• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • AAD
    FXC Model 12000

Jump Profile

  • Years in Sport

Ratings and Rigging

  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Chest
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Seat
    Senior Rigger
  1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only on rigs with flap-mounted cutters. Why did Sun Path and Altico (temporarily) ban the units? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think what is being overlooked here are two principle reasons jumpers choose to use an AAD; inability to pull or loss of altitude awareness. In these circumstances the Argus might just do it's job but a known defect could render the action null. So what's the point in the AAD in the first place? If or when I choose to jump an AAD, I will not choose one that does not have a reasonable expectation of performing its job: cutting the loop. That's it. Just cut the loop. Zooming through firing altitude means there are other problems, sure, but having an AAD that can't be reasonably relied on to cut the loop is simply a useless and expensive hunk of shit taking up space in my container. All the best algorithms and electronics don't make up for the weakest link: a substandard cutter design. .02
  2. you are given gear with chipped cadmium and some rusting present on the mlw adjuster. the webbing including selvage edge has been in contact with the rust and exposed underlyng metal and shows staining and light abrasion on the selvage how much rust on the webbing and hardware do you consider too much to choose to work on the gear? my position is that it is fine, another rigger says he would not work on it. feelings and thoughts on acceptable amount of wear?
  3. Paragear sells a fabric testing kit (modified vise-grips, scale, BCG) for $145. That's a bit pricey and I don't want the BCG or the scale. I don't have access to a welder and I don't know how to weld, so: Does anyone have or know of a source for modified vise grip pliers for testing parachute fabric (such as older Phantoms)?
  4. "IF" If pigs had wings, they'd fly. or If you're going to enter a discussion, contribute something real and don't hide behind inanities and "if"s. There's a word that concisely describes that type of avoidance and attempted diversion: Bollocks.
  5. Maybe, maybe not, but I am aware of DZs that rush tandems into the video training just so they can keep the money. Regardless of the weather forecast or the obvious impossibility of making jumps, the training is given along with the line, "Well, you've had your training so you'll have to come back for your jump another day." This used to be known as Highway Robbery.
  6. Touchy, aren't you. Instead of posting for post numbers, which is what your posts look like, you might consider posting to the relevent points and not spewing inanities. If I pay a deposit or put money on an account and I'm disallowed using it, that money has disappeared. The DZO has taken it and I get nothing in return. Damn - you sure need simple things explained, don't you. Do you care to comment on the similarities between a commond DZ practice and the (GASP!) detested practices of Skyride? Nothing to say about that? Silence can be more informative than words.
  7. You're trying to divert from a legitimate point which you seem to not understand anyway. Foxes don't guard henhouses. They raid them. And why did you put "guarding" in quotes? The point is there is a vocal contingency, which might include yourself, that derides the business practices of Skyride. But those same practices are, in fact, not uncommon to general practices in the sport. So you go right ahead and drive past the local DZ to a further DZ and see if the money put on account at the local DZ is magically there. Or if they will honor the purchased tandem ticket (synonym: Gift Certificate) of the local DZ. See if your out-of-town friends can jump at their local DZ with the GC from your local DZ. Or is that all money that just disappears, unused by the purchaser, goods or services never received? Your attempted diversion doesn't change the basis of this observation but only illuminates your inability to either, (a) put a line between two points or, (b) discuss the obvious similarity of business practices. It seems you're posting just to post, not for any real or valid reason. Ever stop yourself and think about it before replying? That's a real question, no PA intended or implied.
  8. From reading this thread, and in my own experience, this is a common practice at US DZs: Client pays, can't jump (weather, wind, whatever) and there is no refund. Upjumpers buy tickets that aren't usable. Money on accounts goes missing. Deposits aren't refundable. People are left being unable to use purchased jump assets unless they travel great distances to redeem them. And the general concensus is, "That's OK. It's how it's done. It's a large-volume facility and they have to do business this way." Sound familiar? Anyone? Who's the fox and where is the chicken house?
  9. It's surprising that SansSuit didn't come in with this line from Crue: "Skydive naked from an aeroplane"
  10. A very good point. Response?
  11. I see that I didn't say "It appears you are" and I meant to, so I apologize for that. But it is not unjust or unfounded to say that you are not upholding your duty as a DPRE when testing. You yourself said you fail applicants on this count, which count you know and should have known is incorrect, based on FAR 65.131. In Post 53 you said From Post 98 (Sparky): You replied: That means you are evaluating and failing based on opinion not FARs. An FAA approval of your test plan doesn't indicate the approval of your test questions and answers. I think if you submit that question to the FAA and ask them for the correct answer they will direct you to 65.131 and say, There is the answer. You brought your understanding of FAR 65 into doubt yourself and have spent a large part of this thread defending an incorrect position. That might be OK for Joe Rigger, but for a DPRE to be clearly unaware of the recordation regulations found in FAR 65.131 is astounding. In Post 109 you admitted to not knowing the basic recordation regulation Ditto Post 117 In Post 32 you said and in Posts 66 and 105 you said to theonlyski and Well, regardless of time in rigging, he sure as hell knows the recordation regulation where you don't. Who needs to catch up on his reading? Not only were you wrong about a basic rigging regulation, a shameful fact for a DPRE, but you chastised this rigger in public. One wonders if there is there an apology forthcoming? And as far as sticking to the basics, it looks like the young rigger is doing so and the DPRE doesn't even know the regulation! Your defensiveness, inability to openly admit to being mistaken, and flagrant arrogance are what the observers of this post are seeing. continuing: In Post 48 you said Not according to 65.131 and in Post 87 you said The regulations (65.131) clearly indicate recordation requirements. A master rigger and DPRE should be an expert on Part 65, not ignorant of a basic rigger regulation. How can you staunchly defend yourself in this? I don't understand your inability to simply say, "I was wrong. I'll correct this." In Post 63 you said But in Post 69 you said "Should log the work" is neither a regulation nor a manufacturers instruction. Regardless, please direct us to the manufacturers' manuals that state this. Within this thread you were called out many times to back up your strong assertions about what must be entered onto the PDC, and was several times shown FAR 65.131, which indicates what is required. You responded in Post 108 with So - we're supposed to move away from a Rigger 101 topic that a DPRE has been wrong about and has been hammering away at the field riggers, trying to correct them on something they are right about in the first place?!! That sounds a lot like, "Let's just ignore the fact that a DPRE doesn't understand a basic regulation of the trade and focus on something else that does require all the information I've been going on and on about." This is where we have a divide: I think a DPRE damn well ought to know FAR 65 front to back. It's understandable to make a small mistake about an FAR, I suppose, because we all make mistakes and errors. But we're not all DPREs who go through the thread 'loudly' defending a clearly incorrect position and failing to simply own up and demonstrate a true cornerstone of good rigging: the ability to recognize one's limits and know how to accept help or correction. It is the work, not the worker, that matters. For a DPRE to be repeatedly and vehemently wrong about a Rigging 101 item, repeatedly defend that wrong position when repeatedly presented with fact, and fail to openly apologize and stand corrected is egregious and does the offending, unjusting and coloring of character in and of itself. OK, you were wrong about something. I know it's hard to be on the hot seat, MEL, but you sat there and just turned up the heat. You should just openly stand corrected; it is my opinion that your failure to do so is causing you to feel the pressure your defensiveness indicates, and to do so shows the community that even our best can err, and know and show how to roll with the punches. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have an interest, as a rigger, that the reference materials are accurate and that FAA appointed Rigger Examiners know what they are doing, what they should be doing, what their privileges and duties are, and that they effect those duties with the knowlege, respect and humility said appointment demands. In my opinion, rigging is not an Ivory Tower enterprise. Lastly, I don't get your expressed interest in what riggers are logging on PDCs and in their logbooks. It's your job to teach aspiring riggers what and how, but it's not your job to worry about or inspect what practicing riggers put on their PDCs or in their logbooks. That's the FAA's job. Mailed Fist
  12. I am a rigger making observations on this thread and this is not a PA. These points are important for all riggers to consider and understand, especially since it concerns one of the basic reference materials of the trade. MEL, this was your first of many contributions to this thread and has nothing to do with purchasing a hardcopy of the PRH - the OPs question. Neither does it clarify anything. You've put yourself out there by your own choice and now as a DPRE and master rigger you should back up your comments. The appearance is that since that first post you've been put over the barrel and after having your ass spanked, you've had it handed to you on a silver platter. That doesn't look good, considering you are a master rigger and DPRE. Why muddy the waters further? We all make mistakes - even master riggers and DPREs. It's easier to just admit them up front and move on than it is to defend an indefensible position. The FARs do not support your contention that the record attached to the parachute must contain anything other than what is contained in 65.131. Further, it is violation of moral turpitude that you test and fail candidates on information that is known to you to be false. And you defend that? Shame on you. I don't understand why you didn't (and don't) just say, "I was wrong. I'll correct that. Let's move on." Then we can move on to the specific "several issues" in the PRH which you mentioned. There can then be discussion. You identified the issues as: (1) Personal Opinion of Practices Please identify and explain. But I don't see where you have ground upon which to stand. You are, based on opinion, knowingly violating your duties as DPRE on one count we know of. Please explain how this differs from opinion which may be contained in the PRH. (2) Lack of Knowledge of the CFRs Please identify and explain. But I don't see where you have ground upon which to stand. You are a master rigger and DPRE and you are not familiar with 65.131 and rigger record keeping. That's Rigging 101 and that you don't understand it does not inspire confidence or trust. (3) Range Please identify and explain what is contained within said range. These points were all brought into this discussion by you, MEL. I observe you have been defensive, evasive, condescending and strangely arrogant within this thread. That strikes me as interesting, as the point you've shown the most arrogance about is the Rigging 101 record keeping topic that you didn't even understand! So I hope you are not going to resort to obfuscation and redirection (misdirection?) and will just come out and stand behind your words. The words you made the choice to put out here. Other posters have asked you to explain and clarify. As a master rigger and DPRE I think it is your duty to support the comments you make to other riggers in a public forum. I am not defending the PRH, and I don't have a horse in this race other than having an interest, as a rigger, that the reference materials are accurate and that FAA appointed Rigger Examiners know what they are doing, what they should be doing, what their privileges and duties are, and that they effect those duties with the knowlege, respect and humility said appointment demands. Mailed Fist
  13. We can all agree the killing of 100 dogs is a sad thing. But let's keep it real. What would the outcry be if the business owner had just turned them loose to survive or die on their own in the Alaskan wilderness? I can imagine many people decrying the poor, suffering and dying dogs in the wilderness asking, "Why didn't he just shoot them?" He shot 100 dogs because he could not care for them. Someone mentioned he could have been humane. I think shooting them in the head is pretty quick and painless. Humane. Sure - he could have had them put down like the 4.000.000 cats and dogs that are put down every year in America. Just America. And those are just the numbers from shelters. How many more are feral, neglected, abused, outright killed? But what makes that more humane? That an agent of the state is doing it? Some of those 4.000,000 are shot. Some are euthanized. So let's be careful before we raise a ruckus over 100 dogs killed in Alaska. It seems to me the guy made a good choice - he couldn't give them away so he put the dogs down rather than let them suffer. So he did it himself; so what. He saved the municipality the money it would cost to house, feed and destroy those same dogs. Yes, it's sad. Yes, it's regrettable. Yes, it's a marker of our humanity that we care for animals, nurture them and invite them into our homes and families. But just because one of us makes that choice doesn't mean we all have to. This guy made a hard decision and I imagine he hurts over it. He's not in the dogsledding business because he hates dogs. So before you go crucifying this guy, put your money where your mouth is and do something about the much greater than four million dogs and cats that are put down in America every year. The hype and hysteria over this, given the implicit hypocrisy, sickens me more than the act itself.
  14. Buddy of mine is on a 2 week vacation because he called the mods assholes. Said he did it in a nice way, sort of you have to be an asshole to do a good job. Go figure.