dpreguy

Members
  • Content

    895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by dpreguy


  1. If you go to the one that is "completely enclosed' you must be very very vigilant. As you cock the pilot chute, it wrinkles the part of the bridle inside the bag. So far so good. Good in theory. But...those wrinkles have an obvious tendency to straighten, which reverses the cocking you just put into it...leaving you to be (a bit o' humor here) half cocked. You must be sooo...vigiliant to prevent this. I know of a cutaway because of this. Pilot chute was not sufficiently inflated, as the kill line was half extracted. I watched him pack the next pack job and he could not keep it cocked, as the bridle was new, and stiff. Those wrinkles would not stay wrinkled. In fact, they were more like a spring. He switched.

  2. I re -read the blog in the USPA Update. I noted:
    "...we'll "run"(read: pay for) a training camp to practice all the elements...flag jumps, pyro..." On what money will the camp be run? Guess: It will be more of your membership dues. Who will buy these flags and flag setups? Guess: More of your membership dues. Who will pay the per diem expenses for these "champions" who will attend these camps? Guess: More of your membership dues. Who will pay for these practice jumps? Guess: More of yourmembership dues. Pay for pyro to practice with? Guess: more of your dues money. You watch. Next expense will be someone to run this team, let's call that person a full salaried Demo Director. Who pays? More of your dues money.
    The expenses are just beginning. Motel rooms, rental cars. It goes on and on. If you are a present pro team owner or member, can you give me an estimate of the total of these anticipated costs of this camp and the expenses to equip, train and provide travel for this "Championship " team?
    I'm guessing the $10,000 already advanced will not even begin to cover the costs of the ICAS booth and the persons to get there and meals AND this "steep learning curve"camp, the flags, pyro, etc.., much less get a team funded and going.

    OK you team owners. Please start estimating.

    I hope the accounting for this program is segregated, and all of the expenses of this idea are tallied separately, and not buried in some general USPA line-item, where no one can determine the true start up costs for this camp, for equipping the team, the time expended by USPS employees, the "promotional materials" the booth at the airshow itself, well, the list goes on. When corporations want to hide true expenses of a project, they hide the majority of expenses in the general compnay expense report under items such as: as "Travel","Meals" "Supplies" "Equipment" yadda yadda. Will this happen here? Hope not.

    So, you experienced team owners and members, please tally up these anticipated expenses for all to see. Go ahead and low ball it. Then we will be previewing the hemorrage of our dues money over the next few months. Before even one show is booked or paid. Oh. Don't forget to add in the ICAS booth and the hotel and travel and meal expenses of the USPA dudes that will be attending ICAS.

    This adventure is going to cost a lot, and airshow sponsors don't pay very much. In my opinion, finacially it is guaranteed to fail. ( Oh yeah- I forgot. This USPA Chanpion Team is going to get a big sponsor in the distant future and make it all right for us members. Sure it will.) Finacially it will not work, except as an annual continuously subsidized entity. As a member. I do not approve of paying subsidies for this year and for every year for this idea to play itself out.

    If it doesn't pan out, are the creators willing to fall on their own swords?

  3. Nice post Airtwardo. Your posts, plus the constructive posts by others have vetted the issues and objections, and puts a magnifying glass on the issues.

    It is now time to ask the USPA directors and hopefully with the urging of the Board of Directors, to withdraw this idea. If the ICAS dues have been paid, than ask for a refund. Please abandon this whole idea. Now.

    The stated objective: (Get money for our 60 US Team members.) by creating a USPA demo team, which they believe will enthrall audiences, which will then lead to positioning this team as a "brand recognized entity", to then, (They hope) entice corporate sponsorhip; is a dreamer's busines plan. It is a plan that I judge to be based simply on optimism. One thing has to happen, which will trigger the next thing that has to happen and so on. It is too vague. It is based entirely upon speculation and hope. You could not go to your bank officer and get a loan based upon this business plan.

    This 'means to the end plan' justification of raising money for our competitors is wrong. Using $10,000 of membership money to buy a booth at ICAS, and the spectre and certainty of allocating even more money soon, to put on a "camp", probably pay the expenses of persons to attend this camp, and the necessity of future draws necesaary to pay for jumpsuits, parachutes, flags and travel money etc . is too much of a burden to pay to embark on a "....lets see where this thng goes..." plan.

    Please recognize this idea as a house of cards, based upon pure speculation, and having only hope as it's underpinning. It was a bad idea and should be instantly abandoned.

    Please go back to the wellspring of the collective intelligence and creativity of the membership and ask for ideas, and then use these new ideas to solve the funding problem for our competitors. If it takes a dues increae, then put this idea out to the membership and let it be discussed. Then have the Baord of Dirctors vote. That is only one idea, but there may be others. Discuss whatever ideas are out there, put them in an article in the Parachutist, let the membership at large comment on them, and then let the Board vote. That's how it's supposed to work.

    I am a strong USPA supporter and believe our organization has saved skydiving more than once from the governmental agencies who would have fee'd us and regulatd us to death. Our executive board directors have done outstanding jobs in their respective duties, however I believe they shoulld confine their energies to their job descriptions and resist the temptation to dabble into the unkown.

    I am afraid this dispute will tear USPA apart internally. Let's hear the ideas of how to find the funding for our teams and get to work on those ideas. Doing so would be constructive, and produce cohesion, not dissention, in our organization.

  4. Commenting on the response, with "ED" at the end. I assume it is Ed Scott's official satement.

    Let's go over what he says it is not:
    . not a USPA team
    . not a US Demo team
    . not about sport
    . not about USPA promotion

    What he says it is:
    "It is an effort to the help US Team publicize itself and to leverage that publicity toward spopnsorship of the US Team"

    So, the US TEAM is a separate entity? Not a part of USPA? A separate entity that is seeking an endorsement from Coca Cola or Budweiser or another corporate entity? Sample Title: The US Team sponsored by Coca Cola. Well that's the Coca Cola team, and that's how it will be known. It won't known as the US Team. If it was otherwise, why would Coca Cola fund it.
    So that is the ultimate goal here? This sponsorship thing? That's it? And the end justifies the means? That is what Ed Scott's editorial and his response says. 'Trample on the existing teams to get where we want to go." Steal thier sponsors, and don't think another thing about it, because our goal of getting a sponsor is so worthy, it justifies stabbing existing teams in the back.'

    The means to get that sponsorship is clearly stated in the editorial: 'Go to ICAS and outbid the existing teams, (as surely they will, as they don't have to factor in the same expenses a civilian team does.) and go after that sponsorship goal, despite the damage done to the existing teams'

    That is a clear conflict of interest, as it all done with membership dues money. The civilian teams are paying those dues too. That's a bitter pill to swallow, and a bald-faced betrayal.

    Lat's also digest the next statement of Ed Scott's response,
    "Several well known demo jumpers have pledged their support...yadda yadda" Read between the lines and what you have here, is a proposal to field a professional team, financed by USPA dues. Few, if any so-called US TEAM members will be on this team. Maybe a couple of token members. In fact, I'd like to see a list of US TEAM members who even have PRO ratings or have done a significant number of high pressure demos. Last time I checked, the US team consists of 4 and 8 way jumpers, accuracy jumpers, swoopers, etc.. Not demo jumpers. It is obvious to me that this will NOT be a demo team comprised of present US Team members. I predict it will be a demo team hired by the US TEAM, attracting existing demo jumpers. This would be like abandoning the necessity of a college football team to be comprised of students at the college. It would just be a team paid for by the college, without the necessity of having college students on the actual team. They would be recruited and paid for, like any professional team. The so-called US DemoTeam, (Oh excuse me, the US Team) without any actual US Team members on it, (or very few anyway), would be handsomely paid, and dedicated to bidding on gigs at ICAS, and stealing thse gigs from the present civilian teams as a means of accomplishing its goal of sponsorship.

    Besides the betryal of the dues paying members, the cute little "loan" to the US Team to have a camp and pay for ICAS, exceeding the powers of the organization, etc., I see a bunch of decsion makers operating on the assumption that championship team members will automatically be competent demo jumpers. That demo jumping is so easy that all you need is experience in 4 way or 8 way or accuracy or style or some other discipline. That demo jumping isn't a unique discipline at all; it is just a jump you do in front of a crowd, and that anybody can do it , and do it well. If that is true, why the camp? Will there be persons on this US Team that will be performing their first demo in 2012? Well, if the intent is to have present US TEAM members do the demos, that is exactly what will happen. No go back and re-read the previous paragraph, and you will see the actual scheme as it will be played out. Only token US Team members, and mostly just hired professionals. It would be dishonest to sell demos to a sponsor by calling it the US Team, but what the heck, we'll just let that slide, because that is just another means to the end.

    It would be a laughable statement to say a really good demo jumper would automatically excel at going onto a 4 way team. Just send the demo jumper to a little camp, and he'd be great at 4 way. A ridiculous assumption indeed! But the same persons who would scoff at this assumption, do not hesitate to believe that a good 4 way jumper will automatically a good demo jumper after a little camp. I find that assumption to equally ridiculous. But that is apparantly the underpinning for this whole idea of Mr. Hayhurst. He is wrong.

  5. I ahve written an email letter to Exec Director Ed Scott, and James Hayhurst explaining, in short, that this is a bad idea and an idea repugnant to me. Why? Our organization is going to ICAS and will be underbidding the civilian teams because USPA is fronting all of the costs of ICAS and everything else, all done with membership dues! Dues that the soon to be outbid teams are paying too. What a betrayal!

    Obvious question: If this "soon to be put together team" is already competent; why do they need to go to a "camp"? (Oh yeah, this will be paid by USPA membership dues too) I think I know why. They don't even have PRO ratings, and USPA is going to pay them to get the rating! How nice. They can get thdir PRO ratings and do their first demo all at the same time. After just attending this camp, they will instantly be competent demo jumpers. This is obvious, because everyone knows that if you are great at 4 way or 8 way or swooping or style and accuracy, or freestyle, you are automatically a great demo jumper. Sure. Everyone knows that. Also, it states they will do "...fresh entertaining acts..." Not bad for a bunch of team members doing their first demo. I'd love to listen to the saleperson at ICAS selling this non existent team, and hear how great the team is going to be, once it is put together, and once it is put through a camp....yaddayadda. Ridiculous.

    I feel kinda ambushed at this point, as it is already a done deal. What were the board members thinking? The amount of our dues money that will be required will be huge and ongoing. And this, to further the nebulous goal of "promoting skydiving'? Sounds like a great investment of our dues money.

    According to the editorial in the October Parchutist, the team will consist of the "best competitors in virually all of the best competitors in virtually every skydiving discipline". Oh really? 4 way? 8 way? These are one trick ponies, by choice, and that is a good thing. That's how they win championships, and I respect and admire thdir skills. Even so, I doubt many even have PRO ratings. Or even want to do demos. So, the statement that the "team" will consist of champions" is phony baloney. (Note how the editorial shifts from the first paragrahs describing "champions", to simply "the best".)In order to be safe and successful, the team will have to be hand picked demo jumpers. If not we will have "champions" who don't know squat about doing demos. Newbies. So new they have to go to a camp to get their PRO ratings.

    This is a bad idea. A bad idea funded by our membership dues. It is just wrong.

  6. Is the Astra AAD still an item? I googled it and the last info was......uh 2008? I haven't seen one on a skydiver parachute, so I wondered if the product was still being used/sold to the sport market. I haven't called FXC or looked in the Para Gear catalog to see if it is available. Info on Astra use?

  7. Mark, re:(Helmet Cloth letter)
    "...the container would immediately open if only one loop cutter severered the loop."

    I'm not buying it. I doubt the spring in a Racer would actually extract the loop through the channel and free the pilot chute anyway. Probably just flop over on one side, with the loop still stuck in the channel. In theory it would work, but I have my doubts about any degree of reliability.

    Which begs the question of 'why is it necessary?' to double the complexity by having two electro mechanical devices (cutters) to begin with...and then try to invent a way to get around that problem - two cutters having to cut, instead of just one.

  8. Ubercris,

    I bought a brand new Raven 4 when they first came out a million years ago. Put about 5 jumps on it, and on three of the jumps, the pilot chute and D bag went in FRONT of the canopy on opening! Yes, they dangled over the nose and went in the lines or wherever, and caused me a lot of apprehension as they wormed thdir way between the lines and into everywhere, and dented the leading edge. I sent it back and the factory gave me a complete refund. My theory was that the attachment point was too far forward? Whatever; it happened. Hope that doesn't happen to you.

  9. Yup, might work, esp with a stiff and thick chafing strip under

    Any way, thanks to all of you guys with the better and more complete historical knowledge. My hat's off to you guys. Hopefully the fellow who was thinking of this has enough info to make his own decsion now.

  10. Don't think you could rely on a couple of hand tacks to prevent the L bars from "tipping" and the entire opening shock being taken on the little screws. I wouldn't. Especailly for those rigs that have two of the risers with the two thin 2500 lb risers.

    Having Butler cheerfully sew a special back container for a C9 would be more expensive than finding a complete used rig. This well-meaning fellow who started this question, is trying to be economical

    Also, every modern manufacturer sews mesh where the mod is cut from. For good reason. Just cutting an approved mod in a C9 and leaving the holes open (Even though I know we all did that for many years) risks the possibility of fabric blowing thru the mod. , which is obviously what the modern mfgs are preventing with the mesh. Old technology is still just that: old technology.

    I think the key is to contact the mfg of the harness and container and see if they would allow what is proposed, from cutting out mods to wierdo line stowng ideas, to converting rapides to L bars. I think all 4 mfgs would give the boot to all of these old ideas, and stick with what they are selling-and in the case of C9's I have only seen new modern rigs (2009 ParaPhernalia seat pack, Butler uh...2007 I think, seat packs), that I have recently packed in my loft, with 4 line releases. 4 line relaease was offered as an option on a new seat pack on display at a booth I visited at Osh Kosh 2011 two months ago. Would the same mfgs make a back assembly on a special order basis? I don't know, but I'll bet that even if they did, the canopies would be 4 line release only. I don't think any mfg would allow or presently or offer a cut out mod of any kind on a C9. And, I agree with Terry, 4 line r. would not be the steering system of choice for an untrained passenger. I think the C9 4 line release is simply a niche market for the old warbird guys, who want the same canopy they were trained on 30 years ago. And the mfgs are willing to go along with that, if the canopy is made steerable that way. I'm just going on what I have seen, as I haven't polled the mfgs to see what they would or could offer.

    In my opinion, bottom line is to buy a modern rig and forget the C9 idea.

  11. I thought I knew something about the civilian use of the vereable C-9 canopy. Turns out my knowledge is only rudimantary. I have about 200 jumps on modified C9's, have "cut out" (with a soldering iron -type woodburning tool), melting cutting T U and Hustler modifications for myself and jumping them. I also assumed that the military bail out assemblies were in the standard category and also thier components. Not sure they are now.

    Even so, this thread started out with a well-meaning guy who figured he coud start with a cheap C9 and get a (probably used) container and have an "aircrew" assemly on the cheap. Even though I have never seen any of the back versons, I doubt those containers are obtianable now, except in some old cardboard box in the back corner of an older loft.
    Now the thought of trying to attatch a C9 to a modern rig with rapide links, (56 550 lines on 4 rapide links?) or worse yet, getting a mfg's approval to retrofit risers to L bars to accommodate those lines, all combine to make the choice of a C9 an unwise and uneconomic choice. I agree that 4 line release would probably not be used by an untrained aircrew member, as the steps would be unfamiliar to the 'first look' user. My point, was to state that putting an unsteerable canopy in an aircrew container is not a good practice. If an aircrew assembly is put together and sold with the premise that "It probably never be used anyway", then when that rare use does occur, it may not actually not be lifesaving, if the user hits a power line, or a moving train. (Yes a parachitist was actually killed when hitting a moving train)

    I readily defer to those of you guys with in depth knowledge of C9 reserves with diapers, in Long Softies, etc., in back assemblies and with different kinds of line stowage devices. Your knowledge is beyond mine by a lot

    Yes the Butler manual states they WILL turn in any rigger installing an unsteerable canopy in one of thier rigs. You who rely on the internet for all of your info, may not find this, as it may not be in internet form. that's why I keep manuals, to supplement the internet sources.

  12. C-9 canopy. Presumeably not steerable. Assuming you do find a harness/continer; check the manual for Butler. They state that if you put a non- steerable parachute in one of their containers, they WILL file a FAA violation- as being forbidden by the mfg..(them) They have a good point. If you call the other manufacturers, you will probaly find they don't want one non-steerable either. In my opinion, any rigger who is intending to put a C-9 into a modern manufacturer's continer should consult with the manufacterer of the H/C prior to doing so. Also, the C-9 is in the "standard" category,and most modern harness continer systems are in the "low speed" category. This compatibility issue also ought to be addressed with the harness/continer manfacturer. In these modern times, most riggers will refuse to pack a pilot emergancy parachute that is not steerable anyway. They should refuse. (my opinion). The C-9 ought to be made steerable, or not used at all, (my opinion again) with a 4 line release conversion modification. This conversion requires a master rigger and elevates the cheap C-9 from cheap, to an expensive choice. If done, it must be done with a conversion kit that is TSO'd, not just cobbled.

    My advice is to question your committment to a C-9, military surplus non steerable canopy as your first choice for a canopy for a pilot emergency rig. C-9's are bulky, and heavy. They are great for many in the warbird community, as most military planes have a deep seat pan for the bulky C-9, and it nestles in and provides a stable seat. I think all of the 4 mfg's offer a TSO'd seat version for C-9's, but I have not seen a modern back C-9, and doubt Butler, National, Strong or ParaPher make a back version. Aslo, unless your pilot is short and has a lot of head room, the 9 or 10 inches of seat would elevate the pilot, and be like sitting on a basketball, unless there is s seat pan to steady it.

    If you want to have a cheap option, my suggestion is to go to dealer or a parachute shop that will sell you a complete, modern TSO'd used system, instead of cobbling up a rig from pieces. Might be cheaper, or nearly as cheap as putting one together. And the system is a compatible one.

    Once again, this is my opinion

  13. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. A quote attributed to many, the latest of which was Colin Powell.

    Negligence, defined, is failing to abide by some sort of standard. Medical malpractice/ civil,cases, and indeed, professional malpractice of any sort, (accountants, lawyers, riggers, or just about any practice or profession subject to licensing), is covered by jury instructions to the effect that "doctor X failed to perorm his medical duties up to the standard of similarly situated physicians...or up to the standards of recognized texts covering the procedure, or the instructions of the manufacturer of a medical device,"...etc yadda yadda. This standard is the same for all practitioners licensed by a governmental entity, whether the case is civil or criminal.

    Negligence has only "recently" been transferred to
    our criminal laws. Negligent manslaughter is used when you are a DWI driver(realize that the DWI is the criminal act which is required to be proven first) and a passenger is killed, child abuse, locking the door of your factory in violation of a fire code regulation and your employees are burned to death because they can't get out, etc etc.. Lawmakers have, and continue to pass criminal laws which use a negligence standard of some kind, and, in my opinon, have gone quite overboard. If a 16 year old child tips over his dad's tractor and is killed, a parent leaves a child in a car on a hot day, oil company executives possbly charged for oil rig fires caused by inadequate oversight, etc; all now bring a review by a prosecutor for the possible filing of manslaughter/criminal charges, based upon the shifting definition of negligence. Manslsughter, by definition, is the unintended causing of another's death. Unintended causation of death is the defintion in every manslughter case.

    There is gross negligence, reckless conduct, wanton conduct, willful conduct, criminal negligence(begs the question of it's own definition), the list goes on, all used to justify the bringing of charges. Some are entirely justified, and are necessary for the regulation of citizen conduct, as are all criminal laws. A jury or a judge is then called to decide whther such negligent conduct is so eggregious(define eggregious as criminal, whch sometimes relates in juror's minds to the severity or not so severe=numbr of deaths or suffering or something) results) as to fit the definition of "gross" "criminal" "wanton disregard" etc. (read -crimal negligence) to warrant a conviction.

    Careful in hoping errors and negligence applies to skydiving/aviation etc. The guy who fixes your brakes and the brakes fail, the guy who prepares your food at a restaurant, (I know they aren't licensed by a governmental entity , but neither is a jumpmaster or a coach)and you get sick, or die or something, (remember, in some sates, it doesn't always have to cause a death to warrant a conviction for resultant injury for the application of negligent conduct,) you may be included. (Injuries are enough in some jurisdictions) An incident may easily move from civil negligence to the criminal arena, so easily and so often that the distinction between civil and criminal is blurred. Application of the defintion should not be influenced on a case by case basis, by the number of deaths or the suffering or any other aggravating factor. Just because it is a tradgedy, should not alter the standard. The same standards should be applied to all cases. I suppose that engineers who designed a bridge in a negigent manner, reulting in dozens of deaths could be cimially charged 25 years later? (Assume the negligence was only recently discovered bythe investigation.) A stretch?

    For example, in skydiving: If a mfg says a Service Bulletin is "mandatory" "recommended" "advisory" or some other term used to describe the SB, then the failure to comply with the SB could be grounds for prosecution? Hmnn... only if it is Mandatory? If a jumper says to the rigger, "It is my decsion not to comply with a SB, so pack it anyway", and the rig is then sold to an unsuspecting buyer and .....well, one could debate whether a manslaughter accusation should or could be made. Removal of an RSL from a rig that comes fron the factory with one, simply removing the RSL lanyard from a rig at the owner's request, ("I do camera, I do CRW"), rigging errors of any type, packing a reserve w/o the battery replacement acc to the mfg. (old Cypres'), failing to hook up a static line , or hooking it up to an inadequate anchor point, (old school) and a hundred other examples in skydiving and aviation alone, can and shoud bring hesitation and worry , lest every mistake, and judgement call be criminalized. OK I realize the brake mechanic, the mother, and the cook at the restaurant aren't licensed), A&P's, rigger's and pilots are, and the list goes on. Overusing the standard of negligence in your own state,"Gross" "Criminal" "Wanton disregard" or what ever wordsmith term is used, might bring a lot more persons prosecuted than you could imagine, for behavior one may agree was just a mistake, but with a death consquence. I am aware the term "overuse' will vary from reader to reader, so this is couched as a comment, expressing my opinon.

    My opinion: Maintain and limit the manslaughter accusations to the 'DWI resulting in death' and other causes of deaths which we all probaly would agree with, as representing the most necessary applicaion of negligent manslaughter charges to regulate citizens' behavior, and not encourage or push the charging standard to the areas of A&P errors, rigging errors, pilot erros, farm accicents, etc..

    This is my opinion, as a former elected District Attorney, who had the respnsibility of determining wheter charges should be brought.

    Tjis is not a comment to the effect that all, and all forms of negligence be immune from manslaughter charges. There are many that should be maintained and prosecuted. I prosecuted them myself. It is just a comment to the effect that classifying too many forms of mistakes as conduct waranting criminal conduct could result in way too many unjustified manslsughter accusations.

    This entire post is my opinion. You may repectfully disagree.

    When I use the term "you" I am not referring to the poster. I appreciate the poster's bringing this issue to light.

  14. Arizonastone, "newbie" with 30 some jumps: Rig selection:
    If you used gear in your jump training that was equipped with an RSL, and want to continue jumping a harness/container setup with an RSL, you need to avoid Racer. Their RSL setup is a goofy-afterthought construct, and virtually does not exist on any Racer I have seen. I have been jumping for a million years, and have yet to see a Racer with equipped with one. There is a reason for that.

    Also,ask just about any rigger what they think of the Racer RSL setup, and whether they believe it would reliably work when needed.

    You would be well-advised to focus your search on rigs that have proven RSL systems.

  15. To all,

    I guess I could just call Eric Campbell at SSK and ask; but...what is the defining difference between the Cypres cutter and Vigil's and Argus's? Or, for that matter, the differences between all of the cutters? (Or are they even different? Maybe just a better quality machined product? Just fishing here)

    Just searching for knowledge.

    The Italian" partially cut" photos were sooo scary, especially for those rigs with the cutter above the pilot chute=Most rigs nowadays, except the Sunpaths. Trapping the loop above the pilot chute means nothing gets out, even if you manually pull the ripcord!

  16. Long long before any of this cutter failure "era", I just used common sense and combined it with the difficulty in cutting Cypres loop material (have to have a very good par of scissors to cut it) and wondered about the loop being trapped in the cutting piston after a fire. Seemed like a problem to me, simply because the loop material is so tough and tenacious.

    OK, then came the wave of repositioning requirements from many-most of the rig mfgs. to put the cutter ABOVE the pilot chute. When this came about I still had the same nagging thoughts about the cutting piston not cutting the loop, but just jamming it in the mechanism and trapping it; and of course in that case, even if you pull the ripcord pin, nothing can ever get out! I jump a H/C with the cutter below everything. (Sunpath). In any trapping/uncut loop scenario, I reasoned I could at least I could manually pull the ripcord and it would deploy, without regard to what was happening with the cutter. My choice of H/C years ago was made based on this. I have heard all of the arguments for placing the cutter on the last flaps, and have never agreed with any of these arguments. In my opinion, the cutter of every (non pop top) rig should be under everything in the pack tray.

  17. Dear The Show.

    My email addres is bailoutpilot@hotmail.com.
    Since you are working very hard to be a good rigger applicant, I'd like to offer you a list of projects to complete . It isn't a computer generated list, so if you'd email me I'll send it to whatever address you want. It specifically includes all of the tasks in areas of operation I VI of the PTS tasks and a lot more. It's purpose is to acquaint you with the common rigger tasks. It's kinda neat, as it covers just about everything you'll commonly encounter.

    Also, I have trained and certified one female rigger and she was great and encountered no bias - ever.

    Walt Green