Andy9o8

Members
  • Content

    24,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Andy9o8

  1. You're replying to a 12 year old post, in a thread in which one of the canopies discussed (Sabre1) has, by this point in time, almost (not quite) passed into obsolescence.
  2. Seriously; it's as bad as the Squirrel Snatch pilot chute. I'll never look at a squirrel quite the same way again.
  3. I believe that Chap. 11 doesn't mean an outright elimination of debts, with the creditors losing all their money due. Instead, I think the court arranges for smaller payments to allow the business to continue, so that it can eventually pay off the debts. In other words, the creditors aren't screwed out of their money completely, they just have to get it in smaller amounts over a longer time. Exactly. Not sure what his comment has to do with Crosskeys, rather than just a general objection to the bankruptcy process. But anyway, you can only get so much blood from a stone. At least with a Chap 11 there's the reasonable likelihood of most creditors getting something, and the business staying alive to continue contributing to the economy, rather than just "wilderness rules" where 1 or 2 creditors quickly scoop up all the remaining assets because they got their claims in first, the business closes its doors, and the rest of the creditors truly get screwed because they wind up getting zero.
  4. Look, none of us are trying to make you defensive or show you any disrespect, and sorry you felt the need to delete your OP. It's a useful thread because it teaches valuable lessons that seem fairly common for newer jumpers, such as, for example, - thoroughly investigate gear before you purchase, and - a high-performance canopy is still a high-performance canopy even if it's lightly loaded, and should only be jumped by people with a high degree of canopy piloting experience and skill. Separately, it also, hopefully, is a heads-up to instructors to be very discerning about the advice they give to newer jumpers.
  5. Usually on the internet it's easy to warn people that they should talk to their instructors. This is not one of those cases. Let me guess, you weight about 135lb max? I say that because they're probably thinking that since you're loading it lightly that it's no big deal. I've seen many a light person put on canopies too small or too agressive because someone gave them that advice. One has a permanent spine injury. Yeah, sell it and get something more like what you've been jumping. Agreed, it sounds like terrible advice, and makes me shake my head. Unfortunately, the OP (and I mean no insult) made the classic rookie mistake of buying gear on price only, without researching the gear before the purchase. Back to the "advice" that he'd be ok jumping that canopy now. Calling Brian Germain - I hope you read this thread and weigh in here.
  6. Good on you for showing him he's not the only social retard in the sport.
  7. Andy9o8

    FS vs RW

    If you really wanna be hard core, tell em you kicked out of a barber pole into a Mae West.
  8. Hey I meant to PM you - I have a real estate investment that's perfect for you.
  9. LoL its funny to us upstaters how downstaters call anything that isn't NYC or Long Island "upstate."
  10. Where in Upstate NY are you? Finger Lakes Skydivers is in Ovid, near Syracuse. Frontier Skydivers is in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area. I think there's a third one up there closer to Rochester, too. The Ranch is great, but it's more downstate in Gardiner, near Poughkeepsie.
  11. Still need that are-you-sure screen, and maybe a repositioning of the spam button. I just marked one of my own posts as spam when trying to edit it on my smartphone. Also respectfully reiterate same point re: "friend" button as I mentioned up-thread.
  12. Anyhow, we look forward to your first hand account of the first test flight.
  13. Given that premise I don't disagree but that's not the pitch. It's a towed system. Granted it's not unlike a glider, but you (hopefully) can't fall off a glider at low altitude and die. I see. The op is ambiguous re launch, but if it's from the ground under tow. .. well... Maybe it's for the Jeb types, but not for me...
  14. From a regulatory perspective, as long as it's launched at altitude, and the flyer-jumper uses a tso'd rig that is deployed at a safe altitude, why should the faa regulate it much differently than skysurfing? If it's risk of the wing freefalling to the ground, shouldn't that be roughly equivalent to jettisoning a skyboard during EPs? I ask these with an open mind.
  15. You seriously need to re-examine your definition of "failure".
  16. If your debit card can also be used as a credit card you still have all the protections afforded credit card holders. Look for a Visa or Mastercard logo on it. Also, if the card was issued by your bank, go into your bank branch and submit a fraud report. Some debit card-issuing banks will even replace money fraudulently taken from you under certain circumstances.
  17. psst.. I think the key take-away from the story is that what he dropped was an iPhone 6 Plus. Where's the outrage??
  18. Irrelevant; but in any event: We've moved on. ---------------- ETA: Sorry for being a conversation................. ............Nazi.
  19. Hopefully we can get it back on the rail: There was an article in one of the recent "Parachutist" magazines, which talked about the disciplinary process. They didn't mention this Winstock incident in particular. But they talked about how the structure and procedures of the organization only allowed disciplinary action to be taken if initiated by the Regional Director, or something like that - the board had no authority or power to do it on their own. So I took it as implied that this incident wasn't pursued because the RD failed to, or was unwilling to, take any action on it. And then the article went on to say how the rules were changed to allow a subset of board members to independently investigate any future incidents, if a RD fails to do so himself. Anyone else remember reading that? I kind of had this incident in the back of my mind as I read that, thinking; "So that's why nothing was done!" but he's not going to investigate himself since no accident ever happened... it was the bench that fell onto the spectator. bad stuff happens Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.
  20. I could explain how you've missed my point(s) x2, but as I said above, I've already sucked enough air out of the thread with this side issue, and I don't want to detract from the thread - which I think was legitimately "bumped". Seems the Scots have made you touchy of late, John. Let it go.
  21. That's only half correct - and half not correct. Yes, there is eventual due process. But in the meantime - in the first instance - the DZO most certainly is able to act unilaterally: He physically marks the jumper's actual license card IN RED INK. Yes, there is an avenue for appeal, but does this appeal get at least a first-level, bi-lateral "judicial"-type hearing within a matter of no more than a couple of DAYS? - because, at least in most of the US, that's the general standard for a first-level bi-lateral hearing on an emergency injunction (assuming that an emergency injunction was issued unilaterally - which by my personal experience in handling many emergency injunction cases over the years, most judges are very loath to do without all parties present). And after that first hearing, how long does it take the appeals to work their way through the process? See, a 7.2 stamp on a phydical license is more than just a general, informal shout-out by a DZO to other DZOs in the region - it bears the imprimatur of written formality. And to protect themselves against potential liability, DZOs would be (IMPO) very foolish to allow a jumper with a 7.2 stamp on his license to jump at their DZ. So if there's not a really IMMEDIATE bi-lateral hearing, the practical effect of this happening in, say, June, would be to allow a single DZO who dislikes a jumper to effectively ban the jumper entirely from the sport for possibly most or all of the entire summer season, if it takes that long for the appeal to be heard, then appealed to another level, and then for the BPA's bureaucracy to get around to issuing a replacement pristine license - even if the jumper eventually wins his appeals. Plus, a 7.2 stamp on a license fucks a jumper up - pending the jumper working his way through the appeal process - not just in the UK, but anywhere in the world the jumper tries to jump (far more than just "the DZO's own sandbox). I can't say for certain how various European DZOs would necessarily react to a BPA license with a RED 7.2 stamp on it (probably negatively, out of either reciprocity or self-protection), but given how liability-averse the legal system in the US is, I'd predict that quite a few DZOs in the US would be pretty reluctant to let a "red stamped" UK jumper jump at their DZ even if "the case is pending appeal", because they feel the need to protect their DZ from potential liability if a red-stamped jumper is involved in an incident at their DZ. So much for his long-planned skydiving holiday in the US. I'm all for maintaining serious discipline to keep DGITs from ruining it for everybody. But the BPA's 7.2 option gives individual UK DZOs far too much power to unilaterally ban a jumper from participating in the sport anywhere, before any of the "due process" protections have a chance to kick in. And to my American-trained sensibilities, that's not sufficient due process, and it invites abuse. So poo on the BPA. ------------------------------------ **ETA: I think I've been too verbose. Apologies if I hijacked the thread with this distraction.
  22. Sorry counselor but your analogy fails on multiple levels. I'm on my phone now. When I get to my office on a computer I'll add detail.
  23. Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.
  24. Exactly my point. Under BPA, any Brit DZO could conceivably abuse his position and unilaterally suspend a jumper from the sport immediately, without due process, in reality for any trumped-up "reason", just if he decides he dislikes the jumper. Fuck that.