Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris

 


bbarnhouse  (D License)
Pixie
Oct 15, 2004, 7:59 AM
Post #1 of 239 (6490 views)
Shortcut
Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris Can't Post

FYI
The Perris Performance Plus email contained the following rule out of Perris Valley.
Quote:
During the last month we have had more than a couple of Cypress saves. All of these were due to lack of altitude awareness caused by blatant complacency and disregard for basic safety rules. This is completely unacceptable.
In response to this we have established a new rule. Anyone who has a cypress deployment due to lack of altitude awareness will be grounded at Perris for 30 days. Please deploy your own parachute by 2,000 feet. (That shouldn't be too much to ask.)

B2Smile and kudos to Dan BCCool


(This post was edited by bbarnhouse on Oct 15, 2004, 8:22 AM)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:11 AM
Post #2 of 239 (6419 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Good for them! They should also add another line that if after reviewing the incident they have the right to ground the jumper for longer. Not that they need permission to impose a sanction but it may lead to fewer arguements down the road.

I watched a friend have a two out because he dumped low. We gave him so much shit! If he had not had the attitude that he made a huge mistake we would have worked to have his ass grounded for awhile. As it was, he grounded himself for a short time. Not 30 days but he did take it seriously.

Good for Perris!


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:12 AM
Post #3 of 239 (6417 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks, Betsy!

A dotcommer from Europe PM'd me a while back about her CYPRES fire. During the online conversation she alluded to serious consequences from a CYPRES fire of this type (loss of altitude awareness or disregard of established pull altitudes). She mentioned losing her job and ratings. Unfortunately I no longer have the PM and I can't find the thread.

It sounds like there are other policies like this in place elsewhere in the world. I'd like to hear from some others on just how widespread this is.


KCJumper  (C 34189)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:16 AM
Post #4 of 239 (6404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [slotperfect] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

At my home DZ we have a Cypress requirment. Becuase of that the rule we have is that a cypress save due to lack of attention or altitude awareness and you are done. Buy you a bowling ball and call it a day.

Not that i've seen this rule used but it's the statement i have heard made.

Patrick


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:20 AM
Post #5 of 239 (6392 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent. My friend is a master scuba instructor. She said, if someone runs out of air, they have to put their gear in the closet for 30 days and come up with a good explanation for why they failed to monitor their air.

This is a similar situation. Lack of awareness.

Personally, I grounded myself once. I had become complacent and I decided that I was not giving the sport the respect that it deserves. I gave it a lot of thought as to how I arrived at that point.

This is an excellent idea.


sunshine  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:23 AM
Post #6 of 239 (6387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [KCJumper] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's a shame. Sometimes shit happens. Thank god for the cypres. Making someone wait 30 days to jump again or handing them a bowling ball sucks. Oh well, just my opinion but i think a cypres fire once would ensure someone to not lose awareness again. Now if they have a second cypres fire, then something needs to be done.


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:36 AM
Post #7 of 239 (6354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [KCJumper] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that Skydive Kansas City?


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:49 AM
Post #8 of 239 (6332 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all? I would think that establishing a general rule for everyone without regard for individual circumstances would discourage the use of a cypres at a facility where an AAD is not a requirement.

Personally, I can't afford an AAD right now and, even though I know better, it would probably cross my mind when I am able to purchase one that an accidental low pull might have less undesirable consequences than an accidental cypres fire.


winsor  (D 13715)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:50 AM
Post #9 of 239 (6331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think it's a shame. Sometimes shit happens. Thank god for the cypres. Making someone wait 30 days to jump again or handing them a bowling ball sucks. Oh well, just my opinion but i think a cypres fire once would ensure someone to not lose awareness again. Now if they have a second cypres fire, then something needs to be done.

The shit that I've seen happen in this sport often requires the services of a coroner. A CYPRES fire changes the outcome from a closed-casket funeral to a repack and a NSTIWTIWGTD story.

If you have a CYPRES fire, you are on free time for the rest of your life. You played Russian Roulette, got the chamber with the cartridge - and it was a dud.

If you had a CYPRES fire because of inattention, you should likely take up another hobby. Letting you back on the airplane at all, even after 30 days, is an act of consummate generosity. Sending you somewhere that you can have fun without so great a likelihood of killing yourself is doing you a massive favor.

Everyone is not cut out for this sport. It is not, and should not be considered, mainstream. The CYPRES has somewhat reduced the Darwinian nature of the sport (though I think the "Watch This!" landings have picked up much of the slack), but having a mechanical gizmo change your life expectancy from 6 seconds to decades is hardly a non-event.

I would suggest an instant 30 day grounding and an attitude review by a board before reinstatement - if you can detail the series of grave errors that led up to the incident and have a game plan to ensure that it never happens again you are subject to reinstatement; if you say "I did nothing wrong," the grounding becomes permanent.


Blue skies,

Winsor


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:01 AM
Post #10 of 239 (6313 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Everyone is not cut out for this sport.

I don't think it's fair to make this statement. In the short time that I have been a skydiver, the only people I've talked to that have lost altitude awareness are AFF students and advanced jumpers who were too intense with their jumps...like someone I know who was doing an intense carving dive head down and both people lost alti awareness. I don't think there is an excuse good enough for losing your life due to losing altitude awareness, but losing awareness happens. It's a mistake, but mistakes happen. Of course, I understand the possible consequences of these mistakes and I recognize the gravity of these situations, but it seems like a harsh rule. Grounded for a day, for a week, and requiring a refresher in altitude awareness and sky safety, and/or requiring a jump with an instructor before allowing the offender to return to jumping make more sense to me than a 30 day layoff in which the person will simply jump at the next closest dropzone.

If someone did a purposeful action that resulted in cypres fire, I could understand a 30 day suspension to admonish them for their reckless behavior. But, an accidental occurrence doesn't necessarily warrant the same punishment, does it?

Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..?


(This post was edited by Dagny on Oct 15, 2004, 9:04 AM)


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:01 AM
Post #11 of 239 (6311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Winsor, I whole heartedly agree with you. This IS a big deal to pull low like that. It's not like Cypres is set to go off at 3K! If you have a Cypres save or two out your are in the basement pure and simple. There is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness and a highly critical review of the incident is mandated by a Cypres fire.


bbarnhouse  (D License)
Pixie
Oct 15, 2004, 9:05 AM
Post #12 of 239 (6298 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Winsor, I whole heartedly agree with you. This IS a big deal to pull low like that. It's not like Cypres is set to go off at 3K! If you have a Cypres save or two out your are in the basement pure and simple. There is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness and a highly critical review of the incident is mandated by a Cypres fire.

I'll second that! I think that winsor has it nailed. Perhaps remedial training would be a good suggestion.
As to losing altitude awareness, we do have audibles and many of us fly with two of them. When the audible goes off...the skydive is over. Simple as that.
I think other drop zones will soon be taking the same stance as Perris Valley.


(This post was edited by bbarnhouse on Oct 15, 2004, 9:07 AM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Oct 15, 2004, 9:08 AM
Post #13 of 239 (6297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Make a low turn and odds are you are taking time off due to laying there with broken bones. Get close a few times and get deep in the corner and get awy unhurt and you are almost gaurenteed to to talked to by at least someone. And yes, I've seen people get kicked for making stupid decision on landings. One at my DZ was grounded for a month due to not following the pattern and doing right hand landings in a left hand pattern.


sunshine  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:20 AM
Post #14 of 239 (6274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you had a CYPRES fire because of inattention, you should likely take up another hobby.

I can think of a few peeps that have had cypres fires that i would still jump with. I consider them safe skydivers that just had one bad incident of losing altitude. We have Pablito, Lewmonst, DaGimp, Jimmie (he doesn't post). I would jump with them any day and don't think they need to take up another hobby.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:22 AM
Post #15 of 239 (6267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As to losing altitude awareness, we do have audibles and many of us fly with two of them. When the audible goes off...the skydive is over.

The two people I mentioned who lost alti awareness during a carving dive both had audibles. I just wonder if there isnt a better way to handle the accidental cypres fire than a layoff. It does nothing to educate or remediate or remedy the situation, in my opinion.


councilman24  (D 8631)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:36 AM
Post #16 of 239 (6239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

A 30 day grounding for NOT dying because your stupid is a small price to pay. These people WOULD be dead from their "mistake". There are some legitamate excuses. If your trying to save your life and can't because of the gear or injury and the cypres saves you great! If your unconscious. Bonus Days. But if your too stupid to open your own parachute above the dirt? Maybe the better option would be to make them jump WITHOUT a cypres for a year. Not that this is reasonable but it might wake them up that they're responsible for their own life. And not just by spending $1200 extra.

A better remedy to the situation? Yep, ground them for life.

Okay Rant off.

Sorry


(This post was edited by councilman24 on Oct 15, 2004, 9:39 AM)


wmw999  (D 6296)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:37 AM
Post #17 of 239 (6237 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The two people I mentioned who lost alti awareness during a carving dive both had audibles. I just wonder if there isnt a better way to handle the accidental cypres fire than a layoff. It does nothing to educate or remediate or remedy the situation, in my opinion.

A layoff is not permanent. There are plenty of reasons why people take 30 days off anyway.

We're talking about your life here. If you don't have enough backup altitude sensors to have you pull for yourself, then at the very least you need more backup altitude sensors.

The primary altitude sensor should be your brain; there's that little "how long has it been" feeling that comes with experience (but it's not that reliable); there are your eyes (but you have to look at the ground).

There are visual and audible altimeters.

I would trust jumping with any of the people I know who have had a Cypres fire. They're not endangering me; they're very focused. However, if you reach the point where you can't maintain focus on pulling, you should think about why something besides living is that important.

Skydiving is a sport where if you don't do something you die. The Cypres has changed that somewhat, but complacency is dangerous.

Wendy W.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:43 AM
Post #18 of 239 (6227 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The two people I mentioned who lost alti awareness during a carving dive both had audibles. I just wonder if there isnt a better way to handle the accidental cypres fire than a layoff. It does nothing to educate or remediate or remedy the situation, in my opinion.


It does send a message to other jumpers that loss of altitude awareness will not be tolerated. The ground doesn't tolerate it. Why should we? Pull at the right time, every time, or get out. Being down at a 1,000 feet during opening on the main is unacceptable. If something goes wrong with the main deployment you have zero time to access the situation and take appropriate action other than chopping right away and pulling reserve and most people don't think that fast.

I'm glad to see a DZ take a stand and draw a line. It's your freedom to pull low but it is their business you are jacking with if you go in due to loss of altitude awareness. 30 days is nothing compared to the rest of your life. Nothing is so important on a skydive that you should stop thinking about how high you are above the ground. If you stop thinking about how high you are above the ground then you need to re-evaluate your participation in a sport that has zero care how careful you were on the last skydive. THIS skydive is the only one that matters.

It's been said before: The sky's not the limit. The ground is.


winsor  (D 13715)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:52 AM
Post #19 of 239 (6214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..?
If you make a low turn and pull it off, good on you. The mandatory suspension from not pulling it off is typically enforced by the policies of the ICU, not the S&TA.

Sometimes the next skydive made after a botched low turn is an ash dive. Check out the fatalities page if you think I'm being overdramatic.

30 days on the ground is a minor inconvenience compared to the results if you didn't have the CYPRES handy.

I am not impressed by people who are so cavalier about the effects of loss of altitude awareness. At least half the time I jump without an AAD. IMHO, if you wouldn't leave the plane without an AAD, you might give some thought as to how much responsibility you really accept for the outcome of the skydive.


Blue skies,

Winsor


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:14 AM
Post #20 of 239 (6187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sometimes shit happens.

Shit does not just happen. There is a reason for things happening. You go below 1000' and you cypress fires you had a major gear problem or you fucked up. In either case, without the cypress you are dead. People need to understand that.

Sparky


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 10:44 AM
Post #21 of 239 (6157 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
During the last month we have had more than a couple of Cypress saves. All of these were due to lack of altitude awareness caused by blatant complacency and disregard for basic safety rules. This is completely unacceptable.
In response to this we have established a new rule. Anyone who has a cypress deployment due to lack of altitude awareness will be grounded at Perris for 30 days. Please deploy your own parachute by 2,000 feet. (That shouldn't be too much to ask.)

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!

I agree 100%

After a second time, you would not be allowed back.


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 10:49 AM
Post #22 of 239 (6153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think it's a shame. Sometimes shit happens

Shit happening can kill you.

The only thing this sport is really about is surviving...Points turned, big formations, head down carves...ALL are second to landing safe.

If you can't do the #1 thing do to another lesser thing....You need to rethink the situation.

In reply to:
Making someone wait 30 days to jump again or handing them a bowling ball sucks.

Funerals suck more.


In reply to:
Oh well, just my opinion but i think a cypres fire once would ensure someone to not lose awareness again.

so ONE is OK?

It is this attitude that has increased the number of CYPRES fires over the number of low pull deaths.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:51 AM
Post #23 of 239 (6152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all?

Yup, exactly what I was thinking. Or just take the rig to another DZ/Rigger to hide what happened and thus not having the reality of the situation discussed with them (re:no lesson learned). Plus, I doubt that Elsinore is enforcing this rule so it wouldn't take much to drive down the street and jump there.

And what about those idiots that don't have an AAD and DO pull low all the time? Just because they don't have a cutter in their rig makes it ok for them to repeat it? Also, do you really think that lack of a Cypres will cause the idiots in this sport to maintain Alti awarness? I'm sure by now we have all seen the Cypres ad with the guy landing in a backyard. The lack of an AAD didn't stop that guy from going low.

This rule has some great intentions, and I support the forward thinking they have on this subject. I agree a lot with what people have said in favor of this rule. This sport is not for everyone, funerals, suck, alti awarness isn't an option, etc. However, I think this rule can end up causing damage in the long run....or worse, a dead body.


(This post was edited by ChasingBlueSky on Oct 15, 2004, 1:36 PM)


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 10:59 AM
Post #24 of 239 (6143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all?

No. Fear of being grounded for 30 days is a stupid reason not to have a CYPRES.

What it WILL do is make people pay attention.

Winsor wrote:
Quote:
Everyone is not cut out for this sport.

You said:
In reply to:
I don't think it's fair to make this statement

I think its a perfectly fair statement. People are continuing to jump due to the CYPRES being around that would have quit long ago....I am not sure that thats a good thing.

I have seen MANY people who should not be skydiving.

In reply to:
In the short time that I have been a skydiver, the only people I've talked to that have lost altitude awareness are AFF students and advanced jumpers who were too intense with their jumps...like someone I know who was doing an intense carving dive head down and both people lost alti awareness.

The number ONE thing in this sport is to survive...EVERYTHING else is SECOND. EVERYTHING.

If you are to busy turning points or going for the "cool carve" to stay focused on the number ONE thing....Your priorities are fucked up. 30 days thinking about it is a SMALL price.

In reply to:
30 day layoff in which the person will simply jump at the next closest dropzone.

I would call the other DZ...And if another DZ told me that they grounded a jumper...I'd ground them also....In any case if I ground them at my DZ at least they will not bounce there.

In reply to:
If someone did a purposeful action that resulted in cypres fire, I could understand a 30 day suspension

I'd rather have a guy doing low pulls ON PURPOSE than a guy doing one on accident.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Oct 15, 2004, 11:05 AM
Post #25 of 239 (6132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I hate it when I agree with you Laugh

j/k

Blues,
Ian


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 11:09 AM
Post #26 of 239 (1962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
just take the rig to another DZ/Rigger to hide what happened and thus not having the reality of the situation discussed with them

How many times have you seen a person land after a mal and not get asked about it? You might be able to get the rig to your car before anyone looked to see if the CYPRES fired....But I doubt it.

Also Perris could make a simple rule that if you have a mal it has to be inspected at the DZ. You could take it anywhere to get packed, but the DZ could look at it. I doubt many of us have spare cutters in the car.

In reply to:
Plus, I doubt that Elsinore is enforcing this rule so it wouldn't take much to drive down the street and jump there.

I can see more DZ's following suit. And last I checked, if a DZO or S&TA calls another DZ saying they have grounded someone....Many DZ's will ground the jumper as well.

In reply to:
However, I think it can end up causing damage in the long run as well....or worse, a dead body.

I don't...I think it will put more focus on safety. And living to jump again is the #1 goal on every skydive


gerrcoin  (B License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:10 AM
Post #27 of 239 (1961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

When I started jumping I was told the 3 highest priorities for any skydive:
1. Pull
2. Pull with altitude
3. Pull with altitude and stability

in that order.
To which I will append
2.5 Pull with altitude and in clear airspace

AAD fires due to loss of altitude awareness are a very serious thing. How someone can laugh off an incident where, but for the grace of Airtek, they would be dead is beyond me. I was told from day one that should I have an Cypres fire for going low, that I would be banned for life at that DZ (read every european DZ).

I think that 30 days of personal reflection would be a minimum and in fact I'm slightly surprised that this was not already the case.


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 11:10 AM
Post #28 of 239 (1961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I hate it when I agree with you

Not MY fault you are comming around to logical thinkingWink


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:11 AM
Post #29 of 239 (1958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Anyone who has a cypress deployment due to lack of altitude awareness will be grounded at Perris for 30 days.
\

So, someone makes a mistake and you force them uncurrent (no, not by uspa rules, but I personally feel uncurrent after 30 days). I can understand if someone has done this a couple times, but I have seen two jumpers get too low and have their cypres's fire and, though one seemed pretty 'wgaf' about it, the other one seemed to realize what a close call that was, and it appeared they were going to be thinking a lot about that. I think something like this should be handled on a case by case basis... and even after this memo, I am guessing that it will be.

-A


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:15 AM
Post #30 of 239 (1955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A CYPRES fire changes the outcome from a closed-casket funeral to a repack and a NSTIWTIWGTD story.

This is not always the case. Both times I saw people have cypres fires the cypres had beat them by a split second. The first jumper landed with two out, I think the second jumper had a mal and cutaway and deployed reserve but the cypres beat her by a split second. My guess is that, though close, neither would have died w/o cypres.

Angela.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Oct 15, 2004, 11:19 AM
Post #31 of 239 (1949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

You need to come up north if you think 30 days is uncurrent Tongue Parts of Canada are already shut down and with highs in the low 50's we are down to probally a month at most to jump still till April.

I think this is policy is exactly what is needed. If you have lots of people pulling low start doing something about it. If you have lots of people having premature deployments due to shoddy gear maintence, make them pass rigger inspection to jump again.


Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:21 AM
Post #32 of 239 (1946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You said: I don't think it's fair to make this statement

In reply to:
I think its a perfectly fair statement. People are continuing to jump due to the CYPRES being around that would have quit long ago....I am not sure that thats a good thing.

I have seen MANY people who should not be skydiving.

I, too, think it's a perfectly fair statement. I also know more than a couple of skydivers who have no business still being in the air. Stick around long enough and you will see them. Hell, go to one WFFC and you will see more than you can believe.

I have several very good friends who have taken CYPRES rides this year for basically the same reason: lack of altitude awareness brought on by total fixation on someone else; they were both doing videos. While I am very happy that both made it out OK, I seriously hope that this was all the wakeup call they will ever need in their skydiving careers. NO video footage is worth you cratering. NEVER trust anyone else to be your only judge of altitude. ALWAYS use every tool available to you to ensure deployment at a reasonable altitude.

I applaud Perris on their decision.

Chuck Blue
D-12501


MarkM  (C 35089)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:22 AM
Post #33 of 239 (1944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No. Fear of being grounded for 30 days is a stupid reason not to have a CYPRES.

What it WILL do is make people pay attention.

Pay attention to their altitude? I hardly think a fear of getting grounded for 30 days is going to make anyone more aware of altitude than the fear of death does.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 15, 2004, 11:23 AM
Post #34 of 239 (1941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>If you have a CYPRES fire, you are on free time for the rest of your life.

I'd have to disagree with that. There are people who pull low because they are trying to avoid someone above them and have a cypres fire. An incident which would have ordinarily resulted in nothing more than an argument over better tracking now becomes a 'cypres save.'

Personally, I _should_ have had two cypres firings in my time. One was due to me fighting with an AFF JCC candidate; he held onto my right hand until 1200 feet, just as I was reaching for my reserve. Once he released me my right hand opened my main - I couldn't stop it. (Fortunately my cypres did not fire.) The second was a foolish low breakoff on a 4-way; I was open at around 1200 feet and was the highest opener on the dive. In both cases I made a mistake, in neither case did I consider myself to be 'on borrowed time' - and having a cypres fire would not have affected that. Indeed, I am glad my cypres did _not_ fire on the first dive, and I am glad I did not have one on the second dive.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 15, 2004, 11:25 AM
Post #35 of 239 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MarkM] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>I hardly think a fear of getting grounded for 30 days is going to
>make anyone more aware of altitude than the fear of death does.

Some skydivers with cypreses have replaced their fear of death with a fear of paying for a new cutter and a repack. Ever heard the phrase "that's why I have a cypres?" Some jumpers use their cypres to give them sufficient confidence to no longer fear a terminal impact.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:34 AM
Post #36 of 239 (1922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many times have you seen a person land after a mal and not get asked about it?

At a large DZ with multiple planes in the air? Often, esp if there isn't a spotter out there. There are always ways around being caught in this sport (esp if you are your own rigger). And if there wasn't, you will just have people with the rather illogical thought "Hell, I'm not going to get grounded" and turn off their AAD. These are often the types that are bullet proof and get sucked into a dive and distracted. I know you know the type, we've all seen them.

In reply to:
Also Perris could make a simple rule that if you have a mal it has to be inspected at the DZ.
That would be interesting to watch that rule get enforced. I would have no problem with it, but I'm sure many would.

In reply to:
I doubt many of us have spare cutters in the car.
The scary thing is - I know two people that do, just in case they have another fire.

In reply to:
I can see more DZ's following suit. And last I checked, if a DZO or S&TA calls another DZ saying they have grounded someone....Many DZ's will ground the jumper as well.
I've seen that, and I also know of DZs that the DZO/S&TA will take anyone. There are some jumpers that post on this board that were banned at a couple DZs and finally found one to jump at, despite the calls. I don't know any of the staff at elisnore, but I don't see why they wouldn't listen to BC.

In reply to:
I don't...I think it will put more focus on safety.
For the smart ones, and the newbies. But most of those are the ones that you probably wouldn't have to worry about anyway.

In reply to:
And living to jump again is the #1 goal on every skydive
No disagreement on that.

Like I said in my first post - I approve of the forward thinking at Perris. However, I still think it may cause some damage in the end.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:41 AM
Post #37 of 239 (1912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I just re read the rule. It seems like it is open ended.

Quote:
Anyone who has a cypress deployment due to lack of altitude awareness will be grounded at Perris for 30 days

This part seems like the staff would get to pick an choose who gets grounded. Thus allowing anyone that had a fire to argue their point. Am I reading that right?


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 11:43 AM
Post #38 of 239 (1907 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MarkM] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Pay attention to their altitude? I hardly think a fear of getting grounded for 30 days is going to make anyone more aware of altitude than the fear of death does.

You think you are gonna die in this sport?

No one does, but they still die.

A low pull used to be fairly common. Hell, it used to be a sport. Yes, people died palying it...And it's stupid since the best you can do is tie the recordWink

But watch a few folks get grounded for doing something stupid...and you will work on not doing the same stupid stunt.

Get grounded yourself and I can bet most will work like hell to never do it again.


jlmiracle  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:47 AM
Post #39 of 239 (1901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It's a mistake, but mistakes happen. Of course, I understand the possible consequences of these mistakes and I recognize the gravity of these situations, but it seems like a harsh rule.

After you clean up a body or 2 - it doesn't seem that harsh, in fact, I don't think its harsh enough. There is NO EXCUSE. If you are an AFF student and lose altitude awareness - YOU FAIL. If you do it as a fun jumper and don't have an AAD - YOU DIE.

Quote:
Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..?

I know of several DZ's that don't allow hook turns and will ground you or pull your silver handle, when you break the rules. Usually those jumpers just go somewhere else to try to kill themselves.

Good for Perris for doing this! I hope more DZ's follow suit.

Judy


sunshine  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:50 AM
Post #40 of 239 (1896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I just re read the rule. It seems like it is open ended.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who has a cypress deployment due to lack of altitude awareness will be grounded at Perris for 30 days
-----------------------------------------------------------
This part seems like the staff would get to pick an choose who gets grounded. Thus allowing anyone that had a fire to argue their point. Am I reading that right?

Sounds that way to me too. Of course even if you have a cypres fire, go ahead and pull your main. Then you can just say you had a streamer that magically inflated after the cypres fired. (yes it's sarcasm, i don't really suggest doing that) Lots of ways to get around the silly new rule. But then again i don't jump at perris and soon won't jump with a cypres, so it doesn't really apply to me.


MarkM  (C 35089)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:51 AM
Post #41 of 239 (1863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I hardly think a fear of getting grounded for 30 days is going to
>make anyone more aware of altitude than the fear of death does.

Some skydivers with cypreses have replaced their fear of death with a fear of paying for a new cutter and a repack. Ever heard the phrase "that's why I have a cypres?" Some jumpers use their cypres to give them sufficient confidence to no longer fear a terminal impact.

Then make them jump for 30 days without their cypres and see if their altitude attitude changes any.


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 11:54 AM
Post #42 of 239 (1857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
At a large DZ with multiple planes in the air? Often, esp if there isn't a spotter out there

Maybe, but most likley not. I LIVE on the DZ in Zhills...We question most people about the reserve rides they have. I have been to Chicago...My vidiot had a reserve ride and there was a truck to pick him up almost right after he landed. Perris has a truck and I have seen them waiting for a jumper to land under a reserve....It COULD happen if someone wanted to be sneaky...But most times I bet it will not happen....Hell most people get caught just to see if you can get beer out of them. I find them to have them tell me about it...Like I said It COULD happen...but I doubt it.

In reply to:
There are always ways around being caught in this sport (esp if you are your own rigger).

Yep, but like I said very few reserve rides at Zhills or any good DZ I have been at do they get ignored.

In reply to:
And if there wasn't, you will just have people with the rather illogical thought "Hell, I'm not going to get grounded" and turn off their AAD.

Well thats one way to deal with it...stupid as hell, but a way to deal with it.

In reply to:
That would be interesting to watch that rule get enforced. I would have no problem with it, but I'm sure many would.

A DZ has the right to enforce any rule it seems fit to have. Chicago has a left turn to final in the main landing area right? Do they inforce it? Low pulls are not allowed right? Does the DZ enforce it?

Any rule will have people who don't like them...But the DZ makes the rules and you play along or you can't jump there.

In reply to:
The scary thing is - I know two people that do, just in case they have another fire.

Yeah, thats scary as hell...But since you know of them, I bet the S&TA knows about them as well. Also if you know about them it should be easy to see if they had *Another* one right?

In reply to:
I've seen that, and I also know of DZs that the DZO/S&TA will take anyone. There are some jumpers that post on this board that were banned at a couple DZs and finally found one to jump at, despite the calls. I don't know any of the staff at elisnore, but I don't see why they wouldn't listen to BC.

Yes, money talks and I have known DZO's to ignore not only other DZ's groundings but the S&TA at THAT DZ's groundings....But like you said, I would bet most would listen to a guy like BC.

In reply to:
I approve of the forward thinking at Perris. However, I still think it may cause some damage in the end.

Do you honestly think it could be a BAD thing?


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 11:56 AM
Post #43 of 239 (1855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MarkM] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Then make them jump for 30 days without their cypres and see if their altitude attitude changes any.

Many jumpers will NOT jump without a CYPRES....I am not goingt o start that debate again, but you know how I feel about that.


robertmicp  (A License)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:58 AM
Post #44 of 239 (1850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

[reply
Some skydivers with cypreses have replaced their fear of death with a fear of paying for a new cutter and a repack. Ever heard the phrase "that's why I have a cypres?" Some jumpers use their cypres to give them sufficient confidence to no longer fear a terminal impact.
And we all have to remember, an AAD is STILL a peice of equipment that CAN fail. As requards this thread, a 30 day sit down for any unsafe act should be mandated. Then again, the USPA is still self governed body and I would hope that would not change. Im my limited sport skydiving experance, I know my plan, I dive my plan and train for the unknown. I dont know how many of you go over emergency procedures before jumping, I do, every time. Everyone I jump with says my hard deck is too high (3500'), I say to them, "Im just giving you more clear air" Its my comfort range and besides, I like the ride :)

my .02


(This post was edited by robertmicp on Oct 15, 2004, 12:00 PM)


winsor  (D 13715)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:02 PM
Post #45 of 239 (1840 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>If you have a CYPRES fire, you are on free time for the rest of your life.

I'd have to disagree with that. There are people who pull low because they are trying to avoid someone above them and have a cypres fire. An incident which would have ordinarily resulted in nothing more than an argument over better tracking now becomes a 'cypres save.
In reply to:

The thread is primarily about CYPRES fires due to loss of altitude awareness, and I limited my comments to those who had their skydive interrupted by a self-actuated reserve without so specifying. My bad.

Sure, someone fighting a mal so their CYPRES just beat their reserve pull or someone with a snivel that took them into CYPRES terrirory fall into another category. I just have images of the footage at the beginning of Tom Sanders' WFFC tape in mind.

People who think "keep pulling handles 'til your goggles fill with blood" is just a clever saying are the ones who concern me. The documented cases where people chopped and went back into freefall, wishing to be stable when the CYPRES activated, really worry me.

I think the CYPRES is terrific. I have 4 of them. I do not, however, consider the system a panacea, and do not expect the system to save my ass if I am not heads-up enough to do so myself (I do hope it does, but...).

The same survival policy that applies to cheesy horror movies is good for skydiving: stay the hell out of the basement!


Blue skies,

Winsor


MWGemini  (B License)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:04 PM
Post #46 of 239 (1838 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jlmiracle] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm still a student, with 26 jumps, and I, for one, think that a 30 day grounding is more than fair. If I ever become so fixated on the dive that my cypres fires, that means I was 3 seconds from being a stain on the tarmac. If I'm not freaked out enough to ground myself, I would HOPE my fellow jumpers/instructors/DZ would ground me and make SURE I take steps never to od it again. I've pulled lower than I was supposed to twice (3k instead of 3500) because I was tracking and couldn't see my altimeter well, so I misread it. I was reprimanded both times, and my pull altitude was still 500 feet above what the USPA requires for students. My instructors were perfectly justified in that, and I was wrong for going lower than I was supposed to. Regardless of reason, if you lose awareness, you fucked up. Admit it, accept it, and correct it. Be glad you had a device to save you from yourself.

Not to mention the fact that I only jump on weekends, so I would be grounded for a week anyways, while waiting for a new cutter and repack, if not longer.

Edit: Not only should you be grounded, but your first jump (or first several) back should be monitored by a USPA coach or higher, IMO.


(This post was edited by MWGemini on Oct 15, 2004, 12:10 PM)


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 12:08 PM
Post #47 of 239 (1830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robertmicp] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I dont know how many of you go over emergency procedures before jumping, I do, every time.

I still do...several times in fact while walking to the plane...

But you will be surprised what happens when you get 100,200,500,1000 jumps...You get complacency that grows. And THAT is what kills you. Over confidence brought on by never having a problem before.

Very few people think they are gonna die...But every year people do.

In reply to:
Everyone I jump with says my hard deck is too high (3500'), I say to them, "Im just giving you more clear air" Its my comfort range and besides, I like the ride :)

Good for you!...Do you think you are going to keep that hard deck for the next 1,000 jumps?


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 15, 2004, 12:09 PM)


winsor  (D 13715)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:13 PM
Post #48 of 239 (1821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 I doubt that Elsinore is enforcing this rule so it wouldn't take much to drive down the street and jump there.
I have been impressed with how well the S&TA network can work with things like this.

Some time back someone misbehaved at Raeford, and Gene Paul Thacker grounded the hell out of him. Knowing that all he had to do was find another drop zone, he said fine and left.

It turns out that he was unable to get in the air at Chester, North Raleigh or Barnwell, since the principals there checked the guy's bona fides before letting him jump. The bottom line was that if Gene Paul says you're grounded, you're grounded.

There may be competition between DZs on one level, but there tends to be cooperation on an operational basis. Even if two DZs are competing fiercely for business, my experience is that the word of the S&TA at one is taken seriously by the other. If a call comes in regarding a questionable jumper, information provided that they are an incident waiting to happen is taken seriously.

Some things slip through the cracks, but this sport is a particularly small community and you tend to earn the reputation that follows you around.


Blue skies,

Winsor


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:19 PM
Post #49 of 239 (1817 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is not always the case. Both times I saw people have cypres fires the cypres had beat them by a split second.

Think about this, you are travelling 175 ft per sec.
Your cypres first and you stop 100 ft above the ground. I have seen a person get line stretch at 50ft, get a 4 second canopy ride, and gripe about how "he was about to...".

My reserve opens a lot faster than a lot of mains.
If dump your main at the exact instant that your cypres fired, your main would have not opened in time.

The jumper who was "about to" was about to die. They were too late and would have died.

30 days and a talk with an S&TA before re-instatement is an excellent idea.


robertmicp  (A License)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:26 PM
Post #50 of 239 (1806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I still do...several times in fact while walking to the plane...

But you will be surprised what happens when you get 100,200,500,1000 jumps...You get complacency that grows. And THAT is what kills you. Over confidence brought on by never having a problem before.

110% agree, as a pilot and master scuba diver, I have seen it over and over complancency kills

In reply to:
Everyone I jump with says my hard deck is too high (3500'), I say to them, "Im just giving you more clear air" Its my comfort range and besides, I like the ride :)

Good for you!...Do you think you are going to keep that hard deck for the next 1,000 jumps?

My safty and life for a few extra seconds of freefall?, yes, I can say I will still pull higher then everyone else. Besides, I like the ride :)


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:28 PM
Post #51 of 239 (1413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The number ONE thing in this sport is to survive...EVERYTHING else is SECOND. EVERYTHING.

If you are to busy turning points or going for the "cool carve" to stay focused on the number ONE thing....Your priorities are fucked up. 30 days thinking about it is a SMALL price.

Agreed.


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 12:28 PM
Post #52 of 239 (1413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
you can just say you had a streamer that magically inflated after the cypres fired.

If you are under a streamer that goes so low that your CYPRES fires....Its a malfunction. Remember the hard deck according to the USPA is 1800 feet. A CYPRES does not start it's countdown till 1500 feet and I have yet to see one fire above 1100-1200 feet even in a low pull situation.


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 12:31 PM
Post #53 of 239 (1406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robertmicp] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Good for you!...Do you think you are going to keep that hard deck for the next 1,000 jumps?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My safty and life for a few extra seconds of freefall?, yes, I can say I will still pull higher then everyone else. Besides, I like the ride :)

PLEASE email me when you get 100 jumps...And then when you get 1,000.

Im not calling you a liar...Well not yetWink

I was NEVER gonna pull low or do hook turns either...

You will be amazed what you will do in the comming years.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #54 of 239 (1405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In reply to:
I approve of the forward thinking at Perris. However, I still think it may cause some damage in the end.

In reply to:
Do you honestly think it could be a BAD thing?

Time will tell. However, if we start seeing more dead bodies over Cyrpes fires again, well....I guess we will have our answer.

The great thing about the Cyrpes? We can kick people off the dz for being stupid instead of going to a funeral. I'd rather piss off a customer then have blood on the ground.


chuckbrown  (D 19538)

Oct 15, 2004, 12:36 PM
Post #55 of 239 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MWGemini] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a great rule. Doesn't surprise me at all coming from Perris; a very safety conscious DZ. Altitude awareness is probably the number one rule in skydiving (after pulling, but you can't penalize someone for not following that rule) and it needs to be continually stressed to students and experienced jumpers alike. I recently had to tell a student not to come back to my DZ because he wasn't able to maintain altitude awareness. He had multiple instances of low pulls, including one that fired the AAD (all while on student status). I felt bad about banning the student but the alternative was worse. This sport isn't for everybody and it definitely isn't worth dying for.


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Oct 15, 2004, 1:41 PM
Post #56 of 239 (1360 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
My reserve opens a lot faster than a lot of mains.
If dump your main at the exact instant that your cypres fired, your main would have not opened in time.

The jumper who was "about to" was about to die. They were too late and would have died.

I'm not sure if the main or reserve was out in front, so I don't know which actually came out first. It's a very scary situation, and I certainly hope to never be there and take measures against it (look at ground, 2 dytters, altimeter). I understand it's serious, but sometimes shit happens and if it's a first and the person tossed first, then I think those things should be taken into consideration. After 100+ jumps w/o a cypres, I finally bought into the "sometimes shit is out of your control" line and got one. Besides, you can usually tell how seriously something is taken by a jumper just by talking to them, and I do think this will be enforced on a case by case basis.

I have jumped canopies with long snivels before, so maybe you're right, maybe even if he pitched right before the fire he would've just been a stain. Thankfully, we didn't have to find that out.

Angela.


wmw999  (D 6296)

Oct 15, 2004, 1:48 PM
Post #57 of 239 (1353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I understand it's serious, but sometimes shit happens and if it's a first and the person tossed first, then I think those things should be taken into consideration.
From the actual quote, it sounds like there is some consideration given. Even if the reason was that streamer on a big-way that had you opening no higher than 2000', a discussion with the S&TA is in order. Right then.

People used to die from not pulling before the Cypres. They still do sometimes, but not as often. But there are a LOT more Cypres firings these days than there used to be no-pull fatalities.

So complacency is definitely happening, and this is one way to fight it.

Wendy W.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Oct 15, 2004, 2:32 PM
Post #58 of 239 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckbrown] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is a great rule. Doesn't surprise me at all coming from Perris; a very safety conscious DZ. Altitude awareness is probably the number one rule in skydiving (after pulling, but you can't penalize someone for not following that rule) and it needs to be continually stressed to students and experienced jumpers alike. I recently had to tell a student not to come back to my DZ because he wasn't able to maintain altitude awareness. He had multiple instances of low pulls, including one that fired the AAD (all while on student status). I felt bad about banning the student but the alternative was worse. This sport isn't for everybody and it definitely isn't worth dying for.

So students are really a different category on this subject. Grounding them for 30 days puts them out of currency and perhaps gives them too much time to dwell on the negative. If the instructor feels it was a "forgiveable" fuckup, maybe better to sit them one or two weeks and then get them back in the air?

For the rest of us, 30 days seems like a good chance to reflect.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 2:42 PM
Post #59 of 239 (1322 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So complacency is definitely happening, and this is one way to fight it.

Complacency is happening, but no matter how much I think about a 30 day suspension, I still don't see how it is the appropriate way to effect change. I'm speaking almost specifically about accidental cypres fire, rather than intentional attempts to cause it to occur.

I don't feel that a 30 day suspension will be an effective deterrant by itself. It is difficult for me to understand how 30 days on the ground will enable a skydiver to become more alti aware in the future. If we, as skydivers, have decided that it is our responsibility to save each others' lives by establishing that rule, then I think we have a responsibility to make sure the rule will be effective. For example, if I get into an car accident while I'm driving because I wasn't watching the road and I rear end another vehicle, I'm really sorry that happened. Take away my driver's license for 30 days and I'm still really sorry it happened, but it was an accident and no matter how much I admonish myself for lack of awareness, it doesn't mean I'll be a more aware driver when I get my license back.

My point is, there should also be re-education for an infraction of this nature and a refresher skydive with the appropriately trained DZ staff. As SkydiveNFlorida stated, I hardly think the best way to handle a complacent skydiver is to make them less current.

Why stop halfway?


(This post was edited by Dagny on Oct 15, 2004, 3:13 PM)


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 2:45 PM
Post #60 of 239 (1320 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you make a low turn and pull it off, good on you. The mandatory suspension from not pulling it off is typically enforced by the policies of the ICU, not the S&TA.

Sometimes the next skydive made after a botched low turn is an ash dive. Check out the fatalities page if you think I'm being overdramatic.

I certainly don't believe you are being overdramatic. However, if a dz wants to penalize a skydiver for cypres fire, then why not also penalize for other risky behavior just as harshly?


wmw999  (D 6296)

Oct 15, 2004, 2:57 PM
Post #61 of 239 (1314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It is difficult for me to understand how 30 days on the ground will enable a skydiver to become more alti aware in the future
Most jumpers don't really believe they are likely to die doing it. Whenever someone goes in, people are very careful to figure out in their own minds how they would not have done the same things. Even if they can see that they might have done the same things, they still correct and don't plan on doing that again.

But it's a lot easier to imagine getting grounded -- you CAN imagine doing that; it's not as final. Also, a Cypres fire really is a lethal event; it's just one where you got lucky. So taking a breather, and taking some time off (like a lot of people do when someone close to them dies) might not be a bad idea.

Wendy W.


winsor  (D 13715)

Oct 15, 2004, 3:52 PM
Post #62 of 239 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This is a great rule. Doesn't surprise me at all coming from Perris; a very safety conscious DZ. Altitude awareness is probably the number one rule in skydiving (after pulling, but you can't penalize someone for not following that rule) and it needs to be continually stressed to students and experienced jumpers alike. I recently had to tell a student not to come back to my DZ because he wasn't able to maintain altitude awareness. He had multiple instances of low pulls, including one that fired the AAD (all while on student status). I felt bad about banning the student but the alternative was worse. This sport isn't for everybody and it definitely isn't worth dying for.

So students are really a different category on this subject. Grounding them for 30 days puts them out of currency and perhaps gives them too much time to dwell on the negative. If the instructor feels it was a "forgiveable" fuckup, maybe better to sit them one or two weeks and then get them back in the air?

For the rest of us, 30 days seems like a good chance to reflect.

If you're a student and aren't paying enough attention to saving your life to stay out of CYPRES territory, maybe 30 days is appropriate to contemplate if this pastime is really your cup of tea.

Screw currency - if you have a CYPRES fire as a student, you might be well advised to start from scratch (if you return at all). There are a couple of very basic principles that you appear to have missed on this go-around.


Blue skies,

Winsor


livendive  (D 21415)

Oct 15, 2004, 4:27 PM
Post #63 of 239 (1286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all?

I had a CYPRES fire once. I sold it soon thereafter and haven't used an AAD since except on tandem jumps. My altitude awareness improved and I've never found myself accidentally in the basement again. I've become pretty well convinced now that I won't make that mistake again and will likely buy a new CYPRES within the next year.

I think this new rule at Perris is a good one and doubt it will discourage many (if any) from buying an AAD. More likely is that visiting jumpers who hear of and don't like the rule will simply not turn their AADs on.

Blues,
Dave


SkydiveNFlorida  (C License)

Oct 15, 2004, 4:38 PM
Post #64 of 239 (1282 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
More likely is that visiting jumpers who hear of and don't like the rule will simply not turn their AADs on.

That would be really stupid on the part of the jumper. Why own one if you're not gonna turn it on. They made the decision to buy one for whatever reasons, yet some dumb rule would make them turn it off?.

If that is what the rule would encourage, it would be a much worse scene if someone didn't pull... Can't' teach a dead person a lesson.

-A


Ron

Oct 15, 2004, 5:24 PM
Post #65 of 239 (1267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't feel that a 30 day suspension will be an effective deterrant by itself.

That because (no insult intended) you don't jump much.

I you realy jumped alot it would kill you to be grounded for 30 days.

In reply to:
It is difficult for me to understand how 30 days on the ground will enable a skydiver to become more alti aware in the future.

Same concept as a "timeout" or making a kid stand in a corner. They want to do something, and you don't let them. They then in turn try like hell not to do it again.

In reply to:
For example, if I get into an car accident while I'm driving because I wasn't watching the road and I rear end another vehicle, I'm really sorry that happened. Take away my driver's license for 30 days and I'm still really sorry it happened, but it was an accident and no matter how much I admonish myself for lack of awareness, it doesn't mean I'll be a more aware driver when I get my license back.

Works for some DUI's.

The BEST grounding I ever heard was a 30 day grounding where the guy had to show up at the DZ EVERYDAY for the 30 days but could not jump...For every day he didn't show up....It extended his grounding.

In reply to:
I hardly think the best way to handle a complacent skydiver is to make them less current.

Currency brings complacency...so it might just work. People who jump once a mth don't tend to get over confident.


mr2mk1g  (C 103449)

Oct 15, 2004, 5:43 PM
Post #66 of 239 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

hmm... let's see... I have a straight choice between owning a cypres and having a 30 day ban... and death...

now which do I choose....

If anyone choses death there I make no applogies when saing they do not belong in this sport.

When chosing "death" you are assuming you are going to have a cypres fire... and no one actually assumes that. So no one is going to be put off from buying a cypres simply because of this rule.


jdfreefly  (D 24037)

Oct 15, 2004, 6:24 PM
Post #67 of 239 (1248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

First of all, I find it very telling that most of the people who are against this rule have an A license listed in their profile, and around a year in the sport. Just about every D license holder who has weighed in on this is for it, and some of them have 10+ years in the sport. Flame away if you lowtimers want - but there is something to be said for experience.

I don't think a 30 day grounding is a good deterant either. But I don't think it is meant to be a deterant. I think it is meant to give the skydiver 30 days to sit on the ground and think about the ramifications of having a cypress fire.

Also, having people be thirty days uncurrent is nowhere near as dangerous as having skydivers who take a cavalier attitude towards altitude awareness. Most of the skydivers in the north will go more than 30 days uncurrent at some point this winter.

I have always said that I have a cypress for one reason, so I can walk away from a sport that would have killed me.

I started in 97, and back then, every dz I went to, it seemed to be a forgone conclusion, that if you had a cypress fire, due to a simple loss of altitude awareness, you were done. No grounding, no probation, you were banned from that dz. Furthermore, many dzs had a policy of calling and informing other dzs in the area that you were banned and for what reason.

For some reason, that policy seems to have changed. I'm not sure why, but I know I don't like it.

Now we have people getting bent out of shape over a 30 day grounding. WTF?


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Oct 15, 2004, 6:31 PM
Post #68 of 239 (1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you're a student and aren't paying enough attention to saving your life to stay out of CYPRES territory, maybe 30 days is appropriate to contemplate if this pastime is really your cup of tea.

Or they may instead lose all confidence. If the instructor doesn't think the bowling speech is warranted, I don't think the delay serves a purpose.

You really do have to blow it as a student to have a cypres fire given the planned pull heights, but they are students.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #69 of 239 (1231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That because (no insult intended) you don't jump much.

I you realy jumped alot it would kill you to be grounded for 30 days.

You're absolutely right. I frequently go a month between jumps due to my school schedule, so perhaps that is one reason I feel less impressed by the efficacy of a 30 day layoff.

So, it punishes those who get out more often and jump frequently enough to become complacent. And, I agree, when I am not current, I am very altitude aware. Then again, I am usually jumping solo and it's hard for me to become so distracted that I don't know where I'm at in relation to the ground.


mattjw916  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:12 PM
Post #70 of 239 (1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jdfreefly] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I won't flame, but I'll comment since I am a lowtimer. While I personally don't care if there is a 30 day suspension for a Cypres fire, I really don't see it accomplishing much. Perris' rule seems to leave a bit too much room for interpretation or opinion though. But that could be by design, so that is fine.

What does concern me, is that if an individual or group of individuals is distracted or inattentive to such an extent as to "forget" to pull, what other safety issues are they also neglecting?!! Perhaps that, in and of itself, is just as good a reason for a suspension.

Or maybe it is all just a big plot to get people to buy tunnel time since they won't be able to jump. Wink

The rule is fine IMHO, since I really don't see it ever applying to me... knock on wood.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:23 PM
Post #71 of 239 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jdfreefly] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Flame away if you lowtimers want - but there is something to be said for experience.

I know I'm a lowtimer and I'm not trying to flame the new rule, I'm just trying to understand how it can be efficacious by itself. I really believe that it would be better if, as I stated before, it included a re-education aspect on safety and a coach jump before allowing the offender to resume jumping. A little time away, a reminder about sky safety, and a some money out-of-pocket might serve as a better deterrant. If you're going to make the effort to penalize, then I think you should do it right. And, personally, I think a 30 day grounding is nothing more than a minor irritation to the regular jumper and essentially irrelevant to those who jump on only one or two occassions per month.

I am well aware of the popular opinion here and that those of you who are D licensed are proponents of it. And I am well aware that as a low time jumper, my opinion means little to nothing around here. But, I am an adult and I consider myself to be a responsible skydiver, so I'd like to both understand upcoming policy in a field that I participate in as well as offer my constructive criticism of what I believe isn't a fully efficacious decree. I value the voice of experience as well as the merit of my own opinion. And, I appreciate the ongoing rhetoric concering this topic.


Lindsey  (D 17865)

Oct 15, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #72 of 239 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In my mind, a 30-day lay off would not be a punitive measure or something to serve as a deterrant, but rather some time on the ground to rethink my attitudes in the air and examine my priorities while skydiving. Coach jumps would not be necessary. Education, while always good, would not teach what I would need to learn about maintaining altitude awareness. I think this discussion demonstrates the degree to which people have come to rely on AADs as a back-up to altitude awareness. Be grateful that we have them for the lives they have saved. And I'd say 30 days on the ground is nothing compared to forever cold in the ground.

Peace~
linz


sundevil777  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 9:03 PM
Post #73 of 239 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

When I started, the threat to be grounded for pulling low was well understood. Now, the box on your back is just the witness to your transgression that cannot be denied. Hanging in brakes to increase your canopy time/cover up a low pull doesn't work if that gizmo gets activated.

Pulling low used to be much more common. Now we are rightly afraid of the risk of a 2-out, instead of just the risk of how little time would be left for emergency procedures. For this reason I think it is not true that people are not minding their altitude, at least compared to times past.

Some world class competitors and other extremely well respected jumpers have gone low by accident and been saved by the box on their back. Not many would have been so arrogant as to tell them to take up bowling. Instead, they were given the chance to reflect and learn from their mistake.

When was the last time you heard someone warned about pulling low? I don't think it happens so much now. In part because people don't pull low as often, and in part because we let the gizmo do the determination of a low pull, when we should get warned/grounded even when it isn't low enough to activate the brain on our backs.


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Oct 15, 2004, 9:05 PM)


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:00 PM
Post #74 of 239 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Sometimes shit happens.

Exactly, which is why the rule is for a legitimate save you don't get grounded.

If you loose altitude awareness cause you were having too much fun, or goofing off on the jump (as these recent situations were) then you deserve to sit your ass down for a month.

Quote:
Oh well, just my opinion but i think a cypres fire once would ensure someone to not lose awareness again.

I'm rather shocked by that statement. IF a person survives a cypres fire, the REALLY ought to have a handle on the fact they were VERY close to death on that jump.


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #75 of 239 (1199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
having a mechanical gizmo change your life expectancy from 6 seconds to decades is hardly a non-event.


Is there a way to turn text into a big flashing red neon sign?


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:11 PM
Post #76 of 239 (1361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't think it's fair to make this statement.

It's totaly fair. This is not some low risk, strap on rollerblades kinda thing. If you don't understand that you are RISKING YOUR LIFE, each and every time you step out of the aircraft, you belong on the ground.

Quote:
but losing awareness happens.

No it doesn't. People let it happen through complacency.

Quote:
but it seems like a harsh rule.

Harsh? Harsh? You know it's jaw droping the caviler attitude that is previlent in this sport now. Let me explain what harsh is.

The ground is harsh at 120 mile per hour.

Nor a rule saying "you were less than 6 seconds from dying because you were dumb and not taking thing seriously, so we think you should take 4 weekends off and think about what your life means to you"

I'll bet you've never scraped someones body off the ground?

Quote:
accidental occurrence doesn't necessarily warrant the same punishment, does it?

An accident is being knocked unconcious. By your logic we should just slap drunk drivers on the wrist when they kill someone. I mean it was an accident right? They didn't mean to run that old lady down.

Quote:
Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..?

There are. Perris has grounded plenty of people for that. Some ground them selves unintentonaly.


(This post was edited by diablopilot on Oct 15, 2004, 10:30 PM)


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 15, 2004, 10:18 PM
Post #77 of 239 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkydiveNFlorida] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Both times I saw people have cypres fires the cypres had beat them by a split second.

Bull. If the cypres had them beat, they were DEAD.

That's how it's designed. It fires when through inaction you've reached the point you can't react fast enough to save your own ass. While you're still thinking, it's saving your butt.


tbrown  (D 6533)

Oct 15, 2004, 11:33 PM
Post #78 of 239 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Everyone is not cut out for this sport.

I don't think it's fair to make this statement.

This is not to flame you Dagny or to give you a bad time, but there's nothing fair about skydiving. When we leave the plane we have an alloted time for fun and then we have to end the skydive or die. It's heads or tails, we end the skydive or die. The Cypres is a great tool and a lifesaver, it has greatly reduced the number of deaths from no pull/low pull situations. I've got one and I use it. But it doesn't relieve me of my responsibility to pull by a 2000 ft minimum altitude.

Grounding jumpers for low pull offenses has been standard practice for decades. When I was a newbie I once pulled at about 2 grand and the DZO called me into the office for a little chat. He said that was too low for me, he wanted to see at least 2500 ft (acceptable by the book in those days) and that if I did it again he would ground me for 30 days. End of problem, I was wrong & I knew it. I cleaned up my act and everything was cool.

People cannot go low just because they have a Cypres. A wide awake jumper with no injuries who has a Cypres fire is a low pull by definition. Have you ever looked out the door or a window at 750 ft. ? It's HORRIFYINGLY low, the idea of dumping at that altitude gives me gooseflesh just thinking about it. It's not even a guarantee that your reserve will open, which is why they don't call them AOD's like they used to in the old days. They're called AAD's, because all they really do is activate your reserve pilot chute & after that, God only knows...

You really should scrape together the price of a Cypres, or whip out the US Plastic or whatever it takes & get one. They're not cheap but they're not a luxury either. Make sure you turn it on in the morning and then FORGET it's there and act accordingly. It really isn't that hard to do and it's what this unfair sport is all about. I want you to live a long time and enjoy this sport. And sometimes we need to crack down on people to keep it that way. Perris is doing the right thing.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 16, 2004, 12:01 AM
Post #79 of 239 (1343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I can not believe how people can argue with this rule. No one is taking away your right to vote or your ablility to breath.

If your AAD fires and you do not have a good reason, you just lived through the dumbest thing you will ever do. If you do not see the reality of that, buy a bowling ball. You sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 16, 2004, 5:01 AM
Post #80 of 239 (1336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Disagree with this policy. You never improved anyone's performance by preventing them from practicing for 30 days.

And how do you know a typical type "A" personality skydiver will benefit from reflection? More likely they will just get pissed off and angry.

A far far better solution would be to make them do a refresher with an instructor.


Ron

Oct 16, 2004, 6:07 AM
Post #81 of 239 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know I'm a lowtimer and I'm not trying to flame the new rule, I'm just trying to understand how it can be efficacious by itself.

Give a person time to stop and think about the fact they about died in a sport due for a stupid mistake.

In reply to:
I really believe that it would be better if, as I stated before, it included a re-education aspect on safety and a coach jump before allowing the offender to resume jumping.

Do you really think I need to remind you that you need to pull before impact?

Anyone that does not understand that simple fact should not be jumping.

A coach jump is to teach RW skills...Not altitude awareness, that would require an AFF jump....And I think we can all agree an AFF jump might be a bit much in this case.

I have no problem with sending a person home for 30 days and give them time to think about the fact that they about checked out of this world. If fact, I think it would be a great idea for them to HAVE to tell their family about it, and spend those 30 days thinking about what a crater with their name on it would affect the ones they love.

In reply to:


Ron

Oct 16, 2004, 6:14 AM
Post #82 of 239 (1347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is not some low risk, strap on rollerblades kinda thing.

Dude, have you BEEN on rollerblades? Thats some dangerous shit....Wink

Other than that, I agree.Laugh


Ron

Oct 16, 2004, 6:21 AM
Post #83 of 239 (1347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Disagree with this policy. You never improved anyone's performance by preventing them from practicing for 30 days.

30 days to think about the fact you are dead except for Airtec INC. will do wonders to your mindset.

In reply to:
And how do you know a typical type "A" personality skydiver will benefit from reflection? More likely they will just get pissed off and angry.

It would work on me..and I am about as "A Type" as you ever want to meet.

In reply to:
A far far better solution would be to make them do a refresher with an instructor.

How would that help? A dive where they look at their altimeter? Thats an AFF jump. And most people will not just lose track of altitude on a regular jump...They will lose track of altitude due to trying "to get that carve", or "that last point"....30 days to think about how close you came to becoming part of the "crater tour" is nothing.

The scary thing? Some on here are saying "Thats why I have two audibles".....So trading dependence of one device for another....


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 16, 2004, 7:53 AM
Post #84 of 239 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I can not believe how people can argue with this rule. No one is taking away your right to vote or your ablility to breath. .... You sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.

I respect your right to disagree, but I ask that you also respect mine and not trivialize my opinion as the rantings of a spoiled child.

That being said, I'd like to say that the discussion concerning this issue has helped me to understand the need for policy to be in place.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Oct 16, 2004, 7:59 AM
Post #85 of 239 (1326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livendive] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think this new rule at Perris is a good one and doubt it will discourage many (if any) from buying an AAD. More likely is that visiting jumpers who hear of and don't like the rule will simply not turn their AADs on.

Blues,
Dave
If they manage to live thru a situation where their Cypress would have fired, but wasn't turned on, won't they get grounded for opening that low, either main or reserve?


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 16, 2004, 8:12 AM
Post #86 of 239 (1325 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you don't understand that you are RISKING YOUR LIFE, each and every time you step out of the aircraft, you belong on the ground.

What I meant to say was that I feel the person who lost alti awareness is likely fully aware of this fact. It doesn't necessarily mean they were operating with a blatant disregard for the sanctity of their own life. My problem is that with a 30 day layoff, the skydiver may reflect on the gravity of the situation that keeps them from jumping, but a grounding by itself is not a guarantee that the person will both reflect on the incidenct and change their ways. Truly, nothing is a guarantee, but as you cannot control a person off the dz, why not have something in place on the dz (re-eduation, AFF level 6 jump before removing restrictions) that will allow the dz to assess the attitude of the offender.

You don't just send a kid to time out and then let them go about business as normal without first determining the efficacy of your punishment in ensuring that they have seen the error of their ways.

Quote:
I'll bet you've never scraped someones body off the ground?

Not a skydiver, but yes I have. I'm well aware of the effect of blunt trauma due to a high speed impact. And I am certainly not trying to be cavalier, I simply want to understand the policy and discuss the implications and potential for it. Skydiving is a sport that will continue to pass from the hands of the older, more experienced to the younger, less experienced and, I believe, it would be a mistake if the reasoning behind the rules and regulations wasn't passed on as well.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 16, 2004, 8:14 AM
Post #87 of 239 (1323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbrown] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is not to flame you Dagny or to give you a bad time

No worries.

Quote:
I want you to live a long time and enjoy this sport.

Thank you. Smile So do I.


Dagny  (B 28462)

Oct 16, 2004, 8:32 AM
Post #88 of 239 (1315 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
30 days to think about the fact you are dead except for Airtec INC. will do wonders to your mindset.

It will do wonders as long as you are certain the person is repentant and introspective. As Kallend mentioned, they may just spend 30 days being angry and blaming anything but their own actions for being responsible. (I know I don't need to talk about how many people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, or inaction, as the case may be.)

Quote:
How would that help? A dive where they look at their altimeter? Thats an AFF jump. And most people will not just lose track of altitude on a regular jump...They will lose track of altitude due to trying "to get that carve", or "that last point".

Why wouldn't an AFF level 6 jump be an appropriate way to deal with the problem in addition to a grounding? I know it is redundant, as would be re-education of sky safety, but redundancy never killed anyone.

If I go greater than 2 months without a skydive, I pay for a refresher and an AFF jump before being allowed to solo again. I have done a refresher and I hated having to put the money out because I knew how to pull for myself and set up my own landing and what a mal looks like, but it was good to get the refresher so that both the DZ knew I was ready for the jump and so I knew I was ready. It was a good thing. Why wouldn't this be a good thing for anyone, even the most experienced skydivers? We are talking about complacency here.

The two problems I see with a 30 day grounding are these:

1. You cannot ensure that the suspension served its purpose, if its purpose is to ensure the fact that the skydiver was repentant, fully aware of the gravity of the situation, and preparing for the future to avoid the situation occurring again. You would need something else, maybe as simple as a lecture from the S&TA, maybe more.

2. Is it really enough? Is it enough to impact the skydiver and is it enough to remove liability from the DZ? I honestly don't know anything about liability and the dropzone. I can see that having a policy in place to reprimand the offending skydiver would be beneficial, but will it be enough to remove the liability should that skydiver return and then die from repeating their mistake?

Quote:
The scary thing? Some on here are saying "Thats why I have two audibles".....So trading dependence of one device for another....

While this is a topic for a different thread, I would just like to say that there is a difference between dependence and establishing a system of checks and balances. And, truly, in skydiving, we are all ultimately dependent on devices.


JustaBill  (B 29017)

Oct 16, 2004, 9:38 AM
Post #89 of 239 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I've been following along for awhile and there are some good points made on both sides. How about instead of re education, make the offending jumper go to the first jump course and talk to the students about his lose of altitude awareness and the consequences of losing altitude awareness. Talk to the students about how and why it happened etc etc. It's not exactly re education, but it is educating up and coming jumpers and making them be on the DZ when they can't jump, and really making them think about what they did wrong etc. Kind of like getting sentenced to community service for the first time offenders of a DUI, having to talk to high school kids about it. Just a suggestion.


(This post was edited by JustaBill on Oct 16, 2004, 9:42 AM)


KCJumper  (C 34189)

Oct 16, 2004, 10:30 AM
Post #90 of 239 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [slotperfect] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Is that Skydive Kansas City?


Yeah it sure is.

Patrick


KCJumper  (C 34189)

Oct 16, 2004, 10:35 AM
Post #91 of 239 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think it's a shame. Sometimes shit happens. Thank god for the cypres. Making someone wait 30 days to jump again or handing them a bowling ball sucks. Oh well, just my opinion but i think a cypres fire once would ensure someone to not lose awareness again. Now if they have a second cypres fire, then something needs to be done.

So let me see if i understand. One cypress save and it's cool. But twice and you are done. What would it be like if we didn't have them. One time and you would be done. So giving the second chance is the second chance. You know you get to wake up the next morning. Smell the fresh air.
It is your opinion but i will say that if i ever have to truly depend on my cypress then i'm done. Just my thoughts.

Patrick


livendive  (D 21415)

Oct 16, 2004, 10:48 AM
Post #92 of 239 (1287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I think this new rule at Perris is a good one and doubt it will discourage many (if any) from buying an AAD. More likely is that visiting jumpers who hear of and don't like the rule will simply not turn their AADs on.

Blues,
Dave
If they manage to live thru a situation where their Cypress would have fired, but wasn't turned on, won't they get grounded for opening that low, either main or reserve?

At that point whether or not their CYPRES would have fired becomes a matter of debate. It's possible that Perris would ground them anyhow, if anyone saw them and had a good idea of how high they were when they opened. Rest assured they'll argue that they were higher than they actually were though, just as low-pullers have done for decades.

Blues,
Dave


obelixtim  (D 84)

Oct 16, 2004, 12:55 PM
Post #93 of 239 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 I've never believed that grounding is an effective deterrent.....it just delays or removes the offender for a while but doesn't really address or "cure" the problem behaviour......

My way of dealing with low dumpers is not to ground them, rather they must do 1, or maybe more, static line jumps.....at 3 grand for students, 2 grand for "A" licence and above.....they get to jump, see the ground from a lower altitude, slowly and safely......and come to the notice of every other jumper on the DZ.....

I tell you, students just love seeing someone with more jumps than them going out on SL.....and senior jumpers totally dread the thought of having to do so........but everyone agrees its a fairer and more effective solution than a grounding......

Even the jumpers who have had to do it say that they have learnt their lesson, and will usually later admit that doing a SL jump was actually quite fun.....a nostalgia trip, simple and easy and over with in 30 minutes or less......but the point is ingrained in their consciousness.....

If people want extra freefall, I tell them to get out another 1000 feet higher.....do it at the top....

I can tell you that the embarrassment factor ensures no repeat behaviour.....and the point about the dangers of low dumping and its consequences is well made to everyone....its certainly well discussed at beer o'clock in the bar......

The one ego tripper who refused to comply and who flounced off the DZ in a huff, effectively grounded himself from the DZ anyway.....and found that when he tried to jump at another DZ that word of his actions and reaction had preceeded his arrival there.....and he'd acquired an addition to his reputation....now he's regarded as a tosser, as well as a low dumper............shot himself in the foot big time....


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 16, 2004, 2:53 PM
Post #94 of 239 (1247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JustaBill] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've been following along for awhile and there are some good points made on both sides. How about instead of re education, make the offending jumper go to the first jump course and talk to the students about his lose of altitude awareness and the consequences of losing altitude awareness. Talk to the students about how and why it happened etc etc. It's not exactly re education, but it is educating up and coming jumpers and making them be on the DZ when they can't jump, and really making them think about what they did wrong etc. Kind of like getting sentenced to community service for the first time offenders of a DUI, having to talk to high school kids about it. Just a suggestion.

I think this is the best suggestion yet. Have the jumper write up a short outline of the talk thus forcing him to go over the incident.

And as far as a grounding for the purpose of reflection, bull shit. Think of it as punishment. Remember punishment? You do something bad, something bad happens to you.

Sparky


okalb  (D 22854)

Oct 16, 2004, 3:24 PM
Post #95 of 239 (1243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I absolutely agree with the grounding policy. If nothing else it will server as a deterrent to others and show that the DZ takes safety seriously. I do have a question though.

I know of a recent incident on an AFF jump where the student began to tumble out of control at pull time. The instructor (fairly experienced) chased the student and ended up pulling very low after dumping out the student. The instructor had a very slow opening canopy and had a cypres fire causing a 2 out situation. Now we all know that as an AFF instructor you are taught that at a certain point the student is on their own, but I can imagine that in that situation all you are thinking about is saving the students life.

Should the instructor be grounded for 30 days?


KCJumper  (C 34189)

Oct 16, 2004, 5:23 PM
Post #96 of 239 (1225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I have my coach rating right now and i know that isn't even close to what an AFF instructor does but, there are regulations for a reason. We all have our hard decks and the last thing an instructor is told to do is dump so the student knows to pull. NO MATTER WHAT. We are supposed to be our students last signal.

So in this case i could see some kind of talking to at least. Otherwise we are saying that there will always be circumstances where you can break the rules. Just my thoughts on this.

Patrick


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 16, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #97 of 239 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>That's how it's designed. It fires when through inaction you've
>reached the point you can't react fast enough to save your own ass.

I think people may overestimate the accuracy of the cypres. It will fire somewhere between 500 and 1200 feet depending on your position, how it's mounted, the relative accuracy of the sensor, ground altitude difference, daily pressure changes etc. It's based on a barometric sensor, just like the one in your dytter, protrack, digiture etc. I've seen a 400 foot difference in my digitude depending on where I hold it, and the problem of cypreses firing high when you stand up is well known.

A suprise cypres firing, where the jumper is caught unawares, is a very big deal. A cypres that fires three seconds after you open your main, or one that happens at about the same time as your reserve pull, is less of a big deal (though certainly still an issue.) It is indicative of a jumper who opened too low, not of a jumper who would certainly have otherwise died.


HeatherB  (B License)

Oct 16, 2004, 8:40 PM
Post #98 of 239 (1197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Good call, Perris.

Personally, I think if you have two Cypres fires due to loss of altitude awareness, your USPA license (or other national license) should be revoked.

Zooming through a grand without a fucking clue should not be brushed off as a simple mistake.


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 16, 2004, 9:21 PM
Post #99 of 239 (1190 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think people may overestimate the accuracy of the cypres. It will fire somewhere between 500 and 1200 feet depending on your position, how it's mounted, the relative accuracy of the sensor, ground altitude difference, daily pressure changes etc.

I agree that is may fire that high, but that's also somthing it says in the manual. If you choose to jump with one, you HAVE to accept it's limitations.

Low pulls are a groundable offence.

Sniveling through 1000-1200 feet is just as unsafe. That's a groundable offence.

Jumping with a device like an AAD and not being respectful of the limitations it imposes on you should be too.

I still thing that the rule at Perris is a good one, the only acceptable excuse for a cypres use should be a physical incapacity to activate either of your parachutes.

I know several people who have had cypres fires. Some from goofing off, some from being knocked out, and some from not being altitude aware. The fact they had a fire, doesn't make them bad jumpers, or canidates for another sport. The way they react to the position they put them selves in to cause the fire does.


tbrown  (D 6533)

Oct 17, 2004, 12:24 AM
Post #100 of 239 (1175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

According to the original post, the problem came to a head after "several" Cypres fires in the last month or so. As busy as Perris gets, and they just hosted the Nationals, several Cypres fires really are unacceptable.

Sparky, you probably remember back in 1980 at Perris there was a problem with too many people losing their pud handles on their hand deploys and pulling their reserves. Management got fed up with that one as well and announced the next reserve ride due to a lost handle would be grounded. And guess what, the problem dried up real quick (I know because I was one of 'em and I got my pilot chute setup reconfigured). So the threat of grounding does work to clear up situations that are simply getting out of control.

By the way, there was a legit9mate Cypres save at Perris a month or so back. A jumper doing a backloop accidently kicked another jumper around his neck and shoulders, putting a "Spock" on one of his nerves. The guy went completely numb and could not move his arms. He tried desperately to reach his handles and his arms would not budge. All he could keep asking himself was "Did I turn my Cypres on ? Oh please, am I sure I turned it on ?". He did and it worked, but he had to watch the ground rush get pretty bad first. THAT'S the kind of situation a Cypres is meant for, not for some yo-yo who's tracking around on his back with a dead battery in his Dytter.


Ron

Oct 17, 2004, 6:14 AM
Post #101 of 239 (1524 views)
Shortcut
Re: [okalb] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I know of a recent incident on an AFF jump where the student began to tumble out of control at pull time. The instructor (fairly experienced) chased the student and ended up pulling very low after dumping out the student. The instructor had a very slow opening canopy and had a cypres fire causing a 2 out situation. Now we all know that as an AFF instructor you are taught that at a certain point the student is on their own, but I can imagine that in that situation all you are thinking about is saving the students life.

Should the instructor be grounded for 30 days?

Hey Oren,

To answer that question from my point of view, please answer this question for me:

Did the Instructor lose altitude awareness?

If Yes, ground them. If No, talk to them about the 2 grand "save yourself, I'd rather have one crater on the DZ than two" hard deck.

There are times when low pulls are not a bad thing....And that is where DZO's and S&TA's need to use common sense.

Just my thoughts.


Ron

Oct 17, 2004, 6:21 AM
Post #102 of 239 (1523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think people may overestimate the accuracy of the cypres. It will fire somewhere between 500 and 1200 feet depending on your position, how it's mounted, the relative accuracy of the sensor, ground altitude difference, daily pressure changes etc.

And 1200 feet is 800 feet lower than the most experienced person is allowed to open accodring to the USPA. So while a CYPRES MAY fire at 1200 feet...You are already way to low, and only 8 seconds from killing yourself.

In reply to:
A suprise cypres firing, where the jumper is caught unawares, is a very big deal. A cypres that fires three seconds after you open your main, or one that happens at about the same time as your reserve pull, is less of a big deal (though certainly still an issue.) It is indicative of a jumper who opened too low, not of a jumper who would certainly have otherwise died.

And how many times have you been told by a jumper that had a CYPREs fire "I was just getting ready to pull my (insert favorite handle here), when it fired."?

I would say most cases where a Cypres fires it was just a low main pull and the person might have been fine.....But still, they pulled low and without a good reason. They were breaking the rules and put their life in greater danger than it needed to be.

A grounding is such a small penalty for an act that could easily kill.


Ron

Oct 17, 2004, 6:35 AM
Post #103 of 239 (1522 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It will do wonders as long as you are certain the person is repentant and introspective. As Kallend mentioned, they may just spend 30 days being angry and blaming anything but their own actions for being responsible. (I know I don't need to talk about how many people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, or inaction, as the case may be.)

If it does nothing else it will prevent them from bouncing on your land. Also it will show to others that you are seroius about safety and they might not need the CYPRES fire to shape up....

People, a CYPRES fire IS a big deal. Even if it was "just" a low pull. A low pull in itself is a groundable offense.

In reply to:
Why wouldn't an AFF level 6 jump be an appropriate way to deal with the problem in addition to a grounding?

An AFF level 6 would in no way impart anything to a guy with over 100 jumps...Hell, I don't think it would teach anything to a guy that has 20 jumps.

We all know we need to pull before impact, we all know that an altimeter is useful in keeping from impacting....None of this is information that gets old, or that people forget.

Most people who have a CYPRES fire are so busy in a skydive that they lose track of altitude. An AFF level 6 is NOT going to do anything but make a guy more pissed at having to spend 150 bucks to do a jump that will serve no purpose. I am willing to bet you could do all the TLO's of an AFF 6 jump in 4 thousand feet...So that will not really tax you, and you will not learn a lesson.

So all you want to do is punish them with a fine, and not time off.

I can't MAKE anyone learn a lesson. I can however provide them the environment they need to learn it.

In my little world I would have a book filled with pictures of bounces. If you did something as stupid as a CYPRES fire I would march you into my office and make you look through that book. I would also include letters from the friends and family of the guys in the pictures. You would go home for 30 days with copies of those letters.

One thing that you will notice is that those of us that have seen a bounce....Don't tend to think the same way as you.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 17, 2004, 9:24 AM
Post #104 of 239 (1505 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbrown] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
According to the original post, the problem came to a head after "several" Cypres fires in the last month or so. As busy as Perris gets, and they just hosted the Nationals, several Cypres fires really are unacceptable.

Sparky, you probably remember back in 1980 at Perris there was a problem with too many people losing their pud handles on their hand deploys and pulling their reserves. Management got fed up with that one as well and announced the next reserve ride due to a lost handle would be grounded. And guess what, the problem dried up real quick (I know because I was one of 'em and I got my pilot chute setup reconfigured). So the threat of grounding does work to clear up situations that are simply getting out of control.

By the way, there was a legit9mate Cypres save at Perris a month or so back. A jumper doing a backloop accidently kicked another jumper around his neck and shoulders, putting a "Spock" on one of his nerves. The guy went completely numb and could not move his arms. He tried desperately to reach his handles and his arms would not budge. All he could keep asking himself was "Did I turn my Cypres on ? Oh please, am I sure I turned it on ?". He did and it worked, but he had to watch the ground rush get pretty bad first. THAT'S the kind of situation a Cypres is meant for, not for some yo-yo who's tracking around on his back with a dead battery in his Dytter.

Tom,

Yes, I do remember the problem with losing PC puds. I was one of them. I tried laying it off on the fact I had a new rig but the real reason was I was getting lazy on my pull.

The jumper that could not move his arms after being his in freefall was Rick Th........ I talked with him a couple of weeks later and it gave me chills.

Sparky


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 17, 2004, 1:23 PM
Post #105 of 239 (1473 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
When was the last time you heard someone warned about pulling low? I don't think it happens so much now.

Apparently you were not at Rantoul this year. I saw more low pulls and AAD fires in a two hour period than I have during my five years in this sport. Oh yea, and of course the Mr Bill Landing (technically the all-time winner of the low pull contest).

[tangent]
The interesting part? Watching a chronic low-puller bitch out one of them. Don't you love double standards? Thats the one thing about this sport I've never understood - how many double standards there are.[/tangent]


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 17, 2004, 8:14 PM
Post #106 of 239 (1416 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>And 1200 feet is 800 feet lower than the most experienced person
> is allowed to open accodring to the USPA. So while a CYPRES MAY
>fire at 1200 feet...You are already way to low, and only 8 seconds
>from killing yourself.

Agreed; but as I am sure you have been 10 seconds from killing yourself many times on dives you do not consider near-death, I dont consider a cypress firing at 1200 feet (just as the jumper is deploying a main or reserve) to be certain death (or even close to that.) Its generally foolish though. I agree that drop zones can do whatever they want to enforce safety, and I would have no problem with a drop zone that grounded anyone who had a cypres firing regardless of the reason. Or, for that matter, one who grounded people who did hook turns or did not land in the same direction as the first person down, no matter what the reason although I would hope they use common sense along with such rules. Its their DZ, and it is up to them to enforce whatever rules they choose to keep people there safe.

>And how many times have you been told by a jumper that had a
>CYPREs fire "I was just getting ready to pull my (insert favorite
> handle here), when it fired."?

Twice; but once the jumper had a good excuse she had gotten hit so hard that she was semiconscious. The other one simply lost altitude awareness. On the other hand, I have seen a good 30-35 cypres firings over the year (mainly at boogies) where the cypress fired well after the main began to deploy. Again, I would have no problem if the DZ grounded these people, but I dont agree with the thought that his cypress saved him from certain death. It did not save them from certain death any more than my RSL saved me from certain death on my first two cutaways.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Oct 17, 2004, 8:56 PM
Post #107 of 239 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Twice; but once the jumper had a good excuse she had gotten hit so hard that she was semiconscious. The other one simply lost altitude awareness. On the other hand, I have seen a good 30-35 cypres firings over the year (mainly at boogies) where the cypress fired well after the main began to deploy. Again, I would have no problem if the DZ grounded these people, but I dont agree with the thought that his cypress saved him from certain death. It did not save them from certain death any more than my RSL saved me from certain death on my first two cutaways.


You've seen 30-35 Cypres fires THIS YEAR!!????


bob.dino  (E 2185)

Oct 17, 2004, 9:02 PM
Post #108 of 239 (1396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

"over the" is usually followed by "years". Methinks it's a typo Shocked


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Oct 17, 2004, 9:09 PM
Post #109 of 239 (1392 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bob.dino] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"over the" is usually followed by "years". Methinks it's a typo Shocked


Hope so. Yipes.


bob.dino  (E 2185)

Oct 17, 2004, 10:30 PM
Post #110 of 239 (1377 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Unless he's taken a job at Airtec Tongue


yoink

Oct 18, 2004, 1:17 AM
Post #111 of 239 (1362 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

MO... It's a good rule.

It'll have some effect, but not as much as a change of culture - when Cypres saves due to stupidity start to become unacceptable to your peers and mentors, the same way as toggle hook turns are/have become, that's when I think we'll see the biggest drop.
"30 day ban? So what?" will be said by some...
Having a mentor take the piss out of you and look down on you for being stupid will make you feel about an inch tall... you won't do it again.

Skydivers don't like enforced rules, but peer pressure works a treat! Wink


obelixtim  (D 84)

Oct 18, 2004, 2:14 AM
Post #112 of 239 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [yoink] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree...peer pressure works best....


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2004, 5:34 AM
Post #113 of 239 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, 30-35 cypreses over the years (14 years to be exact.)


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 6:20 AM
Post #114 of 239 (1323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [yoink] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It'll have some effect, but not as much as a change of culture - when Cypres saves due to stupidity start to become unacceptable to your peers and mentors, the same way as toggle hook turns are/have become, that's when I think we'll see the biggest drop.
"30 day ban? So what?" will be said by some...
Having a mentor take the piss out of you and look down on you for being stupid will make you feel about an inch tall... you won't do it again.

I agree with you 100%...But have you seen even on just this thread how some people don't consider a CYPRES fire a big deal?

That is wrong. But many of todays jumpers don't think its a big deal.

And when older jmpers say something we are considered to be unreasonable,a nd unflexable.

Simple fact, I have seen more Cypres fires in the last few years than I ever saw in the first 5 that the device was around and the total of CYPRES fires are higher than no/low pull fatalities.

New skydivers don't seem to think of a CYPRES save as a big deal.

That needs to change.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Oct 18, 2004, 6:31 AM
Post #115 of 239 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Simple fact, I have seen more Cypres fires in the last few years than I ever saw in the first 5 that the device was around and the total of CYPRES fires are higher than no/low pull fatalities.

New skydivers don't seem to think of a CYPRES save as a big deal.

Alter that to *some* new skydivers and I might believe you, Ron.

And not to say it accounts for all of the increase, but the cypres ownership rate in the first 5 years was dramatically lower than it is now, was it not?


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 6:49 AM
Post #116 of 239 (1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Alter that to *some* new skydivers and I might believe you, Ron.

I might chance it to *most*, but not *some*.

Not to start the old debate, but you know how I feel about people buying toys instead of training more.

In reply to:
And not to say it accounts for all of the increase, but the cypres ownership rate in the first 5 years was dramatically lower than it is now, was it not?

And there are more new jumpers, more jumps being made, more slower opening canopies...ect.

But the collective ATTITUDE has also changed. When the CYPRES first came out and you had a CYPRES fire we all considered it a big deal and that you really fucked up. Today that attitude is different. The old guys still have the same attaitude as before, so it's the new folks that are not thinking it is a big deal.


wuffo

Oct 18, 2004, 7:14 AM
Post #117 of 239 (1304 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Wait a minute here, folks. Let's think about this. We skydive for excitement. If you haven't witnessed a CYPRES save from the ground, and all the aftermath, you haven't seen excitement! I mean, why wear an AAD if it isn't going to be used once in a while? What a waste of all that technology! I say just make sure all the BOZO's out there have one in their rig, then turn 'em on, open the door, and watch the action when they go BANG! Think of it sort of like this; why does anyone watch NASCAR? It damn sure isn't just to watch the cars go round and round!


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2004, 7:36 AM
Post #118 of 239 (1295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

> When the CYPRES first came out and you had a CYPRES fire we all >considered it a big deal and that you really fucked up. Today that
> attitude is different.

I've noticed the exact opposite. When I was jumping in 91, I saw a few cypres firings, and they were all scoffed at as 'cypres misfires.' "Hey, I pulled just under 2000 feet, like I always do! And my Crusilite always snivels, but it always opens. Damn thing must have misfired." I remember Airtec doing several analyses based on video and cypres data to prove to people that they really were firing at 1200 feet, not 1600.

Nowadays people get grounded. People take it a lot more seriously.


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 9:00 AM
Post #119 of 239 (1258 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've noticed the exact opposite

Heres a news flash...you don't agree with me...Crazy

In reply to:
When I was jumping in 91, I saw a few cypres firings, and they were all scoffed at as 'cypres misfires.' "Hey, I pulled just under 2000 feet, like I always do! And my Crusilite always snivels, but it always opens. Damn thing must have misfired."

And it was taken as a big deal...big enough of a deal that airtect did a bunch of testing.

Todays new jumpers don't see the fires as a big deal.

Back then we did. It was at first seen as a misfire of a dangerous device, then later as a save for an act of stupidity.

Now its "just a fire".

In reply to:
Nowadays people get grounded.

They got grounded back then as well where I jumped.

In reply to:
People take it a lot more seriously.

Then why so many more fires?

And why the attitude of some on here that a grounding is to "harsh"?


Reginald  (D 28162)

Oct 18, 2004, 9:54 AM
Post #120 of 239 (1232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Everyone is not cut out for this sport.

I don't think it's fair to make this statement.

I do. I can name a few.


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 10:29 AM
Post #121 of 239 (1225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think people may overestimate the accuracy of the cypres. It will fire somewhere between 500 and 1200 feet depending on your position


Even if it was the top end (1200 ft), I am not interested in hearing how it "wasn't that dangerous" or any rationalization.

If someone was about to attempt to dump their main at 500-800 ft, that is a seriously dangerous altitude awareness problem. If they had no cypres and successfully deployed their main, they would be in danger of being killed. That needs to be addressed.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 10:41 AM
Post #122 of 239 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Then why so many more fires?

My guess would be that most new jumpers get them now, and a lot of the older generation have converted over as well. Also, there are now more turbine DZs that can churn out more jumps over a weekend. And then there are the DZ that require a Cyrpess. Thus, more jumps with an AAD increases the chances of a fire. The number of fires we have now will be higher by default.

We would need the exact number of Cypres units in a rig over the years compared to the amount of fires to get a true understanding of how complacent the sport has/has not become.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2004, 10:41 AM
Post #123 of 239 (1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>Even if it was the top end (1200 ft), I am not interested in hearing
>how it "wasn't that dangerous" or any rationalization.

Nor, I suspect, will you hear that. Opening at 1600 feet _is_ dangerous, and the only time it's justified is to avoid a more serious danger (i.e. someone above you at 2000 feet.) Needless to say, not getting in that situation to begin with is certainly a better option than those two.

However, claiming that anyone who has had a cypres fire would otherwise be dead is silly.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2004, 10:47 AM
Post #124 of 239 (1208 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>Then why so many more fires?

1. Almost everyone has a cypres now
2. Many people have very snively canopies
3. Many people (headdowners) do not ever look at the ground in freefall.

>And why the attitude of some on here that a grounding is to "harsh"?

Same reason some people think doing drugs and jumping is OK as long as "they can handle it" I suppose. Everyone has a different level of acceptable risk. In the end, the only person whose opinion matters in such cases is the DZO.


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 10:51 AM
Post #125 of 239 (1204 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My guess would be that most new jumpers get them now, and a lot of the older generation have converted over as well. Also, there are now more turbine DZs that can churn out more jumps over a weekend. And then there are the DZ that require a Cyrpess. Thus, more jumps with an AAD increases the chances of a fire. The number of fires we have now will be higher by default.

True and I said as much.

In reply to:
We would need the exact number of Cypres units in a rig over the years compared to the amount of fires to get a true understanding of how complacent the sport has/has not become.

Not true. All you have to do to find out how complacent the sport has become is listen to people whine about getting grounded for a fire, or listen to people who refuse to jump without an AAD.

Having the numbers of total jumps made with/without an AAD and the total number of fires/bounces would give you valuble info...(info you will NEVER get). But to find out the complacency the sport has become all you need to do is listen and watch.

The number of AAD fires is much higher than the amount of low pull deaths. That could be attributed to the hugher number of jumps made by a larger group of people.

However, to determine the *attitude* of those jumpers. all you have to do is watch and listen.


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 10:54 AM
Post #126 of 239 (1572 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Then why so many more fires?

1. Almost everyone has a cypres now
2. Many people have very snively canopies
3. Many people (headdowners) do not ever look at the ground in freefall.

All that and you skip the fact that some peoples attitudes are just accepting of AAD fires.

So according to your list of issues the only fixes are:
1. Don't jump a CYPRES
2. Don't jump slow opening canopies.
3. Don't do freefly.

Where if you take the line of thinking I have you can do all three AS LONG AS YOU USE YOUR HEAD.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 11:07 AM
Post #127 of 239 (1564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
However, to determine the *attitude* of those jumpers. all you have to do is watch and listen.

I have and do. I don't think it is as dire as you portray it. There are a few dense jumpers that I know of that believe they are bullet proof. But overall, the jumpers that I know and hang with are a very safe group of people and are not complacent at all. We make jokes, but what we do in the air is no where near those jokes.

This tendency to feel that a younger generation is more out of control is very typical. You hear parents say it all the time about their kids. You hear Baby Boomers saying it about Gen X, etc. This is a cycle that has happened time and time again. You are looking back through your own mistakes at the current generation of jumpers and claiming that they are complacent. But your own actions that you claimed on this board (pulling low, hooking it in, etc) were probably getting the same claims from the generation of jumpers before you. Your perspective has changed, but the situation is still the same.

Yes, jumpers are still going to die at a rate of about 30 a year as the stats show. As Bill Booth says, jumpers find new ways to kill themselves every year. This generation it is low hooks. Who knows what it will be next.


(This post was edited by ChasingBlueSky on Oct 18, 2004, 11:12 AM)


Praetorian  (B 27234)

Oct 18, 2004, 11:17 AM
Post #128 of 239 (1549 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

all, most ... where do you jump? what is the training program like? I know NO students or "younger" jumpers who think a cypres fire is no big deal, I know some OLDER jumpers who think little of it but NO NEW jumpers. I've personally witnessed freeflyers giving a fellow free flyer a talking too for pulling "low" in this case pulling around 2500ft (probably below) all of these were younger guys(and a gal) all with around 1000 jumps. If someone talked like a cypres fire was no big deal then offered to jump with me .. I'd refuse. once again I CHOOSE to jump with a Cypres, I look at it like a helmet, yes people played hockey and football and rode motorcycles before helmets and most of them lived uninjured, but you would have to be pretty dumb to think that someone who chooses to wear a helmet is a lesser player or less skilled rider because they choose a helmet. sorry for the rant

On a darker note ... in the old days someone who was "not cut out for this sport" failed to pull or pulled way too low once..... today with a cypres that same person will get the Chance to make another stupid mistake insted of just a crater and a black mark on the sport


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 11:26 AM
Post #129 of 239 (1536 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
However, claiming that anyone who has had a cypres fire would otherwise be dead is silly.

It is a rare event in life that can be described with a totally black-and-white "100% of the time" rule.
While not every single cypress fire would result in death, most would.

People who have a cypress fire are not 10 seconds away from death. Maybe 1 or 2. If they haven't been altitude aware for the last 12,000 ft, they probably aren't going to be in the next 200 (1 second).

If your main takes 400 ft to open, and you are going 175 ft/sec, then your hard deck is around 600 ft to pitch your pc. Below 600 and you are probably dead. At 700, maybe some broken parts.

Most people on this thread are for/against the grounding rule. After re-reading your postings, I see that you are for the right of the dz to do what they want. I haven't seen a hard for/against personal opinion from you yet.

What do you think should be done if a person has a cypres fire for no other reason than a lack of altitude awareness?


cuppa_tea007

Oct 18, 2004, 11:29 AM
Post #130 of 239 (1534 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I have ploughed through this post and have at last read a reply that cuts to the chaste, PUNISHMENT, stuff the self reflection, and all the other physiological BS and get it into your heads that this is a PUNISHMENT. I am sick and tired of society condemning punishment; it is a penalty for breaking the rules, end of discussion. Live with it, if after the 30 days people want to go off and do the same thing, increase the punishment. If my kid steps out of line he gets punished, it is his choice if he sulks and refuses to learn, but there is no discussion about the punishment being fair. My house, my rules.
My hat is off to Perris.


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 11:32 AM
Post #131 of 239 (1529 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have and do. I don't think it is as dire as you portray it

Well maybe because you are in the group I speak about? I do have 7 years more in the sport than you. That gives me the knowledge of what skydivers acted like prior to the CYPRES being popular.

Low pulls were more common, but they were also more *intentional* low pulls. Now for the sake of safety, they were pretty stupid back then as they are today. However, I would rather have a guy pulling low on purpose than losing track of altitude and pulling low on accident. The guy that is humming it KNOWS he is low.

Having been around before the CYPRES was popular, and right after the "It's a death trap" phase. (The thought of an AAD firing on a "normal" low pull was seen as dangerous). Anyone that had an unintentional low pull due to losing track of altitude was yelled at quite a lot by his fellow jumpers. Today it seems nothing by comparison.

In reply to:
This tendency to feel that a younger generation is more out of control is very typical.

It is also very acurate. 40 years ago "Water Closet" was not allowed on TV (First case of a censored word on National TV...Happend on the Tonight Show, pre Carson). Today you can say all kinds of words that then you could not say.

EDIT to add: it was Jack Paar February 11, 1960, when Paar walked off the stage in protest over NBC's censorship of one of his jokes from the night before.

Look at Music. Yesturday I heard a rapper rap that one of the women he was sleeping with was having his baby. Another rapper speaking as his mind said he was going to punch her in the stomach and abort the baby.....That is a far cry from seperate beds on the Dick Van Dike show.

In reply to:
But your own actions that you claimed on this board (pulling low, hooking it in, etc) were probably getting the same claims from the generation of jumpers before you.

And they were right. I did dumb things, and for the most part they kept me in line. I never thought they were being jerks. I knew they were looking out for my best interests...Even if I didn't like the lesson or the approach to the lesson. They were right, and I was wrong...It took years to realize that fully.

In reply to:
Your perspective has changed, but the situation is still the same.

My perspective has changed...And the situation is still the same. New jumpers are not taking the sport as serious as they need to. And their perspective will change once they almost get killed, see someone get killed, or lose enough friends.

In reply to:
As Bill Booth says, jumpers find new ways to kill themself every year.

Yep, as equipment gets better people start taking advantage of the fact that it will work. I bet that I don't drill my emergency procedures as much as a guy that use to jump shot and a half capewells. My main has only mal'ed 6 times in almost 3400 jumps...I remember being told about equipment that mal'ed about once every 100 jumps.

As AAD's save more people...People will rely on them more. Same game, different device. More people have audibles than before...More people depend on them than before. And yet even with visuals and audibles we STILL have people lose track of altitude....


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 18, 2004, 11:40 AM)


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 11:46 AM
Post #132 of 239 (1515 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Praetorian] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
all, most ... where do you jump?

I have been to over 60 DZ's in the US. How many have you been to? It could be that your DZ is better than others...Or it could be that you just don't know all about your DZ.

In reply to:
what is the training program like?

Its not the TRAINING....it is the attitude that comes later after they are no longer under supervision.

In reply to:
I know NO students or "younger" jumpers who think a cypres fire is no big deal,

Brian has said that he knows a jumper that keeps a spare cutter in his car. Maybe you just don't know enough people yet? I know a girl that I KNOW has had two fires...She treats it like no big deal...I have been told she has had three.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 12:32 PM
Post #133 of 239 (1486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well maybe because you are in the group I speak about? I do have 7 years more in the sport than you. That gives me the knowledge of what skydivers acted like prior to the CYPRES being popular.

That's pretty funny - because I am known to be such a reckless jumper. I lead by example when I am the dz. I've been called the safety bitch and mother hen by more than a few jumpers. But the best part? The conservative advice I have been handing out? I now hear those new jumpers passing on the same safe advice and now leading by example as well. The culture of the jumpers I know is not complacent.

I've been around long enough to remember when the Stiletto was a death machine in the pre-Velocity days and how you could only jump an EXT if you had thousands of jumps. I understand how quick perspectives change in this sport. However, you can preach safety only so much. Sometimes you have to let the kid touch the hot stove and get burned. You got burned and made your mistakes - sometimes you need to let others do it as well. Preach too much and they just don't listen.

And I do listen to the lessons of those that have been in the sport a long time. I have hours of conversations with people like Roger Nelson, Kirk Smith, Sky and Rainbo who have seen just about every aspect of this sport and can put it into perspective and really boil it down to what matters.

In reply to:
However, I would rather have a guy pulling low on purpose than losing track of altitude and pulling low on accident. The guy that is humming it KNOWS he is low.
Which means what? The ground still won't budge. I saw the lowest pull of my short time in this sport at Rantoul - a three way round low pull contest that broke around 1k and they all made sure they turned off their AAD before the jump. I counted a four second canopy ride from one of them - his Nepture showing 400 feet for a deployment. (ask some of the Hellfish about it - he was hanging around that tent a lot) So, something like this is ok to do, but if you have a Cypres fire, it isn't? Crazy

In reply to:
Today it seems nothing by comparison.
Again, I see otherwise. I even watched a guy bitch out his wife in front of the entire DZ after she had a Cyrpes fire. I've seen very few Cypres fires at home - it isn't until I travel that I see them elsewhere, and usually at boogies.

In reply to:
And they were right. I did dumb things, and for the most part they kept me in line.
But you still went out and did dumb things anyhow - despite what they said to you.

In reply to:
New jumpers are not taking the sport as serious as they need to.
And rock n roll is the devils work!!! Once again, I don't see it as dire as you do. Yes, I have traveled - 27 dzs in five years and countless boogies.

In reply to:
And their perspective will change once they almost get killed, see someone get killed, or lose enough friends.
I understand that as I have been down that road as well. But I did have full respect of this sport before those deaths. Team Funnel was created to help promote safety long before we lost our first friend...I know this because I helped create that group with seven other guys that felt the same way about the sport as I did.


Ron

Oct 18, 2004, 1:09 PM
Post #134 of 239 (1464 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That's pretty funny - because I am known to be such a reckless jumper

Did I call you reckless? Nope. I asked if you were in the group I spoke about...The group in this case is the group that does not see a CYPRES fire as a big deal. You may have READ something else that was not there.

In reply to:
I've been called the safety bitch and mother hen by more than a few jumpers

Good for you.

In reply to:
The culture of the jumpers I know is not complacent.

Maybe you don't know the other cultures, or other times...It's hard for me to understand life before everyone had a car...But for my Dad it's much easier, and for my Grandfather its simple. Maybe you can't fathom life, and the way of thinking back then, pre-safe AAD?

Its not saying you are unsafe...just that you don't know.

In reply to:
I've been around long enough to remember when the Stiletto was a death machine

Did physics change? Did the Stiletto suddenly become safer than it was 10 years ago? EDUCATION may have gotten better...But we have known since day one that hitting the ground was bad....That has NEVER changed. You see the ATTITUDE to the Stiletto changed...Not the Stiletto. Just as the attitude to a CYPRES fire has changed. And using your example a new skydiver does not know the danger that a Stiletto was/is since it seems so much less high performance than a Velocity.

In reply to:
you have to let the kid touch the hot stove and get burned.

And sometimes people die. You would rather they die...I'd rather they listen. Eiter way I can't just do nothing and wait for the next person to get burned/burn in.

In reply to:
Roger Nelson, Kirk Smith, Sky and Rainbo who have seen just about every aspect of this sport and can put it into perspective and really boil it down to what matters.

And what do *they* think about CYPRES fires?
Seems to me that BC thinks there is a problem, and he is one guy I really trust.

In reply to:
So, something like this is ok to do, but if you have a Cypres fire, it isn't?

Never said it was OK..But at least they KNEW they were going low. A person who loses track of altitude has no clue they are close.

I also bet they were yelled at or grounded. As they should have been....

You can only tie going for the low pull contest record.Wink

In reply to:
Again, I see otherwise

Again only from your frame of referance. And your frame of referance is post AAD, and from Chicago a very progressive DZ. Again I ask...What was Rogers view of a person who was saved by an AAD? What did he do?

In reply to:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And they were right. I did dumb things, and for the most part they kept me in line.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you still went out and did dumb things anyhow - despite what they said to you.

Actually I normally did the dumb thing BEFORE they yelled at me for doing it....AFTER they yelled at me I tended to stop doing the dumb thing that got me yelled at....In one case due to them threatening to kick my ass if I did it again. (Low pull at around 400 jumps...ya know back when I thought I knew everythingWink).

In reply to:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New jumpers are not taking the sport as serious as they need to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And rock n roll is the devils work!!! Once again, I don't see it as dire as you do. Yes, I have traveled - 27 dzs in five years and countless boogies.

I love how you petty much ignored the fact that people HAVE accepted things as normal that were not normal before. Both in the real world...I doubt saying "Water Closet" will get you censored today, and no one would jump a canopy that mals every 100 jumps.

In reply to:
Yes, I have traveled - 27 dzs in five years and countless boogies.

27 is less than 60+ and 5 years is less than 11. Plus you were not around when AAD's were considered death traps.

In reply to:
I understand that as I have been down that road as well. But I did have full respect of this sport before those deaths.

Good for you...Do you think EVERYONE has that same attitude as you did? I didn't. Difference was I thought an AAD would kill me, not save me.

Who knows more about the things an alcoholic will go through....A guy that was never an alcoholic, or the guy that was and recovered?

If you never were dangerous...Good for you and you do serve as a good example...Bravo!!!! But to think you "know" the other side of the coin is foolish at best.

In reply to:
Team Funnel was created to help promote safety long before we lost our first friend...I know this because I helped create that group with seven other guys that felt the same way about the sport as I did.

Again, Bravo!!!

Some learn the lesson later, others bounce before they learn the lesson.

And most people don't equate a CYPRES fire to an almost bounce anymore since they think the CYPRES will always be there. That attitude is new. And I think that attitude is bad.


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 18, 2004, 1:44 PM)


jumpwally  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 1:34 PM
Post #135 of 239 (1451 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I think grounding is the simplest and best treatment possible. Those who are opposed to it, get over it. Talk to an airline pilot, they can get grounded over paperwork issue's and there are some military pilots out there that can fill these pages with all kind of grounging stories, rather than say hey ! Good for Perris ! Instead hair splitting begins,,,geez. And how can anyone disagree with the statement "this sport is not for everyone",,that is the true -est statement ever !!! Not everyone should snowboard or snow ski,,do you really think we are going to perform great in an Indy car or Nascar? C'mon lets be realistic ! Diff talents for diff folks,,some things become a passion for some and for others its just to be in a group or to be cool or whatever they happen to believe at the moment. We sure enjoy stirring in the negative don't we? This is a dead horse and all the hair and meat have been beaten off of it ;-)
I don't post that often, cuz I don't feel I have enough jumps or experience to comment,,I prefer to look , listen and learn but those comments from the less than 100 jump folks,,,ggeeezzz aren't you embarassed? Survive a year or two before you debate.. as others have said " THINK " and look, listen and learn. wally


BillyVance  (D 18895)

Oct 18, 2004, 1:59 PM
Post #136 of 239 (1433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sunshine] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If you had a CYPRES fire because of inattention, you should likely take up another hobby.

I can think of a few peeps that have had cypres fires that i would still jump with. I consider them safe skydivers that just had one bad incident of losing altitude. We have Pablito, Lewmonst, DaGimp, Jimmie (he doesn't post). I would jump with them any day and don't think they need to take up another hobby.

Add me to that list... at the 2001 Mardi Gras boogie, first jump of the weekend, one of the co-captains for the TSR 150 way event was organizing a 10 way comprised of experienced jumpers. Average experience was well over 1000 jumps apiece. After dirt diving and boarding the plane, I asked the organizer what our break-off altitude is. He looked at me a little sheepishly and hand-signs 3.5K. My eyes widened for a second and I didn't say anything. I thought about getting off the group but didn't. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyway, we start off great, doing a shit-hot sequential dive, then right around 4000 feet, the formation falls apart and everybody's tumbling and trying to get stable and get each others' bearings, and at the same time our audibles are going off and we're trying to get the hell out of dodge. I start tracking, but notice two others tracking in the same direction, below and off both sides of me. I made the decision to wait for them to pull and clear my airspace so as not to risk a canopy collision. Alas, the last one pulled slightly under 2K and I went screaming past him, then I dumped. My canopy snivels enough that any pull below 1700 feet puts me in Cypres firing range. Sure enough, I'd gotten in the saddle and just about grabbed my toggles when I felt the pop on my back. A quick look to confirm (PC was trailing, but the dbag hadn't come off my back yet), and I quickly chopped my main and had a clean reserve opening.

Since then, I've strived to make sure I pull by 2500 feet and if a dive has a questionable plan, I won't get on it. I was already pissed off at myself by the time I'd landed on that jump that extra punishment would have been redundant. That said, I believe punishment needs to be meted out on a case by case basis.

I know of one jumper in Texas who did an intentional cut-away without a tertiary reserve and without approval from the local S&TA. He got grounded for a week. He was okay with that after the S&TA talked with him nicely. But he made the mistake of announcing (bragging more like it) what he did on the forums here and everybody got on his case, and pissed him off so he quit jumping. No big loss here, as he had an attitude problem.

Blue Skies
Billy


obelixtim  (D 84)

Oct 18, 2004, 3:31 PM
Post #137 of 239 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpwally] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 I disagree...I think grounding is a waste of time in most cases. There are often other, better ways to get the point across.....

I can see why Perris has made the rule though, because a DZ can't afford to have unnecessary bad PR, and regardless of who is at fault when a bounce occurs, the DZ always pays a price....as do the people who live and work there.....If people are going to ignore basic survival rules in great numbers, then they have to get a bit ruthless...

And skydiving CAN be for everyone because there are enough different disciplines to cater for all sorts of jumpers...as long as people are properly trained then they can jump safely.....and why shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to enjoy what we know is great.....

I've spent a lot of time helping people experience the thrill of a lifetime.....and I enjoy seeing them buzz out big time..........

I thought the "elitist" bullshit went out of skydiving in the mid 70's......and I'll fight anyone who has the arrogance to say skydiving "is only for a few".

Total horseshit!!!...


MWGemini  (B License)

Oct 18, 2004, 3:53 PM
Post #138 of 239 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Just a reminder- I am a new skydiver (not even licensed yet) and I think cypres saves are as big a deal as you can get, regardless of the reason for it.

Mike


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2004, 5:36 PM
Post #139 of 239 (1371 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>While not every single cypress fire would result in death, most would.

In my experience, 90-95% of cypres firings happen after the main parachute has been opened, and would not otherwise result in death. If anything, those cypres firings INCREASE the odds that you will die in those situations, since dual deployments can and have killed people. I've been on at least one jump where I was very glad I didn't have a cypres. However, on the whole, cypreses do more to help keep you alive than kill you, which is why I use one.

>People who have a cypress fire are not 10 seconds away from death.
> Maybe 1 or 2. If they haven't been altitude aware for the last
> 12,000 ft, they probably aren't going to be in the next 200 (1
> second).

Someone who opens their main at 1200 feet and has a cypres firing at 1100 feet is not "1-2 seconds from death." Cypreses are just mechanical devices that cannot sense main parachute opening, and thus are less qualified than, say, an S+TA to determine who nearly died and who didn't.

>Most people on this thread are for/against the grounding rule. After
> re-reading your postings, I see that you are for the right of the dz
> to do what they want. I haven't seen a hard for/against personal
> opinion from you yet.

I used to be an S+TA, and at the DZ I was S+TA at, I reserved the right to ground people who had cypres firings. If they did so because they were largely altitude unaware, they got grounded. That happened once. If they did so because they pulled at 1600 feet and had a long snivel, they just got a warning. That happened 3-4 times.

>What do you think should be done if a person has a cypres fire for
> no other reason than a lack of altitude awareness?

Again, depends on the circumstances. Like you said, it is a rare event that can be described as totally black and white.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 6:14 PM
Post #140 of 239 (1360 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
as long as people are properly trained then they can jump safely

I've known a few people who were properly trained who were NOT safe jumpers in the slightest. Not because they were hot dogs or full of themselves but because they just weren't cut out for this sport. According to your profile you've been in this sport for 30 years; can you really say you've never met ANYONE in that time who scared you in the air more than once?

In reply to:
I thought the "elitist" bullshit went out of skydiving in the mid 70's......and I'll fight anyone who has the arrogance to say skydiving "is only for a few".

If someone is not willing or able to take responsibility for their actions and decisions, then skydiving is not for them. If someone is too afraid or wound up to recognize and deal with an emergency themselves, then skydiving is not for them (or not for them at that time in their life anyway).

Skydiving is not for everyone. Saying that doesn't make me an elitist, it makes me a realist.

A tandem skydive, on the other hand, can very well be for everyone since in most cases the instructor handles any and all possible problems and the "student" is just along for the ride. Personally I don't consider those who made one tandem jump, didn't pull (ie let the instructor do it), and never touched the toggles to be "skydivers."

Please don't beat me up because I disagree with you.


mcrocker  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 6:34 PM
Post #141 of 239 (1356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just curious, but does anyone think that having a mandatory grounding due to cypres fire will encourage people to stop using a cypres or not buy one for their rig at all? I would think that establishing a general rule for everyone without regard for individual circumstances would discourage the use of a cypres at a facility where an AAD is not a requirement.

If someone loses altitude awareness and they have a Cypress they are grounded for 30 days. If someone loses altitude awareness without a Cypress they are grounded FOREVER!.


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Oct 18, 2004, 8:31 PM
Post #142 of 239 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mcrocker] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I dunno, I'm a new jumper... My $.02 is that a cypress fire WOULD be a big deal, and if I ever had one I would not be upset to be grounded as I obviosly need to think some things over. (excluding I get knocked out in freefall or something) . I'm lucky enough to jump at a drop zone that REQUIRES a cypress, and I'm happy for that.. I just think they are a good idea. On the flip side, I will *ALWAYS* fly as though I dont have one, why would I trust my life to some little computer with a pyro device hooked up to it? There are ways to not loose altitude awareness, my personal solution is my audibles which simply BACK UP my visual altimiter and visual of the ground.. If I get so caught up in my jump that I dont notice my altitude I think my two audibles screaming at me at the same time @ 2K will definately get my attention if I missed the first alerts Unsure It costs a bit of money to get this stuff, but seriously it is your life your talking about.

Edited to remove "dumb" comment which has been taken in such a way I did not intend.


(This post was edited by nate_1979 on Oct 18, 2004, 9:23 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 8:34 PM
Post #143 of 239 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nate_1979] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'd hate to think that I might be dumb enough to jump without one.

Watch who you're callin' dumb. Never know who might have survived hundreds or thousands of jumps without one. Maybe even one of your instructors. Shocked


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Oct 18, 2004, 8:37 PM
Post #144 of 239 (1325 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I'd hate to think that I might be dumb enough to jump without one.

Watch who you're callin' dumb. Never know who might have survived hundreds or thousands of jumps without one. Maybe even one of your instructors. Shocked

Dont mean to step on any toes with that comment Crazy I just personally think that it's a very good idea to have one Unsure

Sorry if anyone takes that the wrong way, as I was commenting on MYSELF jumping without one, if you dont want it that's your choice !

Hell, I dont know what I'm trying to say lol..

INSERT FOOT IN MOUTH!


mattjw916  (D License)

Oct 18, 2004, 9:10 PM
Post #145 of 239 (1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nate_1979] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I know plenty of people that don't use an AAD, and I don't consider any of them "dumb". It is a personal choice as to whether to jump with one or not... a choice that everyone should make for themselves upon careful consideration.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 18, 2004, 9:27 PM
Post #146 of 239 (1306 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If they did so because they pulled at 1600 feet and had a long snivel, they just got a warning. That happened 3-4 times.

Bill,

There has been a rule against pulling at 1600 feet since I started jumping. When I was S&TA at Perris, opening at that altitude would in most cases be a grounding.

1600 feet is just about half of the altitude an "A" lic. is required to be open and 900 feet below that of a "B" lic. "C" and "D" lic. holders would only be 400 feet low, but they should know better.

I feel that anytime a cypres fires it is a big deal and if the jumper was not just seconds from death, he/she were closer then they could ever dream. At 1000 feet you have about 5 sec. to impact if you do nothing. But then take away 2 of those sec. because by then it is too late to do anything. jmo

Sparky


obelixtim  (D 84)

Oct 19, 2004, 4:15 AM
Post #147 of 239 (1274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 Most people who are not "cut out" for the sport quit of their own volition....thats their decision and I respect that.....

However, I've never ever told someone they should take up bowling, and never would....perhaps if there was a compelling medical reason I might...but even then I would try to accommodate them if possible...and I've trained people to do solo's who do have medical issues, but not enough to disqualify them in my mind.....(In NZ people do not have to get a medical clearance from a doctor to jump..we believe people are capable of making their own decisions, they are adults after all)....

Plenty of people have problems, and if they are still keen on the sport I will show them how to overcome their problems and how to enjoy skydiving safely....its all about patience, encouragement, and education....

I have seen plenty of people who would be written off as useless by most overcome their problems and become good skydivers.....to me they are a challenge....

If someone is not capable of handling an emergency it will be because they haven't been trained properly... and I will find that out before they get in the plane the first time.....and rectify that situation to make sure they are capable......

Someone on the board last week with 30 jumps was saying that they weren't sure that they had the strength to pull their reserve in an emergency....I found that totally unbelievable...

There are no bad students....only bad instructors....

As far as being scared of people in the air I make sure people are jumping within their capabilities, and don't put myself in a position where they can take me out.....

So yes, I can say that I've spent this long in the sport and I've never trained anyone who I've later had to ground for good.

I have confidence in my training methods, the equipment I provide, and the people I deal with.....too many people are afraid to trust themselves and others...I prefer to be positive...


chriswelker  (D 19678)

Oct 19, 2004, 5:32 AM
Post #148 of 239 (1256 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Minimum container opening altitudes above the ground for skydivers are:


1. Tandem jumps--4,500 feet AGL

2. All students and A-license holders--3,000 feet AGL

3. B-license holders--2,500 feet AGL

4. C- and D-license holders--2,000 feet AGL

Just enforce the USPA BSR's and suspend the USPA member for a period of 30-60 days.

Chris Welker
S&TA '05


wmw999  (D 6296)

Oct 19, 2004, 7:23 AM
Post #149 of 239 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
4. C- and D-license holders--2,000 feet AGL

Note, folks, that's container opening.

Which means that a righteous snivel still puts you into Cypres territory. Which shouldn't mean that if you have a Cypres fire you won't get shit.

The C/D license container opening altitudes were set when canopies generally opened faster. A 1000' snivel was a malfunction in those days.

Wendy W.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 19, 2004, 8:32 AM
Post #150 of 239 (1192 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

 
To the management at Perris:
Way to go Perris. It's your sandbox, you make the rules. If somebody doesn't like it, they know where the door is.

Since you've got the biggest sandbox around, the others will follow your lead. This is a prime example of a DZ governing itself, and Perris Valley's status as a DZ should contribute to the adoption of such a rule at DZ's across the country. Bravo.


To all those opposed to the rule:
This isn't knidergarden, and it's not Disneyland. If you don't want to follow the rules put in place to save your life, and then you don't want to be responsible for your actions, fuck you. Go be an asshole somewhere else (preferably not a DZ).


craddock  (D 22750)

Oct 19, 2004, 9:21 AM
Post #151 of 239 (1921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you are under a streamer that goes so low that your CYPRES fires....Its a malfunction. Remember the hard deck according to the USPA is 1800 feet. .

Yes and if I was forced to chop every partial mal above that "hard deck", I would have a good number of cutaways added to the four than I did chop. I wonder if you would not have a few more also.


Liemberg  (Student)

Oct 19, 2004, 9:30 AM
Post #152 of 239 (1918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
you don't want to be responsible for your actions, fuck you. Go be an asshole somewhere else (preferably not a DZ).

The fine art of diplomacy? Smile

I was told that it consisted of the ability to tell people that they could go to hell in such tone that they were looking forward to the trip...

BTW: Cypres opening due to lack of altitude awareness ? When I was young, handsome and stupid somebody held on to me in an accordeon until 2300 ft. Then he let go, floated up and dumped. As I opened my main my FXC 12000 fired.
The 'directeur technique' of La Ferte Gaucher (France) chewed me an extra ashole and told me I was on probation from that moment on. One more stupid trick and I wasn't welcome anymore.
In retrospect I think I should have been suspended for 30 days. (Someone having a firm grip on your leg is no excuse for not pulling AND what better wake up call is there than the other guy's opening?)


Ron

Oct 19, 2004, 11:02 AM
Post #153 of 239 (1892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes and if I was forced to chop every partial mal above that "hard deck", I would have a good number of cutaways added to the four than I did chop. I wonder if you would not have a few more also.

Still does not make it safe.

I wonder how many people have burned in thinking "It will open"?


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 19, 2004, 2:09 PM
Post #154 of 239 (1849 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile


arlo  (D License)

Oct 19, 2004, 8:50 PM
Post #155 of 239 (1787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

FWIW, my first trip to perris ever was the 2000 nationals. there was a 20-something way outta the dc-3 and i believe there were 3 maybe 4 cypres fires. there were at least 2 people that had 2 out and one or two cut away. someone correct me if i'm wrong. i just remember seeing a fucking good spot because 2 or 3 of the freebags fell right in front of me as i was looking towards the landing area. i remember it raining freebags and canopies.

alll the folks that pulled low were scheduled to compete at that nationals. they were all told told to pack their toys because they weren't allowed to jump at nationals after that episode. i know a couple of the folks and they are very experienced (5 digit jump numbers). so they were punished for their actions in the sense that their teams had to scramble and find someone to fill their slot - teams that had trained all year long. bottom line is they all fucked up and they, along with their teammates, felt the repercussion of their actions.

as much as i hated to see these people not get to compete, i feel the decision by perris mgmt was the correct one. i also feel that perris (or any other dz) reserves the right to institute whatever punishment they deem necessary to fit the situation. hell, if they want to ground you for life, that is their decision to make. as dave said, it's their sandbox...and the rest of it too. Wink if you feel like you want to play around and lose altitude awareness, then maybe find a dz that doesn't give a shit about you and go there.

there really is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness being the cause of a cypres fire - NONE. what can be more important in skydiving than knowing that YOU need to pull with enough time to get an open canopy? it's a pretty simple concept.

i don't get why people think this is something that only requires a tiny slap on the wrist. boys and girls, this ain't fucking romper room....

blues,
arlo


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 19, 2004, 10:55 PM
Post #156 of 239 (1769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [arlo] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
boys and girls, this ain't fucking romper room....

Man, that's harsh.........LaughTongue


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 19, 2004, 11:15 PM
Post #157 of 239 (1766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
boys and girls, this ain't fucking romper room....

Man, that's harsh.........LaughTongue

Harsh, but it seems to apply to way some people react to being held responsible for their actions or lack of action. TongueTongue

Sparky


happythoughts  (D License)

Oct 20, 2004, 6:45 AM
Post #158 of 239 (1721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [arlo] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
there really is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness being the cause of a cypres fire - NONE.

Agreed. If the only issue was a lack of altitude awareness, I don't understand how anyone argues the seriousness. It is surprising that this isn't already a policy in other places also.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 20, 2004, 7:50 AM
Post #159 of 239 (1700 views)
Shortcut
Re: [arlo] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
there really is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness being the cause of a cypres fire - NONE.

=====================================

I think a distinction that opposers to this rule are not making is that a Cypress fire is not the result of a simple loss of altitude awareness; it's the result of a GROSS loss of altitude awareness.

I usually like to get a PC out around 3k or 3.5K. If I lose alt. awareness, I'm throwing out at 2k or 2.5k, more than twice Cypres fire alt. I have a little wiggle room built into the plan.

If you are going to plan a dive where your intended pull alt. is 2k, you need to be on the ball. You need to realize that you are taking it right to the limit, and to proceed accordingly. There is no wiggle room. A brief lapse of awareness will result your options closing in on you in a hurry.

I jump with a Cypres, and have seen enough video of main and reserve entanglements or downplanes that I regard Cypres fire alt. with as much concern as I regard the ground. I see a Cypres fire during my main deployment to be a serious risk to my health and well being. The fact that anyone thinks it's OK, or excusable that their snivel took them into firing alt. with enough speed to cause a firing is rediculous. You know you have a Cypres, you know it's on, respect that and plan around it.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Oct 20, 2004, 7:52 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 20, 2004, 2:41 PM
Post #160 of 239 (1628 views)
Shortcut
Re: [happythoughts] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
there really is no excuse for loss of altitude awareness being the cause of a cypres fire - NONE.

Agreed. If the only issue was a lack of altitude awareness, I don't understand how anyone argues the seriousness. It is surprising that this isn't already a policy in other places also.

Who's arguing the seriousness? I thought the debate was about the appropriateness of grounding as the DZ's response.

I think other measures are more appropriate and likely to be more effective, such as mandatory additional training. And I suspect it really depends on the personality of the offender as to what would be the most effective measure.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Oct 21, 2004, 8:17 AM
Post #161 of 239 (1590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Who's arguing the seriousness? I thought the debate was about the appropriateness of grounding as the DZ's response.

Agreed - it is as serious as a heart attack. There is no jump out there that should result in one, nor should anyone put themself in a position to have a fire by screwing around and forgetting that large, round, fast approaching, hard object below you.

I would never argue that. Plus I would never argue that a DZ can't make/enforce any rules it seems fit to keep them in business.

My biggest concern is that a known public rule like this will cause people to keep their AAD turned off. A rule with positive, life-saving intentions can have just the opposite effect...esp with a crowd as stubborn and independent as skydivers.

Grounding those jumpers that Arlo mentioned was a wise course of action - gross negligence like that is dangerous, esp in a large crowd. But think about this - how many 3, 4 or 5-digit wonders turned off their AADs during fun/practice jumps to make sure their full year of training wasn't ruined by a Cypres fire? Stupid idea? Yup! But very possible.


(This post was edited by ChasingBlueSky on Oct 21, 2004, 12:26 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 21, 2004, 12:54 PM
Post #162 of 239 (1547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
My biggest concern is that a known public rule like this will cause people to keep their AAD turned off
=====================================

Anyone falling into this catagory......defies description.

How stupid would you have to be to spend the money to buy, install, and maintain an AAD, only to leave it off for fear of being grounded for 30 days (which directly implies that you feel a Cypres fire is a real possiblity in your future) ?

I see your point, but man would it take a box of rocks for a brain to actually do such a thing. My guesss is that we'll see it happen once or twice a year.


Ron

Oct 21, 2004, 1:15 PM
Post #163 of 239 (1538 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My biggest concern is that a known public rule like this will cause people to keep their AAD turned off
=====================================

Anyone falling into this catagory......defies description.

How stupid would you have to be to spend the money to buy, install, and maintain an AAD, only to leave it off for fear of being grounded for 30 days (which directly implies that you feel a Cypres fire is a real possiblity in your future) ?

I see your point, but man would it take a box of rocks for a brain to actually do such a thing. My guesss is that we'll see it happen once or twice a year.

My feelings exactly....Anyone that stupid needs a CYPRES.


Lindsey  (D 17865)

Oct 21, 2004, 10:00 PM
Post #164 of 239 (1467 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think so. I would guess that (like a bunch of teenagers) many of us do not acknowledge that it might be *me* who fucks up. The possibility of *my* cypres firing would not take up any serious space in my mind, probably....unfortunately. I would still turn mine on because it's safer to do so.... I would consider the possibility of its firing slim...and if it did fire, I think that its life-saving properties would outweigh a possible grounding by the dzo.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Who's arguing the seriousness? I thought the debate was about the appropriateness of grounding as the DZ's response.

Agreed - it is as serious as a heart attack. There is no jump out there that should result in one, nor should anyone put themself in a position to have a fire by screwing around and forgetting that large, round, fast approaching, hard object below you.

I would never argue that. Plus I would never argue that a DZ can't make/enforce any rules it seems fit to keep them in business.

My biggest concern is that a known public rule like this will cause people to keep their AAD turned off. A rule with positive, life-saving intentions can have just the opposite effect...esp with a crowd as stubborn and independent as skydivers.

Grounding those jumpers that Arlo mentioned was a wise course of action - gross negligence like that is dangerous, esp in a large crowd. But think about this - how many 3, 4 or 5-digit wonders turned off their AADs during fun/practice jumps to make sure their full year of training wasn't ruined by a Cypres fire? Stupid idea? Yup! But very possible.


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 21, 2004, 11:31 PM
Post #165 of 239 (1455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Anyone that stupid needs a CYPRES.

Actually I think they need bowling. How ever I will admit there are very specific skydives I've shut mine off for. (well I used to shut them off for before I removed them from my rigs.)


jumpwally  (D License)

Oct 22, 2004, 11:50 AM
Post #166 of 239 (1386 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Nicely put Dave...........................wally


JDBoston  (D 26450)

Oct 24, 2004, 12:34 PM
Post #167 of 239 (1284 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

PLUS I have some beautiful oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell them. I don't pay $1200 for too many things and then NOT use them. I'll resist the temptation to make a tasteless gene pool type joke here.

Joe


TOT  (B 5150)

Oct 26, 2004, 4:42 PM
Post #168 of 239 (1159 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dagny] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why aren't there mandatory suspensions for other accidents which can result in death? i.e. making a low turn..?
There are.. My Dr. wont let me jump for 6 months after my last low turn.

TOT

Landing with your hands still on your front risers does not work... Trust me.


jbrasher  (D 5166)

Oct 31, 2004, 4:23 PM
Post #169 of 239 (1025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

"Disagree with this policy. You never improved anyone's performance by preventing them from practicing for 30 days. "

It's not to prevent them from anything, it's just to make sure they have enough time to gather/think about the information/skills necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again. Wink

They should have had the information from the beginning but seem to lack the skill part..

NOTE: I said information NOT HARDWARE.
Just because you got hardware doesn't mean you have the skills.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 1, 2004, 7:13 AM
Post #170 of 239 (980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jbrasher] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"Disagree with this policy. You never improved anyone's performance by preventing them from practicing for 30 days. "

It's not to prevent them from anything, it's just to make sure they have enough time to gather/think about the information/skills necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again. Wink

They should have had the information from the beginning but seem to lack the skill part..

NOTE: I said information NOT HARDWARE.
Just because you got hardware doesn't mean you have the skills.

What evidence do you have that grounding is the most effective method of doing this? What alternatives have you considered?


Ron

Nov 1, 2004, 7:29 AM
Post #171 of 239 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What evidence do you have that grounding is the most effective method of doing this? What alternatives have you considered?

What evidence do you have that it will not fix the problem?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 1, 2004, 7:43 AM
Post #172 of 239 (971 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>What evidence do you have that it will not fix the problem?

Not sure that's such a fair question to ask. I could claim that killing a chicken every day at sunrise could prevent cypres fires - and when someone asked why on earth I thought that would work, I could answer "can you prove it won't?"

There are two ways I see a grounding working:

-it can get people prone to cypres fires out of the air, thus reducing cypres fires (although this is more an argument for a permanent rather than a temporary ban)

-it can 'make people think' by doing something that annoys them (i.e. grounding them)

You might also argue that grounding them would give them the opportunity to get additional training, but that doesn't require grounding - it would take a mandatory retrain for anyone who has a cypres firing.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 1, 2004, 7:50 AM
Post #173 of 239 (963 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>

-it can 'make people think' by doing something that annoys them (i.e. grounding them)

You can't make people think.

For some personality types a grounding will have the exact opposite effect from what you desire.


Ron

Nov 1, 2004, 7:51 AM
Post #174 of 239 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not sure that's such a fair question to ask.

It is as fair a question to ask as Johns question was.

How do we know grounding will work?

How do we know it will not?

Fact is for some it might work, and for others nothing will.

Also you can debate, study...ect any issue. It requires experimentation to prove or disprove a theory.

BC feels that the current situation was not working and that there was a problem. He thought about it and put a program in place to fix it.

1. Identify a problem
2. Brainstorm solutions.
3. Review solutions and network to see it any have been used and what the results were.
4. Pick a solution.
5. Implement.
6. Monitor for effect.
7. Re-evaluate solution.

We are at step 5 going into 6. I am sure step 7 will follow.


(This post was edited by Ron on Nov 1, 2004, 7:53 AM)


hookitt  (D License)

Nov 1, 2004, 7:55 AM
Post #175 of 239 (960 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

What kind of retraining would you do?

"Joe, don't go low... understand? good ... have a good jump"

Afriend of mine was forced to learn real quick not to rely on his audible. He was on his back video taping upward. As his reserve pilot chute was passing him on the side, he rolled over to notice near impact. The person he filmed got her main out and then a cypres fire as well.

He wasn't going to jump neither was she but the kind folks at the dz loaned them rigs. From that point on, low wasn't a problem. They were trained the instant they were aware they had gone low. It hasn't happened again.

I'm not arguing for or against the rule, it is what it is. I'm just curious what kind of training? AFF style Circle of Awareness type stuff? That would be fun.

I like the chicken Idea.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 1, 2004, 7:58 AM
Post #176 of 239 (1133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>You can't make people think.

That's why I put it in quotes.* It will certainly not make everyone think, but in my experience some people (not all) do benefit from time away from the sport to consider their risk/benefit tradeoffs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

* - note that quotes are not there for emphasis, they are used to indicate someone else is speaking, and is not necessarily speaking in the voice of the author. For example, if an author writes:

He "became altitude aware" at 700 feet when his cypres fired and he realized he was low

he is probably saying that he felt that the jumper was not altitude aware at all, but the jumper thought he was. I know you understand this; I've just seen other people misunderstand it.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 1, 2004, 9:59 AM
Post #177 of 239 (1114 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Not sure that's such a fair question to ask.

It is as fair a question to ask as Johns question was.

How do we know grounding will work?

How do we know it will not?

.

Following your philosophy:

"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

"Well, we haven't tested the fuel for contamination but we think it will run OK once you're off the ground, and no-one has proved that it won't."

"That wing repair looks strong enough, and you haven't proved that it will break."

"Well, no-one has proved that removing your testicles won't cure your headaches".


(This post was edited by kallend on Nov 1, 2004, 10:02 AM)


ladyskydiver

Nov 1, 2004, 10:47 AM
Post #178 of 239 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

umm...Kallend...

Quote:
"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

Isn't that what human studies of pills do?


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Nov 1, 2004, 10:54 AM
Post #179 of 239 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

John, once again you have proved you are very good at tearing something down. Now do you have a better solution to dealing with this problem?

On thing we do know for sure, if grounded, they will not have a cypres fire for that period of time.

And instead of of all this crap about "time to think of what happened" and "re-training" how about calling it punishment for unacceptable actions. I know this is a new concept to some people but it has been used and proven to work in the past.

jmo

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Nov 1, 2004, 10:55 AM)


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Nov 1, 2004, 11:01 AM
Post #180 of 239 (1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
umm...Kallend...

Quote:
"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

Isn't that what human studies of pills do?

But that doesn't happen until we kill a bunch of bunnies and rats first. There is a set process to drug testing, but we don't have the abliitly to teach lessons by tossing rabbits out of planes with AADs to prove a point! Laugh


Ron

Nov 1, 2004, 11:14 AM
Post #181 of 239 (1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Following your philosophy:

"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

"Well, we haven't tested the fuel for contamination but we think it will run OK once you're off the ground, and no-one has proved that it won't."

"That wing repair looks strong enough, and you haven't proved that it will break."

"Well, no-one has proved that removing your testicles won't cure your headaches".

Following your logic:

You have a problem with acne....Uh, we can't do anything about it because we don't know what will work. So, its best to do nothing...sorry about the crater face bit.

We just tested the fuel for contamination...But to be safe, we sent some to the lab for a few tests....The results should be back next mth if all goes well. You can jump then. Best to be safe and wait.

We can't fix that wing since a wing has never been fixed with that EXACT same damage before...We don't know what will work so we just better scrap it.

Well we think removing that cancer might work...But since we are not sure, it's best to do nothing.

You have to look at the cost of NOT doing anything....Something you can't seem to do. You would rather do nothing.

"In the absense of facts.....Don't do anything" -Kallend

If we all followed that rule...We still would not have fire.


ladyskydiver

Nov 1, 2004, 11:34 AM
Post #182 of 239 (1087 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
umm...Kallend...

Quote:
"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

Isn't that what human studies of pills do?

But that doesn't happen until we kill a bunch of bunnies and rats first. There is a set process to drug testing, but we don't have the abliitly to teach lessons by tossing rabbits out of planes with AADs to prove a point! Laugh

Hey, Bo. Well...you could toss rabbits out of the plane to prove a point. But there are, also, products that have "no animal testing" as one of their supposed benefits so technically there could be products out that their first "testing" was undergone through human consumption.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Nov 1, 2004, 11:45 AM
Post #183 of 239 (1080 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey, Bo. Well...you could toss rabbits out of the plane to prove a point. But there are, also, products that have "no animal testing" as one of their supposed benefits so technically there could be products out that their first "testing" was undergone through human consumption.

Since I have a friend that kills bunnies for a living in one of those drug companies, I can tell you I've had this discussion before. There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.


ladyskydiver

Nov 1, 2004, 12:14 PM
Post #184 of 239 (1074 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.

And right back full circle to the grounding for a Cypress fire rule at Perris. No guarantees it will work. No guarantees it won't work, but at least, they are trying to do something about the lack of altitude awareness.


ChasingBlueSky  (D License)

Nov 1, 2004, 12:23 PM
Post #185 of 239 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.

And right back full circle to the grounding for a Cypress fire rule at Perris. No guarantees it will work. No guarantees it won't work, but at least, they are trying to do something about the lack of altitude awareness.

Right. I said it at the start of this thread - I applaude the pro-active nature of this rule. At least they are doing something.

However, I am still not sure it is the right path. Some may see it as a lesson, others may see it as a disclipinary action. Skydivers don't care too much to be told what to do, let alone in the sky. I'm worried about the negative reaction such a rule can have.

Do I have the answer to the problem? Nope, if I did, I would have sent someone at Perris an email a long time ago. I'm just playing advocate here because I can really see this rule ending up causing more harm than good. But I really hope I am wrong.

I'm curious how well things have gone since this rule went into effect? There has been a lot of jumping, any AAD fires? Or any news at all?


firstime  (B 28972)

Nov 1, 2004, 2:22 PM
Post #186 of 239 (1051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There may be competition between DZs on one level, but there tends to be cooperation on an operational basis. Even if two DZs are competing fiercely for business, my experience is that the word of the S&TA at one is taken seriously by the other. If a call comes in regarding a questionable jumper, information provided that they are an incident waiting to happen is taken seriously.


Well said.. and hope it will always remain that way


flyangel2

Nov 1, 2004, 4:55 PM
Post #187 of 239 (1035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And instead of of all this crap about "time to think of what happened" and "re-training" how about calling it punishment for unacceptable actions. I know this is a new concept to some people but it has been used and proven to work in the past.

Right on Sparky! People need to be punished for their actions.

Bottom line, if you don't like the rules at a DZ, then don't jump there. I am prove of that. I don't like some of the politics at a nearby DZ, and I haven't jumped there in over a year. Yet I managed to log over 200 skydives this year starting at Easter.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 6:41 AM
Post #188 of 239 (982 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
John, once again you have proved you are very good at tearing something down. Now do you have a better solution to dealing with this problem?

On thing we do know for sure, if grounded, they will not have a cypres fire for that period of time.

And instead of of all this crap about "time to think of what happened" and "re-training" how about calling it punishment for unacceptable actions. I know this is a new concept to some people but it has been used and proven to work in the past.

jmo

Sparky

If you just want punishment, then it's fine. If you want to alter someone's behavior, then you should make some effort to ensure that it will do what you want it to.

I can think of better exercises for improving altitude awareness than a grounding. I'm sure you can too.


wmw999  (D 6296)

Nov 2, 2004, 6:42 AM
Post #189 of 239 (980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [flyangel2] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice avatar there, Mary Smile

Wendy W.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 6:42 AM
Post #190 of 239 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.

And right back full circle to the grounding for a Cypress fire rule at Perris. No guarantees it will work. No guarantees it won't work, but at least, they are trying to do something about the lack of altitude awareness.

Explain how 30 days on the ground improves altitude awareness. By this reasoning a whuffo should have better altitude awareness than any skydiver.


ladyskydiver

Nov 2, 2004, 6:51 AM
Post #191 of 239 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.

And right back full circle to the grounding for a Cypress fire rule at Perris. No guarantees it will work. No guarantees it won't work, but at least, they are trying to do something about the lack of altitude awareness.

Explain how 30 days on the ground improves altitude awareness. By this reasoning a whuffo should have better altitude awareness than any skydiver.

hmm...I remember my whuffo days and my first jump. I checked my altitude so many times, it was funny - every other second almost. The ground coming up at me very rapidly was a very obvious thing, and I knew that pulling was priority. I still check my alti frequently and have now gained a bit of eye/ground matches approx. alti recognition.

However....

Explain how some one who is jumping out of a plane 2 1/2 miles off the ground plummeting to earth at an average speed of 120 mph can lose altitude awareness. Holy cow, Kallend. The earth is not a forgiving thing and if someone can not pay enough attention to the fact that if they do not do something (i.e. PULL) they WILL DIE, a grounding is the least thing that should happen. I don't care one iota about how many points I'm turning or if I wait just a split second to get that additional point - pulling is something that is a priority for me and should be for everyone out there jumping who isn't on a suicide mission. It's not that hard - PULL, PULL ON TIME, PULL STABLE. What's the difficulty in that? Unless injured and unable to pull or unconscious, there is no excuse for lack of altitude awareness - and this from a baby in the sport.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 6:55 AM
Post #192 of 239 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Following your philosophy:

"Have a problem with acne - here, swallow this. We haven't tested it but we're sure it works and you haven't proved it doesn't."

"Well, we haven't tested the fuel for contamination but we think it will run OK once you're off the ground, and no-one has proved that it won't."

"That wing repair looks strong enough, and you haven't proved that it will break."

"Well, no-one has proved that removing your testicles won't cure your headaches".

Following your logic:

You have a problem with acne....Uh, we can't do anything about it because we don't know what will work. So, its best to do nothing...sorry about the crater face bit.

We just tested the fuel for contamination...But to be safe, we sent some to the lab for a few tests....The results should be back next mth if all goes well. You can jump then. Best to be safe and wait.

We can't fix that wing since a wing has never been fixed with that EXACT same damage before...We don't know what will work so we just better scrap it.

Well we think removing that cancer might work...But since we are not sure, it's best to do nothing.

You have to look at the cost of NOT doing anything....Something you can't seem to do. You would rather do nothing.

"In the absense of facts.....Don't do anything" -Kallend

If we all followed that rule...We still would not have fire.

Ron, where did I suggest doing nothing?

I suggested additional training rather than a grounding.

We KNOW training works. That's why we have schools, colleges, universities, flying instructors and skydiving instructors. That's why the best 4-way teams train a lot (hadn't you noticed?).

Your solution to problems always seems to be to impose additional restrictions. Mine is additional education. I guess we just have different philosophies of life.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 6:58 AM
Post #193 of 239 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
There are other ways to test some products to predict the desire outcome without animal testing. However, there is always a risk that both processes will not return the desired result.

And right back full circle to the grounding for a Cypress fire rule at Perris. No guarantees it will work. No guarantees it won't work, but at least, they are trying to do something about the lack of altitude awareness.

Explain how 30 days on the ground improves altitude awareness. By this reasoning a whuffo should have better altitude awareness than any skydiver.

hmm...I remember my whuffo days and my first jump. I checked my altitude so many times, it was funny - every other second almost. The ground coming up at me very rapidly was a very obvious thing, and I knew that pulling was priority. I still check my alti frequently and have now gained a bit of eye/ground matches approx. alti recognition.

However....

Explain how some one who is jumping out of a plane 2 1/2 miles off the ground plummeting to earth at an average speed of 120 mph can lose altitude awareness. Holy cow, Kallend. The earth is not a forgiving thing and if someone can not pay enough attention to the fact that if they do not do something (i.e. PULL) they WILL DIE, a grounding is the least thing that should happen. I don't care one iota about how many points I'm turning or if I wait just a split second to get that additional point - pulling is something that is a priority for me and should be for everyone out there jumping who isn't on a suicide mission. It's not that hard - PULL, PULL ON TIME, PULL STABLE. What's the difficulty in that? Unless injured and unable to pull or unconscious, there is no excuse for lack of altitude awareness - and this from a baby in the sport.

Nice essay. Now explain how sitting on the ground improves altitude awareness better than jumping with an instructor.


ladyskydiver

Nov 2, 2004, 7:06 AM
Post #194 of 239 (957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice redirect, Kallend.

Jumpers want to jump. Individual A gets grounded and is unable to jump. They know that if they want to jump they must maintain altitude awareness. Their punishment served (30 day grounding), they go back up. How much do you want to bet they pay a lot closer attention to their altitude this time around? They know if they don't pay attention, they get grounded (or worse). If you want to reteach them on the ground (although how additional training is going to teach someone that the ground is coming up quickly, pull or else is beyond me), add that into the 30 day grounding.

Now...explain to me how someone can forget that the ground is coming up at them?


Ron

Nov 2, 2004, 7:10 AM
Post #195 of 239 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ron, where did I suggest doing nothing?

You have several times said that we should not do anything till we have more information about the problem. I call it information paralysis ...You can't make a choice till you have the perfect solution...And when a perfect solution does not exist, you just wait till one does.

In reply to:
I suggested additional training rather than a grounding.

How about grounding them AND making them retrain? Grounding for punishment since they did something stupid...And then training to make them more aware.

You don't just give out "A's" do you? I mean you do fail students if they don't do things right don't you?

In reply to:
We KNOW training works

No, we know people who want to learn and seek knowledge works...Just having training does nothing...Or have you not noticed that?

In reply to:
Now explain how sitting on the ground improves altitude awareness better than jumping with an instructor.

Explain how jumping with an instructor is going to teach you you need to pull before impact?

I mean, if you don't understand that, take up bowling.

In reply to:
Your solution to problems always seems to be to impose additional restrictions. Mine is additional education. I guess we just have different philosophies of life.

Restrictions that force people to learn...You just want to ask nicely that they learn.

Like it or not...Punishments work.

What kind of retraining do you sugest? I mean not pulling is akin to flying your plane into a mountain.


(This post was edited by Ron on Nov 2, 2004, 7:13 AM)


flyangel2

Nov 2, 2004, 7:15 AM
Post #196 of 239 (950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you just want punishment, then it's fine. If you want to alter someone's behavior, then you should make some effort to ensure that it will do what you want it to.

As a parent I have found that punishment alter's behavior.

Again, if someone doesn't like the policy of a DZ, go some where else. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you where you have to spend your money.

Wendy, I thought you'd like my new avatar. At this point I have so many pictures of friends that I could change my avatar everyday and you'd see some one new.


pilotdave  (D License)

Nov 2, 2004, 7:16 AM
Post #197 of 239 (947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

The grounding might not help with altitude awareness, but the threat of a grounding might. The DZ has chosen to raise awareness about the seriousness of a cypres fire. Maybe they observed that newer jumpers don't have the same feelings about cypres fires that the older skydivers have always had, so they decided to start doing something about it. They have taken the stance that they don't take cypres fires lightly. Have one, you're grounded. You're not just going to get a quick repack and hop back on the plane. You will know that what you did was extremely serious and you are not welcome in the air over that DZ for a while.

Now you are absolutely right. This does not mean it won't happen again. Retraining is the next step. But the threat of grounding sets a tone on the DZ that cypres fires are unnaceptable. It's a start.

Dave


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 8:18 AM
Post #198 of 239 (935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The grounding might not help with altitude awareness, but the threat of a grounding might. The DZ has chosen to raise awareness about the seriousness of a cypres fire. Maybe they observed that newer jumpers don't have the same feelings about cypres fires that the older skydivers have always had, so they decided to start doing something about it. They have taken the stance that they don't take cypres fires lightly. Have one, you're grounded. You're not just going to get a quick repack and hop back on the plane. You will know that what you did was extremely serious and you are not welcome in the air over that DZ for a while.

Now you are absolutely right. This does not mean it won't happen again. Retraining is the next step. But the threat of grounding sets a tone on the DZ that cypres fires are unnaceptable. It's a start.

Dave

Is there a next step in the new Perris rule?


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 8:25 AM
Post #199 of 239 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [flyangel2] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If you just want punishment, then it's fine. If you want to alter someone's behavior, then you should make some effort to ensure that it will do what you want it to.

As a parent I have found that punishment alter's behavior.

Again, if someone doesn't like the policy of a DZ, go some where else. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you where you have to spend your money.

Wendy, I thought you'd like my new avatar. At this point I have so many pictures of friends that I could change my avatar everyday and you'd see some one new.

The US criminal justice system has found that over 67% of first-time offenders punished with jail terms end up back in jail after release. It has also found that the recidivism rate is significantly reduced by mentoring and rehabilitation.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 8:35 AM
Post #200 of 239 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladyskydiver] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Nice redirect, Kallend.

Jumpers want to jump. Individual A gets grounded and is unable to jump. They know that if they want to jump they must maintain altitude awareness. Their punishment served (30 day grounding), they go back up. How much do you want to bet they pay a lot closer attention to their altitude this time around? They know if they don't pay attention, they get grounded (or worse).

I expect they'll pay more attention on the next jump anyway, since they had a scare plus paying for a repack and a new cutter. How many people have you heard of that had consecutive CYPRES fires with or without a punishment?

In reply to:
If you want to reteach them on the ground (although how additional training is going to teach someone that the ground is coming up quickly, pull or else is beyond me), add that into the 30 day grounding.

Where did I say reteach them on the ground? I suggest several jumps with an instructor doing altitude awareness exercises.
Since that will cost them, it is also a "punishment" for those into the penal thing.


In reply to:



Now...explain to me how someone can forget that the ground is coming up at them?

Beats me. I haven't.


flyangel2

Nov 2, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #201 of 239 (1453 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The US criminal justice system has found that over 67% of first-time offenders punished with jail terms end up back in jail after release. It has also found that the recidivism rate is significantly reduced by mentoring and rehabilitation.

Oh Christ John, we are talking about a cypress fire, not murderCrazy

One more time, if you don't like it, go some where else.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 9:16 AM
Post #202 of 239 (1446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [flyangel2] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The US criminal justice system has found that over 67% of first-time offenders punished with jail terms end up back in jail after release. It has also found that the recidivism rate is significantly reduced by mentoring and rehabilitation.

Oh Christ John, we are talking about a cypress fire, not murderCrazy

One more time, if you don't like it, go some where else.

Doesn't bother me except that I think it a suboptimal response for the reasons stated. And the fact that someone CAN go somewhere else is just another reason that it's suboptimal.

Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?


flyangel2

Nov 2, 2004, 9:28 AM
Post #203 of 239 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?

What gets me upset is when people that don't run the DZ feel they have a better idea. The DZOs and the managers are the ones who have put in the time, money, and energy to have the DZ. They have final say in what rules and policies are set up. Until you or I owe and operate a DZ, we need to just shut up and follow the rules. If we don't like it, we can go some where else.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 2, 2004, 9:42 AM
Post #204 of 239 (1430 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?

I think people are not getting exasperated at your opinion, but rather at the fact that you've posted it 12 times so far. At this point I think everyone understands your position, which is a valid one.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Nov 2, 2004, 12:46 PM
Post #205 of 239 (1405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?


I don't think people are upset about you suggesting an alternative to anything. People get upset when you insist that your view is the only enlightened one and all others are "suboptimal".


In reply to:
Doesn't bother me

It does "bother" you, it bothers the hell out of you or you would let it go.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 2, 2004, 1:40 PM
Post #206 of 239 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?

I think people are not getting exasperated at your opinion, but rather at the fact that you've posted it 12 times so far. At this point I think everyone understands your position, which is a valid one.

Why does Ron insist that I want to do nothing, then, when I've said 12 times already that I think additional training is needed. Maybe I have to say it 13 times!


Ron

Nov 2, 2004, 1:43 PM
Post #207 of 239 (1393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?

Its not that you sugest training...Its just you call everyone elses plans "Suboptimal", but you never come up with any plan that you think it "Optimal"...You just nit pick others ideas and call them bad, but never offer a sugestion, or action plan to make them better...EVEN WHEN WE ASK YOU.

You would rather just bitch about everyone elses plans than do anything about the problem.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 2, 2004, 3:33 PM
Post #208 of 239 (1378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Last warning for both of you. This is not the place for this kind of crap. I don't care how good your plan is or who said what first.


Ron

Nov 2, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #209 of 239 (1357 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Last warning for both of you. This is not the place for this kind of crap. I don't care how good your plan is or who said what first.

I don't see how you can consider what I wrote as an attack...You have said the SAME thing to him.

All I want is for John to come up with a plan...Something other than saying more training is needed.

He shoots everyones plans down, but never comes up with a plan of his own....I am really interested in what kind of training he thinks is needed that is not already covered.

He is a teacher...He knows more about education than I....But saying we need to re-train someone without saying how or what is not an answer.

I have yet to see him give any plan or program for training....On this issue or the BSR one.

I would REALLY like to see his plan. He is more than qualified to come up with one.

I'm sorry if you think I am bashing him...But he IS the expert on education here and I really want to hear his plan.


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 20, 2004, 9:49 PM
Post #210 of 239 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChasingBlueSky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are always ways around being caught in this sport (esp if you are your own rigger).

so because people can get around rules we shouldn't have them?

In reply to:
And if there wasn't, you will just have people with the rather illogical thought "Hell, I'm not going to get grounded" and turn off their AAD. These are often the types that are bullet proof and get sucked into a dive and distracted. I know you know the type, we've all seen them.

i debate this on the grounds that most of the people who get complacent about alti-awareness are the types that won't jump w/o their cypres.

As someone said above.. i'd much rather have someone pulling low on purpose.... at least they're prepared for it and likely evaluated things....

In reply to:
I've seen that, and I also know of DZs that the DZO/S&TA will take anyone. There are some jumpers that post on this board that were banned at a couple DZs and finally found one to jump at, despite the calls.

the phrase "go kill yourself on someone else's DZ" comes to mind. Getting frounded at my DZ may not stop them from jumping, but my dz won't be under the microscope if they crater.

i know that ultimately we agree on the larger issue, just debating the details.


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 20, 2004, 9:52 PM
Post #211 of 239 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>If you have a CYPRES fire, you are on free time for the rest of your life.

I'd have to disagree with that. There are people who pull low because they are trying to avoid someone above them and have a cypres fire. An incident which would have ordinarily resulted in nothing more than an argument over better tracking now becomes a 'cypres save.'

certainly, but at issue in the perris case, and most likely in windsor's post (i apologize if this is wrong, W), is the case of the cypres fire due to loss of alti awareness. Sure some people notice at 1200 ft and would probably have had their main inflated before impact and end up with 2 out... but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question.


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 20, 2004, 10:11 PM
Post #212 of 239 (1290 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Doesn't bother me except that I think it a suboptimal response for the reasons stated. And the fact that someone CAN go somewhere else is just another reason that it's suboptimal.

what bothers me is that the fear of getting grounded is more likely to motivate people to keep better track of their altitude than is the fear of hitting the ground at high-speed.

The cypres has removed many people's fear of death. In that regard it's almost a shame the cypres works so well. If a few more people were bouncing due to cypres failures the problem would probably go away pretty quickly.

take your pick if you think better awareness or quitting the sport would be the cause, but too much faith in the device is what i believe to be the enabler here.

People have already been trained with "don't rely on your cypres, it's a backup, it can fail" then they hear about how it's the only viable AAD cause all the others have problems.... and they hear about all the cypres saves... so they basically get programmed into cypreses not failing. what training would undo this? shall we shart cataloggin cypres failures and keeping it posted at the DZ?

Perhaps the plan IS suboptimal, but i have yet to hear a better one.

Look at it this way:

It can appear that the cypres has effectively negated the consequences of losing altitude awareness. So where's the motivation to keep aware if there are no consequences?
Sub-optimal as the plan may be, it provides consequences to the (in)action, and i think it's far superior to lessening the reliability of the cypres in order to make the point.


LiveLifeGoJump  (C License)

Nov 21, 2004, 2:35 AM
Post #213 of 239 (1273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I have seen a 'Cypres save' (v-close to DZ air space) and I was scared (watching from the ground). When a jumper is that low and still no pull then something has to be done for his own safety. Apart from that no DZ owner/CCI wants the inspections/inquiries etc. that would follow.

I think they have every right to introduce rules that they feel appropriate in these situations.

I used to jump without AAD (approx 160 jumps) and the lack of AAD did not give me cause for concern. My pull height was approx. 3,000ft if I was at terminal V (lowest was 1,800 on a 2,200 lob). My pull height has not (nor will not) alter now I have Cypres for the following reasons (in that order).

1: Cost of Cypres cutter-reserve repack (and new main/freebag if not found).
2: The thought of terminal V. at 750-800 ft scares me ridgid.
3: I don't want to risk being grounded/banned at my local DZ.
4: I want time to deal with any possible main canopy mal, get stable & dump my reserve myself above Cypres hieght.

I was taught that AAD was a backup device (which may fail) to deploy the reserve if you were UNABLE to do so yourself (for whatever reason inc. loss of alti-awareness) but that it was up to me to allow enough time to carry out whatever was necessary to deploy the main and/or reserveand be under canopy before I reached AAD firing altitude.

Surely your life is worth more than the FEW SECONDS freefall time gained by dumping low.

There will be occasions when it is NECESSARY to pull lower than normal (ie. another jumper tracks above you) but if the low pull is used as an EMERCENCY PROCEDURE to avoid an obvious danger created by others then I don't think the CCI would ground YOU (more likely to ground the jumper that caused the incident).

Grounding gives the jumper time to reflect on his/her mistakes and should also include some additional retrain/re-emphasis on alti-awareness. You can't teach them (on the ground) to pull high but you can teach/re-emphasize the reasons to do so (ground school for first jump attempts to teach various skills that are that can only be learnt fully whilst in the air).

Does anyone out there want yo jump with (on even on the same lift as) someone with so little regard for their own life? After all, if they are not bothered about their own life, it is unlikly that they are bothered about YOURS either.

DZs set rules for everyone's safety (inc. that of those on the ground in the surrounding area who don't want to be hit on the head by a skydiver still in freefall), YOU set the rules for YOUR OWN safety in ADDITION to the DZ's.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 21, 2004, 6:31 AM
Post #214 of 239 (1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:


Perhaps the plan IS suboptimal, but i have yet to hear a better one.

I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground.

Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month.


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 21, 2004, 7:02 AM
Post #215 of 239 (1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground.

Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month.


Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though.

The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change?

I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might.

As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness.

With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education.


tdog  (D 28800)

Nov 21, 2004, 7:56 AM
Post #216 of 239 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might.

I disagree and have an example to prove it.

I had a friend who loved to drive at the posted speed limit + 40... Despite what he thought, he was really endangering others and himself as he used all four lanes of the highway during rush hour. But he had no close calls so he felt invincible.

He lost his drivers license for six months (think being grounded for cypress fire). He got his license back (think jumping again). Still had the attitude - I am the best driver on the road - I can handle going faster than others...

Got another ticket.

This time - "defensive driving" class. (think being instructed, not grounded, for cypress fire) The instructor threw out the typical syllabus and had a heart to heart with the students. Apparently she talked mainly about how easy it is to take someone else's life while driving - and taught the whole class from the perspective of the innocent drivers that get killed by others. I think she had gory pictures and stories from victims families.

I wish I could have been in that classroom, because some magic must have happened. My friend came out of that class a changed person - and to this day - credits that class for changing his perspective on life.

My point, I dont think the same consequences work for the whole population and the wide array of attitudes (and even ages of participants) out there so there is no one way to train/punish people who have a cypress fire.

If I were the person who had to deal with cypress incidents, I would probably take the options everyone in this thread have offered and put them in a list. I would post the rule that "all cypress fires have serious consequences to be determined by management." When it came time to handle the incident, I would use the option I thought was best for the individual ranging from this is not funny, please never come back to god, I saw you shake in fear with the view of death in your eyes lets go back up, and in the plane, tell us all what happened, and tomorrow lets talk about it on the ground.

My two cents.


(This post was edited by tdog on Nov 21, 2004, 7:59 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 21, 2004, 9:21 AM
Post #217 of 239 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground.

Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month.


Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though.

The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change?

I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might.

As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness.

With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education.

If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF.

There is thousands of years worth of evidence that training works in pretty much all human activities. No-one has presented a shred of evidence that grounding improves anyone's attitude. Grounding may breed more resentment than attitude adjustment in type "A" personalities.


(This post was edited by kallend on Nov 21, 2004, 9:26 AM)


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 21, 2004, 9:39 AM
Post #218 of 239 (1217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF.

That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that.

I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding.

Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences.

You can try to pre-emptively train people, but i've found that outside of low-timers who know they need it, the people who really need the training are they ones who don't show up to safety day, don't go to the free seminars on the DZ and already know what they need to know.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 21, 2004, 11:45 AM
Post #219 of 239 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF.

That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that.

I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding.

Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences.

Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work.


Lindsey  (D 17865)

Nov 21, 2004, 11:55 AM
Post #220 of 239 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

I imagine that "what will work" is going to depend on what the cause of the problem was in the first place and on the jumper's attitude. A person losing altitude awareness because he/she's focused on something else and doesn't multitask well is different from the jumper whose cypres fires because he wanted to turn that last point and pulled too low, despite remaining aware of his altitude. If I were the dzo, I don't think I'd want to become a psychotherapist for a bunch of jumpers, trying to figure out what mental process caused the f-up or how I might be even *more* helpful in keeping them safe from themselves. I think making a policy like this basically says, "figure it out yourselves!" IMHO that's a pretty good approach.

Peace~
linz


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 21, 2004, 12:00 PM
Post #221 of 239 (1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

> but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question.

Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low.


jerm  (D 23994)

Nov 21, 2004, 1:58 PM
Post #222 of 239 (1170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work.

because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal.

I agree that they should get the training. that's good after the fact, but it's not a deterrent.

you plan sound good for people who've done it, the time-off is supposed to get people more aware before it's done.


LiveLifeGoJump  (C License)

Nov 21, 2004, 2:22 PM
Post #223 of 239 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

30 days off is a pretty big deal.

Quote:

In parts of the UK a 30 day grounding would only miss 1 jump day (or 3 in a GOOD month).

seriously though.

ALL of the following TOGETHER may work

Grounding
re-emphasis on posible dangers of low pulls (to self & others) during ban days.
Instructor evaluated jumps after ban
LOG BOOK ENTRY by CCI (log book entry not allowed, no jumping a that DZ EVER)

Money is no object to some but bans can be enforced at that centre (even at all centres is necessary & justified due to a relatively low number of DZs that are easy to contact via e-mail/fax etc.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 21, 2004, 2:31 PM
Post #224 of 239 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work.

because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal.

.

Well, I disagree. You can go jump elsewhere during a grounding from 1 DZ. If they say you have do make 3 coached jumps before you can jump there again, then you either do it or don't go there again.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Nov 21, 2004, 3:51 PM
Post #225 of 239 (1149 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question.

Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low.

Bill,

Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a guess on your part.

Kallend,

Have you ever had to remove someone from one of your classes for disruptive behavior? Or maybe I should put it this way. Has there ever been a student in one of your classes who's behavior affected the other students in a negative way and should have been removed?

Agreed is spelled with an "r".

Sparky


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 21, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #226 of 239 (1248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are
> you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a
> guess on your part.

Well, per a discussion a while back, I seem to recall that SSK sells about 100-150 cutters a year. Per SSK's website, there have been 293 saves through Aug 03. Of those, about half were students, and about 1 in 10 were 'jumper pulled just as cypres fired.' So per the numbers about 20 per year, 10 of which are students. That gives you 13% for everyone, 7% for experienced jumpers.

My experience is lower than that. I've seen (or talked to people about) 12 cypres fires this year, and none were due to no-pulls.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Nov 21, 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #227 of 239 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are
> you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a
> guess on your part.

Well, per a discussion a while back, I seem to recall that SSK sells about 100-150 cutters a year. Per SSK's website, there have been 293 saves through Aug 03. Of those, about half were students, and about 1 in 10 were 'jumper pulled just as cypres fired.' So per the numbers about 20 per year, 10 of which are students. That gives you 13% for everyone, 7% for experienced jumpers.

My experience is lower than that. I've seen (or talked to people about) 12 cypres fires this year, and none were due to no-pulls.

From 1991 to 2003 Cypres claims 293 saves. If "1 in ten" were "jumper pulled just as cypres fired", that leaves 260+ or 18% using 125 for cutters sold each year. I don't see a difference between students and experienced on this, the ground doesn't care.

In any case, it is 260 or so more people who would have quit jumping on that day without a cypres.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Nov 22, 2004, 3:34 AM
Post #228 of 239 (1225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
>Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are
> you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a
> guess on your part.

Well, per a discussion a while back, I seem to recall that SSK sells about 100-150 cutters a year. Per SSK's website, there have been 293 saves through Aug 03. Of those, about half were students, and about 1 in 10 were 'jumper pulled just as cypres fired.' So per the numbers about 20 per year, 10 of which are students. That gives you 13% for everyone, 7% for experienced jumpers.

My experience is lower than that. I've seen (or talked to people about) 12 cypres fires this year, and none were due to no-pulls.

From 1991 to 2003 Cypres claims 293 saves. If "1 in ten" were "jumper pulled just as cypres fired", that leaves 260+ or 18% using 125 for cutters sold each year. I don't see a difference between students and experienced on this, the ground doesn't care.

In any case, it is 260 or so more people who would have quit jumping on that day without a cypres.

I'm a tad confused if there has been 293 save all up, why are they selling 100-150 cutters per year over 12 years that's a shit load more cutters than saves?


meatbomb  (D 100967)

Nov 22, 2004, 5:27 AM
Post #229 of 239 (1209 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'm a tad confused if there has been 293 save all up, why are they selling 100-150 cutters per year over 12 years that's a shit load more cutters than saves?

I make that about 1000+ misfires Tongue


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 22, 2004, 6:51 AM
Post #230 of 239 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
>

Kallend,

Have you ever had to remove someone from one of your classes for disruptive behavior? Or maybe I should put it this way. Has there ever been a student in one of your classes who's behavior affected the other students in a negative way and should have been removed?

Agreed is spelled with an "r".

Sparky

No. And I've been teaching since 1968.

There's always an opportunity for a learning experience.


(This post was edited by kallend on Nov 22, 2004, 7:02 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 22, 2004, 9:10 AM
Post #231 of 239 (1173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'm a tad confused if there has been 293 save all up, why are they
>selling 100-150 cutters per year over 12 years that's a shit load more
>cutters than saves?

Because most cypres fires happen when a jumper deploys too low and the cypres fires. That's not considered a save.


docjohn  (D 13182)

Nov 30, 2004, 5:26 PM
Post #232 of 239 (1076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

If my Cypress ever saves me (other than from being knocked unconcious), I'm quitting skydiving. It would just prove that I'm not cut out for this sport but I've been given a second chance on life.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 30, 2004, 5:43 PM
Post #233 of 239 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [docjohn] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'm quitting skydiving.

I know a great many people who have said that; only two have actually quit. I've had it (almost) happen to me 2-3 times, and I wouldn't have quit skydiving any of those times.

Here's a thought experiment - would you quit skydiving if your cypres fired because someone was holding on to your right hand as you passed 1500 feet?


Deuce  (D 25597)

Nov 30, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #234 of 239 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
would you quit skydiving if your cypres fired because someone was holding on to your right hand as you passed 1500 feet?

I would have to if it was a malevolent hold. They don't let you skydive in jail, and that's where I'd be once we landed. I don't think that sort of thing is funny.

If I had exposed my hands to a tandem student and they grabbed them and I wasn't able to get (either) hand back by the hard deck, after biting the crap out of their neck, I would probably quit tandem skydiving. I do get the willies about folks who think a tandem skydive is just an expensive roller coaster ride.

Skydiving is dangerous. It tends to kill the easily distracted and careless.


Squeak  (E 1313)

Nov 30, 2004, 10:59 PM
Post #235 of 239 (1042 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I'm quitting skydiving.

I know a great many people who have said that; only two have actually quit. I've had it (almost) happen to me 2-3 times, and I wouldn't have quit skydiving any of those times.

Here's a thought experiment - would you quit skydiving if your cypres fired because someone was holding on to your right hand as you passed 1500 feet?

Why would you not have deployed earlier than 1500 anyways, I'm reasonably sure that their grip would not hold after deployment.


(This post was edited by Squeak on Nov 30, 2004, 11:01 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 1, 2004, 9:24 AM
Post #236 of 239 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why would you not have deployed earlier than 1500 anyways, I'm
>reasonably sure that their grip would not hold after deployment.

Cause when someone is holding onto your right hand and trying to force it on to the dummy ripcord, you can't deploy your main. I was reaching for my reserve when he realized what I was doing and let go of my right hand. Even though I had my hand on my reserve, and even though I knew my cypres (which I had gotten a few days previous) would probably fire, I opened my main anyway; I couldn't stop myself.

I was open by about 1100 feet, and fortunately my cypres didn't fire.


Casurf1978  (A License)

Dec 1, 2004, 11:24 AM
Post #237 of 239 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I opened my main anyway; I couldn't stop myself.

Just curious, so basically instinct or what you've done naturally for 13+ years took over: go for the main. Still a very damn scary story.


Ron

Dec 1, 2004, 11:47 AM
Post #238 of 239 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deuce] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Skydiving is dangerous. It tends to kill the easily distracted and careless.

Not to get picky....But I have seen it kill normally heads up folks that just got distracted or careless once....It only takes once.


opitrack

Dec 2, 2004, 3:12 AM
Post #239 of 239 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jerm] Cypress Fires New Rule- Perris [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi, I'm interest in the reserve that you have to sale, is it aviable or you've already sold it??? Could you tell me the year of manufacture??? And please, replay to opitrack@dropzone.com, ok??? Thakns a lot, blue skies and lots of jumps!!!!!



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)