mcordell

Since a slider swap is a change in the configuration I'm sure it would qualify as an alteration. I'm also sure if the manufacturer provides a slider that is intended to be split or removed or whatever then the use of it wouldn't constitute an alteration. Of course we have all made changes that are technically alterations anyway. I installed a collapsible pilot chute on mine (alteration) and soft links that were not provided by the manufacturer with the canopy (alteration). I know plenty of people, including senior riggers, that have replaced lower brake lines (major repair) when they weren't technically authorized to do so. I think as long as the rigger is competent and capable it's not a big deal. That doesn't make it legal...but a lot of things done on a regular basis in this sport aren't technically legal to do... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Not to mention technically a Senior rigger can't legally modify a canopy. I know....I know...riggers do it all the time....blah blah blah. That's why I said technically. I may be incorrect but I don't think that applies to main canopies or other non-TSO'd components. it absolutely does. I don't like it any more than anyone else but only a master rigger, the manufacturer, or any manufacturer deemed competent by the FAA Administrator can alter a main canopy. Edited to add the text of the law.... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Lol that's what a lot of people seem to think. Imagine my surprise when studying for the Senior Rigger test and I found out technically a senior rigger can't even swap standard links to soft links on a main. Obviously the rules aren't followed that closely....hell jumpers do more to their mains than a senior rigger is allowed to do... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Ask the rigger that "supervises" your packing as a paid packer... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Not to mention technically a Senior rigger can't legally modify a canopy. I know....I know...riggers do it all the time....blah blah blah. That's why I said technically. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

If we're talking about someone so new to the sport that they're looking for a packing video, I'd really advise them to talk to one first. Unless they want to trust J Random Skydiver to teach them how to do it. I'd have a hard time finding a non-rigging-staff packer who'd be willing to show me. The ones I've met are trained to pro-pack and seem suspicious of other methods. So I think it's good advice (again, to someone starting out, right?) that they talk to a rigger, get the potential pros and cons and learn how to do it correctly. But hey, it's your canopy and your money. Personally I don't use it because my end cells tend to inflate very slowly and have a higher risk of line twists with a psycho pack. I can handle line twists and can handle slowly inflating end cells, but I'm not super anxious to experience both at the same time. That's a post I can agree with for sure. You seemed so hateful toward psycho packing (precision packing) before but it is a sound packing method. I understand why it's not for you. I don't pack that way but I probably wouldn't with my sabre 2 for the same reasons you don't. I wouldn't mind doing it with my triathlon or my joule. I donly pack a raven that way for someone else but that's not jumped often. I pro pack his manta and his navigator though. My point was there isn't anything wrong with that method but it's not for everyone or for every canopy. People have to make their own decision on what is best for them. If I were showing a new jumper how to pack I would exclusively teach them to pro pack. I don't mind a flat pack though...it's OK to kick it old school. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Since when does a rigger have to approve a main packing method? If someone learns the basic pro pack it's not that hard to learn to precision pack. It's the same until you bag the canopy. I think everyone should be able to pro pack first but if they want to transition to precision packing after that then it's really their business. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Nothing other than increased canopy wear. I don't "psycho pack" anything but it was created by George Galloway as an easy method to pack a new ZP canopy without the material slipping all over the place and is called the "precision pack". I don't find it to be necessary to get my canopy packed so I don't do it but a few years back I spoke with Galloway directly for quite a while about a few things and he actually recommended the "Precision pack" to me as a way to potentially slow a fast opening canopy. It's authorized as a packing method by Precision for their canopies and when I talked to him that's how precision aerodynamics packed demo canopies. I'm not sure if they still do. There are people out there that don't like it because it looks bad or they make assumptions about it but realistically the only real issues with it are that you have to remember which way you rotated the canopy so as to not induce a line twist, the canopy fabric rubs against itself as the pack unrolls since the center is pulled out of the roll and placed on top. The last one can be overcome with an extension to the bridle attachment point. I don't see how it's anyone's business to stop you from packing that way considering it is an accepted packing method by a major manufacturer, especially if you are jumping a PA canopy. That being said, if your DZO or S&TA tells you not to, it's probably better not to argue since they don't have to let you jump there. ETA: Here is the link to the article Galloway wrote about the precision pack that was in December 95 parachutist. There are also videos of them precision packing several of their canopies as well as a tandem. http://www.precision.aero/packing.htm www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

pictures would help www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

A lot of people quote the shelp life of 20 years but very few manufacturers have that rule for sport gear. It's easy to follow the lead of the countless posts that claim such a limit. I have a vector, raven 1, and a rigger built main all from 1986 that up until a few months ago I was jumping fairly regularly. It was in better shape than a lot of newer rigs at the dz. The only reason it isn't in my rig rotation now is because I bought a brand new rig and have enough rigs I'd rather leave it at home for now. Condition is all about care and maintenance...not age. Of course an old rig with 1500 jumps on it is a different story..... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Nylon doesn't have a usable life. Age means nothing unless the manufacturer specifies it cannot be packed or used past x number of years. Plenty of riggers will inspect it or pack it. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

So basically while the police tends to tell us that profiling is very effective, you are telling us not to profile the police? I reviewed my previous posts and couldn't find anywhere that I said profiling was effective. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I definitely like being accountable to the people and not one singular individual with no law enforcement expertise who always seems to know how to do the job of the police better. I find people mostly treat me with respect if I treat them with respect. There are exceptions but I don't allow other people's behavior to dictate mine. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

That may be the case. I have only worked with a very small number of officers that I think didn't actively try to do the right thing all the time. I respect the members of the community and would never intentionally violate anyone's rights. I value individual liberties even though sometimes it makes it harder to "catch the bad guy". I am running for sheriff in my county at the next election and the indications are the race is mine to take by a large margin. As sheriff I can honestly say I would never stand for one of my deputies violating people's rights or harboring an "us vs them" mentality. We aren't all bad and we aren't the enemy. Every career field has its share of bad employees. Law enforcement is no exception but there are some really great people in law enforcement. Take the time to get to know a cop in your local department. You just may find they aren't so bad. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

The Terry doctrine allows for LIMITED searches for officer safety reasons based on reasonable suspicion. The reasonable man standard is applied in numerous places in law. In this case if a reasonable person in the officer's position would believe someone has committed or is about to commit a crime, then they have the authority to conduct a limited search of the exterior of the clothing of a person. As I said before, I was generic in my first statement about searches so as to not go into a rambling post. These searches are allowed and have been deemed constitutional by the united states supreme court for the purpose of ensuring the safety of officers. While you may see this as overly intrusive, there has to be a balance that allows for officers to do their job safely. In this case, a limited search is the least intrusive way an officer can ensure their safety while ensuring people are not subjected to blanket searches at the whim of the government. Officers cannot squeeze bulges in clothing to determine if it is drugs or a weapon but must be able to articulate why they believed something was a weapon and posed an imminent threat in order to justify further searching. I am open minded about what I teach but I will not be placed at greater risk than necessary to do my job. There are inherent risks but they can be mitigated in ways that ensure both the police and the citizen are safe and secure. You would be incorrect. I haven't added anything. I teach constitutional law regarding search and seizure, to include current applicable case law. The reasonable man standard (reasonable suspicion) is that of the US Supreme court. That is not my standard. Also, you put words in my mouth. I never said when in doubt search. If someone doesn't have reasonable suspicion for a limited search then it isn't conducted. If they don't have probable cause for a more intrusive search, then it isn't conducted. In my 11 years in law enforcement I have come across plenty of people that I knew were in possession of drugs or other contraband on traffic stops or personal contacts under other circumstances, however in many cases I had no probable cause to search them and as a result I didn't. The underlying principal is that if you aren't certain you have met the standard to conduct a search then you don't. Evidence getting tossed in court because of an unlawful search damages the credibility of the department in the eyes of the public. I don't teach that and would never stand for it with officers I supervise. You are. None of what I said is my opinion. I don't teach my opinion. I teach current laws and court interpretations. I teach constitutional law. If you have concerns with anything I said regarding searches and the authority of police to conduct them then I would suggest you take that up with the courts. I have no control over that. As far as what will happen to officers who follow what I have taught them, I suspect what will happen is the affirmation of their credibility in the eyes of the court. I suspect following the laws I teach would bolster the credibility of the department in the eyes of the community and improve the reliability of the officer in the performance of their duties. Following constitutional law and supreme court case law is the only way to prevent the community and department from being at odds with one another. Officers are immune from civil or criminal prosecution so long as their actions are in accordance with the laws of the state in which they work so you are most definitely wrong about them being sued or charged with a crime. Officers and departments get into trouble when they deviate from the laws, not when they follow them. If you have some level of legal expertise that you would like to share I am definitely open to discussion and perhaps learning from your training and experience. You called me closed minded about the issue but in several instances I have only clarified what the law actually says. I'm not closed minded, but I certainly won't be learning constitutional law from someone with no training or experience in the field. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

This would be pure speculation since I don't work for the state police there but, this day is specifically at risk of terrorism because of the enormous amount of pedestrians that could be killed at once if an explosive device were detonated on the bridge. They don't allow vehicle traffic on the bridge during bridge day. Yes it would be easier to blow up the bridge with a vehicle but the casualties would be limited on any other day of the year. Any time there is a large gathering of people in a small area there is a risk of terrorism. This is the world we live in. I don't see how fingerprinting the jumpers would prevent that in any way unless they are using electronic fingerprint submission to check against a list of known terrorist threats in the AFIS database but that would require that the "terrorist" had either previously been printed or latent prints of a known individual entered into AFIS at some point. It's definitely not the most effective way to prevent terrorism. Yes your prints would be entered into AFIS if you are printed at bridge day, but there isn't a way to keep a list of base jumpers specifically. Your prints would be co-mingled with military, teachers, law enforcement, and every criminal that is printed. They could be compared to unidentified latent prints collected at crime scenes, but radio towers are not really a surface that prints can be lifted from so I highly doubt they are looking to solve base jumping offenses. You have to remember, everyone thinks we will lift prints when we respond to a call and we rarely do. It's not practical. This is just a simple case of one agency trying to make it too difficult to jump at the event. I don't think there is any other hidden agenda other than trying to get jumpers not to come. Perhaps they think the requirement of fingerprinting will deter criminals from coming. Either way, the best argument to make to overcome this is to focus on the financial impact on the community if jumpers stop coming. I don't think it would be beneficial to go to the committee and argue this from a legal standpoint since it's not illegal. You're probably right- this is a 'shut it down' angle. The problem people have is with taking and storing fingerprints. It's unnecessary to have prints to run a background check. Just curious, but how long would it take to run ONE set of prints through the process you describe? Sorry for the super long quote in the reply. I'm on a phone and its a pain to edit down. If it is an electronic print submission then it would take typically a minute or so to ID based on prints. Running prints against the AFIS database for comparison to unsolved cases is supposed to be completed in no more than 18 hours, however some results may kick back fairly quickly...like 1 hour. A full AFIS search takes time. If prints are collected on FBI print cards with ink then it's probably a week or two minimum. It also costs money each time. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

This would be pure speculation since I don't work for the state police there but, this day is specifically at risk of terrorism because of the enormous amount of pedestrians that could be killed at once if an explosive device were detonated on the bridge. They don't allow vehicle traffic on the bridge during bridge day. Yes it would be easier to blow up the bridge with a vehicle but the casualties would be limited on any other day of the year. Any time there is a large gathering of people in a small area there is a risk of terrorism. This is the world we live in. I don't see how fingerprinting the jumpers would prevent that in any way unless they are using electronic fingerprint submission to check against a list of known terrorist threats in the AFIS database but that would require that the "terrorist" had either previously been printed or latent prints of a known individual entered into AFIS at some point. It's definitely not the most effective way to prevent terrorism. Yes your prints would be entered into AFIS if you are printed at bridge day, but there isn't a way to keep a list of base jumpers specifically. Your prints would be co-mingled with military, teachers, law enforcement, and every criminal that is printed. They could be compared to unidentified latent prints collected at crime scenes, but radio towers are not really a surface that prints can be lifted from so I highly doubt they are looking to solve base jumping offenses. You have to remember, everyone thinks we will lift prints when we respond to a call and we rarely do. It's not practical. This is just a simple case of one agency trying to make it too difficult to jump at the event. I don't think there is any other hidden agenda other than trying to get jumpers not to come. Perhaps they think the requirement of fingerprinting will deter criminals from coming. Either way, the best argument to make to overcome this is to focus on the financial impact on the community if jumpers stop coming. I don't think it would be beneficial to go to the committee and argue this from a legal standpoint since it's not illegal. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

You sound like you are LEO. - Not attacking - - - many of my own family are as well, and we oft have these sorts of conversations between us. But... That's not what the 4th amendment to the constitutions says... and it is LEO "attitude" (and quite frankly, legal system "allowances" for that attitude to prevail through LEO), that only just starts us down that slippery-slope, where it does become "accepted" that these constitutional rights - as written (not interpreted, then re-interpreted) - erode. I will politely but firmly disagree. I am LEO and a legal instructor at that. My comment was a general comment, not specific to the fingerprinting at bridge day. I was stating that MANY searches do not require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion. This has been shown time and time again. It applies to basic searches such as identification of individuals under certain circumstances as well as general searches of a person for officer safety purposes. Without reviewing the thread I believe someone said something about searching without probable cause. I was simply pointing out that a good deal of searches conducted by law enforcement do not require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion. This is also the case in many states where dogs may sniff the exterior of a car on a traffic stop. The search is not considered to be overly invasive. Some states require that the stop duration not be extended solely for the purpose of a dog sniff of the exterior of the car in order for it to not be invasive. Kansas recently upheld that a car may be held for a reasonable amount of time outside the duration of a normal traffic stop specifically to allow for a dog to sniff. These types of searches do NOT require probable cause. Intrusive searches such as reaching into your pockets and removing items, searching your car, and most protected, your home, all require probable cause. Again, my point is that the burden is not always probable cause and more than half of the searches conducted by LEOs require only reasonable suspicion. If you have further questions I would refer you to review Terry v. Ohio 1968. Again none of that has to do with bridge day, just searches in general. If you refer back to my prior post I explained the legal basis (as far as I understand) for the authority of the state police to require jumpers to be subject to background checks. I still disagree so don't take any of my post as being supportive of the idea. I'm not. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Unfortunately the state police seem to be trying to cut off someone else's nose. This is going to affect the local economy more severely than that of the state as a whole and the agency that seems to be trying to do it isn't local. I do think it's an over-reach. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Go with a belly band. I hear retro is back in style. Just make sure you don't twist it when you put it on... www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Boobies www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I'm certainly not taking the side of the state police in this issue as I do think the fingerprinting is unnecessary, but police don't need probable cause for many searches, only reasonable suspicion, and in this case they don't need either to justify it legally. I don't think they should be fingerprinting jumpers just to allow the jumping to occur but from a legal standpoint there is no rights violation. Promoting that argument distracts from the legitimate argument that it is simply unnecessary and if allowed to happen will keep jumpers from attending, impacting bridge day financially. That is the legitimate platform from which to stop the overreach of the state police in this instance. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Here's where the issue lies for both sides based on that information. As an officer I cannot stop and identify someone just to do it. People are not required to provide me with ID and I have no justification to stop them from going about their business unless I can articulate "reasonable suspicion" for the stop. No officer has ever had to have "probable cause" for a stop or temporary detention as everyone seems to think. Probable cause is required for an arrest to be made. This temporary stop based on reasonable suspicion would allow me to identify someone and check for warrants. Without reasonable suspicion I cannot force someone to submit to an ID check. This is where things get muddy. There are exceptions. If law enforcement issues permits or is the authority allowing you to engage in some behavior that is not inherently legal then it isn't a right. If it isn't a right then you have to submit to whatever qualifying factors the police wish to impose. The reason it is not a violation of your constitutional rights is because whatever you are doing that requires a permit or permission is not a right but a privilege and you can simply choose not to do it and not be subjected to a search. This would be most evident in public transportation (flying) or entry into some venue which requires a ticket. Even if the venue is paid for with tax dollars, the purchase of a ticket would come with an understanding that you are subject to search. (this is a really brief overview of what is sometimes a complex legal issue) If the state police are on the committee and have the ability to require fingerprinting for base jumping, it isn't a violation of anyone's rights because they aren't singling anyone out and that is the cost of admission in a way. Besides that, jumpers can choose not to attend so there is no forced search or anything like that. I ABSOLUTELY agree it is entirely unnecessary to print each jumper and you can bet the persons responsible for collecting all those prints don't want to do it any more than you want it done. This reeks of a command staff level decision that is not supported by the people doing the work. I think if this is a committee decision and not just that of the law enforcement authority, then if it is made clear there will be a significant loss of revenue resulting from implementing this requirement then I think the committee will decide against it. In order for that to happen though, people will have to stand together to make it clear that this is where the line will be drawn. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I could do a hell of a thread on that one. It would have to be in Speaker's Corner, though. Hey, John, remember as a kid back in the 60's watching the cultural conflict between the cops and "dirty hippies"? A lot of it is just an extension of that. Old mindsets die hard. FWIW, I'm pretty laid back and obviously don't have a negative stereotype of skydivers. I would assume the LEOs that I work with would feel the same. I don't think all officers have an "us versus them" mentality. A good number of us actually have great interaction with the public and understand our role as public servants. Unfortunately there are a few in the mix that don't seem to understand that and they are the ones that make the headlines. There are also some members of the public that think that just because I'm a public servant that makes me their servant. As far as the original point of this thread, where in statute is authority granted to the state police to make these determinations? Is it illegal to jump without a permit which must be granted by the state police or something? Is it the permit issuing authority they are using to demand fingerprints? If they are concerned about the potential of terrorism, wouldn't it make more sense to have a few people with base equipment expertise to check rigs before they are allowed on the bridge to ensure they are what they are purported to be? www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I wouldn't have a problem with that. My response was more in relation to the idea S&TAs aren't qualified for anything. I don't have a problem with more stringent requirements for cameras as long as those requirements result in a rating, otherwise jumpers going from dz to dz can do whatever they want and nobody knows if they are qualified. Remember, there is no requirement right now for a camera. The SIM says a C license is recommended, not required. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging