BASE, Ground Launching, and the USPA

[Treejumps 0]

After reading one of NickDGs posts about how Skydiving Mag has always supported BASE, while the USPA rag Parachutist still ignores it. It made me think about all of the coverage that ground launching gets in Parachutist, yet base is still ignored beyond a few tiny adverts for gear and the random fjc. What gives? Ground launchng and base are the same minus the freefall, so it can't be the missing plane the determines it. There are sites that are legal to base and launch from, so that excuse doesn't hold water. At least as many people base jump as GL, and base has been growing far faster than skydiving as a whole. (Ask USPA what they are doing to stem the shrinking membership)

I guess as a group we should lean more on USPA. They clearly back and support GL, yet the ignore base. With the gains some in our community have made with opening access, we can use all the support we can get. Base is a legitimate sport and deserves the same recognition as a new kid on the block like GL. (Yes, I know, people have been ground launching for decades, but it is just recently that it became its own "thing")

USPA: Either cover and support BASE fairly or quit running artilcles on GL. Its not skydiving either, you know?

[avenfoto 0]

i think parachutist is more for entrylevel jumpers, based mostly on its lack of substance...

i know when i started jumping,i lookede forward to the next issue, now it goes straight to the waitnig room for the whuffos at work....

maybe no base in parachutist isnt such a bad thing...

[manship 0]

Quote

USPA: Either cover and support BASE fairly or quit running artilcles on GL. Its not skydiving either, you know?

Not good. The further USPA stays away from BASE the better. BASE does NOT need all those Regulations, suggestions,awards, and Government Involvement!!!!!! Just my .02 Krone as usual.

Quote

(Ask USPA what they are doing to stem the shrinking membership)

The idea that there aren't enough skydivers is in error. With more than 20,000 people having gotten their D license since I got mine, the number of skydivers hasn't dropped. In fact, I think there are too damn many these days, which is a large part of why I began BASE jumping.

Yeah, I guess you can just attribute the above to me being an old man, but I'll be jumping (in some fashion - BASE preferably) until they pry my pilot chute out of my cold dead BOC.

I think you know why (wrong or right) USPA is against BASE - the historical El Cap thing. Also GL has not had the history of illegal launching that BASE has. Most GL now is done legally in the daytime and USPA embraces it as an extension of Canopy Control training (just guessing). Really, Nobody does illegal GL (well, i am sure there are a few,but not many we hear about anyway)

No dispersions meant against you Tree, just another viewpoint.

t

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

I didn't invent skydiving, but I jumped with the guys who did.

[Treejumps 0]

I hear what you are saying. Heck, I'm not looking for the USPA to get involved with base, just recognize it for what it is. I can't even stand giving them $50 annually for membership just to make some skydives. I just don't see how they can ignore one of the more exciting ways to play with parachutes in their magazine. Of course, by the time anything shows up in parachutists, its already old news and has been written about on DZ.com and ini skydiivng. Just bitching. Its gotten really cold here.

Cya.

[eb66to77 0]

Quote

After reading one of NickDGs posts about how Skydiving Mag has always supported BASE, while the USPA rag Parachutist still ignores it. It made me think about all of the coverage that ground launching gets in Parachutist, yet base is still ignored beyond a few tiny adverts for gear and the random fjc. What gives? Ground launchng and base are the same minus the freefall, so it can't be the missing plane the determines it. There are sites that are legal to base and launch from, so that excuse doesn't hold water. At least as many people base jump as GL, and base has been growing far faster than skydiving as a whole. (Ask USPA what they are doing to stem the shrinking membership)

I guess as a group we should lean more on USPA. They clearly back and support GL, yet the ignore base. With the gains some in our community have made with opening access, we can use all the support we can get. Base is a legitimate sport and deserves the same recognition as a new kid on the block like GL. (Yes, I know, people have been ground launching for decades, but it is just recently that it became its own "thing")

USPA: Either cover and support BASE fairly or quit running artilcles on GL. Its not skydiving either, you know?

I would love to go off about how USPA only allows hints of BASE in thier rag but it just isn't true. I could put a picture of my mother in it if I wanted to pay the premium. Remember the collage of the SEAL in the Oct 05 issue. I made that and it would have been no different and the same price if it were a picture of my shoes.

USPA at one time leaned toward supporting BASE and then it crashed and burned in Yosemite ont eh back of a truck, the Arch, and other places. They are now hand shy of BASE and everytime you mention it they seem to have the support hand in their pocket. They are good at that. I have seen some pretty amazing things come from there and none of them remind me of something that represents the U.S. They have formed a monopoly gaining membership fees from you while "lobbying" the FAA when in all reality all you need to do is follow FAA regulations and you are fine. Trouble in that is many DZ's including tiny dz's, complete with retard, accross the globe will only take you up if you have a card and number. Ask me how I know.....

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

Yeah, I guess you can just attribute the above to me being an old man...

Nope. I'm only a little kid, but I couldn't agree more.

[NickDG 23]

The thing that burned me up after the legal jumps at El Cap were stopped by the NPS is the USPA didn't raise a finger in protest. The reason they did nothing is more simple than the legalities or the pirate aspect of BASE at the time. The people at USPA headquarters had all made their jumps at El Cap, at least the ones who wanted to and Joe Svec and Bill Ottly and the rest just didn’t give a shit about those who didn’t yet get the chance.

I've never been a proponent of USPA running in-depth BASE articles like the "How to Jump El Cap" ones that Svec wrote, but they do have a certain responsibility, because they have the ear of beginner skydivers, to inform them from time to time about the realities of BASE. Right now they just basically ignore the fact their most vulnerable members are drawn to it.

NickD BASE 194

[Treejumps 0]

Actually, USPA has in the past and continues to turn away advertising that they deem.... inappropriate I guess, although, what the hell is innappropriate for a bunch of jumpers? Next time they want to raise your dues make a stink about it and ask why they will take more of your money but turn away a paying advertisment? Its simply a case of fragile skydiving egos combined with personal agendas.

[eb66to77 0]

Quote

Actually, USPA has in the past and continues to turn away advertising that they deem.... inappropriate I guess, although, what the hell is innappropriate for a bunch of jumpers? Next time they want to raise your dues make a stink about it and ask why they will take more of your money but turn away a paying advertisment? Its simply a case of fragile skydiving egos combined with personal agendas.

Bingo

[dploi 0]

Quote

Quote

USPA: Either cover and support BASE fairly or quit running artilcles on GL. Its not skydiving either, you know?

Not good. The further USPA stays away from BASE the better. BASE does NOT need all those Regulations, suggestions,awards, and Government Involvement!!!!!! Just my .02 Krone as usual.

Quote

(Ask USPA what they are doing to stem the shrinking membership)

The idea that there aren't enough skydivers is in error. With more than 20,000 people having gotten their D license since I got mine, the number of skydivers hasn't dropped. In fact, I think there are too damn many these days, which is a large part of why I began BASE jumping.

Yeah, I guess you can just attribute the above to me being an old man, but I'll be jumping (in some fashion - BASE preferably) until they pry my pilot chute out of my cold dead BOC.

I think you know why (wrong or right) USPA is against BASE - the historical El Cap thing. Also GL has not had the history of illegal launching that BASE has. Most GL now is done legally in the daytime and USPA embraces it as an extension of Canopy Control training (just guessing). Really, Nobody does illegal GL (well, i am sure there are a few,but not many we hear about anyway)

No dispersions meant against you Tree, just another viewpoint.

t

I concur. The further a regulatory body stays away from BASE, the better. More BASE in Parachutist simply means more under-experienced skydivers getting excited about fixed object jumping and the USPA claiming responsibility for popularizing a significantly more dangerous sport to these jumpers. It's a bad situation all around.

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

I think you know why (wrong or right) USPA is against BASE - the historical El Cap thing. Also GL has not had the history of illegal launching that BASE has. Most GL now is done legally in the daytime and USPA embraces it as an extension of Canopy Control training (just guessing). Really, Nobody does illegal GL (well, i am sure there are a few,but not many we hear about anyway)

I'd prefer the USPA stick to exactly what they're chartered for: skydiving and skydiving ONLY. I can see the connections w/ GLing which you state w/ "canopy control training", but ultimately, we're talking about an in-tight-with-the-Feds organization that's not qualified to govern or regulate BASE by any stretch.

Even their association with GLing has me concerned. The USPA's publicizing of GLing may just be the bridge that takes the FAA into other air sports like paragliding and hangliding. Who wants that?

Outside of jumping from an aircraft, keep your laws/policies/certifications/ratings off of my canopies and containers.

-C.

[Treejumps 0]

I don't think that anyone wants the USPA to regulate or be involved with BASE, I just don't like the fact that they won't acknowledge it, yet GLing is good enough for them.

Also, remember to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Yeah, I see what you're saying and never got the impression you wanted them "involved" in BASE. I'd just prefer they not branch into anything beyond actual skydiving from actual airplanes.

Where we differ is I think it's a good thing that they don't acknowledge BASE and I'd prefer they keep their distance from GLing. Let Skydiving Magazine handle non-skydiving reporting...they're not involved w/ the FAA like USPA is and shit, does Parachutist suffer subscription losses because of what they cover or ignore? No, we get the mag w/ our membership whether we want it or not.

My fear:
Compare two organizations: USHGA (US Han Gliding Association) and USPA.

Due to the classification of paragliders/hang gliders as ultralights, the FAA has little to say about them with regards to the two sports.

Because of the use of aircraft in skydiving, however, the FAA is all up in our grill and has the USPA to help "self-regulate".

If the USPA (over time) takes a more significant interest in GLing, the feds could draw a line between skydiving and other air sports, even if on the bullshit grounds that GL pilots use "skydiving" canopies. If they do, who will they go to but to the organization they deal with most in canopy-driven sports?

Just because I'm paranoid about what could happen doesn't mean it won't.

-C.

Edit: Typos

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

Ground launchng and base are the same minus the freefall ...

I fail to see how you came to that conclusion. Ground launching has a lot in common with paragliding (it's effectively how paragliding started, not some new thing that's just appeared). BASE is not about a long canopy ride, but if at the top of a cliff face, I would expect that an understanding of valley winds and turbulence would be as valuable to any jumper as any paraglider pilot.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[Treejumps 0]

Mostly I was making the comparison regarding how they are covered by Parachutist. They are the same when considering the locations they are done at (mountains, cliffs), the equipment used (a parachute), the people who do it (primarily skydivers). I also addressed that launching is not new (but a new kid in town at parachutist). Its been done since there were ram air canopies.

Cya

[TVPB 0]

This is potentially going to be a long post, so here goes...

Being critical of an organisation without looking at the big picture / all factors, is narrow minded in my view point. When I hear people bitching and moaning about how bad parachuting is (USPA/BPA/APF/etc), I also hear selfishness and "why can't the world revolve around me" instead of those people fitting in with the world to some extent. People complain because they don't get what they want or things don't go their way or they have to consider other people. These are the people that actually contribute to increasing levels of regulation in any activity.

My view on the whole organisation thing??? My personal preference is for each individual to be able to do what they want as long as they are considerate of other people, property, and society in general. Morality could be as simple as "as long as you don't adversely affect another life, or damage property, you should be able to do what you want. This is one of the reasons why I BASE jump. But can we realistically do this? NO - because there are too many selfish people out there. Another thing, the BASE commuity is constantly trying to promote self regulation. Look at the names/orgs that support/have suported BASE ethics: Weston, Simpson, Aiello, Helliwell, Shoebotham, Filipino, Malnuit, Douggs, CJAA, ABA, SBA, FBA, NBA, Parker, Di Giovanni, Empinotti, Cunningham, Badenhop, Pecnik, the list is endless. This says something. But the amount of regulation that will be required is in the hands of every jumper past, present, and future. YOU CHOOSE OUR FUTURE.

What about organisations?

People seem to think that orgs like USPA / APF / BPA are restrictive and counterproductive. I disagree. Let me give you some thoughts and examples.
- my personal situation allows me to parachute ANYWHERE in Australia as long as I have the property owners permission. I MEAN ANYWHERE!!! , Water, land, city, country, events, privately, etc. ANYWHERE!!!!!! All I am obligated to do in return is ask for the permission, ensure my licenses and ratings are valid, and to operate within a set of basic guidelines. The rating that allows me to approve these jumps took a few hours of study and to pass an exam. Big deal - so I missed one night of drinking or TV for this exam... Every few years I sit another exam that takes a few hours. The exam checks to see if my knowledge is current and that my practical skills are current. I believe this is a good thing. You only progress if you are tested and keep your skills current. Our FAA (CASA) was toying with the idea of controlling demo's after a few silly accidents. They would have been excessively restrictive. Our org (APF) fought it and we still control our demo's. Thank goodness for the APF.
- I can compete with other like minded individuals or attempt records (this is fun and improves my skill levels), go to events/boogies, get information freely, or just hang out with a few mates doing what I love. What effort is required? Stuff all, a few phone calls, an annual membership fee, and maybe a few preparatory jumps. If this is hard to do, then tough biccies. Go do something else. I hear knitting does not require membership and you can do it whenever you want.
- I can jump almost whenever I want. My obligations? Membership, currency, and follow a few local rules of etiquette. Big deal.... It aint so hard.
- now for some BIG FACTORS. The FAA / CASA, whatever, has allowed a group of parachutists to manage my activity. Wow!!! Thank goodness we don't have a bunch of government beaurocrats who have never seen a parachute administer one of the sports I so dearly love. The management of some of our organisations is inept at times and I disagree with what they do on occasion, but I think the overall job they do is excellent from a parchutists perspective. Overall, they do represent my interests and I have infinitely more faith in them than I do have in my government. Thank heavens we don't have a career focused CEO who is only interested in making a name and money running our activities. You think orgs like USPA and APF are shit, consider yourselves LUCKY that you have people who have loved or still do love the sport running it. They also lobby from a participants perspective (yeah the tandem meat markets have an influence, but they are still parachutists).
- someone mentioned that you can bypass USPA and undertake parachuting activities directly through FAA. Yes you can, but you have NO IDEA how much paperwork/applications/satisfying regulations/etc you will have to go through. The orgs handle all the beaurocracy for me. Cool.
- etc. There are many other benefits.

Are there problems with the USPA/APF/BPA? Of course there are. Are there personal agendas. Hell yes. Do things happen where you just cringe. Shit yes. But you have to look at the big picture. I believe that they are of an overall benefit. That is why I am still a member. And that is why so many other BASE jumpers are still members.

To all the cheapskates that believe they should get everything for nothing and their complaint is mainly about the membership fee. DON'T PAY IT. You are the type of person who believes they should get everything for free. They used to have those clubs in former communist countries. You are probably living in a capitalist country, bad luck dude. Pay or don't - your choice. But stop whinging.

If you don't like the way the org is being run, get on the committee, lobby, play the politics. If you don't, then their is no point complaining. Alternatively, set up your own organisation. Good Luck with that.

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

r.e. Ground Launching and BASE - the FAA (CASA or whatever your local organisation is called) could have jurisdiction over both if it desired in some circumstances. The FAA is responsible for air safety and indirectly for security. That means that anything that flies, OR ANYTHING THAT MAY INTERACT WITH ANYTHING THAT FLIES, they can regulate over.

r.e WHY IS REGULATION NECESSARY in BASE JUMPING???

I think this can best be answered with a few examples:
- think about BASE jumping in that beautiful Swiss valley. What is the right thing to do before you go jumping there?? To contact the local rescue/heli services to inform them of potential jumping activities. You should also check prior to exiting. Why? Not so that they are ready for a rescue (they are always ready), but so that they are aware of and can allow for your presence - this is to reduce the chance of interaction. Guess what fellow BASE jumpers??? THIS IS REGULATION!!!!!! But it has been done in a pro-active and less formal way. There are a number of benefits. You are less likely to be sliced to bits by heli blades. The heli is less likely to be involved in a crash and continue doing the work it is supposed to be doing. The heli people are happier to be around BASE jumpers and work in with their fun. etc. There is also the farmer factor. The Swiss BASE Assoc has asked that certain areas not be used for landings and that jumpers are respectful of crops/livestock/etc. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FCUKING LAND & LIVELIHOODS and we should all respect it!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS REGULATION!!!!!! Why do we need it? Obviously because we (BASE jumpers) have been adversely affecting someone. Europeans are generally open minded and fun loving people. Somewhere, somtime, BASE jumpers are taking the fun out of their lives by their actions.
- The popular Terminal Walls in Italy and Norway.... There are some VERY SIMPLE rules regarding when to jump, what equipment to use, training, experience, etc. THIS IS REGULATION!!!!!!! But guess what???? A minority of DICKHEADS are turning up and circumventing the rules, lying about satisfying the prerequisites, etc. This leads to EXTRA REGULATION.
- That ever so popular bridge in the USA. Again some simple rules (REGULATIONS) that are not that hard to follow. In fact, they are easy to follow and allow almost EVERYONE to continue jumping in one form or another. What is the future going to be there??? IT IS UP TO THE ACTIONS OF THE JUMPERS TO DETERMINE OUR FATE AND OUR FUTURE. If people start bouncing left/right/centre and the culture becomes undesirable (loud/obnoxious/out of step with the existing local community) the place will be shut down. How do we maintain our future there? We fit in. We respect the needs and desires of the local people, we treat the place like it is theirs (BECAUSE IT IS THEIRS - WE ARE THE PRIVILEGED GUESTS, NOT THEM), we ensure that our jumps are relatively safe and risk managed (INSTEAD OF BEING DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS/STUPID LEADING TO ACCIDENTS), etc.
- the building jump days in China, Russia, Malaysia, etc.
- Various one off demo's and regular events in other places like Hungary, Germany, France, Australia, England, Etc.

These all have a basic level of regulation that will remain basic if we ALL do the right thing. If we don't, the level and complexity of the regulation will increase until it reaches a point of saturation - a point where regulation is changed to ELIMINATION (i.e El Cap).

As much as I personally hate regulation, the greater the participation rate, the greater the likelihood of attracting idiots and dickheads, and the greater the chance of further regulation.

Quote

I guess as a group we should lean more on USPA. They clearly back and support GL, yet the ignore base.

I had similar struggles in my country with BASE. We started from a perspective where people were almost banned from parachuting if they were known to be involved in BASE, to a situation where our organisation accepts it's existance, but does not either promote or administer it as it is out of it's jurisdiction. We also had the org and DZ's on board where they would refer enquiries to our web site or to committee members. I don not beleive we should promote increasing participation rates in BASE jumping. In fact, I believe we should discourage it. If people really want to do it, they will.

Quote

i think parachutist is more for entrylevel jumpers, based mostly on its lack of substance...

IMHO - Overall a correct statement. Once you become a more experienced parachutist, your level of knowledge and desire for further knowledge becomes greater. Publications need mass circulation to remain viable. By definition this requires a more general (bigger) audience as opposed to a specific audience. THeir are more beginner jumpers than experienced. Hence, more experienced parachutists switch from publications like parachutist to instructor newsletters, chat forums, technical publications (from manufacturers or other experienced jumpers), etc. Experience people also prefer more timely information and a lower circulation glossy magazine struggles to give that. Their is also sufficient (and timely) information on the internet which makes publishing in Parachutist even less relevant to some extent. But it would be nice to see the occasional BASE article/photo in parachuting magazines. But in the end, they are parachuting magazines. Thank goodness for skydiving magazine and the support of Robin H.....



note:
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration - USA
CASA - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Australia

Stay Safe - Have Fun - Good Luck

The above could be crap, thought provoking, useful, or . . But not personal. You decide.

[fenceline 0]

CSPA's mag Canpara has an even stricter approach to BASE jumping and doesn't even publish advertising for manufacturs, course etc.

It used to even have a one liner on the credits page saying something to the effect of "CSPA does not support or opposes base jumping. Canpara does not advertise BASE equipment or publish BASE photos."

The reasoning was something about the sport not fallling in line with the Associations guidelines for conducting a parachute jump. Essentially the altitude and dual parachute requirements.

Works for me.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

yet base is still ignored beyond a few tiny adverts for gear and the random fjc. What gives?

For many years, Parachutist wouldn't even run the advertisements, and went to much trouble to avoid mentioning BASE:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skydiving/browse_frm/thread/311624897a49e228/276090ffc1478091#276090ffc1478091

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skydiving/browse_frm/thread/ae4b3df1a48b3eeb/41d2b6154cd490d8?lnk=st&q=Will+Forshay+base+parachutist&rnum=2#41d2b6154cd490d8

Will Forshay even made it part of his campaign for National Director.

Here are some related links that show the history of how base ads finally came to acceptance:

http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-30,GGLG:en&q=Will%20Forshay%20base%20parachutist&sa=N&tab=wg

You'll find that most of the sentiments expressed in this thread (on all sides) have had their advocates.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I've never been a proponent of USPA running in-depth BASE articles like the "How to Jump El Cap" ones that Svec wrote, but they do have a certain responsibility, because they have the ear of beginner skydivers, to inform them from time to time about the realities of BASE.

On a tangent;

Skydiving doesn't take any kind of responsibility like that either. Every "safety" type article I've submitted to them about BASE has been rejected. If Skydiving, which many seem to view as a "BASE friendly" publication, doesn't take those kind of submissions, why do we expect Parachutist to print them?

Perhaps because Parachutist is seen as more "dry", so we expect them to carry safety type stuff, but Skydiving is commercial, so they have to have attention grabbing text with pretty pictures to accompany it?

I don't know. As noted by others, I think we're probably better off without any USPA involvement in BASE, at this point.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[NickDG 23]

>>Every "safety" type article I've submitted to them about BASE has been rejected.<<

Tom, without reading the stuff you've submitted I've found over the years that SKYDIVING is primarily a "News" magazine and sometimes it helps if you write about something that relates to the news of day. They have, over the years, printed BASE stuff I and others have submitted in this vein, but you have to slip in the safety stuff in an article about something else. You are an excellent writer so that's the only reason I can think of that's getting you rejected . . .

Don’t feel too bad, over the years about the only publication I always get rejection slips from is PARACHUTIST and these were articles about skydiving, not BASE. They have used a few photos I've sent them, but of the dozen or so skydiving articles I've submitted I'm batting a big fat zero . . .

NickD BASE 194

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Tom, without reading the stuff you've submitted...

Actually, you've read much of it. In general, after Skydiving rejects something, I post it here or elsewhere.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

I wonder if there might also be some politics at play? Was Ground Launching started by guys who were already "in" at the USPA?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[skypuppy 1]

My feeling is that neither mag is likely to cover much in the way of in-depth how-to or safety articles, however, chances of a BASE event getting sponsorship from mainstream companies might improve dramatically if a mag like Parachutist had published 3 or 4-page articles on similar events with pics, etc. similar to some of the coverage of Nationals or para-ski meets, swooping, etc.

Incidently, a few years ago I wrote a fairly lengthy article on Bill Cole's chuteless jumps and his barnstorming demos, which I submitted to PARACHUTIST.

They refused it because he had been kicked out of CSPA (Cdn sport para assoc) for his chuteless jumps, (and presumably because of hislow-openings, etc. at airshows in the 60's and 70's,).

But that same month they published a LONG article about a woman barnstormer from the 40's who jumped without a reserve and did many low-openings at air shows and events across the country. She hadn't been kicked out because their was no regulation at the time. But she did essentially the same things as Cole (less the chuteless jumps). And she had less accreditation, no licences, etc.

SKYDIVING ended up publishing the article.

I cancelled my subscription to PARACHUTIST after that. And told them it was because of the censoring of topics, including BASE. Then I gave my money to SKYDIVING.

(Incidently, I am Canadian so I can do this. I have also had issues with getting articles or notices published the CSPA mag, Canpara, but I still maintain my membership in order to keep my ratings current. I have even, recently, formed a new club with some other instructors, in order to actually have a vote at the agm into how some of the organization's policies are made.)

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[SLOfreefall 0]

If BASE jumping isn't just another skydive, why should a "Skydiving" magazine cover it?

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

If BASE jumping isn't just another skydive, why should a "Skydiving" magazine cover it?

Personally, being old school, I AM of the unpopular position that BASE jumping is simply another aspect of parachuting, like accuracy or rw or crw or instructing, or rigging. When I started I figured it was another part of the same activity to learn.

Of course, when I started I was using essentially the same gear for rw, crw, accuracy, and BASE as well, something that is also unpopular today....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone