mcordell

It's a quantum joule 180. Has one of bill gargano's hand lettered data panels on it www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I should add mine. Its a quantum joule 180. It was my moms and I never got to jump with her but I jump her main since thats as close as I can get. It is old but only had about 50 jumps on it when she quit jumping. Its the one in my avatar picture www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I was discussing gear with another jumper (who has been around for a while) and we were talking about one of my rigs that has a main with no D lines and it got me wondering, how many canopies were made this way? Were there very many at all? I love the way it flies and flares so I dont see any disadvantage to the design www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I have seen the light www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I have been shown the way! http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3854223;page=unread#unread 110 Here! www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I want to personally thank you....that was perhaps one of the most useful posts I have ever seen showing someone the benefit of the search function without being a complete dick about it. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I know that military people used to jump in Korea! One of my rigs was assembled in Korea when my mother bought it and had it shipped there. She jumped it there and also was the passenger on the first tandem ever done in korea. Since this was all sport jumps out of military ships it seems they at least used to allow it....but then again she was airforce sooooo.....maybe they just got more freedom www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I have two complete rigs....one is a new wings container I bought on student status with a sabre 2 and a raven. The other is a vector 1 built in 1986 with a rigger built main of the same year. I recently verified the whole system actually had less than 20 jumps on it and I have jumped it and it worked just fine. Age doesn't matter in the slightest if the gear is in good shape. That's why you have a rigger check it out for you. There is nothing wrong with used gear as long as it is in decent shape. Do what you think is best for you. I like my new rig. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I guess I'm confused on one point here....what difference does it make who does what on a main if it isn't TSO'd. Repairs and alterations are not required to be documented on mains correct? The main canopy is not required to be TSO'd correct? The regulation says you have to have two parachutes, one of which must be certificated and packed by a rigger right? I understand repairs and alterations to the container and reserve fall under the FAA regulation but I was under the impression the FAA didn't really give much of a shit about the main, so long as there is one. Am I wrong about this? And before anyone jumps all over me, I really am wondering and wanting a real answer. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

the problem was solved with little difficulty. We pulled the reserve and found that while the bridle was looped through the attachment point and restitched, there was a significant enough loop to allow for us to change it with no problem. We simply cut the bridle attachment point on the old pilot chute and removed it. We then larks headed the bridle onto the new pilot chute....problem solved

Does everyone mark their hard links on reserves? I recently found one of my reserves has witness marks on all the links and the other had none. I was wondering if riggers generally mark the barrels and if so, what do you use to mark them that has no potential to damage fabric? Someone suggested to me to use fingernail polish, however I don't know the possible implications of using something like that. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Are these still available anywhere? I have two of them (don't know if there are more than that) and have thought about putting them on DVD. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I'm sorry you feel that way. We had a disagreement, I reacted inappropriately and apologized to you. I didn't realize you were harboring negative feelings about me. For what it's worth I apologize again for having offended you. I would ask that you not smear me on public forums as your assumptions about my work history are inaccurate at best. I did change agencies, but it was my own decision and I'm plenty happy with it. Also, I am still an officer. That being said, I'm happy to discuss it via pm if you want and I'm really not that bad of a guy. Perhaps some day you will change your mind and we can drink some beer after hours together. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

that's not true www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Several years as a prosecutor (including as a charging supervisor) and 25 years practicing law, including a great deal of criminal law, in 6 different jurisdictions. Tampering with someone's property with the intent to harrass or piss them off is criminal mischief, criminal harrassment and destruction of property. Tampering with something with the intent that it places them in real danger of getting hurt, with a lesser chance of getting killed - say, tampering with their car's break lines or steering - would be agg assault and reckless endangerment. Tampering with a PARACHUTE with the intent that it will fail while in the process of being deployed after having jumped from an aircraft in flight - is trying to kill someone; and that's attempted murder. I'll see your couple of prosecutors who wouldn't charge that as attempted homicide (along with lesser included offenses), and I'll raise you a whole boatload who would do so (including myself). As I noted up-thread, an attempted crime, one of the forms of inchoate crime, does not require that the owner of the parachute actually try to use it for the offender's crime to be complete. All that is required for the crime to be complete is the criminal act and the criminal intent. Maybe you, like the other poster up-thread, could benefit from some continuing education on inchoate crimes. That's why you're wrong. I understand your point. In your jurisdiction, or perhaps in the jurisdictions you have served as a prosecutor, perhaps this charge would work. There is also the possibility that it wouldn't, but it seems you would charge it regardless. I don't work in your jurisdiction, and you don't work in mine. I have been an officer in two states and in 4 different counties. I was a state officer prior to moving to my current state where I currently work in a department which overlaps counties and as a result I present cases to both counties on a regular basis. What I can tell you is that in any of the jurisdictions in which I have worked, this case would not be charged as attempted murder. I saw a question regarding an area in which I have some expertise, that is the application of criminal law. I don't know you, and you certainly don't know me. I didn't get on here and attack you and I'm not entirely sure why you have done so to me. I DON'T need continuing education to better understand this issue. I understand it entirely and am fully capable of applying criminal code to the circumstances as presented. I didn't get on here to get into a pissing contest with you and if you need me to say that yours is bigger than mine for you to feel better about yourself then fine. Yours is bigger and I was wrong. I learned a long time ago that you can't tell an attorney they are wrong about anything, even when they are. Some of my good friends are attorneys and they are no exception to the rule. I appreciate the conversation regarding criminal law as I always enjoy that topic. While I don't appreciate your personal attack, I accept it and move forward. Since this thread no longer serves a purpose I think I'll go back to discussing skydiving with other skydivers on another thread....an area in which I have NO expertise. I think I'll learn more there. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I think danielcroft's question might be a little different: Say that, intending to kill you, I damaged your rig in a very obvious and visible way. Say I cut the leg straps, cut the chest strap, cut the risers, etc. I thought, hah, when he puts this on and jumps out, it'll fall off! But the damage is so visible that it's obvious the rig is not in jumpable condition. In that scenario, even though I committed the actus reus and had the mens rea, would I still be guilty of attempted murder? Yes. The reason is this phrase in your factual scenario: "intending to kill you" - that establishes the mens rea needed to convict. I suppose a defendant could use the defense, at trial, that "I just wanted to scare him and piss him off; I made the damage so obvious to make sure that he wouldn't try to actually jump it." That defense would then have to be sold to a jury. But if I damaged your rig, intending to kill you, but in my incompetence I make the damage so obvious that you discover it and don't jump the rig, neither my incompetence nor your diligence are a defense - my intent was to kill you, and it's my intent that convicts me of attempted murder. Well see now the topic has shifted. You seem to have gotten all fired up over the initial question and a couple of responses, I think mine included. The initial question wasn't a question of guilt as far as I read it, but rather a question of whether someone could be charged. As an attorney, you should understand better than anyone that no prosecutor will charge that as attempted murder, even if it technically fits. A prosecutor would look at this case and assume that the defense used at trial will be that they only intended on scaring the person or that they only wanted to damage the rig, but not to kill the jumper. It doesn't really matter what their intent is. The prosecutor will weigh the defense against the case put together by the police and find it nearly impossible to get a conviction. Keep in mind that as a defense attorney, one would only have to show a reasonable doubt. Is it possible that they only cut the webbing to scare the person or to damage the rig? Absolutely, it's possible. If even one juror believes that then the trial ends in acquittal and the person walks. If the prosecutor charges them with criminal damage to property, there is almost no chance of defense providing the reasonable doubt necessary to gain acquittal at trial. This realization will almost assuredly result in a lesser charge being filed. Is the person guilty of trying to kill someone? Yes, if that is indeed their intent. Unfortunately intent is a difficult thing to prove and it won't be charged that way. I contacted two of my prosecuting attorney friends by the way and presented these facts to them and both agreed that they wouldn't charge it as anything more than criminal damage unless the facts of the case included a threat, in which case they would charge criminal threat and criminal damage to property. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

One should never assume to understand a statute merely by reading it. That's great research and all, but what you have to understand is that in the United States we have something called case law where in courts interpret the meaning of each and every word of a statute and subsequent cases are based on that interpretation. I'm sure, based on the wording you quoted, that a court would interpret "substantial step" and I think you would be surprised at how laws change from what is seemingly cut and dry to something you wouldn't recognize from the original text. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Being charged criminally doesn't exempt someone from being sued civilly and someone could find themselves being penalized in both courts. What you have to remember is that it doesn't really matter how anyone interprets the specific statute, nor does it matter if the specific act TECHNICALLY fits into a specific statute. What matters is if the prosecuting attorney is willing to charge it under that law. In this instance, I can't think of any jurisdiction in which the specific act mentioned would ever be charged under a murder statute, unless the person was critically injured in an attempt to use the equipment. Not only would most jurisdictions be UNABLE to charge under this statute, but even if they could, the prosecuting attorney would likely not do it in favor of charging the suspect with something that is more solid and likely to stick. Even after they charge the person, they are likely to plead it down to an even lower charge to ensure a conviction. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Bullshit! Let's say you had an ex-friend who had access to your house, via a spare key. You come home one night using the back door, instead of the front, which you usually use. You find a shotgun wired to the front door, aimed to kill whoever opens the door. Evidence points to the ex-friend with the key to your house. Do you think the Prosecutor would fail to arrest the person because you didn't get your head blown off ? Kevin K. This is why most states have enacted laws regarding the setting of traps. Th8is could also be charged under several other crimes in many jurisdictions that relate to the creation of inherently dangerous situations. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I base this on over 6 years as a police officer, including time as a detective who presented cases in person to prosecutors on a regular basis. Damaging property is NEVER charged as an attempted murder type offense unless that item is actually used in a manner that is likely to cause harm or even more likely when it did cause harm but not death. A rig that is tampered with but not jumped is simply damaged property. A stretch that MAY fly would be criminal threat or perhaps in some jurisdictions assault or aggravated assault, depending on the specific facts of the case, but not attempted murder. That being said, perhaps you have some form of expertise beyond mine and could enlighten me as to why I'm wrong. I'm open to hearing your view. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Various jurisdictions will charge differently, but in nearly every case it would likely be an issue of criminal damage to property, possibly felony depending on the cost and the felony/misdemeanor threshold in that jurisdiction. I don't know of any prosecutor who would charge something like attempted murder or agg assault unless someone unwittingly used the gear and almost got hurt or killed. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I just bought a upt reserve pilot chute from them and have nothing but good to say about them. My pilot chute arrived today in fact. They processed the order quickly, shipped quickly, charged less than other suppliers, and packaged the pilot chute well. I'll order from them again whenever possible. www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=SALTWATER&SortBy= Here's jumpshack's research data and washing procedures www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

it's packed now, so I can't look, but I believe it was sewn with E thread if I remember correctly. The whole idea of unstitching and restitching a reserve bridle scares me. I have nightmares of pulling silver only to end up with a flapping bridle and a missing pilot chute Perhaps I should contact RWS for a definitive answer? www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

I guess that would be the skies call books. I have them all. Good books with some great pictures! www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging