BrianM

No need for flash - it's much simpler than that. See the last couple lines of my post here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4090530#4090530 "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

A very quick reply from Airtec (about five hours after I emailed them): "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

A local jumper had a cutaway and reserve deployment yesterday, and gave me the gear to repack. He has a CYPRES 1. I looked at the control and saw that the display was blank (this was about 10 or 15 minutes after the jump). I looked at the cutter and saw that it had fired. I turned on the CYPRES, and it passed the self test. Surprised, I turned it off and on several more times, and it passed the test each time. I disconnected the cutter and turned it on. It displayed an 8997 error code as expected. I plugged the fired cutter back in and turned it on. It gave me an 8997 error code. I plugged in a good cutter, and it passed the self test. I plugged the fired cutter back in, and I got the 8997 error code again. This raises two questions: 1 - Why did the CYPRES pass the self test with a fired cutter? 2 - Why did I get different results with the same fired cutter? It seems it is possible for a CYPRES to pass a self-test with a fired cutter. I have contacted Airtec and SSK and will post here when I hear from them, "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Screenshot attached. I see this several times a day - just have to refresh a page a few times and it will show up. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

http://xkcd.com/907/ "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

I'm still seeing this. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

There may be some countries where this is possible, but in general - no, there is currently no way to do this. You mention both "vandalism" and "suing", which implies two different things (criminal law vs civil law). Either or both may apply, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Here's what the criminal code in my jurisdiction (Canada) says: ... so at least here, pulling someone's reserve would be a criminal act. One could also sue for damages here. Whether it is actually worth pursuing either option is a different question - in my opinion, probably not. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Wow - and you accused me of straw man? The disagreement is over the appropriateness of pulling the reserve handle in the first place! I have been very clear that I ***** DO NOT ***** consider fighting (or any of the other potential responses that have been mentioned) to be appropriate. They are clearly inappropriate - and so is the initial act of pulling the reserve handle. Either you are being intentionally obtuse, or your reading comprehension sucks. The DZO and S&TA also have no authority to do anything to somebody else's private property. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

You do something to my car that renders it inoperable until I pay a mechanic to fix it. Vandalism, right? You do something to my rig that renders it inoperable until I pay a rigger to fix it. See any similarities? Either case incurs both down time and financial cost to render it operable again. Not such a big difference, IMO, and I'm pretty sure the law would agree. Bingo! "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Termination would be analogous to banning a jumper from your DZ. Pulling a reserve handle would be more like having my employer mess with the tools I use to do my job (assuming the tools are owned by me and not the company). I should be aware that I could get terminated (grounded or banned) if I don't shape up. I would not expect to have my tools messed with (reserve pulled). One is an appropriate method of dealing with a problem. The other is not. One will eliminate the problem. The other runs the risk of opening a big can of worms. That is the big picture! BTW, a supervisor/manager/etc who messes with another employee's tools would likely get terminated themselves, both because it is behaviour that doesn't belong in the workplace, and also because it creates a legal liability for the company. I've seen it happen. I keep telling you it's not in my make-up to do that. There are, however, people like that, and I've been using the example of someone retaliating in kind because I thought it might point out some of the reasons why what you are advocating is a poor way of dealing with the problem. Yes, an employee who punches the HR director could do some jail time. Or maybe the employee calls the cops or hires a lawyer to sue the company for messing with his tools. The legal system provides equal protection to both parties, and both parties should behave appropriately, right? If one doesn't, it's time to terminate the relationship, not start messing around with the other party's property. I'm not grown up because I don't instigate physical confrontations to resolve problems? "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

FIFY. Really? Our hypothetical jumper knew the owner of the business that he was giving his money to either doesn't understand law or ethics, or doesn't care for them? Perhaps he didn't know. OK...you have strawman down pat. Thanks for playing. No strawman argument there. You're the one who claimed you would vandalize someone's property. I can quote it for you if you can't remember. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

FIFY. Really? Our hypothetical jumper knew the owner of the business that he was giving his money to either doesn't understand law or ethics, or doesn't care for them? Perhaps he didn't know. Our hypothetical jumper could use that same line when he unpacks all your tandem reserves, or takes a sledge hammer to your jump plane, or knocks your lights out, or whatever else he decides to do. Yes, he would be wrong to do something like that, and I would not condone it, but you'd have no grounds to complain - you knew the consequences beforehand! Good to know you'll take it like a man when someone retaliates in kind - oh wait, it's "fighting like a middle-schooler" when they do it, but "they knew the consequences" when you do it. There is no other way to say this: you are wrong. There are also some customers who don't have the inclination to put up with that kind of drama. Thanks for the address to the competition, I'm sure my friends and I will have a great time jumping there! "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

I am not. You, by your own admission, are. So you hope that I'm not the kind of person who would do to you what you would do to me. Nice double standard. Do as I say and not as I do? Someone who retaliates in kind is doing exactly the same thing that you just did to them. If it's ok for you to do it, it's ok for them to do it. If they are a bozo acting inappropriately/unethically/illegally, then you are a bozo acting inappropriately/unethically/illegally. You can't have it both ways. Nothing good will come from fucking with other people's property, but there are a number of ways that it could turn into a very bad situation. Why instigate something like that? What's good for the goose... "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

I hope you wouldn't complain if that jumper decided to retaliate by messing with your student gear/rental gear/tandem gear/jump plane in order to cause you the same amount of inconvenience and expense as you caused him. After all, you are the one who decided that messing with other people's property was a good way to solve a problem. Sorry, but what you are advocating is completely inappropriate, both ethically and legally. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

That would be theft. Are you willing to risk having the cops show up at your door? Messing with someone's gear is not the answer. Deal with it properly. Start by talking to the person about the issue - you know, like mature adults do. Resort to the S&TA and/or DZO if necessary. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

No I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

First of all, parachutes aren't registered, and skydivers don't have FAA licenses. I suspect that U.S. registered aircraft must follow U.S. laws in foreign countries because those countries allow aircraft registered in other countries to operate as long as they are registered somewhere, and meet the requirements of the country in which they are registered. I can't drive an unregistered car in the U.S., but I can drive my Canadian-registered car across the border into the U.S.; however, I must follow the traffic laws of whichever U.S. state I happen to be in - not of my home province. There's also this: Nice straw man argument (though I will say that those jumpers in countries with one year pack cycles might disagree that they are being reckless). "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

It's an Open Document format. You can open it with Open Office (or a number of other applications). MS Word will open it but messes it up. I've converted it to a PNG, see attached. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

So according to you, the U.S. has jurisdiction in foreign countries? Not a chance. The laws that apply are those of whatever jurisdiction the jumper happens to be in at the moment. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

I was using one also and an FAA guy showed up at my DZ one day doing a ramp check. He looked at the PDC on a rig and said that the signature has to be written. I bet that if you were to ask 10 FAA guys about that you would get 10 different answers. My stamp - like most I've seen - is my certificate and seal numbers. I still sign with a pen. I have seen a few that also include the name, but the rigger also signs with a pen - sometimes right over top of the stamped signture. Gives you a legal signature, but also a name you can actually read. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Yes. Probably. Aircraft looks like an AN-2. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

In a PLF, your feet contact the ground, your body keeps rolling in the direction you are moving, putting you in a head first position (until you roll diagonally across the back, kicking your legs up and over - which then puts you feet first). What you describe has nothing to do with a PLF at all. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

... in which case it is a plain old slide, not a PLF. What he is referring to is in a Properly Executed PLF. When done right, the jumper lays down (in sequence), the balls of feet, calf, outside of thigh, buttocks, and the "pull up muscle". He then kicks up and over, rotating along the back of the shoulders. This kicking it up and over will result in the feet now pointed, generally, in the direction of the fall. Go back and read his posts. His first post is talking about doing a properly executed PLF, except stopping before rolling diagonally across the back. That will have you sliding head first. His second post is talking about sticking your feet out in front and sliding in on your side - not a PLF at all. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

... in which case it is a plain old slide, not a PLF. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

Stopping a PLF at that point will have you sliding head first, not feet first. "It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg