Re: [nicknitro71] Fatality - IL - 26 July 2006

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

Swooping is as cool as it gets but there are places and times to do it.

They say Mark had a little over 1000 dives, even if he was very talented, swooping few feet above a larger object surrounded with obstacles and people takes a great amount of skills that he clearly did not have. IMO even if someone has the skills it was not a place to pull such a stunt.

[....]

Quote

The cause of this accident has nothing to do with the truck, tent, or johns placement, it was just another hook turn gone wrong, as simple as that.

The above is absolutely the best concise overview of this incident. Bottom line: IT WAS NOT THE PLACE to be pulling such a stunt.

Although Winsor stated that he is "very much without sympathy" regarding this fatality — and i can understand why he has such sentiments — i DO feel tremendous sympathy and sorrow for Mark and particularly for the people who knew him, and i send them my condolences. There were many of us there who — even though we didn't know Mark — were also very upset by the horrific loss of his life. Moments after it happened, one person who was nearby and very visibly shaken (as many of us were) said, "Somebody's baby is dead" — and i consider that a poignantly fitting way of thinking. This is something which warrants mourning by all of us.

Having said that, here is my perspective, having been one of the people in the area when the fatality occurred.

I spent most of my daylight hours at WFFC under the Tent 3 canopy. The edge of Tent 3 was less than 5 feet (probably less than 3 feet) from where Mark impacted on the truck. There were people in Tent 3 at the moment of impact; some of them were packing, others were standing around or sitting in chairs and couches while waiting to get on a load with a WFFC organizer. Cathy's Packing Place — with packers working and jumpers dropping off and picking up gear — was situated only a few feet east of Tent 3. The truck was parked such that anyone walking into or from the port-a-potties would have been shielded (and saved) by the truck. Therefore — contrary to a statement made earlier in this thread — if anyone had been entering or exiting one of those potties, there would NOT have been any additional fatalities, unless Mark had struck the ground BEHIND the potty-service truck while someone was entering/exiting the potties. However, if he had impacted 5 feet further north, he most certainly would have smashed through the canopy of Tent 3 and most likely WOULD have destroyed one or more other lives along with his own. If anyone had been walking in front of the potty-service truck — to go across the landing field to the flight line to get on a plane load, for example, or returning through the landing area headed for Tent 3 or the Packing Place or other destinations on that side of the landing area — the fatality count most definitely WOULD have been more than one. The lives of all the people in the vicinity of Cathy's Packing Place and Tent 3 were in jeopardy that day when Mark slammed into that truck. As tuffyjensen said earlier in this thread, Mark's speed at impact "was a minimum of 50 mph and probably closer to 65 or so." It's virtually impossible for anyone to survive such an impact, whether one is the projectile or the unintended target/victim of the projectile.

Of course, all this hair-splitting about who "might have" been killed "if" the impact had been in such-and-such a spot is mere quibbling and, in the final analysis, beside the point. I feel confident in presuming (or "speculating") that Mark was not aiming for that truck or any other precise location or object. The fact is, though, that he was engaging in a highly dangerous maneuver which put at risk the lives of numerous people — people who are known and loved by others just as surely as Mark was known and loved by his friends and intimates.

Specifics about hosing down the truck and subsequent biohazard treatment of the blood-sodden ground are part of the aftermath of the accident, and are legitimate aspects of the discussion. Mentioning them is a matter-of-fact recognition of some ramifications of what happened, acknowledging the potentially traumatic after-effects for those who witnessed it and the onus for those responsible for the clean-up process. To criticize and attempt to censor references to such details obstructs and detracts from the purpose — and usefulness — of a forum where the goal is to learn something from the incident and to try and find a way to curb the occurrence of such incidents in the future. If people want a thread that is exclusively for condolences and expressions of feelings and grieving, then let them start a thread designated solely for that purpose in the "Talkback" forum, as suggested by this forum's guidelines. If i understand the guidelines correctly, this thread is supposedly for facts, discussion, education, and hopefully, forging solutions to the burgeoning death toll incurred by these preventable accidents.

The lesson to be learned — as if Bill von Novak and others haven't emphasized such things repeatedly enough (and apparently not enough for far too many people) — is that swooping should not be done (or condoned) in the main landing area. To reiterate riddler's statement: yes, it is a VERY bad idea to swoop in areas that have foot traffic.

A number of DZs have instituted strict policies that impose consequences (grounding, etc.) for low pulls and Cypres fires. Potential flaming notwithstanding, i agree with Zipp0 that similar repercussions for hook turns are very much in order and appropriate. Why aren't DZs addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? It's bad enough — in terms of emotional and psychological trauma to survivors, witnesses, and others, as well as the carnage itself — when people kill themselves doing hook turns, but when they endanger and damage or destroy the lives of others, it's critically important that we start adamantly advocating and supporting steps to be taken toward discouraging such reckless and heedless behavior.

It is probably quite doubtful that Mark had a lack of respect for the lives of others, but with the way a lot of swoopers defy admonitions against hook turns, it becomes really easy to start thinking that there are just too many of them who simply don't have the awareness of how savagely they are endangering other people's lives, OR ... if they ARE aware, they seemingly don't care by virtue of the fact that they keep doing it anyway. It's time — and in fact, long overdue — that stringent measures be taken in efforts toward dissuading people from engaging in activities that threaten the lives of bystanders. Mark suffered the ultimate consequence, and it was a sad day for the entire skydiving community as well as others outside our community. If there were severe consequences for people who swoop anywhere except in areas explicitly designated for swooping, there would very likely be a lot less of it being done, and fewer lives lost because of it. In such a scenario, perhaps Mark would have been grounded after one of his earlier "successful" swoops that he is attributed to having made (according to a number of accounts related in this thread), and hence, a fatality possibly averted.

As for the "People wonder where WFFC gets it 'too dangerous to be there' reputation" comment, i have this to say about that:

People have died as a result of low hook turns all across the country and around the planet. This is not a crisis limited to WFFC.

In light, love, and hope,
anita

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

As for the "People wonder where WFFC gets it 'too dangerous to be there' reputation" comment, i have this to say to that:

People have died as a result of low hook turns all across the country and around the planet. This is not a crisis limited to WFFC.

This is true, but WFFC does not implement or enforce well known procedures for enhancing the safety of people in the air and on the ground.
- beer line about 50 ft. from the obstacles
- no over-fly obstacles below 500 ft
- ban swoop landings from the general landing area

WFFC convention also attracts a predominately low-experienced group of jumpers, many who have never been in the air simultaneously with many other canopies.
I think the average jump numbers of WFFC participants is in the 200-300 jump range. This is distinctly different than the population at other large DZs or on WR dives.

WFFC also has a reputation of being a party. Jumpers should expect to be in the air with hung-over jumpers or perhaps even intoxicated jumpers, at a much higher rate than you'd find at any other DZ.

WFFC also brings out the 'boogie-fever' phenomena in jumpers. That's when jumpers do things at the WFFC that they would never do at their home DZ. Sometimes that's jumping hung-over, sometimes doing more radical swoops, sometimes getting on loads way over their head or sometimes trying to jump BASE rigs from balloons.

Personally, it is not the number of canopies in the air there, it is who is under them that keeps me away.

I've been in the air simultaneously with hundreds of other jumpers. On some +100-ways at Perris and Eloy, we have ~80 people landing in the tiny grass area. Those are much safer and controlled than what happens at WFFC.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[anita 0]

It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs. Most drop zones — including Perris and Eloy — host boogies, and boogies notoriously incite the "party fever" phenomenon of which you speak. (The boogie syndrome has been plainly evident at a multitude of drop zones during the three decades since i started jumping; i have named Perris and Eloy specifically simply because they were the only ones cited in your post.)

WFFC certainly isn't the only boogie where people are found to be jumping while trying to recover from a hangover. Boogies at Perris and Eloy (and other DZs) also attract jumpers with lower numbers. At those boogies, too, jumpers do things that they would never do at their home DZ. The Bomb Shelter and pool at Perris — both of which host people imbibing liquor while jumping is taking place — are at a proximity to the landing area that is not significantly different from the beer line at WFFC.

Neither Perris nor Eloy (nor numerous other drop zones) are at all consistent about enforcing no-swooping-in-the-general-landing-area prohibitions. I have witnessed many hook turns at Perris and Eloy, and although Perris is quite resolute in enforcing the policy of grounding people for low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls, this is not the case with hook turns. So, my question still stands: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? At least when there is a low pull, more often than not, the only life threatened by the transgression is that of the one who pulled low; conversely, low hook turns far more often pose a threat to other people on the ground.

Your choice to stay away from WFFC for the reasons you gave makes utter sense for you, and is a logical discernment unless you apply different standards to boogies in general. WFFC occurs once a year for 10 days. Perris and Eloy host several boogies each year spanning a combined total of at least 10 days. To single out and point the finger at WFFC — as being the only time and place where the unsafe conditions you mentioned exist — is indicative of clearly biased thinking.

One last opinion for this post:

I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for discussing fatal or serious non-fatal incidents, not for criticizing the location where the incident occurred. I was at Perris a couple years ago when Indian Bob came plummeting to the ground from 50-100 feet up in the air after colliding into Heather's canopy. His body crumpled to the ground like a sack of potatoes just as my feet touched down about 30 feet away. It was a ghastly visual to behold and a terrible thudding sound to hear, no worse or less awful than the hideous visual and the deafeningly loud smacking sound of Mark hitting the truck last week. I was agonizingly saddened by Indian Bob's death, and worried for Heather and her emotional/psychological health. I didn't use the incident as a vehicle to slam Perris (nor did i have any reason or desire to do so), and i don't like the way this incident is being used as an opportunity to disparage WFFC.

In light, love, and hope, and
with wishes for halcyon skies,
anita

[billvon 2,434]

>It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with
> WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day
> populations at large DZs.

I think it's more that there are three cases.

1) Normal operations at a DZ. By and large most people at a DZ every weekend are familiar with operations there, know who swoops and who doesn't, know what the student canopies look like etc.

2) Boogies. Most of the above does _not_ apply, and often there are more inexperienced jumpers there (if for no other reason than most of the instructors had to stay home and work.) There are people unfamiliar with the area trying new gear, new kinds of dives and jumping with new people, and often they are tired/hung over from the night before.

3) Record events. On the more serious ones, you can get cut for pattern violations - so the patterns are pretty well observed. Also, you've got people who have proven that they can jump with large numbers of people, and you don't have students/lowtimers/tandems/swoopers to contend with (usually.)

All three require a slightly different approach to safety.

>Neither Perris nor Eloy (nor numerous other drop zones) are at
>all consistent about enforcing no-swooping-in-the-general-landing
>-area prohibitions.

Well, I think the main reason that's true is that Perris doesn't really _have_ no-swooping-in-the-general-landing-area rules. The general rule is "land out if you don't want to deal with the swoopers" and some people do.

>I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC.

Not sure if it's really "taking shots" at the WFFC. I've often stated that I don't think the WFFC is the safest environment for newer jumpers, but that doesn't mean it's bad or totally unsafe or anything. It's just a different environment than your average weekend at a DZ, because of the reasons I listed above. This is true to some degree for all boogies, but more true at the WFFC than other boogies because of its size and because there is no one who jumps more than 10 days a year at Rantoul.

[Ron 7]

Quote

WFFC certainly isn't the only boogie where people are found to be jumping while trying to recover from a hangover

Certainly seems more common however. And I lived on a major DZ for about 5 years...And I saw more drunk jumpers at the two conventions I went to than all my time at ZHills (a pretty well known party DZ), or all other DZ's combined. 20 days vs 13 years.

Quote

Boogies at Perris and Eloy (and other DZs) also attract jumpers with lower numbers.

Yep, but the fact that there are more at the WFFC means a lot.

Quote

To single out and point the finger at WFFC — as being the only time and place where the unsafe conditions you mentioned exist — is indicative of clearly biased thinking.

Not really...You have a major boogie with only 10 days of jumping. Tons of low timers and lots of parties. Lots of newer folks doing new things in a new place....That screams bad idea. And the accident rates seem to support that.

I would be very interested at comparing the fatality rate at the WFFC vs the general fatality rate over all.

Quote

I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for discussing fatal or serious non-fatal incidents, not for criticizing the location where the incident occurred.

Thats because you do not seem to give any credibility to the thought that the WFFC seems to attract or cause dangerous behavior. I think it does, and so do many others.

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs.

Why? That is precisely the comparison I make, as well as a large number of other experienced jumpers make.
If I am in the air with +100 jumpers, I want to know what their experience level is.
I am not going to do a 'trust-me' on that. I have too many dead friends and close calls to do that.
It is in the similar vein of 'well, I can jump otters, skyvans etc here, why do I need to go to some boogie to do that?'

Quote

Most drop zones — including Perris and Eloy — host boogies, and boogies notoriously incite the "party fever" phenomenon of which you speak. (The boogie syndrome has been plainly evident at a multitude of drop zones during the three decades since i started jumping; i have named Perris and Eloy specifically simply because they were the only ones cited in your post.)

WFFC certainly isn't the only boogie where people are found to be jumping while trying to recover from a hangover. Boogies at Perris and Eloy (and other DZs) also attract jumpers with lower numbers. At those boogies, too, jumpers do things that they would never do at their home DZ. The Bomb Shelter and pool at Perris — both of which host people imbibing liquor while jumping is taking place — are at a proximity to the landing area that is not significantly different from the beer line at WFFC.

Well, these other dzs (Perris or Eloy or ??) may attract the reckless, they do so in a smaller proportion.

Quote

Neither Perris nor Eloy (nor numerous other drop zones) are at all consistent about enforcing no-swooping-in-the-general-landing-area prohibitions. I have witnessed many hook turns at Perris and Eloy, and although Perris is quite resolute in enforcing the policy of grounding people for low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls, this is not the case with hook turns. So, my question still stands: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? At least when there is a low pull, more often than not, the only life threatened by the transgression is that of the one who pulled low; conversely, low hook turns far more often pose a threat to other people on the ground.

I guess you have not been at Perris when I have told people not to do 270's above the grass area. I am trying to get this to be a dz standard.

Quote

Your choice to stay away from WFFC for the reasons you gave makes utter sense for you, and is a logical discernment unless you apply different standards to boogies in general. WFFC occurs once a year for 10 days. Perris and Eloy host several boogies each year spanning a combined total of at least 10 days. To single out and point the finger at WFFC — as being the only time and place where the unsafe conditions you mentioned exist — is indicative of clearly biased thinking.

I also do not attend other DZ boogies for the same reasons.
Today's boogies are nothing like the Muskogee Boogies.
Today, you sometimes have to place your life in the hands of others to survive a boogie.
That is something I do not want to do.

Quote

One last opinion for this post:

I don't consider it appropriate that this venue is being used to take shots at WFFC. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for discussing fatal or serious non-fatal incidents, not for criticizing the location where the incident occurred. I was at Perris a couple years ago when Indian Bob came plummeting to the ground from 50-100 feet up in the air after colliding into Heather's canopy. His body crumpled to the ground like a sack of potatoes just as my feet touched down about 30 feet away. It was a ghastly visual to behold and a terrible thudding sound to hear, no worse or less awful than the hideous visual and the deafeningly loud smacking sound of Mark hitting the truck last week. I was agonizingly saddened by Indian Bob's death, and worried for Heather and her emotional/psychological health. I didn't use the incident as a vehicle to slam Perris (nor did i have any reason or desire to do so), and i don't like the way this incident is being used as an opportunity to disparage WFFC.

I will be the first in line to say that Bob's death was 100% preventable, and I DID say this at the time. He should have never been on that load. As far as I know Heather does not jump anymore. Her Mom does jump.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

WFFC convention also attracts a predominately low-experienced group of jumpers, many who have never been in the air simultaneously with many other canopies.

I find this confusing. I have only been to the Convention for the past 3 years but one thing I have noticed was that there was MUCH older crowd at the Convention than other Boogies I have been to in general.
I am in my mid-30`s and felt like one of the younger ones there in general. Yes there a few 20 somethings running around but it appeared to me that they were by FAR the minority.

I felt that this was one of the reasons the Convention is dying. They are NOT attracting the younger Jumpers.

I would be real interested in seeing some actual demographic information from the convention.. Things like average age and average number of Jumps, A pie Chart showing jumpers grouped by Jump Numbers.. That sort of thing. Too bad the convention hides this information.

Other issues that may play into safety here is that most Boogies and events are usually only 3 to 5 days long. With the convention being 10 days and people doing MANY more jumps than usual over a longer time.. Fatigue may also play a part in some accidents.

The fatalities that have happened at the conventions I have been at were all 100% Jumper error and had nothing to do with anything or anyone else (First year.. No Fatalities, Last year two low cutaways that didn’t get a reserve out in time and this year a Low Hook Turn).
The incidents forum is full of these type accidents at other places. These accidents don’t just happen at the Convention.

I agree that there needs to be more attention focused on safety there.. (Like Enforcing a "No High performance Landings" in the main Landing area. There is a Swoop pond there.. Use it.)

But all these people that haven’t been to the convention in years complaining about how dangerous it is doesn’t make since to me. I’m sure Quincy was Wild and all these things WERE true.. But the convention has changed from what I have seen the past 3 years.

Put any event with 800 to 1000 Skydivers over 10 Days under a Microscope like the Convention is and I am certain you will find similar issues.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I find this confusing. I have only been to the Convention for the past 3 years but one thing I have noticed was that there was MUCH older crowd at the Convention than other Boogies I have been to in general.

Age has little to do with experience in skydiving. You can be very experienced at 15, think any Mullins kid, or have very little exp and be 60.

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

[Thanatos340 1]

But with age comes maturity for most.

The point I keep trying to make is:
The picture some are trying to paint of the convention that HAVE NOT BEEN TO THE CONVENTION IN YEARS is simply not accurate. This is NOT Quincy.

FACTS:
The convention attendance is less than 1/4 of what it used to be.
Rantoul is MUCH bigger than Quincy alot more landing area.
The Convention is NOT full of young yahoos smoking it down on every load and landing every which direction. It is predominately an older crowd there.
Of the 3 Fatalities in the past 3 years, They were all 100% Jumper error and had nothing at all to do with the fact they were at the Convention, Canopy Traffic, Other jumpers or anything else.

But the Know It All Sky-Gods have their mental Picture of what the Convention USED to be like and insist on telling everyone that is how it still is. And they would NEVER actually listen to people that were actually there in the past few years. They have more Jumps so Clearly they know more about what is really happening at the convention than people that actually go to the convention.

Yes, Some People still do stupid shit at the Convention.. Just like they do at every other Boogie I have ever been too. No more, No Less.

[PhreeZone 15]

The crowd at the WFFC tends to be more of the local midwest crowd. That is to say a lot of them are Cessna DZ jumpers and tend to have less then 500 jumps, most that I was running into in 2005 only had about 2-300. The crowd also tended to be more towards the older side of 40 then the younger. Just since they are older does not mean they can follow a landing pattern better.. trust me on that.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Ron 7]

Quote

The convention attendance is less than 1/4 of what it used to be.
Rantoul is MUCH bigger than Quincy alot more landing area.
The Convention is NOT full of young yahoos smoking it down on every load and landing every which direction. It is predominately an older crowd there.

OLDER does not mean EXPERIENCED.

Quote

Of the 3 Fatalities in the past 3 years, They were all 100% Jumper error and had nothing at all to do with the fact they were at the Convention, Canopy Traffic, Other jumpers or anything else.

As are most fatalities anywhere and anytime.

Quote

But the Know It All Sky-Gods have their mental Picture of what the Convention USED to be like and insist on telling everyone that is how it still is.

Nice insults! Can't argue from logic so you revert to third grade? Maybe you are just kidding yourself on how safe it is?

It does not take a "skygod" to know that boogies bring out the worst. New place, new planes, new experiences...All this can easily over load an INEXPERIENCED (notice....Not young) jumper. Add in the parties at night that ALL boogies have...Hell most DZ's.

Boogies can be fun, but lets not bury our heads in the sand and ignore the potential dangers that can be brought about by them.

Quote

Yes, Some People still do stupid shit at the Convention.. Just like they do at every other Boogie I have ever been too. No more, No Less.

I disagree...And even if the RATE is not higher at the WFFC (which I wonder?). But the fact of more people means more dumb people, doing more dumb things.

For example people claim that this guy was not the type to swoop objects at his home DZ....But he was swooping objects here....WHY?

But hey, keep the insults coming if thats all ya got

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

[billvon 2,434]

>But the Know It All Sky-Gods have their mental Picture of what
>the Convention USED to be like and insist on telling everyone that is
>how it still is. And they would NEVER actually listen to people that
>were actually there in the past few years.

I don't know if I count as a know-it-all skygod, but I've been going there for 14 years now (this was the first year I've missed in a while.) That's what I base my observations on.

>The convention attendance is less than 1/4 of what it used to be.

Agreed there.

>Rantoul is MUCH bigger than Quincy alot more landing area.

Disagree there. There's an additional "runway" in the main landing area, but both are at huge airports with a lot of outs.

>The Convention is NOT full of young yahoos smoking it down on
> every load and landing every which direction. It is predominately an
> older crowd there.

Smoking it down - agreed.

Landing every which direction - they DO often land every different direction. I'd stand under the tent last year and watch ten people land one direction, one guy land the other. I'd talk to him. And as I was getting the usual "it's not my fault if everyone else can't read a wind sock" explanation, I'd see ten people land the new direction, one person land the old direction.

That hasn't changed much.

>Of the 3 Fatalities in the past 3 years, They were all 100% Jumper
> error and had nothing at all to do with the fact they were at the
> Convention, Canopy Traffic, Other jumpers or anything else.

They were all 100% jumper error. Basically every fatality is. I think this year's may have been influenced by being in a new and unfamiliar boogie environment.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

OLDER does not mean EXPERIENCED.

But it does generally mean a little more conservative and a little more common sense.

Quote

Nice insults! Can't argue from logic so you revert to third grade? Maybe you are just kidding yourself on how safe it is?

Actually I am arguing PURE logic.

People who haven’t been there in years are saying how dangerous it is and crazy it is. People that have been there the past couple years are saying it is not like it used to be.

Which is more plausible to listen to??

Quote

It does not take a "skygod" to know that boogies bring out the worst. New place, new planes, new experiences...All this can easily over load an INEXPERIENCED (notice....Not young) jumper. Add in the parties at night that ALL boogies have...Hell most DZ's.

I completely agree with this. What I disagree with is the Rantoul being singled out and made to sound so much worse than other Large Boogies.

All Large Boogies are dangerous places. I still say that I have seen much more stupid things going on at other Boogies. The WFFC is actually rather tame compared to some others.

The Party atmosphere the past two years has really sucked. By midnight, the VAST majority of those Late 40 Something’s are long since in bed. Wild and out of control?? It wasn’t even close. Much bigger and better parties at other Boogies.

Quote

But the fact of more people means more dumb people, doing more dumb things.

Again, I agree. But There were more people at Z-Hills Holiday Boogie this year than at Rantoul during the time I was there. Same logic could be applied there.

Bashing the Convention seems to be the Thing to do for a lot of people that haven’t been in years with very little basis in current fact.


Once again... The WFFC is Dangerous. Just like any other Large Boogie but it is NOT as bad as many on here are portraying to be.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Actually I am arguing PURE logic.

Calling people you don't agree with a 'skygod' is not an insult, but logic?

Quote

I completely agree with this. What I disagree with is the Rantoul being singled out and made to sound so much worse than other Large Boogies.

It is the the largest, and therefore the most potentialy dangerous. Again logic, not a witch hunt.

Quote

Again, I agree. But There were more people at Z-Hills Holiday Boogie this year than at Rantoul during the time I was there. Same logic could be applied there.

Did anyone die in Zhills? Kinda proves my point a bit if your guessed numbers are accurate.

Quote

Once again... The WFFC is Dangerous. Just like any other Large Boogie but it is NOT as bad as many on here are portraying to be.

"As bad" is a relative term. Yes, it is a big boogie. And THAT is my point. Take a bunch of less experienced folks and throw them into a new place, with a new planes....AND a party atmosphere...Well bad things will happen. Boogies are well known as places were the rules get pushed.

The WFFC is like the Vegas of the skydiving world. You do things there that you would not do at home...Sure people always act up a bit when away from home...But take so many people where NO ONE is home and it is bound to be more than normal. And new people in a new place with a "no rules" kinda vibe and people are going to push the envelope....Sometimes too far.

Raises some interesting questions....

1. Rate of accidents/injuries at boogies compared to home DZ operations? Most people will admit that a new DZ is more dangerous than you home DZ, and that new things can quickly over tax a less experienced jumper...So I would *guess* that accident/injury rates would be higher at boogies. I would like to see some data.

2. Does the environment change a persons safety attitude? Again, I would guess yes based on stuidies of peer pressure.

3. Can fatigue affect performance? From doing multiple day training, I can say yes. So take a normal weekend jumper and put him into a week long Dropzone when he is living in a hotel or a tent...I can easily see how their performance could be reduced.

NONE of these are specific to WFFC, I don't think there is a magic vodoo spell over there. But the Vegas feel, new place and planes, and long days, day after day, could very easily contribute to a higher accident rate.

You think I am head hunting the WFFC...Nope, but you are defending it a bit too much IMO when you will not even look at the potential reasons and how they relate to the boogie.

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

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs.

Why? That is precisely the comparison I make, as well as a large number of other experienced jumpers make.

The rest of my original paragraph made the point that gets lost when the one sentence gets taken out of context, which is what happened in your reply, Jan. The point was, it's bizarre to compare safety levels at WFFC with those at world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs because — of course — in such an illogical comparison, WFFC is going to have a diminished level of safety, as any boogie would. The point was: it's akin to the apples and oranges cliché. I think anyone who is thinking clearly would not EXPECT or even hope a boogie (whether WFFC or any other boogie) can have a safety level comparable to that of world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs. Bill von Novak itemized it more thoroughly in his "I think it's more that there are three cases" analysis, and essentially, corroborated the stance that WFFC is similar to any boogie and vice versa, and as such, will not have the safety levels of "a typical day at the local DZ" or a world-class event comprised of highly skilled and experienced jumpers. For anyone to think that a boogie could match the safety level of what you're using for a measuring stick is exceedingly illogical and unreasonable.

Quote

It is in the similar vein of 'well, I can jump otters, skyvans etc here, why do I need to go to some boogie to do that?'

You certainly don't need to go to "some" or any boogie to do that, Jan. I never made any allusion to that effect. Did i somehow inadvertently give you that impression? There are plenty of other people, though, who DO go to the convention for that, because it's something that they can't get at their home DZs. Do you condemn them for doing so, in the same way that you seem to condemn the convention's very existence?

Quote

I guess you have not been at Perris when I have told people not to do 270's above the grass area. I am trying to get this to be a dz standard.

I would LOVE it if you succeeded in making that a DZ standard at Perris. I was merely making the observation that, at this time, it is NOT a standard there. If you don't recall my original question, it was: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? I would like to see Perris enforcing consequences for hook turns as persistently as Perris enforces its penalty for low pulls, and i would like to see that at other DZs, as well. In my view, the only acceptable exception would be for landing areas specifically designated for swooping.

My original reason for posting the item that triggered your responses to me, Jan, was the fact that some people, including you, seem to have a penchant for bashing WFFC. This perplexes me because, although you haven't been there for i-don't-know-how-many years, you seem to have an axe to grind against it so perniciously — and with what appears to be NO recent first-hand experience from which to judge or to back up your malignment of it — to the point that your attitude defies comprehension.

To me, it seems rude and, actually, unethical for people to continually bash something when they don't seem to be able to produce valid first-hand reasons for their malice toward it. It's one thing to make a personal choice about not going to WFFC for yourself, but to broadcast slurs about it to thousands of jumpers without reasonable cause is entirely another thing, and i just don't understand why you do it. Maybe you could enlighten me?

pax tibi,
anita

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

Once again... The WFFC is Dangerous. Just like any other Large Boogie but it is NOT as bad as many on here are portraying [it] to be.

Hear! Hear!

<3 anita

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

They were all 100% jumper error. Basically every fatality is. I think this year's may have been influenced by being in a new and unfamiliar boogie environment.

Actually, he was at WFFC in Rantoul last year, so it wasn't a new and unfamiliar boogie environment for him. As has been stated repeatedly, it was just another case of a hook turn gone awry. The reprehensible thing about it was that it was being done in an area where it should not have been attempted. There's a swoop pond at Rantoul, which is the only acceptable place to have been doing it.

pax,
<3 anita

[billvon 2,434]

>Actually, he was at WFFC in Rantoul last year, so it wasn't a
>new and unfamiliar boogie environment for him.

Bad phrasing on my part. A less-familiar environment. I don't even consider Rantoul "familiar" to me, because I jump there at most 10 days a year.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It seems rather bizarre to me that anyone would compare WFFC with WR (world record) events, or with weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs.

Why? That is precisely the comparison I make, as well as a large number of other experienced jumpers make.

The rest of my original paragraph made the point that gets lost when the one sentence gets taken out of context, which is what happened in your reply, Jan. The point was, it's bizarre to compare safety levels at WFFC with those at world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs because — of course — in such an illogical comparison, WFFC is going to have a diminished level of safety, as any boogie would. The point was: it's akin to the apples and oranges cliché. I think anyone who is thinking clearly would not EXPECT or even hope a boogie (whether WFFC or any other boogie) can have a safety level comparable to that of world record events or weekend or day-to-day populations at large DZs. Bill von Novak itemized it more thoroughly in his "I think it's more that there are three cases" analysis, and essentially, corroborated the stance that WFFC is similar to any boogie and vice versa, and as such, will not have the safety levels of "a typical day at the local DZ" or a world-class event comprised of highly skilled and experienced jumpers. For anyone to think that a boogie could match the safety level of what you're using for a measuring stick is exceedingly illogical and unreasonable.

You are quoted in the entirety...
But it does make sense to compare WFFC or any other event to whatever risk levels a jumper may find at their local DZ.
When I was talked into going to WT 96 for 300-ways, without an AAD, I had many reservations. As I ran out the back of those helicopters on the first ever 300-way attempt, I said to myself "I hope Rusty's plan works."
When I was talked into doing a night 50-way dive, I had reservations. As I jumped out, I said to myself "Well, there's no going back now."
I don't know about others, but I do compare xyz event risks to my 'average' weekend at home, whether it's Skydance or Perris or Coolidge.
I ask, "Is this xyz event worth the extra risk?"
For some world record type events, yeah, I'll take on some more risk. But for some boogie party type thing, no. YMMV.

Quote

Quote

It is in the similar vein of 'well, I can jump otters, skyvans etc here, why do I need to go to some boogie to do that?'

You certainly don't need to go to "some" or any boogie to do that, Jan. I never made any allusion to that effect. Did i somehow inadvertently give you that impression? There are plenty of other people, though, who DO go to the convention for that, because it's something that they can't get at their home DZs. Do you condemn them for doing so, in the same way that you seem to condemn the convention's very existence?

Anita, you are stooping to low-ball tactics that are way beneath you.
I'm not condemning WFFC by any stretch of the imagination. I am merely stating why I don't go to it and why it does not appeal to me. Don Kirlin is a pretty smart guy. He would probably welcome ideas on how to make WFFC more attractive to more experienced jumpers. Many years ago there used to be big-way invitationals at WFFC. That has fallen to the way-side.

Quote

Quote

I guess you have not been at Perris when I have told people not to do 270's above the grass area. I am trying to get this to be a dz standard.

I would LOVE it if you succeeded in making that a DZ standard at Perris. I was merely making the observation that, at this time, it is NOT a standard there. If you don't recall my original question, it was: Why aren't DZs (such as Perris) addressing hook turn violations as aggressively as they are treating low pulls and AAD activations caused by low pulls? I would like to see Perris enforcing consequences for hook turns as persistently as Perris enforces its penalty for low pulls, and i would like to see that at other DZs, as well. In my view, the only acceptable exception would be for landing areas specifically designated for swooping.

My original reason for posting the item that triggered your responses to me, Jan, was the fact that some people, including you, seem to have a penchant for bashing WFFC. This perplexes me because, although you haven't been there for i-don't-know-how-many years, you seem to have an axe to grind against it so perniciously — and with what appears to be NO recent first-hand experience from which to judge or to back up your malignment of it — to the point that your attitude defies comprehension.

To me, it seems rude and, actually, unethical for people to continually bash something when they don't seem to be able to produce valid first-hand reasons for their malice toward it. It's one thing to make a personal choice about not going to WFFC for yourself, but to broadcast slurs about it to thousands of jumpers without reasonable cause is entirely another thing, and i just don't understand why you do it. Maybe you could enlighten me?

Part of the 'problem' is that the DZ owners and or staff partake in the 'swoops' over the grass area. Once you and I and others can convince DZOs/staff that their 270s over the grass when tandems are landing tend to precipitate others (aka out-of-towners) doing the same thing at the most inappropriate times then we can make some headway.

Getting back to WFFC, the lone fatality this year was observed to swoop the tents earlier in the week. I did not make that up and it is not from some long ago WFFC. It was this year, just a couple of days ago. I do not want to go to a boogie where I have to 'duck and cover' as I walk out from a tent.
This jumper repeatedly did these types of approaches. At any other DZ, there would have been a 'talking to'. WFFC does not seem to have that in place.
WFFC does not have a 'beer line' designating suitable landing areas far enough away from foot traffic.
I do not want to put my life on the line for walking out of one of the tents there.
YMMV.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

This jumper repeatedly did these types of approaches. At any other DZ, there would have been a 'talking to'. WFFC does not seem to have that in place.

Sadly.. That is not true. At the past several DZs I have been to, People were doing high performance Landing in the main landing area. It has become an accepted practice at too many DZ`s.

And I agree that it should be addressed. I had a Swooper cut me off on Final last year in Houston and Buckle my canopy about 30 feet off the ground. And this was during an Event that catered to low time jumpers. There should be a seperate landing area for High Performance landings and it should be enforced.

These are problems that need to addressed everywhere and not specific to just the WFFC.

[notaccountable 0]

You think I am head hunting the WFFC...Nope
________________________________________________

No, actually I do think you are WFFC bashing. I’ve read many posts from many people over time. You have been on a hunting trip for quite a while. You haven’t carried the same attitude with regard to other venue’s when presented the opportunity to do so. Your attitude is inconsistent. Unnecessary inflammatory comment removed by slotperfect It seems too bitter, to be genuine.

As an example I feel Bill is a little negative about the WFFC, but his comments are consistent, and don’t seem personally driven toward the WFFC. He has at least made an effort to educate people through some of his articles, and help them when attending the WFFC.

I believe the term “skygod” was being used to replace the more accurate word of comment removed by slotperfect. If you haven’t been to the WFFC in a while, and reference your experience to project onto the present WFFC; that’s ignorance. I don’t know how more simplified I can be about this. Example for the kids: If you haven’t been skydiving for a while and come back to help others by teaching them the big X or banana turns. Times change, situations change, you seem to not even factor that into consideration. I’m sorry for your bitterness, but you might get help to move on.

What amazes me is that the WFFC was put in place for skydivers, about skydivers, the largest event in the world and all about skydivers, yet there are a few people that choose to try to flame the convention out of existence; by the way the flaming just feeds the convention. It’s the nature of the sport to step outside of the box. I could just imagine if have of the people that complain about the WFFC stepped up and offered to help with these safety concerns that are looming in the shadows of the convention. Instead of just griping and complaining about it. Stand up and help if you really are concerned, if not then I guess you really are just a bitter person, and not even skydiving can help that one.

You make comments about experienced as compared to older. Bottom line experienced does NOT equate to safe. Check the stats, more experienced skydivers die each year than newbees, unless you define experienced at 10000+jumps.

Anita, I enjoyed your earlier post, but I must strongly disagree with one point about the blood, and hosing the truck. I’m sorry, but no matter how you look at that it has NOTHING to do with the cause or assisting in education to prevent this from the future. If you are someone you know saw this, then it is your own fault to have to live with, not to be thrown around like a party favor. I feel it was totally tasteless. NOONE forced anyone to hang around for such a sight. If someone stayed around for such a period of time with morbid curiosity, then they get what they, not as a vivid image to impress upon other. No VALUE. Now for the people that heard/saw the accident could not have been avoided, and for that my heart goes out to those people to heal the pain and continue to live life they are blessed to live.

(DYING TO LEARN OR LEARNING TO DIE, JUST A THOUGHT)

[anita 0]

I disagree with your characterization of my tactics, Jan. What i've been trying to do is get an understanding of your tactics, although thus far, i'm finding them unfathomable.

Quote

Quote

YMMV.

Sorry, i'm not all that well-versed in internet acronym-abbreviations. I know what many of them mean, but not YMMV. Translation? Anybody?

Quote

Quote

Don Kirlin is a pretty smart guy. He would probably welcome ideas on how to make WFFC more attractive to more experienced jumpers.

Have you communicated any of your ideas directly to Don Kirlin? Have you expressed to him your thoughts, concerns, criticisms, suggestions/recommendations? I would think that might have the potential of being much more productive than all the negativity and rabid bad-mouthing about WFFC that is rife in these forums.


One of my earlier statements (in the "Incidents" forum, where this thread originally resided) was that the fatality was being used as a means for bashing WFFC. I still maintain my opinion about the distasteful nature of that type of capitalizing on a fatal incident for a personal agenda, and that it far more befittingly merits the pigeonholing as a "questionable" tactic.

Quote

Quote

I will be the first in line to say that Bob's death was 100% preventable, and I DID say this at the time. He should have never been on that load. As far as I know Heather does not jump anymore. Her Mom does jump.

I agree with you as to the preventability of that fatality, and admire you for your response of asserting your position at the time. (A number of people have made similar assertions about last week's WFFC fatality.) The fact remains that Bob's demise occurred, and it happened under weekend operational circumstances at the local home DZ — there was no boogie taking place that day. (Actually, i'm not sure if it was a weekday or weekend; would have to check my log book or some other source, such as a newspaper account of the incident, to refresh my memory.) In this discussion, the safety levels of day-to-day operations at local home DZs have been held up as a (not reasonable) measuring stick against which to hold the WFFC accountable, yet Bob's fatality occurred under just such "local home DZ" non-boogie conditions. No drop zone has immunity from fatalities. In that particular case, another jumper was almost killed along with the jumper who made the error. Did Heather stop jumping as a result of that harrowing experience? I don't know, but my guess is that the emotional/psychological upheaval of that incident probably did play a role in that outcome.

In light, love, and hope,
anita

[anita 0]

Quote

Quote

As an example I feel Bill is a little negative about the WFFC, but his comments are consistent, and don’t seem personally driven toward the WFFC. He has at least made an effort to educate people through some of his articles, and help them when attending the WFFC.

Actually, i don't see Bill as being negative about WFFC, just factual and realistic. He doesn't bash WFFC or discourage people from attending it, while at the same time, he warns them of the increased risk that is a reality in all boogie environments. As you may recall him mentioning, this year was the first year in many that he missed the convention. And yes, you're right — he’s consistent, he makes enormous efforts to educate people, he is invaluably helpful to other jumpers attending WFFC, and on top of all that, he is an extremely gifted writer, enriching us with many entertaining narratives. I just wonder why he exaggerated so much about "my" long spot from the CASA on that day of the nude jump with the Brazilians, and why he enjoyed teasing about it so much, when he could just as well have checked the spot himself.


I guess it made for a better—and more amusing—story.

Quote

Quote

Anita, I enjoyed your earlier post, but I must strongly disagree with one point about the blood, and hosing the truck. I’m sorry, but no matter how you look at that it has NOTHING to do with the cause or assisting in education to prevent this from the future. If you are someone you know saw this, then it is your own fault to have to live with, not to be thrown around like a party favor. I feel it was totally tasteless. NOONE forced anyone to hang around for such a sight. If someone stayed around for such a period of time with morbid curiosity, then they get what they, not as a vivid image to impress upon other. No VALUE. Now for the people that heard/saw the accident could not have been avoided, and for that my heart goes out to those people to heal the pain and continue to live life they are blessed to live.

I can understand your sensibilities on this, Mr. Anonymous, and i know that many people share your view about it. However, the immediate aftermath — and the effects on people in the vicinity and the people charged with the responsibility of cleaning up — is undeniably a part of the incident. You're right, nobody forced anyone to hang around, and i, for one, did not stick around during the clean-up. Neither am i throwing anything around like a party favor. I simply responded regarding one person's objection to another person's mentioning the inevitable after-effects attendant with a fatal incident. Hours later, when jumping resumed and people (including myself) returned to Tent 3, Winsor made the comment that the soft wet spot in the ground was not the result of the impact, but rather, from the ground being turned over and subjected to biohazard treatment, which is typical of clean-up procedures where blood is present. That spot was inches away from the packing tarps of Tent 3, and people had to contend with it, so i'm sorry if it offends you, but it was part of the experience for the people there, and i am not in the habit of brushing off consideration for their feelings, any more than i want to brush off consideration of yours. If people don't want to read something containing the mention of blood or bodily parts, maybe we need a separate thread where such references are censored? Personally, i don't care for censorship, but if it would make some people happier, i don't mind someone creating a separate thread labeled as being censored. Would you also want to extend said censorship to exclude references to things like both femurs snapping on impact, as one person mentioned in a post? I'm just wondering how far you would want the censorship to go.

In light, love, and hope,
anita

[billvon 2,434]

Just a reminder -

No personal attacks EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THEM TO BE JUSTIFIED. That includes calling people ignorant. (And that goes for Ron and Sparky too.)

[anita 0]

Yikes, what a slug fest this has become (as in *POW* ... *ZAP* ... *BAM* ... *KABLOOIE* ... *WHAMMO* ... *AARGH* ... *OOF* ... and other such types of interjections in comic strips). I was hoping we could engender a more productive approach to the issues that are being brought to the table, not a spree of insults. Oh well, i guess that element is difficult to suppress among skydivers, eh?


pax tibi,
<3 anita


P.S. — I wrote that before seeing Bill's reminder, and before deletion of a number of the posts wherein the folks were duking it out, just in case anybody's wondering what i'm talking about.