dpreguy

Mon night, thru Wed night. Feb 12,13,14 and 15 4 nights

Hackish A friend, (in IT), couldn't find anything that enables or disables it. So...plz Email me directly. [email protected]

Hackish Tried to figure out the PM thing. Found nothing to indicate it was off (or on). So...email me directly [email protected] $80 US /night. Cash. Marriot Two queen beds.

Anyone interested in 50-50 sharing Chattanooga hotel fee for PIA 2017? I rent room, you pay me: Cash only. I think only 3 or 4 days for me. Two bed hotel room.

Do I recall correctly - that they were called telemeters?

Agree with Akers. Stilletto.

All the footnote comment said was that staying under, (or exceeding) the FAA 65 db standard cannot be used as the sole standard for a nuisance in all cases. The general noise standard they did note/confirm was, that to be a nuisance the, " ...noise produced by (X) has to be so offensive, annoying or inconvenient to a degree that a normal person would consider it unreasonable." They noted that this is the statutory standard which is here in Colorado. OK so far, as they simply stated what was already contained in the Colorado statute. Importantly however they continued on, stating that since the City had adopted the Airport Master Plan that DID establish a specific 65db threshold, that in this case it was/is the standard; and stated that the trial court was correct in applying it... This affirms the trial court's legal analysis and her ruling. Fun stuff: They did note the Plaintiffs' sensitivities to airplane noise were greater than those of normal citizens. I read this as a cleverly worded insult, stated in a 'tongue in cheek manner' but worded to be politically correct. They could have come right out and said the Plaintiffs' sensitivities were manufactured for this lawsuit, unreasonable and that the complainants were not normal. They chose the 'gentle landing' wording approach. Pretty funny, actually. In my humble opinion, the Ct Appeals did not have to make a remand/reconsideration of the atty fee award on Respondeat Superior, as there was no award made to plaintiffs. Just because the trial court didn't make comments of the merits of it this issue doesn't warrant a remand. I give them no credit for objectivity on that one. So...atty fees, and the issue itself were sent(remanded) back to the trial court for determination or denial of the Respondeat Superior claim and the atty fees resultant. I think they could have-should have left that one alone. Guess they thought the award of the atty fees on that issue was too mean to Plaintiffs? Respondeat Superior = was (owner personally- or his closely held corporation-Mile Hi), liable for the acts of his contractor/pilots? Still my opinion: The Ct Appeals shouldn't even care since Plaintiffs were awarded no fees or damages. Can't figure out why they sent that non-issue down for determination. In all though, Mile Hi was the clear winner and most of the attys fees were affirmed. It looks to me that the Ct Appeals slapped the Plaintiff's firm down over and over again on the allegations of damages and injuries etc. which were alleged and not proven. Pretty much implied that alleging unprovable-frivolous claims amounts to poor decision making. As I recall, Defendant's appeal atty called it a "shotgun approach". And the Ct Appeals pretty much said so too. More fun stuff: One or two sentence affirmations of the trial court's summary judgement on numerous issues are equivalent to intellectual 'slap downs'. Embarrassing to have an appeals court uses terms like, "..no evidence", "..not meritorious", "..no genuine disputed issue", "no error" over and over. It's like the Ct Appeals graded many of plaintiff's pleading and trial decisions and gave out a bunch of F's. Good victory.

If she is unsuccessful on ALL appeal issues. Does not prevail on ANY of them...NO REMANDS to the District Court Judge for reconsideration on ANY point; a claim for atty fees, prep fees etc can be made. Proceeding to appeal on a case with NO MERIT can bring repercussions. Outcome of such a claim is not certain, but a claim can be made. In such a claim, Appeals court balances the NO MERIT claim for fees and costs against the "chilling effect" it may have on appeals in general. However, appealing for exercise and vexation (appeal just because you can) is not favored either. Let's see.

"Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks". OK. The Russians hacked the Democratic Party emails and Hillary's and her campaign manager. Gave them to WikiLeaks. Now, the liberals and Democrats and Hillary supporters are parroting the "outrage of the day" principally thru the Liberal rag=the Washington Post. If they are simply complaining about Russia doing this; then yes the Russians did influence the outcome. Not a good thing at all. OK so far. But.... There would have been no material to influence/sway the election with had the Democratic Party, Hillary herself and her campaign manger all been clean parties. Now, as I see it, these (above) parties are not really complaining about the fact that the Russians did it, but more about the election's outcome and how it could have been different if only the dirty stuff had been kept secret. Ignoring the fact that if there had been no dirt to discover, then the Russians or whoever would have been left with an empty result - nothing to show for their efforts. Nothing to sway with, so to speak. Complaining about the Russians' hacking is fair game. Complaining about the outcome of the election because the dirt was brought to light, thereby swaying the election, is not. It's an obvious semantic tactic to blend the two, hoping the less intelligent citizens (in this case, the sore loser Liberals) will swallow it and make it a Washington Post/Obama rallying cry. Obama wants to 'get to the bottom of this hacking issue'. Uh, right...? Actually more like saying that his elves didn't win the election and the excuse is that the Russians are to blame. Possibly he, and the others should look inwardly.

Richy R If you are going to get the old school slider (like the one pictures or one from Para Gear) it would be to your advantage not to have long risers. Lunging up to get the Dacron releaser line is distracting. All at a time when you may also be on the lookout for other jumpers. Shorter risers are a good thing for these sliders.

What is a "marine eye" pin?

I have my 4 stack and 8 stack, but no extras. While you, or anyone, are rummaging around I'd love to get an old light blue PCA patch. Kind of a "triangle". Would buy one if someone has an extra.

The report, as I see it says: ,"...did not find any systemic or specific equipment design issues" "...All systems...they function as designed and are within C-23 test program..." "...not been able to determine a definite cause for the LRO(low reserve opening)issue"... Sounds like all of the rigs tested did OK, but the data shows some performed better than others. And yes, we'd like to know which rig was represented in each data set, but probably won't ever know that. A condition of each mfg to keep this secret? I was at PIA when the test program was initiated with Dave Singer as the lead. Thanks for all of the efforts. The LRO issue will apparently continue to be a scary enigma; despite the great efforts of this testing program.

Yeah, great place, on DZ.com to discuss getting a bad haircut, how you were late to work, the bird that flew into the window ...You, and your query are a waste of electrons.

Really? On dropzone.com?

TU. Call me again about the rigger with "all ratings". WG

..tie the flaxen-haired child to the mast...ah yes. "Wreck of the Hesperus". (Ol' Longfellow.) You are good to remember that one.

"SUV drivers not aware of blind spots." My wife has a Subaru Forrester and I hate driving it because of the tiny mirrors. I also have a motorcycle and find the little rice burners like the Subarus and most of the others have ridiculously small mirrors. Their blind spots are huge. As a motorcycle guy I almost hate to pass the Japanese cars. Their tiny mirrors have the drivers make lane changes they shouldn't because they don't have a large enough of an angle of a view in their mirrors. It's a manufacturing design flaw.

Who needs facepuke for a rigger group when we have DZ.com? Stupid waste of electrons.

Get a good ground crew leader and a couple of others who know their stuff. Pay the ground crew. Yes. Actual money. Neon vests with SKYDIVER GROUND CREW printed on them, streamer pole in a stand-(can't expect any crew to stand there and hold it forever.) Radio with the freq's written large on a piece of paper taped to it. A "No Go" panel, entire ground crew attends the FAA Briefing with you, ...the list goes on. Without a good ground crew, you are just a gambler.

One small method to slow it down is to leave a quarter of the slider exposed. Explanation: When it is pro packed, and hanging and the noses are rolled/tucked, then grab the quarter of the slider that is outfacing and pull it outside the "bundle". Try it. This tip came from the PD 'main packing' demo at PIA two symposiums ago. I also have a Stilletto 170. (Older canopy) Same problem. about 1/4 of the openings are hard. I had it relined by PD and yes, the openings were a little bit better, but by no means did that eliminate the problem. I just jump it. I actually like firm openings, but not the hard ones. I stick with my Stilletto because it is such a great canopy. I by no means get "slammers"; just a bit harder than I'd like.

On the leg - no no no

Yeah... and if I can do the math in my head, if 5 cord at 40 each, 320 lbs for each "tooth on the zipper" if the threads are supposed to break sequentially. Of course, fewer pounds if the thread is a lighter weight or polyesther. I doubt it would accomplish the shock reduction function it seems it is intended to do. I agree it would probably just stop the falling 'tree stander guy'. However, to be fair, I am only an "armchair doubter". And, even though the cross stitch is strong if the straps are pulled lengthwise, it isn't strong when loaded = thread by thread. That's why they have confluence wraps on military risers. It would have to be tested with a couple of hundred pounds and enough length to get the breaking effect to work. Maybe it has been tested and works correctly? 200 lbs moving downward fast may be enough? Only a test would reveal it's design success or failure. I'm not impressed by the fuzzy /loose webbing. When the stitches break- if they ever do, the webbing will be ripped a bit too. (I'd kinda also wonder what the anchor would be to take such a shock. It better be good.)

1.1 ripstop will deteriorate in a year or even sooner. Waste of effort. Sunbrella is acrylic and yes, will last much longer, but it is very heavy, very expensive, pretty hard to sew and repulsive to the touch to put on and off. It is fine for boom covers for sailboats, and such, but would be too heavy and overkill for a car cover. I suggest their other product: Surlast. Much cheaper, easy to sew, and is kinda the standard for covers. It isn't as resistant to the sun as Sunbrella, but is pretty close. Just heavy enough to do the job, but light enough to be easy to handle to put on or off. We do some sail repair at the loft so I am familiar with both of these fabrics. Recommend you not go with Sunbrella.

In the "Statement of Facts" I was looking for a particular "fact": (evidence produced in the case by expert testimony). What I was looking for was evidence that there was in fact - excessive noise. The gravamen of the Plaintiff's case. (Gravamen= the material part of a grievance) Since I only attended two days of the trial, I was very interested in reading the Appellant's Statement of Facts to find evidence of excessive noise. There was wordsmithed verbiage about 65 decibels and whether it was even a standard. There was a statement that the Purple Otter "could" produce 80 db's, yadda yadda, but nothing approaching what a trial judge would be considering to determine whether the Plaintiff's noise complaint was a valid claim. For the Plaintiff's case to be successful, I would have expected the following 1,2,3 to have been presented: "1. The decibel limit for noise considered to be a violation/ nuisance is 65. 2. The Defendant's aircraft exceeded the 65 db 3. Therefore our complaint is valid and justiciable." (In cases where a fact is not measurable, well, I get that) But, noise is measurable with a decibel meter - you either have it or you don't. Evidence of any other sort, such as "It bothers me", etc is simply a subjective statement, and the level of irritating noise, or the irritating nature of a type of noise varies from individual to individual. I don't even get, from reading the statement of facts, that there was even an applicable decibel standard. If there was such a standard, it doesn't appear that the Plaintiff's established it. "Plain reasoning thinking" says you can't win (or lose) a race without knowing where the finishing line is. At least that's how I view this brief. In short; From my reading of the Appellant's own statement of facts, the burden of proof for a nuisance lawsuit was not been met. I believe the trial court found that too. A perceptive and intelligent reader of this appeal brief, (And I fully believe the Court of Appeals persons are both perceptive and intelligent) in my opinion, should summarily reject the Appellant's contentions because of the Plaintiff's failure to carry the burden of proof. Further, since that minimal burden wasn't met, all of the damages awarded should be valid too. I get all of that from simply reading this brief and seeing their arguments. Keep in mind, all appeals courts rule, based upon the record. They are free of the drama's and emotions etc. that are necessarily part of the case before the original trier of fact. Hopefully I am correct on this.