Grounding for safety issues - have you ever seen one and what was the reason?

[azureriders 0]

Quote

>You don't need 30 days of standing around becoming less current, you need more training

Training alone doesn't work for some people. They don't understand anything other than not being able to jump due to their own stupidity. Sad but true.

I could not agree more, but I have also seen an AAD fire where the resulting opinion of the S&TA, the coach on the jump, and my self being the skydivers original instructor and the coaches Examiner, was for him to get back in the saddle and make another jump, then and there.

extinuating circumstances where that at 60 jumps or so and with a little age and lack of flexiability he purchased his first rig and had trouble finding the hacky. He was retrained of course as we all know these or not reasons enough to go to AAD fire. At the end of the day he was put back into his familiar rental rig and put back in the air.

I guess what I am saying is that I agree with Bill and a grouding rule, but not all rules are always black and white.

Sorry for the hijack.

I have seen several threats to ground and issued a few of those myself, but have never seen the need for those to be inforced as the threats normally do the trick. We have a long narrow landing area and normally dictate a set landing direction down the long axis and the threats to ground are normally over people insisting on landing directly into a 2 knot wind perpindicular to the pattern.

We have also grounded novice jumpers pending retraining on whatever issue was observed. "Hey, I am up on this load....billy bob does not jump until I have had a chance to talk to him"

Good thread

[skypuppy 1]

Things sure have changed. Used to be we didn't even consider someone to be a jumper unless he'd been grounded at least once....

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

I got grounded until the end of the season for cutting a good canopy away in 2000.

Any change? I did cut only not working canopies since than.

[skybeergodd 0]

I did ground someone after two big acts of stupidity the last one ended in two canopies out and a downplane in, which he survived with just cuts and alot of bruising. Two weeks later he was at the DZ working on his re-training to have the grounding lifted when I heard him bragging about his "no S**T there I was story". I filled out a fatality report , gave it to him and said all that was missing was the date. He went to another DZ that let him jump and got his fatality report dated. He definitly was a DGIT that transitioned to just a DG.

[NiteQwill 0]

Quote

I did ground someone after two big acts of stupidity the last one ended in two canopies out and a downplane in, which he survived with just cuts and alot of bruising. Two weeks later he was at the DZ working on his re-training to have the grounding lifted when I heard him bragging about his "no S**T there I was story". I filled out a fatality report , gave it to him and said all that was missing was the date. He went to another DZ that let him jump and got his fatality report dated. He definitly was a DGIT that transitioned to just a DG.

Ouch.

"Fail, fail again. Fail better."
-Samuel Beckett

[darthur2000 0]

I've seen a couple of groundings for low pulls and met someone who was grounded at the time for hurrying a pack job to make a load. Problem was he left his power tool in the closing loop but luckily someone saw it as he tried getting on the plane.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Just to give a little balance to this thread- in my five years, I've seen about 4 or 5 groundings for downsizing... faster than the S&TA did. For the most part, these people just waited it out or went to another dropzone. None have busted themselves up yet. Just goes to show that you only hear about the ones that make a good "I told you so" story. Sometimes, the people doing the grounding do get it wrong.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

The only legit reason for a cypres fire is if you are dead or unconscious. In that case, a grounding is the least of your worries.

/maybe a student all out of fuck saved after getting away from the instructor, but that is a whole 'nother bag of worms.

Agreed those are the only legit reasons (well, you might also be conscious but physically incapacitated in such a way that you can't get to any handle).

I was thinking of varying causes of unconsciousness/incapacitation. Both shoulders dislocate on exit ... maybe no grounding (at least not for safety, though you might end up being grounded defacto anyway). Jump up and hit the tail on exit and get knocked out .... grounded. Knocked out because an exit funnels and shit happens ... no grounding. Knocked out because you decided to "see how fast you could go" and you take out the formation ... grounding.

I was thinking much the same thing: a threshold rule, but with potential reasonable defenses, case-by-case, before the DZO/S&TA makes the final decision.

You should be a judge. No, wait; first one would want to be a lawyer. OK, never mind.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I got grounded until the end of the season for cutting a good canopy away in 2000.

I'm curious - were you still a novice at the time, and cut away because you mistakenly thought you needed to, but actually did not (which may deserve some re-training, but not punishment)? Or did you just deliberately cut away a good canopy (on a 2-canopy system) for the "experience" of it (which probably does deserve punishment)?

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

As a student, I have to question the wisdom of banishing unsafe jumpers to the student area

Since your last out and that idiot would be landing way before you. Your not in danger really. unless they may be dropping more then one load at a time. Which I guess is a possibility, but Eloy is smart enough to watch out for you in a situation like that.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Sometimes, the people doing the grounding do get it wrong.

Or maybe the people that got grounded actually took it to heart and changed their ways?

Dom

[billvon 2,400]

>Sometimes, the people doing the grounding do get it wrong.

The purpose of grounding is not to screw with people who are going to die anyway. The purpose of grounding is to make people think about what they are doing, and perhaps think twice before doing something stupid in the future.

If everyone who got grounded hurt themselves later, then groundings wouldn't work. If people who got grounded avoided injury later, then the groundings probably worked.

>For the most part, these people just waited it out or went to another
>dropzone. None have busted themselves up yet.

Excellent! Sounded like in those cases, it worked.

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

The guy got a red line though all of his training jumps in his logbook for the CCI...

I'm kind of curious what the CCI's authority was for doing this. Presumably the logbook is the property of the student, and was signed by instructors who witnessed the jumps, and the CCI did not witness those jumps. Where is the basis for the CCI, who wasn't on the jumps, overruling those who were on the jumps?

Redlining the jumps like that makes it sound like the CCI believed there was outright fraud--that he/she believes the jumps in question never happened.

It's a number of years ago now, so my memory of it may be hazy. From what I can remember, the student jumps happened, but anywhere with a half decent AFF programme wouldn't have passed the guy.
I believe he was on a 'Get your AFF for X dollars guarantueed!' holiday.

Make your own conclusions.

[azureriders 0]

Quote

Just to give a little balance to this thread- in my five years, I've seen about 4 or 5 groundings for downsizing... faster than the S&TA did. For the most part, these people just waited it out or went to another dropzone. None have busted themselves up yet. Just goes to show that you only hear about the ones that make a good "I told you so" story. Sometimes, the people doing the grounding do get it wrong.

Bill beat me to the reasons, and not to hash on you Mike, but this has no doubt got to be in the top ten least thoughtful posts I have ever read on this site. Someone waits out a grounding and then does not get hurt, and you think the person issuing the grounding was automaticly wrong??

Even in the case of going to another DZ to work around the grounding, in most cases this is done with a different attitude than the one that got him grounded in the first place. Whether he learned something, or just does not want to have to drive to a third DZ, the change in attitude may have just been enough to save his life.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

In the specific examples that I had in mind, there was no attitude adjustment. The person stormed off in a huff, went to another DZ during the ban, jumped his velocity... and is now a very good canopy pilot who is still injury free.

The point is that you only ever hear about the bannings where an experienced skydiver gets to smirk and say "I told you so" (and there are varying degrees of being a dick when doing this). There are also many where the predicted never comes to pass- whether the banning had any help in this may be up for debate. My experience has shown that the vast majority of bannings result in no attitude adjustment and also no injury. Yours may vary.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

In the specific examples that I had in mind, there was no attitude adjustment. The person stormed off in a huff, went to another DZ during the ban, jumped his velocity... and is now a very good canopy pilot who is still injury free.

The point is that you only ever hear about the bannings where an experienced skydiver gets to smirk and say "I told you so" (and there are varying degrees of being a dick when doing this). There are also many where the predicted never comes to pass- whether the banning had any help in this may be up for debate. My experience has shown that the vast majority of bannings result in no attitude adjustment and also no injury. Yours may vary.

Sure, that can happen.

But, would it really have hurt him to do whatever they had told him in the first place? If so, in what way would it have hurt him? He'd have taken a few more jumps to get where he is? Is that really so bad?

It is great that luck shined on him and he never hurt himself, but from the point of view of the dz that was not happy with him, at least he wasn't going to biff on their turf. Apparently he scared them enough that they said something. That means they were worried that they would have to watch him kill himself at some point. Who wants to watch that? Sure, they just let the possible problem go somewhere else, but from their point of view, that is success. They don't have to watch and worry.

If he gets a lot of pleasure out of saying "I told you so", well, fine. He can do that.

But his individual success (or, if you prefer, his lack of failure) is really no proof that what they said was wrong.

[NickDG 23]

What the hell happened to the "Warning Board?" All DZs had them at one time. It meant you were pushing it, but not enough to be told to sod off. And being occasionally on the warning board was a cool badge of distinction in a otherwise rapidly deteriorating sky of meritocracy . . .

NickD

[billvon 2,400]

>In the specific examples that I had in mind, there was no attitude
>adjustment.

Uh - how do you know that? Despite what it looked like, and despite what they said, inside they may have thought:

"Well, I'd never admit this, but he was right; maybe I should take it easy."

"Shit, this sucks. Maybe I won't push the limits quite so hard at the new DZ so I don't have to drive even farther."

"Why did he ground me? This is totally unfair. I wasn't doing anything different than Joe Pro Swooper is doing. What the heck is he talking about? Maybe I should ask someone, once I'm in a place where my ego will let me."

For some people, a close call is enough. For some, a grounding is enough. For some, sadly, it takes a broken femur (or worse) to start the learning process. If that's what it takes for them to learn, well, I'm glad it's not worse.

But compared to that a grounding is a much better option - even when it looks like the person doesn't take the message to heart.

[Schoenauer 0]

There was this guy who intentionally cut away a perfectly good canopy at or just above 1000’ which was seen by other jumpers on the load still under canopy as well as the manager who was also the S&TA and head rigger. All that was done was the jumper was grounded and banned from the DZ for a month. The neighboring DZs were notified of the incident and agreed to also keep him on the ground. It is hard to tell if this guy learned anything, but I don’t remember any further problem he gave while skydiving since his grounding. He died on a base jump with in the year of the incident.

Memento Mori

[Ron 7]

Quote

When it comes to actually sitting someone down and saying "sorry, you can't jump here for a month" or "you're not welcome here with that canopy," I just don't see many DZs where the management is willing to take that kind of a stand.

Seen it several times over the years.

Quote

It seems like there's an attitude of "I've done all I can and if I ground him he's just going to go to [nearby DZ]."

Then at least they bounce at a different DZ.

Quote

So what HAVE you seen people grounded for (especially recently)?

Low pulls, low turns, attitude.

Quote

did it actually change behavior

In some cases yes... Others no.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[skydiverkeith 1]

Remember, its not always about changing the jumpers attitude, or even protecting others from his dangerous actions. Sometimes, the S&TA just doesn't want the press from a jumper going in. At Dallas, the S&TA will outright tell you, "Go somewhere else to die, because you're not allowed to kill yourself here."

Blue skies,
Keith Medlock

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Remember, its not always about changing the jumpers attitude, or even protecting others from his dangerous actions.

Another reason might be a potential deterrent effect. I have not been around long enough to know if this happens, but I imagine that if people get grounded, and it's publicized (or even just spread via rumor), maybe other jumpers might think, hmm, maybe I shouldn't do that (either because it's more dangerous than I thought, or because I just don't want to get grounded).

Just a thought, dunno how valid.

[grimmie 173]

valid

[NickDG 23]

>>There was this guy who intentionally cut away a perfectly good canopy
>>>He died on a BASE jump with in the year of the incident.
A lot of people have chopped good canopies for laughs. It's called doing a Funaway . . .

Our good friend at Perris, Jerry McCauley, CRW Dog, U.S. Navy S.E.A.L., father, and husband used to do funaways all the time. About a month after the last time I saw him do a funaway he was killed in Iraq.

I always wondered why Jerry died and now, thanks to you, I know.

I also guess the 147 people who died B.A.S.E. jumping since 1981 deserved it for "some reason" too!

Yes, I'm not really saying what I think of your silly assumptions. . .

http://www.specialforcesroh.com/browse.php?mode=viewiaward&awardid=9625

NickD

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

I'm curious - were you still a novice at the time, and cut away because you mistakenly thought you needed to, but actually did not (which may deserve some re-training, but not punishment)? Or did you just deliberately cut away a good canopy (on a 2-canopy system) for the "experience" of it (which probably does deserve punishment)?

1+3. It was my mistake and my instructor did know that I was not going to jump anyway.