• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Posts posted by sacex250

  1. Quote


    I think this is the case at many DZs. I think there should be a clear written policy posted where everyone that rents gear can see it. I fail to see why a business owner would leave something so potentially expensive in a gray area. In my opinion though a lot of DZOs seem to have the "everything is cool and no big deal" attitude till the shit hits the fan.

    My gear is insured, I don't know why a DZO wouldn't do the same.

    That's what the "rental fee" should be for. By my calculations, I've spent $1125 in rental fees since I started skydiving in July. I haven't had to cut away so far, and I hope to make many more jumps before I do. Now you watch, on my next jump my canopy will explode or something and I'll need one...

    Most of the time when they do have cutaways they recover the canopy. But you know, sometimes shit happens and they cant find it.

    If they're getting bent out of shape due to a lost canopy, they're probably not charging enough in rental fees. They're running a business, they should be charging enough to cover expenses and grow their business. Having people get injured or killed because they were afraid to chop when they should have is not good for business.

    Exactly. The DZO is responsible for normal, anticipated use of the rig; it's legally considered the "cost of doing business" even if it's in the waiver that the renter is responsible for loss or damage. The DZO would lose the case in small claims court, so make him go through the trouble of suing if he's being that big of a knob about it.

    On the other hand, when a jumper who just cutaway lands and starts looking for high-fives while he's jumping up and down with glee because he just had a cutaway then he isn't going to get a lot of sympathy from the DZO while the canopy flies away. It's probably a good idea to show some immediate concern for recovering the canopy and minimizing the DZO's liability.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  2. Quote


    My post was about uncontrolled airspace, what part of what I said did you not understand?

    Akers said notification was necessary in uncontrolled airspace, I said it wasn't. Why are you arguing about controlled airspace?

    Good grief. I'm not arguing about anything. I was simply trying to point out that it's only "not necessary" because in most (all?) cases, it's not possible to fly a load of jumpers and remain within Class G (uncontrolled) airspace the entire time. ;)

    Static line 'em!!!!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  3. Quote

    What did I miss? Unless something has changed, the pilot still has an ATC notification requirement in uncontrolled airspace before dropping jumpers.

    You missed the part in Part 105 that says notification only needs to be made if jumping in or into controlled airspace. Jumps made in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace don't require ATC notification.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  4. Quote

    3 things:

    - the players seemed to all notice
    - the bets increased and so did the frequency of winnings
    - players know the order of a deck of cards, and so should any good dealer...

    Given these 3 facts, it's not especially reassuring that the dealer didn't notice, or didn't notice sooner...

    Does the dealer actually get to see all the cards?

    Interesting side note here: when did the mafia start settling scores by suing people who rip them off?
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  5. Quote

    too many to list, but...

    I hope I am never furthest away from the door when we are low, and the pilot gives the instruction to bail.

    imagine you got two perfectly good parachutes on your back and the plane is passing through 2K, descending rapidly, and you still got 10+ bodies in front of you, with everyone hesitating in the door.

    Having to bail out of said airplane but logjammed in the door because some guy ten spots back won't stop trying to shove his way through while yelling GTFO OF MY WAY, YOU MAGGOTS!
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  6. Quote


    So you're simply ignoring religious history.

    Well, you have a point there- lots of atrocious behavior in the name of religion- but I'm wondering if people would have behaved badly anyway? Cooking up some other excuse to mistreat each other?

    Yes, but in that case, we'd simply call it a crime.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  7. Quote

    Anybody on the forums have experience with large scale (military or commercial) parachute drying towers that can give me some pointers in private messages?

    Bring lots of quarters and don't forget the Bounce.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  8. Quote


    The problem was that there was a pilot who wasn't trained on what to do if the computers aren't working.

    I don't believe that. Just because pilots don't do something correctly doesn't mean they never got the training, albeit likely not enough of the training taken seriously.


    Such a situation is king of like the Gimli Glider - a new glass cockpit 767 that did the work for you. The system measured fuel usage and was so reliable that nobody even bothered to flight test the performance of the plane if it ran dry of fuel. Solid piloting helped make a serious screw-up a non-casualty event.

    For that event it was only the flight management computer that was measuring fuel usage from a starting fuel load that was input manually (in the wrong units of course). The fuel quantity indication system was inoperative because it was in fact not reliable (accurate) enough at the time of the introduction of the 767 to service. That's right, fuel quantity gauges were not part of the minimum equipment list.

    The fuel quantity system was part of the minimum equipment list, but was inadvertently left inoperative by a maintenance worker who was working on the system. The flight crew decided to continue the flight because they thought that maintenance had authorized the flight.

    The real problem however was that an incorrect mathematical conversion between metric and imperial units meant that the plane was carrying 22,300 lbs. of fuel (10,115 kg) instead of the 22,300 kg of fuel it needed, less than half.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

  9. Quote


    If you start giving pilots a way to shut off safety systems then, you know what, they will! Remember the Northwest DC-9 crash in Detroit where the pilots shut off the flap/throttle configuration alarms and then proceeded to takeoff without the flaps set? At least one little girl survived the crash.

    Which is why it would need to be more than just pushing a button. If you have to puch a button, then gournd the AC and call MX to come in and re-set the 'easy' button, then go through a review with upper management where you explain to them why you pushed the button, pilots are going to be far less likely to push the botton unless they really need it.

    That's why I likened it to declaring an emergency. It's a big pain in the ass for a ton of people when a pilot declares an emergency (we're talking airlines here). Every single time an emergency was declared, it wasn't declared at the first hint of a problem, it was after the pilots checked the book, called HQ for a work-around or solution, and then figured out they need to declare an emergency.

    The 'easy' button would be the same. Always there, always available, but a last resort.

    Your "Easy Button" wouldn't have done anything to prevent the crash of the A320, can you name an actual crash where it would have helped?

    Declaring an emergency isn't nearly the big deal that you think it is. Your characterization of it is a bit overly dramatic, really, "call HQ first"? It's the emergency itself that gets investigated, whether or not an emergency is ever declared.
    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.