0
skydived19006

Rich Winstock Swoop Incident Cover-Up

Recommended Posts

EatSleepFly

Well the "victim" is still jumping there (as seen in Parachutist recently), so obviously there are no hard feelings. Maybe it's time for drama.com to just move the fuck on already. :S



Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***Very British, very nanny state. Guilty until proven innocent. The head bureaucrat at any DZ can suspend you at his discretion. You must appeal to the Star Chamber if you disagree.



Exactly my point. Under BPA, any Brit DZO could conceivably abuse his position and unilaterally suspend a jumper from the sport immediately, without due process, in reality for any trumped-up "reason", just if he decides he dislikes the jumper. Fuck that.

We're 200lb sacks of meat-bomb. If someone is doing something dangerous then that threat to the general populace needs to be abated pending review. Due process can follow. Think of it as an emergency injunction subject to subsequent judicial review.

Anyway,
7.2 just allows the CCI to endorse the license - other DZ's are not bound to follow that. Chappie can go up the road to the rival DZ and say "look what Dave wrote on my license" and the rival DZ can say, "Dave's a dick, you're on next load". All the endorsement serves to do is warn other DZ's that in the view of that CCI you're a liability – they can make their own call.

7.3 is what permits the grounding and that goes via the safety and training committee. They can suspend temporarily until the next STC meeting. At each stage there's right of appeal.

No DZO gets to act unilaterally and there is due process in the proceedure to get someone suspended pending a full review, following which there's further due process. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We're 200lb sacks of meat-bomb. If someone is doing something dangerous then that threat to the general populace needs to be abated pending review.




Yes, of course. The population must be protected from the "meat bombs".

This is the kind of small minded rationalization and justification of the bureaucracy John Cleese was spoofing in the "Ministry of Silly Walks" skit. Are you a Barrister?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I look forward to your detail. It appears to me that 7.2 says, "You can't play in my privately owned sandbox". 7.3 has a greater reach and because of that has a semi judicial review with appeals.

It seems like a good system to me.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No DZO gets to act unilaterally and there is due process in the proceedure to get someone suspended pending a full review, following which there's further due process



That's only half correct - and half not correct. Yes, there is eventual due process. But in the meantime - in the first instance - the DZO most certainly is able to act unilaterally: He physically marks the jumper's actual license card IN RED INK.

Yes, there is an avenue for appeal, but does this appeal get at least a first-level, bi-lateral "judicial"-type hearing within a matter of no more than a couple of DAYS? - because, at least in most of the US, that's the general standard for a first-level bi-lateral hearing on an emergency injunction (assuming that an emergency injunction was issued unilaterally - which by my personal experience in handling many emergency injunction cases over the years, most judges are very loath to do without all parties present). And after that first hearing, how long does it take the appeals to work their way through the process?

See, a 7.2 stamp on a phydical license is more than just a general, informal shout-out by a DZO to other DZOs in the region - it bears the imprimatur of written formality. And to protect themselves against potential liability, DZOs would be (IMPO) very foolish to allow a jumper with a 7.2 stamp on his license to jump at their DZ. So if there's not a really IMMEDIATE bi-lateral hearing, the practical effect of this happening in, say, June, would be to allow a single DZO who dislikes a jumper to effectively ban the jumper entirely from the sport for possibly most or all of the entire summer season, if it takes that long for the appeal to be heard, then appealed to another level, and then for the BPA's bureaucracy to get around to issuing a replacement pristine license - even if the jumper eventually wins his appeals.

Plus, a 7.2 stamp on a license fucks a jumper up - pending the jumper working his way through the appeal process - not just in the UK, but anywhere in the world the jumper tries to jump (far more than just "the DZO's own sandbox). I can't say for certain how various European DZOs would necessarily react to a BPA license with a RED 7.2 stamp on it (probably negatively, out of either reciprocity or self-protection), but given how liability-averse the legal system in the US is, I'd predict that quite a few DZOs in the US would be pretty reluctant to let a "red stamped" UK jumper jump at their DZ even if "the case is pending appeal", because they feel the need to protect their DZ from potential liability if a red-stamped jumper is involved in an incident at their DZ. So much for his long-planned skydiving holiday in the US.

I'm all for maintaining serious discipline to keep DGITs from ruining it for everybody. But the BPA's 7.2 option gives individual UK DZOs far too much power to unilaterally ban a jumper from participating in the sport anywhere, before any of the "due process" protections have a chance to kick in. And to my American-trained sensibilities, that's not sufficient due process, and it invites abuse. So poo on the BPA.

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

**ETA: I think I've been too verbose. Apologies if I hijacked the thread with this distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8


Quote

No DZO gets to act unilaterally and there is due process in the proceedure to get someone suspended pending a full review, following which there's further due process



That's only half correct - and half not correct. Yes, there is eventual due process. But in the meantime - in the first instance - the DZO most certainly is able to act unilaterally: He physically marks the jumper's actual license card IN RED INK.

Yes, there is an avenue for appeal, but does this appeal get at least a first-level, bi-lateral "judicial"-type hearing within a matter of no more than a couple of DAYS? - because, at least in most of the US, that's the general standard for a first-level bi-lateral hearing on an emergency injunction (assuming that an emergency injunction was issued unilaterally - which by my personal experience in handling many emergency injunction cases over the years, most judges are very loath to do without all parties present). And after that first hearing, how long does it take the appeals to work their way through the process?

See, a 7.2 stamp on a phydical license is more than just a general, informal shout-out by a DZO to other DZOs in the region - it bears the imprimatur of written formality. And to protect themselves against potential liability, DZOs would be (IMPO) very foolish to allow a jumper with a 7.2 stamp on his license to jump at their DZ. So if there's not a really IMMEDIATE bi-lateral hearing, the practical effect of this happening in, say, June, would be to allow a single DZO who dislikes a jumper to effectively ban the jumper entirely from the sport for possibly most or all of the entire summer season, if it takes that long for the appeal to be heard, then appealed to another level, and then for the BPA's bureaucracy to get around to issuing a replacement pristine license - even if the jumper eventually wins his appeals.

Plus, a 7.2 stamp on a license fucks a jumper up - pending the jumper working his way through the appeal process - not just in the UK, but anywhere in the world the jumper tries to jump (far more than just "the DZO's own sandbox). I can't say for certain how various European DZOs would necessarily react to a BPA license with a RED 7.2 stamp on it (probably negatively, out of either reciprocity or self-protection), but given how liability-averse the legal system in the US is, I'd predict that quite a few DZOs in the US would be pretty reluctant to let a "red stamped" UK jumper jump at their DZ even if "the case is pending appeal", because they feel the need to protect their DZ from potential liability if a red-stamped jumper is involved in an incident at their DZ. So much for his long-planned skydiving holiday in the US.

I'm all for maintaining serious discipline to keep DGITs from ruining it for everybody. But the BPA's 7.2 option gives individual UK DZOs far too much power to unilaterally ban a jumper from participating in the sport anywhere, before any of the "due process" protections have a chance to kick in. And to my American-trained sensibilities, that's not sufficient due process, and it invites abuse. So poo on the BPA.

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

**ETA: I think I've been too verbose. Apologies if I hijacked the thread with this distraction.



I fail to see how "due process" is required of a private business or a private member organization. Their sandbox, their rules.

I believe that BPA has a board elected by its membership and I haven't heard any members complaining about the above rules.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could explain how you've missed my point(s) x2, but as I said above, I've already sucked enough air out of the thread with this side issue, and I don't want to detract from the thread - which I think was legitimately "bumped".

Seems the Scots have made you touchy of late, John. Let it go. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think it is the membership organization's duty to disseminate pertinent information to member dropzones. If I were a DZO, I would certainly like to know that someone who showed up at my DZ has been banned at another DZ. I would then ask additional questions or take other steps to determine if I would let him/her jump.

USPA won't get involved in creating/maintaining such a database because of the liability, not because it doesn't like DZO's acting unilaterally. It would be relatively database to maintain.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first time it happens to an I or anyone else that makes a living from jumping I'd expect USPA would be a defendant in the lawsuit for lost wages and defamation. As for BPA not getting complaints from its membership, it seems to me that as easy as it is to get banned from jumping there I'd keep my mouth shut too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***

Quote

No DZO gets to act unilaterally and there is due process in the proceedure to get someone suspended pending a full review, following which there's further due process



That's only half correct - and half not correct. Yes, there is eventual due process. But in the meantime - in the first instance - the DZO most certainly is able to act unilaterally: He physically marks the jumper's actual license card IN RED INK.

Yes, there is an avenue for appeal, but does this appeal get at least a first-level, bi-lateral "judicial"-type hearing within a matter of no more than a couple of DAYS? - because, at least in most of the US, that's the general standard for a first-level bi-lateral hearing on an emergency injunction (assuming that an emergency injunction was issued unilaterally - which by my personal experience in handling many emergency injunction cases over the years, most judges are very loath to do without all parties present). And after that first hearing, how long does it take the appeals to work their way through the process?

See, a 7.2 stamp on a phydical license is more than just a general, informal shout-out by a DZO to other DZOs in the region - it bears the imprimatur of written formality. And to protect themselves against potential liability, DZOs would be (IMPO) very foolish to allow a jumper with a 7.2 stamp on his license to jump at their DZ. So if there's not a really IMMEDIATE bi-lateral hearing, the practical effect of this happening in, say, June, would be to allow a single DZO who dislikes a jumper to effectively ban the jumper entirely from the sport for possibly most or all of the entire summer season, if it takes that long for the appeal to be heard, then appealed to another level, and then for the BPA's bureaucracy to get around to issuing a replacement pristine license - even if the jumper eventually wins his appeals.

Plus, a 7.2 stamp on a license fucks a jumper up - pending the jumper working his way through the appeal process - not just in the UK, but anywhere in the world the jumper tries to jump (far more than just "the DZO's own sandbox). I can't say for certain how various European DZOs would necessarily react to a BPA license with a RED 7.2 stamp on it (probably negatively, out of either reciprocity or self-protection), but given how liability-averse the legal system in the US is, I'd predict that quite a few DZOs in the US would be pretty reluctant to let a "red stamped" UK jumper jump at their DZ even if "the case is pending appeal", because they feel the need to protect their DZ from potential liability if a red-stamped jumper is involved in an incident at their DZ. So much for his long-planned skydiving holiday in the US.

I'm all for maintaining serious discipline to keep DGITs from ruining it for everybody. But the BPA's 7.2 option gives individual UK DZOs far too much power to unilaterally ban a jumper from participating in the sport anywhere, before any of the "due process" protections have a chance to kick in. And to my American-trained sensibilities, that's not sufficient due process, and it invites abuse. So poo on the BPA.

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

**ETA: I think I've been too verbose. Apologies if I hijacked the thread with this distraction.



I fail to see how "due process" is required of a private business or a private member organization. Their sandbox, their rules.

I believe that BPA has a board elected by its membership and I haven't heard any members complaining about the above rules.

there was a time when jumpers who did base=jumps were banished from bpa, to the point that some jumpers ended up leaving the country and others had to keep there base-jumping secret for fear of losing ratings, etc. And I do remember hearing some complaints about that...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What most Americans (and Canadians) don't understand about BPA, is that it is not just an association like USPA or CSPA. It is a National Governing Body for parachuting in Britain. You can not have a non member DZ there and you can not legally jump without BPA credentials. It is this power to sanction that allows the level of abuse of power to exist. There is no other game. Period. If USPA or CSPA were given this kind of power by their governments they would be just as bad. That's how bureaucracy works.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi gowlerk,

Quote

It is a National Governing Body for parachuting in Britain.



It has been 14 yrs since I read 'The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich,' but near the end of the book it says that Great Britain was the second-most regulated industrial nation in the world.

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich



Looks like little has changed,

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully we can get it back on the rail:

BillyVance

How long has it been since the accident and has Rich ever owned up to his fuck-up? :|



BowlingBall

***Nope, the cover-up went right by numbers and the incident disappeared. The alleged non-incident and non-broken leg occurred in March.



There was an article in one of the recent "Parachutist" magazines, which talked about the disciplinary process. They didn't mention this Winstock incident in particular. But they talked about how the structure and procedures of the organization only allowed disciplinary action to be taken if initiated by the Regional Director, or something like that - the board had no authority or power to do it on their own. So I took it as implied that this incident wasn't pursued because the RD failed to, or was unwilling to, take any action on it. And then the article went on to say how the rules were changed to allow a subset of board members to independently investigate any future incidents, if a RD fails to do so himself.

Anyone else remember reading that?

I kind of had this incident in the back of my mind as I read that, thinking; "So that's why nothing was done!"


michalm21

***In this case, the incident was the direct fault of the Regional Director.
:S:S:S



but he's not going to investigate himself since no accident ever happened... it was the bench that fell onto the spectator. bad stuff happens:P

jimjumper

If the past history of the USPA is any indicator, incidents like this will certainly happen again. Trying to write rules for individuals that are in power positions is futile. Electing Directors that want to do the right thing is a much simpler solution. In this case we had a person that was motivated to cover up an incident to prevent embarrassment to himself and his DZ and he took the easy way out, aided and abetted by his fellow directors.



Andy9o8

***Well the "victim" is still jumping there (as seen in Parachutist recently), so obviously there are no hard feelings. Maybe it's time for drama.com to just move the fuck on already. :S



Her hard feelings or not are irrelevant to the point, which you're clearly either missing or evading. And by brushing it off as "drama.com" you're being an enabler of the problem, and you're insulting everyone in the community who is concerned about this and feels it should be taken seriously. Your approach is the problem, not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt at this point any answers will be forthcoming. All we can do is update (derail) the thread so the title keeps appearing on the first page. Not sure if that would be considered passive or active aggressive.

"Rich Winstock Swoop Incident Coverup" can become like the "DB Cooper" or "BillyVance's sick and twisted and/or NSFW photo attachment thread" and never die.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimjumper

The first time it happens to an I or anyone else that makes a living from jumping I'd expect USPA would be a defendant in the lawsuit for lost wages and defamation. As for BPA not getting complaints from its membership, it seems to me that as easy as it is to get banned from jumping there I'd keep my mouth shut too.



keep mouth shut and is make hi-res copy of license in case get a red mark on real one. They says was many Nazis go to Argentina, looks like more went to UK and starts DZs.:o

Slater
McConkey es Dios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slater

***The first time it happens to an I or anyone else that makes a living from jumping I'd expect USPA would be a defendant in the lawsuit for lost wages and defamation. As for BPA not getting complaints from its membership, it seems to me that as easy as it is to get banned from jumping there I'd keep my mouth shut too.



keep mouth shut and is make hi-res copy of license in case get a red mark on real one. They says was many Nazis go to Argentina, looks like more went to UK and starts DZs.:o

Slater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Post 369, after considerable derailing. Just about the expected timing.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, it's not the DZO who decides who's eligible for sanction under 7.2, it's the CCI (who sits on the Safety and Training Council) and secondly, based on enquiries, it's only used a very few times a year, usually in response to repeated violations of the rules in the ops manual and/or outstanding acts of reckless stupidity.
Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Sherry and Rich are still both on the USPA Board and there hasn't been an incident report come out yet in Parachutist to explain the whole TRUE story. Rich is still swooping the buildings from what people have seen at Sussex and no one can stop him. How can Rich Winstock still be Head of S&TA if he can still do whatever he wants and won't stop.

This is one reason i will not be going to Sussex anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

***Rich is still swooping the buildings from what people have seen at Sussex and no one can stop him.



If that's true I would hope someone with personal knowledge of it would call him out in a most public way.

Hi Chuck.

Go pro posted on utube.:ph34r:
One Jump Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0