Rooster

Blue Skies Nate, I'll see you again soon buddy...

I'm not sure where all of you people get your information from, but the facts of life are this. Any rigger can open any packjob, close it, seal it with their seal and make a notation as such with their certificate number and seal symbol on the packing data card WITHOUT packing the reserve. This date is only certifying what they did, the old pack date remains the same. A rigger can replace a broken seal from another riggers packjob, as long as he is CERTAIN the rig was not opened. I mean 100%. There again he makes the appropriate notation on the packing data card and the old pack date applies. The reason most riggers will not do these things, is even though the notations state they did not pack the rig, there is a certain amount of court liability associated with it. There are only a few riggers whose packjobs I will open and close and seal with my seal for a cypres change, and I know them and their packjobs very well. Why don't you people read the FAR's before you make comments a bunch of new skydivers are going to read and get impressed by because anyone with more jumps than them is in their eyes somehow 'knowledgeable'.

Try Rodger Conley at Canton Airsports for MT-1X parts. www.canton-airsports.com has the number to the dropzone

Hey Sunshine, long time no see. I personally would have to recommend that the main be removed every time for more than one reason. The first, everyone has already hit on, the inspection issue. Second of all, your packjob should be in the shape you desire your container to become, so the cypres sticking out shouldn't be an issue at all, but should be prepared for while packing. Don't use the container to shape the packjob. Having the main out allows you to place this hopefully ironed looking packjob into the harness container without distorting it. Take care sunshine, hope to see you again soon, Erich "Rooster" Relative Workshop. P.S. It also helps eliminate any entaglement situations with the main risers for a rigger that is perhaps less 'anal' if you will.

I see more lawmakers in front of me. While I see the issues of parachutists getting killed or injured under canopy due to low turns, I don't see that it justifies creating a bsr at this time. Drop Zones must be responsible, Instructors must be responsible, and ultimately the Parachutist must be responsible. Most of the low turn deaths I have seen in parachutist magazine have been skydivers with more than enough jumps for a D license. People will constantly find new and innovative ways to kill themselves. This is a dangerous sport. Yes I said dangerous, not hazardous, or 'safer than driving in your car', if you choose to fly a high performance canopy you increase the risks of injury or death quite noticeably. Restricting people to a wingloading just creates a bsr that is inconvenient, a waste of money and time to put into place, and not very useful. It isn't a person with 45 jumps that is turning themself into the ground under a 75 xaos. For goodness sakes people use your noodles here. I'm not saying that there is no danger of an inexperienced skydiver finding themself under a canopy that is too small for them, there is of course, but those around them need to be responsible skydivers. I will say just this. Be careful of what you wish for it may just come back and bite you in your *&&. More useless rules pave way to more still...