Derekbox

P.S. I am willing to bet, that in fact, science will be able to all but disprove the other other god (you know the JC one). But who will listen anyways?

and I would like to tell you a bit more about my God: He is a mad alien, full of eye round about, He cometh with the clouds, radioactive, all-pervading, He has forged His covenant with the SubGenius in CHAINS of GENETIC PROGRAMMING and DEMANDS OBESIANCE to His caveman sense of humor. For only $30 you will be saved for LIFE. Maybe Death too. There is also a standing offer for "Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE Your Money Back!" The organization claims that if an ordained SubGenius minister dies and finds himself standing at the gates of "Normal" or "Boring" Hell, he will be personally greeted by Church founder J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Himself and receive a refund check for $90.00, along with a booklet titled, "How to Enjoy Hell for Five Cents an Eternity," which costs $89.95. I feel him in my heart right now, slackerific.

Just cram it in the bag and jump it. No really.

You are much better of demo'ing the canopy you want in *the same size* and see for yourself. Everybody wants something from there canopies, for some its an opening, for some its the glide, for some the swoop, for some the landing. No one can tell you what you want, make the decision for yourself. The reason I say same size btw, is so you can get a direct comparison of the canopies. Downsizing and demoing, besides being risky, also is misleading because of the change in overall flight characteristics due to wingloading,line length, etc. D

Im 260ish right now, your best bet is getting a custom rig. Despite what you may have been led to believe, pretty much every manufactur can build a rig that will fit you fine. But I will save you soem headache, if you buy a new rig, get a Vector. There are big buy rigs that go on the classifieds every now and then too. Believe it or not, 200+lbs is relatively common among skydivers. Enjoy

See attached.

DZs greatly benefit from having an experienced, competent and appropriately rated mechanic on hand/staff too. Regular inspections get complied with and squawks get cleared. What I find interesting, is there are outfits out there, who have maintenance personal on staff, well maintained aircraft (some even with a modern avionics packages) and they seem to operate in the green. Do others think they have to skimp to get by? Like everyone else in aviation, if you can't afford to properly maintain your aircraft - you can not afford the aircraft. Period. Trey - I love you.

I see both sides of it, I met a girl recently - great chemistry, things were going along well, and then all the sudden she gets cold feet and disappears. Come to find out she found out I was Athiest. Ironically, she, *for fun* wanted to look at our dating horoscopes. Ive dated religious and non alike. My best friend is athiest and he boyfriend (likely to be fiance) is catholic. I think open minded (religious or otherwise) will date other open minded folk (again religious or otherwise), while close minded folk tend to date other close minded folk.

Im pretty much free. ;)

and I was getting pissed because some ass from ASC kept rewriting the swooping wiki to a giant ASC ad.... nice.

lets add the handcam and itll be perfect....

Developing a maintenance schedule is more like trying to solve a Rubix cube blindfolded. The airframe maintenance manual should spell out the maintenance intervals, but on most all older aircraft it doesnt. You have to refer to the individual manuals for the components and put it all together. Much of it indeed is on condition, but the criteria for what is acceptable and what is not... ??

Cycles are used to determine certain maintenance intervals, but often so are time limits. As in inspect/replace every 1000 hours. Sometimes it is both, do this every 100hrs or 50 cycles which ever happens first. It is my understanding that much of the PT6 maintenance is done off times, not cycles, where a Garret (skyvan) is done off cycles. In part 121/135 these limits are strictly enforced, by law and have to be followed, it is also pretty closely regulated. In part 91, these limits are often merely guidelines. When a PT6 in the 135 side has timed out, it still has thousands of hours left on it in the part 91 world.

I agree, openings dont have to be sacrificed, but I guess its a matter of opinion on what is a good/acceptable opening and for me its simple - no pain no chop. ;) But a 100 jump skydiver looking at an 120 and/or eliptical is asking for more than some simple Sabre2 (off heading and end cell closure) issues. That was the point I was hoping to illustrate.

Here are my personal thoughts on canopies. I pick a canopy for its flight characteristics not its openings. I have 2 personal rules for openings: It doesnt hurt, I dont have to cut it away. Preferably its on heading... but I can fly the openings. Im going to cut to the chase here and fill you in on something you may not have heard yet. You are in small canopy territory, no matter the wing loading, you are flying high performance canopies. You are at significantly higher risk of both off heading openings and severe line twists just based on the size of the canopy. The openings are also very sensative to your body position on opening. Beyond that, if you are not swooping then why an eliptical canopy? There is no real gain but much higher risk. How many jumps do you really have on Sabre 2's? How much about the off heading openings and end cell closures are from personal experience? I have almost 1000 jumps on Sabre 2's now up to 1.8 wingloading. End cell closure occured, but it was never an issue and at worst cleared with a pump of the breaks and I never found the off headings to be an issue. I personally highly recommend the Sabre 2 and would not discard that possibility yet. I would on the other hand, considering your situation, avoid elliptical canopies. my 2 cents.

At least it wasnt "Unsuitable for actual skydiving relative workshop".

isnt the PAC750XL an adaptation of the Cresco, a 1970s aircraft. It irks me when it is billed as an aircraft purpose designed and built for skydiving. At best, it is factory adapted for skydiving but not designed for skydiving.

Vector ;)

Wyat Drewes? What happened?

Her free bag also stayed attached to the main all the way down.... until the free bag snagged on some power lines... the main was found below. From her mouth "the reserve was open before I could grab the reserve handle." BTW, not only did she have her first cutaway this weekend, but she did her 100th today, yay Beth. Got her with a Lemon Meringue pie. ;)

Also dig through the classifieds and find the items (or similar) that you are selling and compare price them.

There is/was a lawsuit I believe the Sullivan Twin Otter crash where the lawyers were sueing everyone including Dehaviland (and or P&W), stating that the PT6 is not suitable for skydiving... I would be surprised if P&W made a statement opposing the use of there engines for skydiving. Island hopping, which twin otters are often used for have very similar flight profiles and skydiving, take off, short trip, land shut down, repeat.... As far as I know as an A&P PT6s (and turbines in general) are suitable for skydiving.

I called them and asked, they told me it was a C license minimium. Apperantly it is a new rule. Try for yourself, call them and ask if there is a license minimium to jump there...

Very nicely put. Titusville is a quick 30 minute sprint from my apt but Ill still drive the hour and a half to Sebastian before Ill go there.

Trust me, if you have a hard opening, the chest strap will be much higher.... ;)