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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

flyangel2

Nov 2, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #201 of 239 (1318 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 (1311 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 (1305 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 (1295 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 (1270 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 (1260 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 (1258 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 (1243 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 (1222 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 (1156 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 (1157 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 (1155 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 (1138 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 (1118 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 (1111 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 (1100 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 (1089 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 (1082 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 (1059 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 (1056 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 (1052 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 (1035 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 (1030 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 (1026 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 (1014 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)