0
faulknerwn

Mandatory AADS and Banning Swooping/Small Canopies

Recommended Posts

nzaerosportsusa

******True - unless you are one of the unlucky ones who get taken out by a swooper. But I can tell you I see rookies all the time going on skydives that are too "zoo-ey" than I would want to go on. I make a conscious choice not to take those extra risks, which makes the odds of me going unconscious far less. Its a choice I make.

Isn't skydiving about choices?

And for the person who asked about the small CRW canopies that CRWdogs are swooping - they qualify too. I personally have no desire to do CRW on canopies that small, or to ever do a swoop turn. My choice.

Am I really more unsafe than someone with an AAD who jumps on the 150 way head down skydives on a Velocity 86? I think I am less likely to kill or maim myself on my Triathlon 135 loaded at 1.2 doing a 4 way without an AAD than practically anyone who jumps a sub-100 crossbraced canopy.

Its my choice. Others make different choices. I believe skydivers should have the freedom to make choices that are right for them. Swoop? Sure, as long as you are doing it in a separate landing area where you aren't likely to kill an innocent victim.




+1 A few years back I was on final and nearly got taken out by a swooper. So far no one without an AAD has ever been a danger to me. You can keep your head on a swivel all day but when a dick who got out after you does a 270 above you when you are 100 feet in the air you won't see him either. Swooping is great stuff--I'm not in favor of banning it. But somehow swoopers must be separated from slow pokes like me.


Both these comments made me fucking laugh!!!' Lame, typical, BS!!! How about this? Lets just ban ALL non swoopers and call it a fucking day!!! Boom done...



How about we ban all posters who can't READ.
"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skypuppy

******Actually the sport would probable shrink. Fatalities are not necessarily bad for business. The media coverage can really help a drop zone. Also notice that fatality rates go through waves with the introduction of new technology but with that factored out they remain relatively steady. As the gear becomes safer skydivers become more dangerous to compensate for it. The term is risk homeostasis. The truth of the mater is that we like the fact that it's dangerous and that people occasionally die. I can only conclude that we like death in our sport and will alter our behavior to maintain it at a certain rate.

Lee



Booths Law, no?

USPA reports that membership is at an all-time high, and also that fatalities (averaged over each decade) are at an all-time low. Do you think there's a point where this correlation starts to reverse?

no. after a fatality, number of students increases because of the publicity. It's well documented

So then, if I'm understanding correctly, the current state of peak participation corresponding with peak safety is a mere coincidence, controlled by other factors which somehow manage to reverse the expected trend of participation decreasing as safety increases?

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0