Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments!

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 2, 2012, 7:14 AM
Post #26 of 125 (1429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Nobody stops a doctor from getting his instrument rating, buying a Mooney or Cirrus, and going out and getting himself killed in hard IFR over the mountains at night.

No they don't, but they do make it hard for him to get to that level, needing to earn a private pilot, then add on a high performance and complex endorsement, and then earn an IFR rating.

Add up the amount of dual time, ground school, book work, and the number of written exams and check rides needed to get to that point, and then compare that to the training required to fly a canopy.

I'll admit that flying a canopy if far simpler than taking a Bonanza in to actual IFR, but given that both represent a risk to the pilots life, you can see that the training required to fly a canopy is severly lacking, and if it was brought up to a proportionate level to that of earning an IFR ticket, we wouldn't need any restrictions on canopy selection.


lvintw

Mar 2, 2012, 7:40 AM
Post #27 of 125 (1422 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd rather see dumbasses die than restrict people from jumping canopies they clearly can fly and have fun with.

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

Having fun is more important? You have your priorities backwards!Crazy

There are people dying under canopies they have no business flying. Why do we continue to allow these deaths to ruin our sport?

You've been around long enough to see people who are 'behind their wing' and you admit to flying a canopy that you were nowhere ready to fly or land in all conditions. You were lucky. Can't say the same for some others.

When will it end?
FrownCrazy


Baksteen  (C 708753)

Mar 2, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #28 of 125 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

After reading the thread I've only got one question left:

What's so bad about a max. WL of 1.4?

I mean, unless you're going to be an upper end competitive swooper (don't even get me started about CReW WL's) what would you need a higher WL for?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Mar 2, 2012, 9:01 AM
Post #29 of 125 (1400 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The system has gotten some tweaks over the years and seems to be working fairly smoothly now. Newer jumpers don't know any better these days, and the number of incidents (broken legs etc) seems to have gone down.

If only USPA had done the same thing at the same time...


JohnRich  (D License)

Mar 2, 2012, 9:24 AM
Post #30 of 125 (1389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Baksteen] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
After reading the thread I've only got one question left:

What's so bad about a max. WL of 1.4?

I mean, unless you're going to be an upper end competitive swooper (don't even get me started about CReW WL's) what would you need a higher WL for?

Fun. Freedom. Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 2, 2012, 9:35 AM
Post #31 of 125 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

Nobody should do that. Of course, for the rest of the jumpers out there who are less qualified, there's something to be said about adding some 'structure' to the current landscape.


shropshire  (C License)

Mar 2, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #32 of 125 (1373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Baksteen] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
After reading the thread I've only got one question left:

What's so bad about a max. WL of 1.4?

I mean, unless you're going to be an upper end competitive swooper (don't even get me started about CReW WL's) what would you need a higher WL for?

Why 1.4 lets make it 2.0 ... oh and you can't drive a car with more that 1600cc and 50bhp (why does anyone EVER need to go faster than the speed limit?)... and you can't ride a motor cycle at all - way too dangerous..... oh and you cant paint the upstairs window frames in your house - need to get a professional in for that, cuz ladders are leathal.... etc..... etc...... etc....


(This post was edited by shropshire on Mar 2, 2012, 9:47 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 2, 2012, 10:11 AM
Post #33 of 125 (1355 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why 1.4 lets make it 2.0 ... oh and you can't drive a car with more that 1600cc and 50bhp (why does anyone EVER need to go faster than the speed limit?)...

Did you mean 'let's make it 1.0'? Makes more sense that way.

Back to your point, most states in the US have limitations on new drivers licenses, where you cannot drive without a licensed driver, or cannot drive at night, and for teenagers, you cannot drive with 'x' number of teens in the car. These are in place for some specified length of time, at which point the restrictions are lifted.

Many European countries have tiered licensing, where your first licence only allows you limited privledges as to what, where and when you can drive. After a certain amount of time, you can take a class to upgrade to the nect level of license.

In all cases, a drivers education class is always required before anyone can earn any type of license.

Why should flying a parachute be any different? Case in point, countries that currently have WL limitations and tiered canopy licenses in place have lower incident rates (I think it's the Swiss that have the best system).

You want freedom? EARN it. Take the classes, make the jumps, and develop yourself in to competent canopy pilot who is able to both correctly choose and fly a parachute.

Freedom isn't really free, you have to work at it.


DaVinciflies

Mar 2, 2012, 10:12 AM
Post #34 of 125 (1353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
the training required to fly a canopy is severly lacking, and if it was brought up to a proportionate level to that of earning an IFR ticket, we wouldn't need any restrictions on canopy selection.

There it is.

Slapping jump number restrictions on is not really helping the problem. Lots of pilots with 1200 jumps should not be anywhere near a 2.0 WL on an elliptical or x-brace.

Proof of theory and practical application is the only sensible way to go IMO.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 2, 2012, 10:24 AM
Post #35 of 125 (1345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Slapping jump number restrictions on is not really helping the problem

Removing them all together isn't really helping the problem either, It's a two-pronged approach, combining the continuing education AND jump number based canopy/Wl restrictions. To move forward without one or the other isn't going to solve the problem.

There will always be people better suited toward bookwork and classroom time, who will be able to succeed in contuing eduction, but faced with a random, unexpected problem in the real world, will not be able to perform.

There will always be people who have a natural talent for flying parachutes, but who don't do well in structured classroom situations or test scenarios, and as 'natural' as they way be, when the need arises to fall back on solid classroom training, the will fail.

The only solutuion to make both aspect part of the plan. I'm not sure how anyone can argue against the idea in the sense that it absolutely will increase the average level of knowledge and skill among the jumping public in regards to canopy flight. More learning is always a good thing, and a slower parachute is always a safer choice.

'Personal freedom' is a machismo bullshit argument. You have the freedom to jump at more DZ and for less money than anywhere else in the world. If a canopy type/WL restriction was introduced, let's say based on B Germains chart, right off student status you would be able to jump canopies and WL with performance that's better than most 20 years ago. By 200 jumps, you'll be exceeding what jumpers had 20 years ago. Let's keep in mind that 20 years ago, skydiving had been alive, well, and prospering for better than 30 years, so jumpers for the first 30 years found that level of canopy performance to be 'acceptable' such that they kept jumping.


JohnRich  (D License)

Mar 2, 2012, 11:31 AM
Post #36 of 125 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
'Personal freedom' is a machismo bullshit argument. You have the freedom to jump at more DZ and for less money than anywhere else in the world. If a canopy type/WL restriction was introduced, let's say based on B Germains chart, right off student status you would be able to jump canopies and WL with performance that's better than most 20 years ago. By 200 jumps, you'll be exceeding what jumpers had 20 years ago. Let's keep in mind that 20 years ago, skydiving had been alive, well, and prospering for better than 30 years, so jumpers for the first 30 years found that level of canopy performance to be 'acceptable' such that they kept jumping.

Setting the standard for today, based upon what canopy performance was 20 to 30 years ago, is an invalid and bad argument. (Notice how I didn't use pejorative terms like you did.) If we accept that idea, we would be putting students out on static lines under T-10's, then making them transition to Paracommanders for their first 100 jumps before moving to a ram-air.

Fun and freedom are the essential essence of this sport. If you start taking that away from jumpers, you will gut the spirit that makes it so great. I don't want to see it turned into a bureaucratic nightmare of petty rules about canopy sizes and progression rates. If someone demonstrates the skills and awareness to move to another canopy, they shouldn't be held back by some generic chart.


(This post was edited by JohnRich on Mar 2, 2012, 11:35 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 2, 2012, 11:45 AM
Post #37 of 125 (1307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

>Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

Could be a DZO who wants to reduce the odds of him being sued again.

Could be an organizer who wants to reduce the risk of canopy collision for people on their bigway.

Could be a licensing organization who sets competence standards for various levels of canopy loading.

Could be a demo organizer who wants his jumpers to land somewhere that's incompatible with 2 to 1 loaded canopies.

Lots of potential reasons.


MakeItHappen

Mar 2, 2012, 12:41 PM
Post #38 of 125 (1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
And below each weight group, you'll have the maximum size of canopy the jumper is allowed to jump.

What units are they using for canopy size and WL?



.


(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Mar 2, 2012, 12:42 PM)


d100965  (D 100965)

Mar 2, 2012, 1:16 PM
Post #39 of 125 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Where would a Katana 107 or a Stiletto 107 be according to the chart?
Or any canopy in a 107 size?
How about a Spectre 107?
Would all 107's be 1200 jumps and above?

(The sizes on the chart are square feet and the weights are in Kgs without wearing gear)

This chart would never work for the truly dedicated jumper wishing to learn to swoop.

Also, will this chart be applied to visiting jumpers?


(This post was edited by d100965 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:39 PM)


craigbey  (C 31991)

Mar 2, 2012, 2:07 PM
Post #40 of 125 (1244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If someone demonstrates the skills and awareness to move to another canopy, they shouldn't be held back by some generic chart.

Absolutely.

But what are the specific skills required to progress and by what process does someone demonstrate proficiency? How do you ensure that a standard is used to properly train and evaluate canopy pilots? What is that standard?


propilot  (C License)

Mar 2, 2012, 2:12 PM
Post #41 of 125 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Fun. Freedom. Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

A good point, but a new jumpers decision can affect the sport for all of us.

Its the classic problem of regulation. A good example is the seatbelt law. What do you car if I kill myself by not wearing a seatbelt. Except, as a country, if we loose hundreds of thousands of people in car crashes, it affects our (yours, or mine) GDP, insurance rates, medical car costs, etc etc etc.

As a low time jumper, I am in favor of limiting downsizing, in theory, at least for low time jumpers (say, 500 jumps or less?).


MartinOlsson  (D 13229)

Mar 2, 2012, 2:14 PM
Post #42 of 125 (1239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Fun. Freedom. Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

This notion that you have freedom to choose whatever you like is false. Even in the US there is loads of restrictions on what gear you are allowed to take on a skydive. These restrictions are there to prevent unnecessary loss of lives. Partly because of empathy for those killed but mostly for the self preservation of the sport/organization.

In a case like this one the organization considering implementation of a new rule will have to ask itself if this is an effective way of saving lives in comparison to the amount it restricts the sport.

to the OP:
I would think that, considering the amount of lives lost, it would at least be worth a thorough try and evaluation. But before you do that, take a good look at all the other parachute organizations that have already tried this, and make the best rules yet. I live just slightly south east of you and I would say that our system works quite well and a lot better than no rules at all. With that said, I'm pretty sure there is room for even further improvement.

/Martin


(This post was edited by MartinOlsson on Mar 2, 2012, 2:15 PM)


JohnRich  (D License)

Mar 2, 2012, 3:17 PM
Post #43 of 125 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Who the heck are you to tell other experienced capable jumpers what they can jump?

Could be a DZO who wants to reduce the odds of him being sued again.
Could be an organizer who wants to reduce the risk of canopy collision for people on their bigway.
Could be a licensing organization who sets competence standards for various levels of canopy loading.
Could be a demo organizer who wants his jumpers to land somewhere that's incompatible with 2 to 1 loaded canopies.

Lots of potential reasons.

DZO: runs a private business and can do what he wants - I approve.

Big-way or demo organizer: specific good reasons for certain restrictions - I approve.

Licensing organization: Now your getting into one-size-fits-all arbitrary numbers that are not for any specific situation, and by applying them generically to all, they will undeservedly restrict many.

Some old people become unfit to drive a car. So should all old people have their licenses revoked when the turn 70? Or should we maybe test them for competency, and let those who can handle themselves safely, continue to drive? That's an arbitrary versus individualized comparision. The former is unfair to many because of a few, and the latter restricts only those who deserve to be.

If a skydiver reaches a point where those who supervise him think he can handle a smaller canopy, then someone's arbitrary chart should not be used to hold him back.


(This post was edited by JohnRich on Mar 2, 2012, 3:21 PM)


JohnRich  (D License)

Mar 2, 2012, 3:25 PM
Post #44 of 125 (1213 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craigbey] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If someone demonstrates the skills and awareness to move to another canopy, they shouldn't be held back by some generic chart.

Absolutely.

But what are the specific skills required to progress and by what process does someone demonstrate proficiency? How do you ensure that a standard is used to properly train and evaluate canopy pilots? What is that standard?

The personal judgement of instructors, safety officers, and other experienced jumpers who know him.

This is like those zero-tolerance policies that are enacted in schools that lead to so much crazy stuff happening, because people in authority are afraid to stand up and make personal decisions any more. So they cop-out and fall-back to a stupid rule, which leads to people being mistreated unjustly. They treat everyone the same, regardless of circumstances. The bully who starts a fight is kicked out of school, and so is the geek who tried to fight back to protect himself. These things happen because people are afraid to make decisions for fear of someone criticizing them.

Screw the chart. Stand up and make some personal judgements on an individual basis.


(This post was edited by JohnRich on Mar 2, 2012, 3:28 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 2, 2012, 4:11 PM
Post #45 of 125 (1197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

>If a skydiver reaches a point where those who supervise him think he can handle a
>smaller canopy, then someone's arbitrary chart should not be used to hold him
>back.

We use arbitrary numbers to set minimum pull altitudes, # of jumps to get certain licenses and freefall time requirements for AFF instructors. And while those undoubtedly hold some people back, they are, overall a good thing for our sport (IMO.)

>Some old people become unfit to drive a car. So should all old people have their
>licenses revoked when the turn 70?

Nope, unless there's no way a 70 year old can safely drive (which is not the case.)

But by the same token I am sure there are some 12 year olds mature enough to drive a car. That is not a good argument that 12 year olds should be able to get driver's licenses. Does that harm some 12 year olds? It surely does. But overall it's a good idea to set a minimum age limit for drivers.


tmccann  (A 61009)

Mar 2, 2012, 4:53 PM
Post #46 of 125 (1190 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I like the absolute nature of the WNE (Wing-loading Never Exceed) chart on p. 113 of Brian's book "The Parachute and its Pilot". By "like", I don't mean I agree or disagree, just that, as the target newbie likely to put himself and others in danger by getting in over his head, the chart is clear.

You start with a 1.0, and add 0.1 for every 100 jumps. So, as a 150# guy, say 20# of equipment, I'm ok at my 1.0 WL on a 170, but a 150 would be a WL of 1.13, so I need to wait until 200 jumps for that. OK, very clear, and I'm perfectly cool with that.

Now below 150SF, he also says to subtract two points, so since a 135SF canopy would be a 1.26 for me, I need to wait until the chart says I'm ready for a 1.46, so 500 jumps. Hey, I'm still a long way away from there, but from where I'm standing now, I don't even see the need to go to a 135. More importantly, though, the rule is very clear...


craigbey  (C 31991)

Mar 2, 2012, 5:02 PM
Post #47 of 125 (1186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is like those zero-tolerance policies

Bad analogy. I specifically agreed that "If someone demonstrates the skills and awareness to move to another canopy, they shouldn't be held back by some generic chart."

Quote:
Some old people become unfit to drive a car. So should all old people have their licenses revoked when the turn 70? Or should we maybe test them for competency, and let those who can handle themselves safely, continue to drive? That's an arbitrary versus individualized comparison. The former is unfair to many because of a few, and the latter restricts only those who deserve to be.

Better analogy. So why not have a standardized process (test) for a jumper to demonstrate proficiency at specific canopy skills before they are allowed to downsize or change canopy types beyond the limit of the chart or other guidelines?

Quote:
The personal judgment of instructors, safety officers, and other experienced jumpers

That alone can work. But it can also be inconsistent and arbitrary. That fails our fellow jumpers who deserve better canopy training and oversight.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 2, 2012, 5:23 PM
Post #48 of 125 (1176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Setting the standard for today, based upon what canopy performance was 20 to 30 years ago, is an invalid and bad argument. (Notice how I didn't use pejorative terms like you did.) If we accept that idea, we would be putting students out on static lines under T-10's, then making them transition to Paracommanders for their first 100 jumps before moving to a ram-air.

Fun and freedom are the essential essence of this sport. If you start taking that away from jumpers, you will gut the spirit that makes it so great.

Let me clarify my point about the 20 year old standard.

The argument against these types of things often comes down to people don't want their 'fun' limited by having to jump 'slow' canopies. With that in mind, I'm suggesting that the beginner WL off of B Germains chart puts the new jumper, in terms of the canopy performance they get, on par with an experienced jumper 20 years ago. Within 200 jumps, a jumper would qualify to jump canopies and WL that would be higher performance than anyone could get 20 years ago.

So the point is that skydiving was fun enough 20 years ago, with the canopies available, that people jumped everyday and stuck with the sport for years on end. This was with F-111 canopies, most of them loaded at less than 1.0, and it wasn't so 'boring' that people just up and quit. It's still jumping out of airplanes, and a modern ZP canopoy loaded at something less than 1.1 is a pretty good ride.

Furthermore, jumpers 20 years ago stuck with the sport with no promise of higher performance canopies to come. None of them knew what was just around the corner, and what was to come in 20 years, it was all just 'daydreams'. It was fun enough that they didn't even need to lure of high performance canopies or swooping to keep their interest. New jumpers today have a guarantee that higher performance canopies are in their future if they so desire. It's not a daydream, it's a reality.

The point is that it's not going to 'ruin' skydiving, or turn into some boring nanny-state that nobody will be interested in, it's just about 'getting with the times'. As previously mentioned several times, 20 years ago the 'ceiling' of canopy performance was prettty low, so there was no need for any concern of formal regulation of who could jump what. Now that the 'ceiling' has risen so far that a canopy less than halfway up the performance ladder can easily kill you, we need to make some changes for the new guys.

Just letting them do 'whatever' doesn't cut it anymore. Fortunately we have the knowledge to train them, and the busy turbine DZs to let them crank out the jumps that in short order they can be 'up to speed' and more or less allowed to do 'whatever', but that's not right off student status. Not by a long shot.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 2, 2012, 6:52 PM
Post #49 of 125 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [linnths] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

First, I applaud the Norwegian Air-sports Federation for their efforts to help prevent injuries and fatalities in skydiving.

Second, as you seen already, you will not be getting much in the way of concrete answers to your questions from U.S. jumpers. We have a strongly vocal contingent here of the "don't tell me me what to do" people who, as you've noted, will argue against rules of any sort. They will, however, support "guidelines" because it allows for argumentation and opens the door for the mad skillz groups. They do have a point in that not all jumpers progress at the same rate but from the standpoint of safety, that matters not.

Thirdly, personally I think the best responses have been from Yvonne and dragon2 in the Netherlands. Although they don't specifically address your questions, Skybytch is on target with his post, too....as is BillVon.

It's simple really...you set the rules and everybody abides by them. The old-timers will complain and the youngsters will be safer in the long run. My vote is with the youngsters' safety...as always.

And lastly, I do not fully understand your chart and the blurb about allowing a heavy jumper to jump a higher wing loading at such few jumps is not in-line with the idea of jumper safety, IMO.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 2, 2012, 7:13 PM
Post #50 of 125 (1152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] New rules for canopy-downsizing in Norway. We need comments! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
First I have practical suggestions for any country wanting to be downsizing Nazis:
(Downsizing Quislings? Yes, I chose my words to be just a little harsh.)
Yep. Harsh


In reply to:
Or it would be OK to have a system that allows almost unlimited downsizing, IF one has demonstrated going through downsizing canopy control exercises.
"I took a course and never bothered to practice what I learned but I can now jump that Velo hot rod now! WooooHoooo!"
See anything wrong with that? It's what we have today.


In reply to:
But it wasn't going to actually kill me unless I did something stupid.
Fortunately, you didn't do something stupid. You would open the door for anyone to do that and hope they also did nothing stupid? We got a lot of people out here doing stupid shit...and you would support them continuing to do that?

In reply to:
If there were downsizing rules, how would they take into account that I was already used to flight vehicles requiring precise control? Being able to fly aerobatics or land a taildragger aircraft doesn't make you a canopy pilot, but it should help one avoid stupid errors of turning into the ground because of stabbing a toggle.
You answered your own question. None of that matters. What matters is what you do with your canopy. Simple as that.


In reply to:
Nobody stops a doctor....Mountain climbers get to go out and kill themselves in the mountains, to do routes they aren't ready for.
"Well, let's see. Hmmmm...somebody else does stupid shit so it's OK and I should do it too."
See anything wrong with that idea?

In reply to:
Why would we skydivers be discriminated against just because our toys are cheaper, or it is tougher for us to kill ourselves in more expensive ways?
You call it discrimination. Not true at all. You're basing your thoughts on the above paragraph where others can do it so why shouldn't we. I'll tell you why: When you outfly your ass, it's you, and possibly me, that dies...not them.

In reply to:
Not everyone goes on to make thousands of jumps, or do 250 jumps a year.
Even more reason for reasonable restrictions.


In reply to:
Let people have some fun instead of saying that they can't try out cool canopies until they've been in the sport a decade.
Define "cool". Are you saying that one cannot have fun unless it's an "oh shit I'm gonna die" jump?

In reply to:
I'd rather see dumbasses die than restrict people from jumping canopies they clearly can fly and have fun with.

I'm going to pretend I didn't read this. I had no idea your approach to our sport included thoughts anywhere near or anything like this. Unbelievable. I can only hope that your entire post was tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic and that you really do not believe what you were saying.

In reply to:
It is nice to try out canopies you shouldn't be flying regularly, ....
There's no reason in the world that anyone can give that would justify that. None.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)