mcordell

.................................................................................. As for the myth that round require less training .... how many jumps do you have on rounds? To be honest as an emergency parachute they really don't require any training other than a plf. As long as it opens and gets you to the ground alive it did it's job. My plan is always to not have to use it. If I do then it's an emergency. With a round you can tell someone to exit the aircraft and pull the handle and then they go where the wind takes them. With a square they get more forward drive and if they do nothing they may end up with a half brake downwind no flare landing that's going to really suck. If they screw with it they could make things way worse (with no training). They have the opportunity to spiral into the ground, stall the canopy, flare 40 feet off the ground, go into full flight and no flare their downwind landing, or a number of other eff ups. What can an ignorant user do to the round? I don't think it's a myth that the round RESERVE requires less training since you can give none and they will likely be ok. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

thanks for sharing your knowledge with, for example, Sandy Reid and explain him why the Aviator is a bad idea I never said they were a bad idea. I think they are a great idea for people who are trained to fly them. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

False Ok, with the exception of a few uncommon rigs, the vast majority of pilot bailout rigs, and probably all pilot bailout rigs you are likely to pack have rounds. Is that better? By far the majority are round. Round parachutes are very reliable and it's very hard to screw it up once it is open. That's why they are packed into rigs for people who don't know what they are doing. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I agree modern gear is better. I'm not saying it's nice gear or that the OP should jump it, but if that's all they have an it's airworthy I wouldn't refuse to back it as long as I was comfortable with the jumper's weight under that reserve. Being a new jumper I would also like to know the local dz is aware of what they are jumping and is comfortable with them on that main. It's not gear I would want or have a use for but not everyone has nice stuff. As for the FXC, I have access to a vacuum chamber to test it, but more than likely I would tell them it needs to be removed for me to repack it. As for the manual, that's easy enough to find. In regards to rounds, there's nothing wrong with a round. Rounds and squares have their own advantages and disadvantages. The great thing about a round is it's hard for a student to screw it up once it's open. There are people on here with tons of jumps and no reserve rides so I don't think having a round in a student rig would be a disqualifier for me in recommending a student to a dz. I'm not attacking you for you not being willing to repack it. I was just curious what reason you had for saying they would have a hard time finding someone to pack it for them. There seems to be a hefty percentage of riggers that think old gear is unairworthy. Of course it's been rehashed on here time and time again but age alone does not make something unairworthy. It may be ugly sometimes though. I personally wouldn't jump the gear because I have better options, but I certainly wouldn't tell someone else they shouldn't since I don't know the condition of the gear and I'm not their local instructor. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

It would be hard to pack in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions if they only authorize specific canopies and you deviated from that. That being said, I would assume it was a sport rig that was later used for student gear? I can't imagine a dz going to square reserves at that time. When squares first came out they were considered high performance and you had minimum jump number requirements before you could even jump one as a main. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

What reason would you have for either of those statements? Being "outdated" doesn't mean it is unsafe. Depending on the jumper's size and the condition of the main I'd say an old F-111 main would be find for some jumpers, assuming they aren't loading them heavy and the canopy isn't bagged out. As far as the reserve, if it is airworthy, what reason would you have not to pack it? Toss it in a box and send it to me and I will pack it if it is airworthy but it gets a full inspection first. As far as rounds, there is nothing wrong with a round reserve. Some drop zones still use them for student gear and every pilot bailout rig has one. I have one in one of my three rigs and I'm fine with it. I guess some riggers won't pack anything they don't think is sexy. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

...Unless of course the advertisements, based on circulation numbers, cause those magazines to be profitable or break even to the USPA. I wondered the cost of the magazine, anyone from the USPA want to share the Consolidated Financial Statements mentioned in the meeting minutes but not published with them. ;-) As an advertiser your target audience isn't people who have been in the sport for 50 years anyway. They already have their gear. The numbers of people who pay for an active membership for 50 years or more is fairly small and they have contributed for half a century to a member owned organization in order to further the sport they love. In return for that contribution, these members have gotten a magazine every month and insurance they probably never needed. Many members will never use the other benefits available to them. If advertisers don't want to pay to run an ad in a magazine for the largest member owned organization representing skydivers, based solely on the fact the magazine is provided for free to people who have been using these products for 50+ years then I don't want to buy their product. The people who make these products and sell them are skydivers. They are part of this community. I don't think they would have a problem with honoring those who have shared their passion for that long. As an advertiser I would not be excited paying higher ad rates to fund magazines sent to people who were no longer in the sport, as I suspect most people with 50+ years of membership are or will be soon. This would be even more true of people who were not paying anything (more) for the magazine, cause who knows if they are even reading it. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Are you high? www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I have a quantum joule with no d lines from 1986. Steep glide, decent flare. I believe the firefly was a 177. They made a firefly main and reserve and the main was 177, both 7 cell. I'd pack it for someone if it is airworthy. Nothing st all wrong with old gear. I just packed a phantom 24 into my vector 1 that serves as my 3rd rig with the joule main and I wouldn't hesitate to jump it if my sabre 2 and triathlon were both unpacked and I wanted to make a load real quick. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I know it's a little off topic but if someone goes in because they didn't notice their altimeter wasn't working on the way to altitude, then didn't look at it during freefall to see it said 0, then wasn't aware of their surroundings enough to deploy their canopy before making a mess on the dropzone, then I'd say the family has no reason to sue anyone but perhaps the public school system that pushed that individual through. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

No question here, just got a new (to me) Singer 111W155 walking foot industrial machine with a servo motor and am pretty psyched about it. It still has the ID plate on it from when it was used at the GMC factory in Kansas City to do upholstery with. I'm going to run out of material playing with this thing before I get tired of it. I already resorted to making a nylon holster for my kid's toy gun.... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Some might. I wouldn't, I was taught that if the colored threads along the edges is damaged, then the harness is unairworthy. But I wouldn't be too surprised if someone, somewhere would pack it. I wouldn't pack it either. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

If it was the main we are talking about I would agree that seems reasonable but it's the MLW. If that breaks then everything is screwed. It's not like you can deploy a reserve MLW. Replacing it isn't that expensive and increases the likelihood your friends won't have to help clean you up off the dz before jumping resumes. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

That looks an awful lot like Velcro damage. It looks like at some point (maybe after a repack) the reserve handle was inserted with the Velcro not fully mated inside the pocket which left the hook side exposed against the webbing. If that's the case, normal handling of the container and manipulation of the harness would cause the Velcro to rub and fray the webbing. Your rigger can clean it up as long as the stitching isn't broken or severely damaged but it looks pretty rough. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

such a crap cliche - If we held everybody to a decent standard that we'd also expect from ourselves, then we'd have a better society. tell me, do you have a list of demographics of people to a "lower standard"? Would you be fine holding yourselves and those close to you to 'lower' standards? it's all relative. Which people are 'better' than others such that higher and lower standards make sense for society? maybe those better people should also get to make choices for those dirty lower people. etc etc etc (I know it's just a 'saying' that people use, but I wanted to make the point again) I think the people we trust to uphold the law SHOULD be held to a higher standard. If you are caught drinking and driving you will get a hefty fine, lose your license for a while, and it goes on your record, but unless you drive for a living you won't lose your job. We will. If you get into a fight with your wife and push her, you will get arrested for DV battery but won't lose your job. We will. I can go on but that is a higher standard and I agree with it. In general people make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes involve poor decisions in which they violate the law. Officers are charged with upholding the laws and shouldn't make those same poor decisions. So yes, officers should be held to a higher standard. No, it's not just a saying and it's not cliché. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Is it still a misdemeanor in your jurisdiction if I did it to a cop? Yes www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Interesting. So technically a family member helping their ailing mother or father taking medication could get arrested. The way that is written, only the "patient" can remove the medication of the packaging. Only if they then took the drugs with them while in a non-prescription container. It says possession by someone other than the ultimate user, not removal by someone other than the ultimate user. It's also worth noting that only applied to controlled substances which means the medications have to fall into the controlled substance schedule so grandma's thyroid pill isn't going to get you in trouble. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

It would be misdemeanor battery if you did it. I agree officers should be held to a higher standard in the eyes of the public but I don't think it's possible to make a whole separate charging scale. Of course you could always consider adding an additional charge in the place of increased penalties...something along the lines of misdemeanor battery and official misconduct. It is also worth noting that laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states it may be a felony for the officer to have battered a handcuffed suspect. As an example, in Oklahoma any battery to a law enforcement officer is a felony, regardless of severity. In Kansas simple battery to a LEO is a misdemeanor unless the officer suffers an injury in which case it becomes a felony, however battery to a police dog is always a felony. Also battery to a corrections worker is a felony. If I arrest someone and in the process of walking them into the jail they begin to resist and they kick me, a corrections worker, and my fellow deputy's dog, they would have committed 1 misdemeanor and 2 felonies for doing the exact same thing to 3 different victims. Point being, there are qualifying factors in the statutes that make some actions more prohibited than others. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Before I answer your question, I just wanted to make sure you saw where I just said I have never charged someone with paraphernalia for the container the drugs were in..... now to answer your question, I wouldn't. I was hypothesizing as to what COULD theoretically be done. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Andy908 and I haven't always agreed on things in these forums but I won't deny his (apparent) legal expertise when it comes to reading and interpreting statute (a statement I will undoubtedly regret making) so I would be curious what he thinks....if he could weigh in... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

No it means the court SHOULD look at the use of the object in terms of being paraphernalia vs any legitimate use of the object to determine if the object falls more on the contraband side than the legitimate use side. A common container I find people carrying drugs in is a crown royal bag. I have never charged anyone with paraphernalia for the bag, however if I did, I would expect the court to look objectively at the bag and it's intended use. The intended use of the bag was to house the bottle that came in it. Once the bottle was empty and discarded, the bag served it's useful purpose. By then using the bag to hold drugs, I believe the court could argue the bag had more of a role of paraphernalia rather than an item with a legitimate use. When it comes to a sock, unless the guy had both feet amputated, I think it would be hard to argue the value of the item leaned more toward housing drugs than a foot. This is especially true if the sock was on his foot and the drugs were hidden inside at the time. I'm not sure how that charge ever made it's way through the court successfully but I can assure you no prosecutor I ever worked with would have charged that. I could see a prosecutor tacking that on as leverage for a plea agreement "I'll drop the paraphernalia charge if you plead to X" but not actually charging it. That being said, if the judge was a special kind of douche, they are not bound by the plea agreement. If the prosecutor made an agreement to drop the charge of paraphernalia in exchange for some sort of plea, the judge can reject the deal and tack the paraphernalia back on. That could happen if the smug asshole being charged acted like a dick in the courtroom too. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

FWIW I have a Bachelors of Science in Forensic Psychology and worked in IT before law enforcement. When I went into the Army I scored a 99 on the ASVAB but chose to join the infantry because that is where I felt I belonged. Based on the test validity studies of the ASVAB, I'd say it's a very good indicator of vocational aptitude. I didn't join the military (or choose my MOS), and subsequently go into law enforcement because I was stupid. I did so because I'm passionate about serving my country and community in the best way I can. To diminish my service in such a manner is insulting. I don't expect people to thank me (in fact it makes me uncomfortable), but I can't help but take offense to being compared to Muslim extremists or being referred to as stupid. What's most ironic is that it's the people he is insulting that have put their life on the line to ensure the citizens of this country have the right to speak out against the government and who have sworn to uphold that "200 year old document" that grants those freedoms. I say go ahead and sit back in your chair and lob insults. When you have the balls to step up to the plate and make a difference in the world then your opinion will matter to me. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I find that interesting considering I work in Kansas and at no point have I ever charged someone with paraphernalia for the container they had the drugs in. My prosecutors would never have charged that. Even a pipe isn't paraphernalia unless there is drug residue in it. The article has to be bullshit however because the statute wouldn't support charging someone for having drugs in a sock. Here is Kansas statute that contains the test to determine if something is paraphernalia. Note #15 Generally if something has a legitimate purpose (i.e. a sock) but is found with drugs in it, it isn't paraphernalia. It would be very difficult to find a prosecutor who was willing to argue a sock constitutes paraphernalia and had no other purpose. It's shaped like a foot! Ok, maybe a tube sock. Tube socks aren't shaped like a foot but that sure would be a long way to reach into an article of clothing to retrieve your pills. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Perhaps I misunderstood. Here's a couple examples. Here it appears you told AnvilBrother that you estimated his life to be worth no more thank $2000. That seems like an unnecessary dig at someone who was trying to explain why budget constraints do not allow for two officers in every car. Here it seems that while you knew you were engaged in discussion with, among others, a few police officers, you referred to us as "a rather stupid bunch". Now I am just a lowly sheriff deputy and as such it seems you feel I lack the intellectual ability to grasp the meaning behind your writing, however it does seem to me that both of these were personal attacks. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Seems this has devolved into personal attacks now www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging