fenceline

1, 2, 4, 4 1 Student load dispatching Thursday. Cessna 205. 2 chasing tandems Friday. Cessna 205 again. Saturday and Sundat, 4 each day out of a Caravan, all 8 were wingsuit dives. And over two dz's to boot.

Good point. Figured that since they were the only two with any standardized rating program, that it would be fair to have one each. If other programs come along, could a check box format work better? Jay

There is a BMI check box, how about a PFI check box, all things being even.

Snowbird and her man both need to buy a suit EACH!!!!!! They want to share one, but that has "midair disaster" written all over it. Jay edit : spelling

Will be there for Saturday and Sunday, as long as all goes to plan

PM sent.

YOU don't give a rats ass...... but to THEM its a loophole.

If you are not going to go through insurance, don't even tell them. If you tell them that you have an issue going with the trucker, but aren't going to make a claim, they will still make a note on your file. Then if something else comes up, it will still be on there minds. What they don't know can't hurt you.

Alberta Skydivers is up and going. If the crowds warrant it, the King Air will come from Pitt, or Niagara. Pitt, Niagara and Beiseker are all the same as far as ownership goes now. Only Niagara and Pitt have a full time King Air each.

I keep staring at my mail box, but its not there yet.....do they deliver at 3am???

I love the sign in the back, realistic training for the bridge jumps with "No jumping from bridge" signs.

I wouldn't be so worried if it happened once..... but twice in a row could be bad... In all seriousness, highly unlikely. Take care of your gear and it will take care of you. Jay

Just to be clear..... Lou has his Phi and he was looking at the others?? Or looking at the pics of his and others??

Thanks fallingchip for saying it so much clearly than I was getting across. Those are the same guidlines police in Canada follow. And no EBSB52, not a clerk. Little bit more proactive in helping my community. As for fallingchip being "all about finding guilt", sometimes people are guilty and shouldn't be found not guilty by the way process is served. J

To respond to your quote about... "The guy posting that is from Canada, and perhaps it works that way there. He then wants to transpose whatever legal knowledge he has from Canada and pretend it works verbatum here......" I post my previous quote... "Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out." Never pretended it was the same, but when it comes right down to it, case law is case law, and both system were spawned from the same school of thought. J

Where did you get your law background?? Do you work in law (lawyer mayber??), did you study it in a post secondary institute?? The reason I ask is that you seem to base several of your opinions on experience. ie the judge pitching a case to deflect the cop from getting in trouble line. This I laugh at, but then you make me laugh more when you throw in the cop running the red light and he gets in trouble. While I agree he get in trouble for several reasons (being told to stop pursuing, not displaying due diligence when he placed the need for apprehension above public safety and ran the red etc), it seems to fly in the face of the "don't go to court so you don't look like a boob" defence for the cop not showing. As for being allowed to break the law...no they can't. Are they excempt from certain traffic law for example?? Yes. Ie: red and/or blue lights with siren allow them to go through red stop lights, GIVEN they execute due dilligence in ensuring it is safe to do so. Even when there emergency equipment legally gives them right away, they may be found civilly at fault for not using due care (ie getting t-boned). I would like to ask how cops are expected to apprehend speeders, who are going faster than the speed limit, without exceeding the speed limit as you seem to indicate. As for judges, they find the facts and apply the law to them. Juries find what they feel to be important facts based on what they have been told about how the law works, and then make an opinion that the just, generally through case law, acts upon. Oh, and I make my living in the legal word. And while I am not up to as much speed as you may be about American law, Canadian law I know inside and out. Here, police are required to attend court, just like any witness who receives a subpeana. Understanding law is what I do... J

I don't put a whole lot of faith in jurys. Would put my faith in a judge, who should be the one with the professional law expercience to know the way the law reads, not some jury member that could possibly let emotions or feeling other than fact affect there judgement. One of the jury members in the MJ trial, for example, seemed upeset with one of the witnesses for the prosecutor because she "snapped her fingers at us". Ok, immature, but has nothing to do with the facts of the case in question. Now I don't know if MJ is guilty or not guilty, don't care. But it shows that juries focus on just as much of the fact as the courtroom antics of witnesses.

I like this one...... "Cop didn't show and even if he did judges love favors from cops, so they would dismiss the case to protect the recorded statements from getting too public in case the cop runs a light and kills innocent people." Could it be they dismissed the case because of the simple fact the cop is the ONLY witness for the Prosecutor, and without the ONLY witness, the Prosecutor has no way to prove the evidence provided in the notes on the ticket?? Just maybe?? As for police not being allowed to speed, I think you're a little confused. Most state, and all provincial traffic acts up here in Canada, have sections that percluded police from certain rules of the road to enforce traffic laws. Thats why cops can pace you to figure out you speed. I don't know what Utopia you live in......

Why does everyone assume "Not Guilty" and "Innocent" mean the same thing?? "Not Guilty" means the evidence available does not support a conviction. It doesn't necessarily prove innocence, just that there may not have been enough evidence to convict. In criminal court, need 100%, beyond a resonable doubt, you are guilty. Any doubt, and there is the not guilty verdict. In civil, if there is a likely possibility you most likely had a impact on the offence being committed, then you are found at fault. This is whether or not you had intent to commit the offence or not. Hence, found liable. Traffic court runs much this way.... "I didn't know I was speeding" doesn't matter. If it is reasonable to believe the evidence provided, you will be found guilty. J

**DELETED BY POSTER**

Do I Look Like I Give A F#CK or DILLIGAFF Do I Look Like I Give A FLYING F#CK. Much more appropriate to this sport anyway.

For those of you that have one on order... which one?

You should have seen the beer that was waiting for you this year at May Meet.... we had to drink it before it got warm Lost Prarie maybe??

How many in a "batch"??? If we're in the first batch, do we have to buy beer?????

Mine's on the way... or I should say at least ordered. Anticipation is killing me.