labrys 0 #101 November 27, 2010 Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #102 November 27, 2010 Quote No matter how many times you answer, he's going to keep asking until you finally pass out from lack of sleep. No matter how many comments you post, you will ignore the content of the subject and focus your attention to a poster that you dislike. 'The rest of us' are sick of your inability to talk about the subject!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #103 November 27, 2010 QuoteSurely there is some code in the FAA rules that cover the requirements of a dropzone? http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/ Part 105 covers parachute operations. There isn't much there, including nothing about dropzones being required to follow USPA rules and nothing about student age limits and nothing about dropzones being required to use waivers. That's all for me in this thread. No need to ask follow-ups unless you're hoping someone else will answer.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #104 November 27, 2010 Quotehttp://www.faa.gov/...ies/faa_regulations/ Part 105 covers parachute operations. There isn't much there, including nothing about dropzones being required to follow USPA rules and nothing about student age limits and nothing about dropzones being required to use waivers. That's all for me in this thread. No need to ask follow-ups unless you're hoping someone else will answer. Hi thanks for the replies, We have part 105 too, part 149 (requires the holder to go) goes into more detail. and part 115 will make the rules more stringent for commercial activities. I always thought the USPA was a part 149 (type) organisation but it seems it is not. I can see where the ambiguity comes from now."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #105 November 27, 2010 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=34314a8855c82c9453aaefb59768694e&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.17&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.17.2.9.3 Well that FAR will need to be rewritten to take the Manufacturer's off the hook then. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #106 November 28, 2010 Which is another shining highlight of why the letter from the manufacturers was sent to the FAA. Strong was almost sued out of existence due to TI negligence. They're all interested in removing some of that risk I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #107 November 28, 2010 QuoteHey Guy, By the rest of us do you mean everyone that reads these forums? Or just the few that have replied? For the record, those of us who haven't replied? We've had enough of your nonsense too. This thread got boring a long time ago. Catch up. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #108 November 28, 2010 Quote The rest of us' are sick of your inability to talk about the subject! Who is this "rest of us" of which your rant? You are probably a minority of one. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
