How many ways can you....

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not to stomp on your flames but look closer, that was 2 regular jumpers...

Will

You're right. Of course it was still pretty f*cking stupid.

So is jumping out of an airplane.

Whatever. Get a profile if you want to be taken seriously.

Whatever skycop. Learn to admit when you're wrong if you want to be taken seriously.

Learn to read, my man. I said "you're right" in my original reply. Not sure what more of an admission you want.

Now what were you saying, Mr. blank profile?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[TheSultanofScud 0]

Quote

Quote

Roman Polanski raped a girl 32 years ago and is still being held accountable. Just because he may have stopped raping 13 year olds doesn't excuse the fact that he did

You wanted us to get the facts first, so there they are (polanski aside).

Allow me to introduce myself.

I was the pilot at Skydive Twin Cities last season. I am also the pilot for the upcoming season.

I reference the above quote to point something out to the folks around here.

The Polanski example is somewhat different from what we have here, as the "Tandem CRW" evidenced in the video could only be described as a "victimless crime". To be even more accurate, what people see in the video isn't a crime at all, but an alleged violation of safety regulations (not criminal in and of itself).

To be clear...Polanski allegedly did something wrong (rape) and there was a victim.

The TIs you are seeing allegedly did something that is known to be wrong but there are no victims (no injuries, no apparent emotional damages).


It would be prudent to charge and jail Polanski after 30+ years because, despite the fact that he probably no longer rapes women, there is still a victim out there who was allegedly raped and never received justice or punitive damages.


It would seem less prudent to pull the ratings of the TIs. I assert this opinion because they have altered their explicitly incorrect behavior prior to and without inducing damages of any kind to a customer (at least by way of the wrong/negligent/whatever-you-want-to-call-it behavior).

I ask: What is the goal of punishment?

Is the goal of punishment to alter the behavior of the instructors?

Their alleged behavior has already been altered, n'est pas? They certainly aren't engaging in these practices in the present. I can attest to that.

Is the goal of punishment to promote safety within the sport?

Safety has already been enhanced; the alleged behavior has been halted. The culture of safety at this dropzone has been strengthened.

So what is left?

Should UPT or the USPA pull their ratings because they could conceivably relapse? Well any instructor could arbitrarily decide to engage in risky behavior at any time...That's the risk we take by employing imperfect human resources.

Should UPT or the USPA pull their ratings out of spite?

This is a forum about safety. Spite does little more than create a barrier to communication--which is highly detrimental if we are to learn from these alleged events and discussions. Indeed, spite has no place in any decision or discussion relating to this topic. It's about safety---not retribution.

All I'm saying is that some consideration has to be made in evaluating the proper, or at least, logical course of action in handling these men.

The punishable behavior that allegedly went on has been stopped. To my knowledge, It has not only been conducted, but most importantly, stopped before it ever actually resulted in injury to a paying customer!

I don't condone the alleged behavior. But I believe the powers that be should consider the role and effectiveness of punishment before they employ it.

I used the words 'alleged' and 'allegedly' quite frequently in expressing my opinion because I am not willing to explicitly cast blame in this forum. I apologize for any annoyance this may have caused; I just wish to err on the side of courtesy in discussing the mistakes of others.

I would like to applaud Mr. Akers for his persistence in addressing a safety issue.

I would also like to express my dislike of the personal attacks and flaming that is all-too-typical of internet forums. I believe this should be a place of learning and improvement; personal attacks and spite are an obstacle to this end.

Thank you for reading...to those who jump with me or from my aircraft: I look forward to flying with you again.

To all others: I hope that you will come out to STC, jump with us, and enjoy an improved dropzone for yourselves.

[airtwardo 6]

IMO They need to have their rating pulled because they did something dumb and dangerous that they should have known better than to do.

When it comes to placing people in peril there has to be a zero tolerence.

An example has to be made, give them a pass on this and everybody knows they get one if they ever want to disregard safety and common sense.

If an airline pilot wants to show up for work drunk he needs to know he gets walked no question, no scolding. no second chance...

If you take a position of responcibility in a professional capacity, act like you belong there, like you deserve the trust...its only funny until someone dies.
If as an instructor you dont know that going in then you should not have been there in the first place.

if ya fuck up doing something like that, own it...be adult enough to take what comes along with it and stop crying.

If they didnt know better they should not be TMs...if they knew better and did it anyway, they should not be TMs.


Any promise not to do it again is worthless, they already made that promise once and pissed on it... what has changed ? We now KNOW better.

Not to mention future legal problems if they were to kill or hurt someone...


There are also no victoms as you put it, when people drive drunk...until there are.


again just my opnion, but if it were my business on the line they would be done.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[stratostar 5]

+1


“One "oh shit" can erase a thousand attaboys”

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

The punishable behavior that allegedly went on has been stopped.

That’s crap and I think you know it. Pulling their rating should not be done as punishment for their immature and reckless behavior. They should have the ratings pulled to separate them from and unknowing public.

Quote

I would also like to express my dislike of the personal attacks and flaming that is all-too-typical of internet forums. I believe this should be a place of learning and improvement; personal attacks and spite are an obstacle to this end.

I didn’t see any personal attacks but I did see some people flaming the actions of thoughtless and reckless individuals. As airtwardo said, zero tolerance on safety when you are dealing with the lives of others.
As a pilot are you a forgiving of those who violate FAR’s and endanger the lives of paying passengers?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[davelepka 4]

Just a few words of caution for you. If there was to be an incident involving a tandem student, you as the pilot would be personally named on the lawsuit.

Given the past events, and that between Youtube and this thread, they are all now public record, if the incident invovled any of the players mentioned in this thread, or involved any sort of other behavoirs counter to the written regs, that lawsuit would be VERY hard to defend.

In either case (invovling the players in this thread, or counter to other tandem regs) the presence of this thread would indicate a pattern of willfull disreagrd for the written rules, and safety in general.

"Ted the tandem instrucotor can be seen on YouTube in several videos engaging in dangerous behavoir in years past, yet the DZ kept Ted on as an employee, and now Sally the student is dead"

or

"STC has a proven history of breaking the rules, and it's all up on Youtube. That rule breaking contnued on until the incident that brought us to court today. These people believed that their customers safety had no value, let's prove them wrong."

In either case, you can see that this thread has put you (the DZ) in a position. The prudent move would be (of course) toe the line, and do everything by the book. Additionally, distance the DZ from the players identified in this thread. Even in the case of an actual 'accident', the groundwork has been laid for a slamdunk lawsuit involving these employees. This thread identifies them as 'rule breakers', and this would surely not be missed by the plantiff's attoney.

You might be right, don't pull their ratings. Fire them for sure, and hope that any future DZs they work for realize the risk they are taking employing any of these people in the future, not because they are unsafe, or bad people, but because they have already lost the 'benefit of doubt' a jury might afford an instructor who does not appear on Youtube repeatedly breaking the rules.

Remember that you, as a commercial Twin Otter pilot, have far more time and money invested in your ticket than any of the other employees at the DZ, please do whatever you need to protect that.

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

Just a few words of caution for you. If there was to be an incident involving a tandem student, you as the pilot would be personally named on the lawsuit.

Given the past events, and that between Youtube and this thread, they are all now public record, if the incident invovled any of the players mentioned in this thread, or involved any sort of other behavoirs counter to the written regs, that lawsuit would be VERY hard to defend.

In either case (invovling the players in this thread, or counter to other tandem regs) the presence of this thread would indicate a pattern of willfull disreagrd for the written rules, and safety in general.

"Ted the tandem instrucotor can be seen on YouTube in several videos engaging in dangerous behavoir in years past, yet the DZ kept Ted on as an employee, and now Sally the student is dead"

or

"STC has a proven history of breaking the rules, and it's all up on Youtube. That rule breaking contnued on until the incident that brought us to court today. These people believed that their customers safety had no value, let's prove them wrong."

In either case, you can see that this thread has put you (the DZ) in a position. The prudent move would be (of course) toe the line, and do everything by the book. Additionally, distance the DZ from the players identified in this thread. Even in the case of an actual 'accident', the groundwork has been laid for a slamdunk lawsuit involving these employees. This thread identifies them as 'rule breakers', and this would surely not be missed by the plantiff's attoney.

You might be right, don't pull their ratings. Fire them for sure, and hope that any future DZs they work for realize the risk they are taking employing any of these people in the future, not because they are unsafe, or bad people, but because they have already lost the 'benefit of doubt' a jury might afford an instructor who does not appear on Youtube repeatedly breaking the rules.

Remember that you, as a commercial Twin Otter pilot, have far more time and money invested in your ticket than any of the other employees at the DZ, please do whatever you need to protect that.

+1

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[chuckakers 370]

Thanks for the babble. That really made everything ok.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[emmiwy 0]

All I have to say is watching this video and reading this thread makes me really appreciative of my DZ and where I did my first tandem. I'd rather have a safe, successful ride than have a TM who wanted to show me a super thrilling ride.

[TheSultanofScud 0]

My safety protocol, judgment, and adherence to both FARs and BSRs are not in question here; or at my home dropzone.

Concerning Tandem CRW: There is certainly something to be said for subjecting unknowing individuals to additional risk. It is, indeed, unacceptable.

If my guys get smacked over this, all I'm pushing for is consideration given to the status quo. I'm sure some will agree that degrees of punishments should discriminate between behavior that went on and behavior that no longer occurs.

[jack98765 0]

Quote

My safety protocol, judgment, and adherence to both FARs and BSRs are not in question here; or at my home dropzone.

Quote

Unfortunately, if there is an incident, your past performance (knowledge of BSR violation with no action), as well as the past performance of your DZO, local tandem I/E and S&TA's, also including a BOD member who is known to frequent this DZ, may well affect the outcome.

Concerning Tandem CRW: There is certainly something to be said for subjecting unknowing individuals to additional risk. It is, indeed, unacceptable.

If the BSR violation were changed (i.e. putting out students with non-functional AAD's over a 3 year period, for example), additional unknown risk, but no one died because the AFF instructors had incredible flying skills, and by the way, we don't do this anymore, how would you feel about the situation?

If my guys get smacked over this, all I'm pushing for is consideration given to the status quo. I'm sure some will agree that degrees of punishments should discriminate between behavior that went on and behavior that no longer occurs.

If this had only happened once or twice, you have a point. The fact that this behavior was the stats quo over a 3 year period (dates on you-tube videos span 97,98,99) weakens this argument. The fact that there is a tandem I/E on staff and a BOD member who jumps at this DZ further weakens this argument and raises the question of their responsibility.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

My safety protocol, judgment, and adherence to both FARs and BSRs are not in question here; or at my home dropzone.

You willingness to forgive of this type of behavior has brought it into question.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[TheSultanofScud 0]

Quote

Quote

My safety protocol, judgment, and adherence to both FARs and BSRs are not in question here; or at my home dropzone.

You willingness to forgive of this type of behavior has brought it into question.

Sparky

You keep using the words "forgiving" and "forgiveness". That reflects your choice of words regarding my opinions and conjecture, not my actual thoughts.

I don't have to forgive them. I'm not in a position to do so. The fact that I'm acting as an advocate has little to do with my policies and thoughts regarding safety.

These guys are friends of mine after we're all done at the dropzone. They don't stop being my friends when they elect to participate in canopy flying that I myself wouldn't engage in.

I don't get to choose the techniques and maneuvers used by my jumpers once they exit my airplane.

I do get to make my own decisions regarding whether a load should be flown and how it should be flown. I take these decisions very seriously.

If you do question my judgment for sticking by my compadres (despite their alleged mistakes), then I invite you to join us at STC for an afternoon or two. I believe you will find that you feel reasonably safe on our aircraft and will, after a few jumps, begin to find yourself in about the same good location after opening just about every time.

I take the gig very seriously. I don't believe that my appeal for reasonable consideration in deciding punishments is prima facie evidence to indict me of questionable or poor judgment.

Would you shun or F'off your kids or siblings when they do something stupid? That's all I'm saying. I stick by my crew.

[JohanW 0]

Quote

[snip]

I don't get to choose the techniques and maneuvers used by my jumpers once they exit my airplane.

[snip]

You are, however, responsible for what they do after exit.

I'm not a pilot (I wish ..), I'm not American, your FARs do not apply to me, and even I know that.

Johan.
I am. I think.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I don't have to forgive them. I'm not in a position to do so. The fact that I'm acting as an advocate has little to do with my policies and thoughts regarding safety.

I don't get to choose the techniques and maneuvers used by my jumpers once they exit my airplane.

This is true, but you do get to choose who is allowed to board your airplane, and this is where my original point come into play. You have prior knowledge of the activities these jumpers engaged in (establishing a pattern of behavoir) but you continued to fly those jumpers so they could continue to act as tandem instructors. If there is an accident, even one that it truely accidental, that 'pattern of behavoir' is not going to be helpful in the courtroom.

In terms of your 'responsibility', you are responsible for ensuring that reserve repacks are all in date. If there was a ramp check, and it was discoved that several rig on board were out of date, you might get off with a warning. You could plea ignorance, and offer up that manifest i ssupposed to check that sort of thing, and you just plain didn't know.

If there was another ramp check the next year, or an actual incident involving an out-of-date rig, your plea of ignorance isn't going to get you very far. The first time was one thing, but there is now a public record of the first time, and you have no defence for the second occurence.

Let's be clear on this - nobody is pointing any fingers at you (yet), and I am not suggesting that you, the DZO, or the instructors invovled are bad people. I'm just pointing out the tough spot that they (the instructors) have put you and the DZO in, and the fallout from that position if an incident should occur.

To be fair, there was no harm done in the course of their behavoir. They did it, and pulled it off without incident every time. However, they did film it, and allow it to become a part of the public record, and that is the problem you have today.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

IMO They need to have their rating pulled because they did something dumb and dangerous that they should have known better than to do.

When it comes to placing people in peril there has to be a zero tolerence.

An example has to be made, give them a pass on this and everybody knows they get one if they ever want to disregard safety and common sense.

If an airline pilot wants to show up for work drunk he needs to know he gets walked no question, no scolding. no second chance...

If you take a position of responcibility in a professional capacity, act like you belong there, like you deserve the trust...its only funny until someone dies.
If as an instructor you dont know that going in then you should not have been there in the first place.

if ya fuck up doing something like that, own it...be adult enough to take what comes along with it and stop crying.

If they didnt know better they should not be TMs...if they knew better and did it anyway, they should not be TMs.


Any promise not to do it again is worthless, they already made that promise once and pissed on it... what has changed ? We now KNOW better.

Not to mention future legal problems if they were to kill or hurt someone...


There are also no victoms as you put it, when people drive drunk...until there are.


again just my opnion, but if it were my business on the line they would be done.

Everyone always has to be "made an example of", which is really a nice way of saying that they will be punished differently and held to a different standard than everyone else.
Besides, are you about to claim you have never made a mistake? That you are perfect and knowone has ever been put at risk due to anything you have done? Knowingly or unknowingly you have made mistakes, will continue too, and have and will continue to put others at risk........ Your human! So should we all look back into your history and find something to make an example out of you for. Maybe at some point you pulled lower than the SIM allows for your license. So lets pull your ratings and license so that we can make an example out of you because if we don't then people will know that they can pull as low as they want and get away with it because you did a long time ago. If we don't act now then people will be bouncing all over the place and it will be because we didn't make an example of you.
Maybe you it wasn't a low pull but some other mistake. Oh! How about base jumping! Anyone here do that? Its illegal almost everywhere so technically if you have jumped you actually broke the law, unlike the TI's!
So lets pull all your ratings and license and put you in jail and make an example out of all of you!
If we don't it will be anarchy! Anarchy I tell you!

[Ion01 1]

Quote

(establishing a pattern of behavoir)

Is this their current pattern of behavior? As stated earlier it is not. You are taking old and outdated data and trying to apply it to the current timeline which is, at best, flawed. The current data and trends/pattern of behavior is safe and in line with current safety practices.

[stratostar 5]

An outlaw base jumper is only endangering their own life, unless they bounce on someone, but seeing how most inter city bandit base jumps are at late night early morning, I doubt that is a high risk.

As for pulling low, yep done it many times, however again I'm only risking my own ass!

Should a base jumper or low puller have their ratings pulled because of their actions of base or low pull? Unless the base jumpers are selling first jump tandem students base tandems on the dz for later that night, then NO.

Low pulling, last time I checked the BSR's are not rules there recommendations, for one thing and second, unless the said low pulling instructor is asking the FJC class to come out to the LZ and watch how it's done and then dose a live display of how to pull low as part of the FJC training, then NO their ratings should not be pulled. That dose not mean a rating holder should not be leading by example and follow the recommendations of the USPA. But pulling low is not a rating removal action.

Tandem CREW with joy riding wuffo's is RISKING THE UNKNOWING WUFFO'S life! (even if they are asked, "would you like to sit on that other parachute")

You seem to fail to understand the difference. And it's a big one.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

last time I checked the BSR's are not rules there recommendations

Better check more often than every 20 years!
Dave

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Is this their current pattern of behavior? As stated earlier it is not. You are taking old and outdated data and trying to apply it to the current timeline which is, at best, flawed. The current data and trends/pattern of behavior is safe and in line with current safety practices.

Look man, there are three years ('07, '08, and '09) of videos up on Youtube showing these guys breaking the rules, so we (and a jury of our peers) know for sure that they did engage in such behavior for three years running. You may claim that the DZ has cleaned up their act, but how would you prove that in a court of law?

Let's keep in mind that this would only come up in the wake of an actual incident at this DZ (and this has always been my problem with the status quo).

All you have is your 'word' that the DZ had cleaned up it's act, but the plantiffs attorney has three years worth of videos to establish a 'pattern of behavior' followed by the incident that brought the lawsuit itself. Who is the jury going to believe?

I hate to break it you, there is no 'current' data to reference. No DZ anywhere documents it's every jump and action on video in order to prove their regular safety practices. What they do is rely on a lack of data to illustrate their safety record. No past incidents to reference, no student injuries, no disciplinary actions against it's instructors or pilots from their respective sanctioning bodies. This is what points toward a DZ that was the victim of a truely random accident.

On the other hand, a laundry list of incidents or injuries, revoked ratings for staff or pulled tickets for pilots, or even video proof of established and long standing rule breakng are all the things that earse that 'lack of data'. The presence of data itself is what puts the DZ in the hole if an incident and the ensuing lawsuit should occur.

[stratostar 5]

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[davelepka 4]

I wish I had read your other post before replying to the post you wrote to me. I would have just combined everytihg into one response, either way...

Besides, are you about to claim you have never made a mistake? That you are perfect and knowone has ever been put at risk due to anything you have done? Knowingly or unknowingly you have made mistakes, will continue too, and have and will continue to put others at risk........ Your human! So should we all look back into your history and find something to make an example out of you for. Maybe at some point you pulled lower than the SIM allows for your license. So lets pull your ratings and license so that we can make an example out of you because if we don't then people will know that they can pull as low as they want and get away with it because you did a long time ago.***


This really the example you want to use?

Pulling low can be a mistake. You can lose track of alititude, and end up in the basement. It can and does happen to almost every jumper at some point. This should not warrant any disciplinary action.

Tandem CRW is not an accident. I couldn't accidentally pull high with my tandem, fly directly behind him waiting for him to kick himself into a half line twist, and dock on the tandem student. That doesn't happen accidentally, and it doesn't happen accidentally for three years running.

That is preplanned, very intentional behavior, all performed with an unknowing, non-skydiver as a passenger, and you really think that a solo jumper accidentally pulling low is comperable?


Just wondering, have you noticed any high-time, rated skydivers in on this discussion who seem to think this is OK? With the exception of their fellow staffers at STC, any other 'qualified' jumpers who think they should keep their ratings?

Answer those two questions, and ask yourself is there's anything you could learn from the answers.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

To be fair, there was no harm done in the course of their behavoir. They did it, and pulled it off without incident every time.

Actually we don't know that.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

How about base jumping! Anyone here do that? Its illegal almost everywhere....

Wrong. How about some research before ranting?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

• Quote

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Actually we don't know that.

Indeed, but unlike a future jury, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and assume that it would have gotten out if this had lead to an actual incident.

Even if they had tried to cover it up in the first place, I'd have to think that this thread might bring an incident to light in one way or another.