dorbie

I'm sure you could do all that if you want to pay $5k for an AAD. .... and not whether the data feed was correct and more active testing after a bounce will always be suspect.

The seller should have warned you. This could have caused serious injury, some people act like sociopaths when it comes to money. You should not have to call the manufacturer to learn that the canopy cannot be taken to terminal velocity without an abnormally high risk of serious injury. I dunno what the rules are but you want this to be evident from the placard, if it has been modified whoever modified it should make it clear on the placard.

@pchapman, On the issue of off the shelf systems, you could drogue it down to whatever envelope its designed to operate in, so the drogue is where any novel work would be (perhaps oversimplifying things but there you go). @RiggerLee thanks for the awesome detailed responses, very generous of you to share this information. I wasn't trying to be overly critical of the amazing work on a tight budget, just the complexity added by the fundamental question of round vs. square and you've made it clear what the initial recommendation was and hinted at the hidden design decisions that led you to this solution. Thanks again.

Yes you can but a round will not get the glide or maneuverability that a square will. Also, you can use a smaller square parachute. Pack volume could be a variable in the design. Teaching the computer to flare a square is something that has been taught. Look at the many JPADS' out there that use squares. I have videos of JPADS doing some pretty cool things. This is a similar setup I imagine. JPADS has a bit more R&D testing behind it and a more conventional operational envelope. It would be cool to develop this as part of a civilian project, but not at the same time as you're developing a launch vehicle and relying on the reliability of one for the preservation of the other. If they could get a license to stick a real JPADS on this thing that might be wiser. Then they're working on a drogue deployment to replace a direct bag rather than the whole enchilada.

GPS & computer & servos added, so it can fly back, instead of having to chase your rocket across miles of desert... Yes, but they seem to trivialize the complexity and risk of such a system. A round is far more likely to deploy successfully in an automated system. Fetching your spaceship is a lot easier than rebuilding it. I hope they learned a lesson from this. It's another poor design decision from these guys, like building a top-heavy spaceship with a narrow base that just toppled over on landing, makes me scratch my head in wonder.

I haven't cracked open the SIM in awhile. I just did. Let me say that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of in terms of a Main Landing area, but makes some sense if setting up completely separate Main Landing and Swooping areas. I can't think of any drop zone that would operate their main landing area that way. Take a look at Elsinore's adjacent landing patterns for the peas and student area and you'll believe this and more.

It is important to be aware of this if you ever ride the plane down. The aircraft will be in an unfamiliar orientation and you are getting off and walking a route you rarely if ever walk. The only time I ever rode a plane down the young lady with me walked off straight towards the prop. I grabbed her rig by the shoulder and nudged her in a different direction. I'll never know if she'd have realized before it was too late but I suspect not. The prop was invisible and the noise was pervasive.

There are strong indicators he lost altitude awareness due to fixating on camera flying. He lost altitude awareness and pulled low and snivelled through 750. Better skydivers than you and me have gone in with a no-pull or been saved by AADs. One overlooked factor here is the hot chick, clearly this is a serious safety concern and babes should be banned from the sport. At the very least you should be required to have your C license before skydiving with anyone over a 6.

That is browser dependent. On IE it pushes down, on Chrome it is over the top of the forum text.

I experienced some of this, kept timing out during text entry, then working then timing out again in mid sentence, *VERY* annoying.

It's happening to me right now on Chrome and IE9, screen caps attached (quality is reduced due to attachment size limit) The chrome screen capture also happens to show a blank banner add that has not loaded. This ad failure seems to send the web browser out to lunch, which takes some doing with Chrome. Chrome screen cap attached, IE9 is as others are reporting.

Many incidents have multiple causes. Somewhere along the way a TI may not have acted perfectly but in many incidents you can eliminate any of several factors and it would have prevented a fatality. Consider the tandem reserve entanglement- skyhook incident. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3510835;#3510835 Was it caused by a faulty altimeter, TI altitude awareness, or skyhook system design? Is it reasonable to single out the TI when you consider his altimeter was probably faulty and the Colin's lanyard chopped just one main riser when the reserve started to deploy? I think attributing 99% of fatalities to TI error risks giving a misleading impression of the safety of this equipment and the true causes of incidents.

A lot of fun if you land out.

That is an epic demotivational that is far more eloquent than anything I've written here. I guess it's only demotivational if you're a religious neo-Luddite.

...and biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, ecstasy, lead paint, CFC's, and chia pets. Yep. it's pretty damned effective, ain't it. P.S. I should point out that it is because of science that we understand the negative impacts and no longer use lead paint and CFCs.

You'd be the first to squeal like a stuck pig if it said "In Allah we trust". Understand the purpose of the Establishment Clause and try to respect the constitution.

Proclaiming belief in something of serious consequence without evidence is stupid. Faith? You can have all the faith you like in all the bullshit you like but there is no evidence, that's why it's faith. It's also why sensible people are not persuaded by your unsupported claims. You are utterly lost when it comes to approximating how science operates. Scientists propose theories to explain observations and make further predictions using those theories. The theories that have predictive value win. You jello minded attempt to confabulate science with faith is utterly muddled. There is advanced evidence that gives rise to most scientific theories, it's called observation and experimentation, when an obsrvation or experiment deviates from established theories or when there is no theory minds get busy trying to explain facts with new theories or better observations. It turns out this works rather well at producing a set working models of reality and amazing progress like increased life expectancy and the internet you are using now. Faith on the other hand provides us with some pretty stone buildings and oppressive edicts, and the occasional outbreak of witch burning.

Meh, you should've seen me when I was an athiest... Any who, I hope your perfect thinking takes you very far in life...godspeed. It is because I understand how flawed people are at thinking that I choose science. Belief without evidence is faith, not reason. Well then, apparently you have faith in your perfection...good luck with that. You can post all the non sequiturs you like, it won't make for a coherent argument.

Meh, you should've seen me when I was an athiest... Any who, I hope your perfect thinking takes you very far in life...godspeed. It is because I understand how flawed people are at thinking that I choose science. Belief without evidence is faith, not reason.

Pages of your crap and it could all have been settled with a google search for man made art. OK, here: Zombie Jesus Your objection has shifted from the semantic to the aesthetic, it is stil invalid. No you just stick a label on bullshit and delude yourself like many others, it's not weird, just flawed thinking.

Can you get a 10 yard penalty when you're still in your own endzone?

Four paragraphs of justification for the possibility of eternal existence... what did you think you were doing? Schooling dorbie on the eaze and futility of rambling on and misrepresenting ones beliefs based on a strawman... The only real argument I presented in this thread was in my original reply to dorbie about his misrepresentation of Jay's post. Thus far he has refused to respond and continues to squaredance with scarecrows made of straw. Nonsense, There was no misrepresentation or strawman and there is chapter and verse to prove it. When you're confronted as you have been on numerous occasions by several posters you squeal "zombie" as if your semantic objection fools anyone or you move the goalposts like saying it was never about XYZ when YOU are the one who posted XYZ.

It was your misrepresentation of Jay's post that got this ball rolling in the first place and you refused to acknowledge my response on that issue and presented a short rant on zombies...and now you still continue to misrepesent Jay's position...I now see the vanity in trying to correct you w/r/t this matter. This was never about my acceptance or rejection of evolution...I already explained that crystal clear to you several times now. This idea you have of my beliefs seems be be some type of bizzare quasi strawman that you've created in your head. Nonsense, you're still dodging and backslapping your Christian buddy is weak validation. You refuse to consider evidence of any sort. The zombie issue has been addressed and you've even been given chapter and verse. I don't have a quasi straw man idea of what you believe. I'm familiar with it, I used to be a Christian. Again your objection is a semantic one. Calling Christ a zombie god and mentioning the zombie uprising described in Mathew brings into sharp focus the utterly ridiculous nature of what Christians believe. You can object to the word zombie all you like but it is a fair use of the word. If you don't like the semantics that's too bad, I don't care, it's not an excuse to ignore the numerous valid criticisms you have been dodging. You do believe Christ resurrected in the flesh, holes poked by doubting Thomas and all. If you do not then your reject your foundational text. The only way anyone can believe in the Christian mythology and attack evolution in its defense as you did is to ignore the science and what is known about the history of their own scripture. Listen to "The Bible Geek" for a few years then get back to me on what you think you know about Christianity. All you've presented so far is dogma and personal affirmation without a shred of evidence or deeper knowledge on any matter of science or scripture. When challenged you've scurried away from the evidence that addresses your own question refusing to look at it and hiding behind the same crap because you dont like a word I used. Just who are you kidding? Go watch the video, it answers the very question YOU POSTED. And go listen to "The Bible Geek" if you want to understand your own Bible in greater depth instead of pretending to know more about Christianity than others simply because you believe.

Outside the bounds of marriage, yes. Lust is a strong motivator for many people getting married or getting into relationships that are a precursor to marriage. It is natural, it is intrinsic to the human reproduction. Saying it is wrong is utter nonsense. If couples weren't horny they'd take little interest in each other and we'd be on borrowed time as a species. I'm not married and I will continue to find some women sexy despite the repressive statements in your silly old book of nonsense.

Frustrating...in'it? You may wanna cut that out... Your misrepresentations are easily corrected and only undermine your position. I cannot correct your refusal to look at evidence or give the facts a fair hearing because it threatens your belief in the contents of a bronze aged book. Have a look at those videos. Then shoot for a substantive response. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi7rUyaPT-c Understand that these morphological differences are supported by the timeline of the appearance of these creatures in the fossil record AND the genetic mutation evidence from sequenced DNA in the modern creatures.