his limitations, both regulation-wise and capability-wise. Even the newest senior rigger should know the difference between the type-E thread that holds container parts together and the 5-cord that holds the harness together. If you can find the info on those harness failures, I'd be interested in seeing that. Thanks! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Fair enough. The ones I've done have been cases in which the manufacturer offers both BOC and ROL, and the original purchaser chose ROL. No doubt you can do either job both faster and cleaner than I can, but last week I did a BOC replacement in about 30 minutes, start to finish, and it looked pretty good. Damn - maybe I am awesome! Yeah, that new stuff (Spandura?) is nice. I guess it depends on the manufacturer, though. The last few we got from Strong were crap. The spandex tore loose from the binding tape in just a few weeks of normal use. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I went with the 4" bubble and I like it so far. Unfortunately it's so clear that now I can see how crappy the right-side window really is. I'm trying to think of it as providing an economic stimulus package for my A&P. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

The BOC pouch is well clear of the reserve and all the harness webbing, so a lot of folks feel that a Senior rigger can do this job. It's also listed in the Parachute Rigger Handbook (on the FAA website) as only requiring a Senior license. Be aware that some riggers will charge you for a full reserve inspect and repack as part of this job and justify it by claiming that the job can't be done with the reserve in the container, so make sure you know what the rigger has in mind. Personally I've never found it necessary to mess with the reserve when replacing or installing a BOC pouch, but maybe I'm more awesome than I thought. Anyway, the pouches cost $15 from Para-Gear and I charge $10 to $15 for the labor on most rigs, depending on how I feel that day. P.S. - If the pouch is in good shape, just a little stretched out, it can be tightened by just unstitching the bottom seam, rotating that half a turn, then re-stitching it. Works once on most rigs. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

One of an I/E's responsibilities is to ensure that all evals are fair. If he can't do that he shouldn't be an I/E. Advice to candidates: get outside video on every eval jump at a course, even the practices. If a jump or a grade seems unfair in any way, have the I/E review it. Good Evaluators and I/Es will put fairness ahead of ego and correct an unfair grade. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Wow, that's like saying that every section in every history book is wrong. Oh no, another analogy! Run for your lives! Actually I think the analogy is not that far off. A new AFF-I has only seen the candidate's side of the course, not what goes into conducting the course. He also doesn't have the perspective toward AFF that an experienced Instructor does. So I'll stick with my advice: The best preparation for a course is a pre-course with the same I/E, and the best preparation for the pre-course is to jump with an active Evaluator. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan