tdog

There are often credit card rules involved too. If you pay by credit card, the business cannot give you cash back, because then that is considered a cash advance and has immediate interest instead of a grace period. Plus, the credit card companies warn merchants never to give cash back because if the customer disputes the first charge, and business gave cash back, the business might be out the money - especially if the credit card was stolen because the merchant is liable, not the bank. If the business ran your credit card on day 1, then refunds you on day 2, then there are credit card processing fees, which can be be charged twice, one for each transaction. If the DZO refunds you the same day then the transaction can be voided instead of credited, and a void has a transaction fee that is much less. And there is another issue - if the bank sees a credit for a refund, where that card was never run at the merchant, often the bank will reject the transaction, and/or the risk management department will call the DZO (merchant) and warn them they are risking bank fraud, and could increase the fees the merchant pays on all cards (tandems+skydivers) because the bank sees them as a higher risk merchant. So the DZ has to verify the skydiver is using the exact same card for the refund. Large corporations like Home Depot have software programs that track credit cards to make sure refunds go to the proper card, however to store credit card info you have to have PCI compliance certification, which is often a million dollar investment per year for the software developer. DZs using DZ specific software cannot have the same level of data storage, although there are newer technologies like tokens that allow the DZ to store a token and let the processor remain PCI compliant... Without this technology, such as using a plain credit card swipe machine, the DZ has to find the original paper slip to verify the last 4 digits of the credit card transaction or search the bank statements they get from their bank. And some visiting skydivers have, believe it or not, received a credit for unused jumps then disputed the original credit card charge for the original transaction months later. (I have had to research these transactions before). As the DZ has to prove to the credit card company (who always sides on the side of the consumer when in doubt) why the disputed charge was valid, it can cause a headache and a huge risk for the DZO as he might lose the case if there is not enough proof, considering you don't often sign a receipt every time you manifest and/or come to the window and say "transfer my unused funds to Joe". It is easy for the skydiver to prove he paid the DZO, it is next to impossible for the DZO to prove the skydiver was on the plane as unlike Southwest Airlines there is no TSA to verify your boarding pass + boarding pass scan at the gate. So if I was a DZO, I would be much more concerned about refunding credit card transactions due to the possibility of fraud, than cash. Perhaps a refund request form could resolve the liability that is a printout of the transactions on the account with a signature "I agree". But, if that credit card was stolen, the signature is useless. All that being said, I think it is reasonable for a DZO to say, "Jump tickets purchased by credit card will be refunded up to 5 days after purchase, with a 5% restocking fee, to the same credit card that was originally charged, full priced jump tickets purchased by cash are refundable indefinitely, discounted jump tickets are non-refundable."

I think the DZ already lost over half a million in legal costs to see this thru, the amount she paid is just icing on the very expensive cake. She could have bankrupted (and did) smaller DZs.

I also use a stash bag, and knot the drawstring with some funky knots so none of the pesky parachute fabric could ever get out for some 75 mph fresh air.

Thank you for your advice Walt. For those who don't know, Walt has an extensive legal background as a trial lawyer and prosecutor. While no one is perfect and no one can read the FAA hearing officer's or judge's mind in the event of an hearing or trial, I do believe Walt's opinion does come from years of legal practice. Therefore I put a lot of credibility in his word. On a personal note, I am not a 100% fan of the PRH, however I feel the FAA logo on the cover is a very strong defense should I follow the procedures in it, and hopefully to limit all rigger's liability the FAA can refine and improve upon it every 5 or so years making it much better. I wish folks at PIA would help with this (with a positive attitude of making it better, not a negative attitude of the existing version is garbage).

Well, considering the document is silent to chest strap shortening, you really can't say it is wrong procedurally... The OPs question was master or senior, not design. The chest strap replacement and leg strap shortening sections both require master, so one could extrapolate a master rigger should follow the original design for that harness container, following manufacturer specs, while doing the work... And, I knew my post was gonna stir the pot, everyone complaining the PRH is not perfect.... But I don't see anyone calling Poynter asking for the rights to do a MAJOR rewrite of his work, bringing his manuals up to date, and putting it in the public domain as an FAA guidebook... So as it was once said, " everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything to fix it.".

Per the PRH: No chest strap procedure, so this is the closest match. Therefore one could put 2 and 2 together and suggest master is probably recommended for the chest too. At least, that is how I would interpret it.

All: this website and Facebook and an internet blog were admitted into testimony to show the judge that the skydiving community was hostile towards complainers and that more people would have likely complained but for the risks associated with complaining. Specifically, some very derogatory comments made online regarding Kim were shown to witnesses for them to make comments (and thus the judge saw them.) Also some pre-trial motions were decided based on online comments in favor of the plaintiff. The DZO, who is footing the bill for the trial, said Dropzone.com and Facebook "did us no favors" to his (our) case .. On behalf of many Colorado skydivers, who attended the trial and showed the judge and plaintiff respect, please keep it kind. You may disagree with Kim, but because of the active trial, and the fight with the City is far from over, it is important to keep it polite. The other thread on this topic was shutdown with pretty strong words by Sangrio. Please don't rehash that...

I think you just opened a 5 year old thread. That being said, two weeks ago I spent a week in a courtroom watching a skydiving trial. This website and facebook were quoted heavily and used as exhibits in the court case and were not at all helpful to the skydivers. I remember thinking, "some out of town internet poster, making insulting comments online behind their keyboard, is making small talk BS on the internet, is making the locals suffer." It was amazing to see how lawyers could bring the online posts into the trial by making witnesses comment on them. Therefore I disagree with your anonymous and hearsay comment, I just saw the judge admit the evidence in.

It may be real. But it won't be real good. It will be a knockoff made by people who have no clue what bill of materials need to be used. FYI, BillBooth, who replied to my 1st post, is the inventor of the real thing. His post indicates he can't build a safe real thing for that amount, in a funny but perfect way. To Hackish - I fully agree... If these do take off in the industry, riggers, manufacturers and others will have to learn how to identify the fakes. Alti-2 sent out a letter last week explaining how to identify fake components knocked off their line (in their case it was a non-functioning unit designed for role play airsoft games, so anyone in the plane on the way up would have noticed the needle was not working).

The $150 option is still there too. But, I found they have even a better deal on Mirage. Buy 5, get 3 free! See attached!

Best DZ.com post of the day, possibly the millennium.

Unfortunately making this a clicky will not work, alibaba redirects you if you come in from a redirect. So manually go to: http://www.alibaba.com Type in Vector V3 in the search. 150-200 for a vector. Found a mirage too. Can't wait until students show up with these! Screenshot attached in case you can't find it. Importer: Unique Mobiles Limited, UK

I disagree as before I had a rigging ticket of any kind, I had access to the machines you mention and was trained on their operations and frequently used them to repair things from jumpsuits, wingsuits, and even my gear (with advice and instructions from riggers when appropriate). Plenty of senior riggers have access to dz lofts with tons of machines too, so it is more than an intellectual debate, but real world application. I know a former senior riggers (deceased) who would kick out 10 linesets a week... I re-read the manuals PD has on their website today to refresh my memory (call it continuing education). Haha The RESERVE manual suggests linesets be replaced at the factory, but a Master may do it. It further explains bartacks must be done at the factory because of a proprietary stitch pattern, needing templates for locations, and having to replace fabric damaged by the old tack. PD appears to back the concept "no rigger" has the skill or tools in the field to do a factory repair, not one that suggests "those who own equipment, such as master riggers or dzos." On the otherhand, the MAIN manual does not mention riggers much at all, other than "you or your rigger should inspect" and "your rigger should assemble" but without a mandate that they must. I dug thru the website looking for work instructions for main canopy repairs, and found a document on how to modify a pulse to version 2. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Pulse_190-260_Revision_P01_to_P02_upgrade_Work_Instruction.pdf and it is silent to the type of rigger involved, but very specific on materials and equipment. I searched for other PD official documents regarding mains looking for any factory advice on what they feel is the qualified rigger for repairs to mains, and I did not find any that back your claim that PD would back you. please feel free to send me links, I will read and add to my library.

I did ;-). Difference in opinions.