dpreguy

Yes we were idiots.

The Christmas tree was full sized, green needles, just off duty from Christmas. We never found either the tree or the plywood sign.

That was the "rage" back then. About 50 years ago

We heard of a pumpkin, a string of canned beers - shoot, a lot of things being thrown out.

Yes I heard of the pumpkin tossing thing where the pumpkin went through the roof, the ceiling and broke the dining room table.

No, we wouldn't do that shit now, but back then....we were 16 to 18 or so, and just did stuff. (OK to jump at age 16 back then). We were "a hell'in".

Mid sixties, there was a kind of mentality to take weird stuff out: Me and Stan Welniak took out a full-sized Christmas tree out of C 182 for no particular reason. Full delay of maybe 20 sec or 30 sec. Let go and tracked off. Farm fields in Midwest. Pretty sure it was a logged jump with comments.

Big plywood sign which was uncontrollable. Let that go too.

Uh... other stuff too. Seems like we were into ridiculous stuff back then

They shouldn't have to be students. Just be employees.
Some could be students, some not. If they are just hired help, it shouldn't be a requirement.

If they are going to be paid, then remove the requirement that they be students. They'd just be hired help, like janitors and groundskeepers.

Rob and Chapman
I agree with both of you.

If a mfg issued such a service
bulletin, then the FAA would follow with an Airworthiness Directive.

And yes, I also use the "20 year thing" to tell to owners when I refuse to pack old stuff, and ratty stuff. I guess I wouldn't need to use it, but it is a handy add on excuse. I just sorta mention it, but qualify it by saying they really can't retroactively impose it.....Yeah I know, I'm being a bit phony when I do so. Sometimes it's hard to say no without some stuff to go with the no.

I am very selective on which rigs 'over 20' get packed. Not many do.

I am still waiting for mfgs to 'put up or shut up' on this. I would be more comfortable if they would just issue a recommendation, and not use the undefined term - "service life".

Not replying to any particular contributor: If National, in 2009 (I have a copy of the of the paragraph), or Para Phernalia, a couple of years ago, or any mfg. that has put their retroactive 20 year "service life" into print---wants to do something bsides dance around the subject, (and proceed in spite of the FAA's correct statement)---then all they have to do is issue a Service Bulletin.

No one is pressuring them to do so.

When I tell pilots of it, most of them say it is only because the mfg wants to sell more parachutes. One pilot said "Have they done tests to show my parachute is unsafe?"

So, to me anyway, the bigger question is: Why don't the mfg's issue a Service Bulletin to say their product is unsafe/condemned after 20 years?

I believe it is because there isn't any such evidence that it is a true statement. I certify and repack a few such rigs. Not all of them by any means. I do it on a case by case basis. I feel I am on firm grounds in doing so, because the "service life" imposition is meaningless. In my opinion, they need to take the Service Bulletin route or shut up.

So far I haven't heard of any sport reserve mfg issuing a printed/electronic 'service life' statement. If any have I'd like to be advised.

greenfeet
I think I have an old (red) closing loop setup pinned to an antique wall area. I'd send it to you for free, if you still are intent on jumping this old stuff. You do realize that the MC4 rig is only set up for a FXC 12000 pin puller AAD, right? And that it needs to be sent in frequently for a vacuum factory test?

Can't see why you'd choose this rig for sport. For example: How are you going to do RW with anyone with a 50 lb parachute? My advice is still to get a modern rig, modern canopies, modern AAD. You are dealing with a museum piece that has minimal performance, for no good reason I can think of.

What is an extractor?

The Waters/Butler stuff is 30 years old (appx) and if you notice, the "toggles" are just red doubled 550 with a knot on the end to hang onto. And....woe if you let one, (or both) of them go. They just fly behind you, attached to the rear lower lateral band. Then you could steer with rear risers I guess? Gotta give'em credit though, they did market a 4 line release w/o having to hook knife the rear 4 lines. Not too long after, someone invented the present system and put the red (or olive drab) doubled 550 thru guide rings, so it you let go of them, they'd still be there. Just like our present toggles. C'mon Coucilman, post some pictures.

I'd love to show photos, but I don't know how to do that.
Councilman is a computer nerd/chip head, (said in a nice way), so maybe he can do it?

Yes. I just did two Strong seat C-9's and two Butlers C-9's.
Nice 4 line releases. Newer canopies. I have about 8 customers with them.

As usual, packing the pop top was a 'not fun' experience.

Rigger Rob's explanation is correct. Jim Hall, old days, who jumped and rigged and co-produced "Ripcord" TV show, told me he personally tested and probably invented the "4 line cut" for the C-9's. The pilot was to cut the 4 lines with his hook knife and steer with rear risers. Now the systems are using the red daisy chain device as described by R Rob, which, when the daisy chains are pulled, releases the 4 lines, and as he said, are then used for steering. 3 of the 4 round pilot emergency parachute companies now offer the C 9 with 4 line release. I have only seen the C-9's in seat packs. I just packed 4 of them. Two of each mfg.
The H/C manufacturers sew in a channel onto the rear risers to keep the long red release/steering lines contained. Then a guide ring like on a sport canopy.

You are looking for "bailee" coverage = property of others.
It is coverage appended to ordinary business insurance.
Message me and I can discuss what I went thru to get it.
Not easy. And with limitations due to the fact it is a parachuting service.
(I don't check my messages so somehow let me know you have sent it.)

No one is contending this guy isn't guilty of the three assassination murders and shooting the 4th in the face, who miraculously survived. Not even our gutless governor is saying the guy isn't totally guilty. He just is saying "Nah I don't want to do this".

Let's just say we disagree on the issue of a juror saying the same thing. Juror: "Yeah. The guy is clearly guilty. But, nah, I don't want to convict him for my own personal reasons."

Both prosecution and defense are entitled to a certain number of strikes without any stated reason. That's how they get to a jury of 12.
There are no limits to requesting the judge asking jurors be excused for cause.

The concept of jury nullification can be compared to a governor refusing to sign the authorization for an execution, even after the defendant is properly and legally sentenced to die, and all appeals are exhausted. He substitutes his own beliefs. This is wrong, and works, in effect, a destruction of our system of criminal justice. It, in effect, is nothing more then one guy saying, "Nah, for my own personal reasons, I don't want to follow the law set forth by the legislature". Same for juries if they choose nullification. Not a good thing. If a law is a bad law, then the legislature should repeal it. This is how an ordered society works.

There are opportunities for the defense to argue justification, mistake, and other concepts at trial. If that doesn't work, then the law set forth by the legislature should be respected.

We have that here, and it is my hope that he loses the next election because of it.

I have 8 industrial machines. Let's just say I am intelligent enough to figure out the cost-benefit ratio of purchasing a small 'parachute grade' item versus the purchase of traceable materials and the labor and time in producing one homemade item.

Knock yourself out.

I haven't looked it up. If your research says it is in NH, then it exists. Maybe in other states as well. It is a destructive practice. If I was prosecuting, I'd query each juror to see if they would use this, even though all elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If they would, then I'd ask the judge to excuse/strike that juror 'for cause', because if denied it would then be impossible for the state to get a guilty verdict, regardless of the evidence and the law. (All jurors are under oath on voir dire.) If they lie and do it anyway, then the verdict should be stricken and the prosecution should be entitled to a retrial.

You can buy one from Para Gear for about $15.
Maybe less.
Do you really want to manufacture something from a paper drawing, when a new one is about the cost of two or three cups of coffee?

Short answer. No. Jury nullification amounts to a destruction
of our form of government.

The LEGISLATURE creates the laws which define criminal conduct. The JUDICIARY provides due process= 1. The right of the defendant to know what he is accused of. 2. The right of the defendant to respond to the charges- 'to be heard'. 3. The right to have his case considered by a fair and impartial tribunal - judge or jury. The EXECUTIVE branch, who is tasked with the enforcement of the laws set forth by the legislature.

Jury nullification destroys the legislature's role to determine what is illegal. We would then simply have a natin of men, not laws. Think of the thief in Les Miserables. If the law is not enforced, the bakery guy will konk the guy over the head when the thief steals the bread. No need for policemen, judges or legislatures. Mad Max

"Drunk driver?" How does one instantly determine that a driver is drunk? Only after a blood test, breath test... Smelled like alcohol maybe? Everyone is assuming that somehow, the dad was able to walk up in the heat of the moment, and determine that the driver was, in fact, drunk. Looks to me like the dad was so pissed his boys got killed that he felt it was OK to seek his own version of self righteous rage/revenge by executing the the driver. I doubt the "drunk" part/excuse had anything to do with it.
Apparently, after the fact, there was a medical determination that the driver was indeed drunk. The dad didn't know that when he came back with a gun; and looks like he didn't care anyway.

Google this dad's name and put a date timer on it for a year. See if HE is still alive a year from now.

The defendant, now acquitted, better be looking over his shoulder. Funny thing about "vigilante justice". Works both ways.

Ouch. Saw the picture. Guess my theory that the lineover is all but eliminated is incorrect.

Anyhow, my opinion, is that the T 11 is vastly superior as an airborne drop parachute, due to it's lower descent rate and the slider.
(The T 11 reserve is pretty cool too. Has an orange ejector spring for the pilot chute, etc etc.)

Must strongly disagree with you on descent rate. Slower the better. Must carry ALL of your equipment. Germans learned the hard way you can't drop equipment separately.

I found the T-10 to be a dud. Descent rate is too high/fast. Weighed 180 lbs. Jumped with full equipment and an M 14 on left side at Fort Bragg and hit like a ton of bricks. All of our jumps were at night, so the "PLF is the answer" theory only worked when there was moonlight and when you could see the ground coming up. I never got injured, but the dz's there were clear and sometimes sandy.

I have heard these T 11's are capable of lower drops. Don't know that to be a fact.

kuai
Your theory of dropping equipment separately has been abandoned early on. It doesn't work. It didn't work. Germans did that, over and over, and found their troops either had to find their equipment containers while being shot at, or never found them. Island of Crete, (ultimately successful for them) was their biggest 'no equipment' disaster, and even the famously successful drop at Holland, many containers of what they needed were scattered and not available.
That lesson was learned the hard way. Gotta carry everything.

Also, the post or theory that this new parachute is a "square" is incorrect. Regardless of it's view from the top or side (square shape) it is a "round. Operating on the theory of cupping air, Shape is irrelevant.

From the direct bag - pilot chute extracts canopy from a deployment sleeve??