Instruction Directions: Split from Fatality August 27 2022 Skydive Toronto Canada

[JoeWeber 2,294]

42 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I don't disagree, but that is not the guy I'm talking about. He is the extreme end. We absolutely do not allow anyone without a membership in CSPA, or their national organization if a visitor to get in our aircraft. But that is not for safety reasons. Without knowing the guy you are talking about we might let him jump on rental gear if he bought a membership. But at 2 jumps every few years we would require some retraining. We have a couple guys who do 2 or 3 a year. They have gear that I consider safe and AADs. But they are marginal in skills and are at higher risk. Those are the ones I'm talking about. 

Turn them away if you don’t want the risk. If you don’t care or serve some higher obligation let them jump. In either case the results are yours to own.

[kleggo 138]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

 Last week, after several chances to upgrade his gear, get an AAD, and join USPA I turned permanently away someone I've known from my early day's. He's 71 hasn't jumped in years-except sneaking through the system at a nearby small DZ for 3 jumps recently-and doesn't want to invest in anything for his desired 2 jumps every few years. So sorry.

 

 

Sorry? 

Why?

Under the above circumstances you certainly made the logical choice.

I may argue the AAD thing, but in "his" case I can see the need for additional bounce prevention considerations.

[gowlerk 1,903]

33 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

In either case the results are yours to own.

Yes of course. Just like the skier who breaks his neck hitting a tree while out of control. The results belong to the hill operator who allowed him on an advanced slope. Who is of course an all knowing and all seeing god, like you are as a DZO. Seriously, you and I have to draw the line somewhere. And it's unlikely we will both come to the same conclusion every time.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Yes of course. Just like the skier who breaks his neck hitting a tree while out of control. The results belong to the hill operator who allowed him on an advanced slope. Who is of course an all knowing and all seeing god, like you are as a DZO. Seriously, you and I have to draw the line somewhere. And it's unlikely we will both come to the same conclusion every time.

It becomes less complicated over time. I’ll leave the risk taking to you kids.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

It becomes less complicated over time. I’ll leave the risk taking to you kids.

Kids? All of my partners are over 60!  Like you my major safety concern is not skydivers. It's aircraft. Different thread though.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

14 minutes ago, kleggo said:

Sorry? 

Why?

Under the above circumstances you certainly made the logical choice.

I may argue the AAD thing, but in "his" case I can see the need for additional bounce prevention considerations.

Under which rationale would you argue against an AAD?

[billeisele 122]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The next component is recognizing that selling AFF one jump at a time, accepting into your program those who can't afford to jump, or want to jump once a USPA month, or will try to make one or two training jumps a year, etc. etc. is a bad safety plan.

Training jumps sold in blocks and a program that requires regular participation through graduation make things safer. 

Interesting thoughts. I'll ask about that tomorrow. I know we offer block purchases but don't know how often they are sold. 

Doubt that the, "can you afford to complete your student progression in xx weeks", or "how often to do you plan to jump", questions are asked. We are firm on time between jumps and retraining. After some period we require completion of the first jump class then they jump with an instructor.

No doubt that staying current is a good idea and makes it safer for everyone.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

9 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Interesting thoughts. I'll ask about that tomorrow. I know we offer block purchases but don't know how often they are sold. 

Doubt that the, "can you afford to complete your student progression in xx weeks", or "how often to do you plan to jump", questions are asked. We are firm on time between jumps and retraining. After some period we require completion of the first jump class then they jump with an instructor.

No doubt that staying current is a good idea and makes it safer for everyone.

Instead of all things to all comers it ought to be more like “I don’t know, Aunt Polly is pretty particular about who starts AFF.”

[riggerrob 558]

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

" ... (we don't accept anyone under 18 although legally we could). ... 

Minimum 18 years old is a grey area in Canadian Common Law. A decade or so ago, I had to explain to a Vancouver-based lawyer about a precedent that had been set in an Ontario court during the early 1980s. Back in those days, many Canadian DZs allowed 16 or 17 year old students to jump as long aa a parent signed the waiver. Then a 16 year old girl landed a malfunction during a static-line jump. She did not respond to the sight of a badly-distorted (long way from round) Para-Commander overhead. She broke her spine and was paralysed from the waist down. She was confined to a wheel-chair for the rest of her life.

The lawyer representing the DZ was too lazy to inform the DZO of the verdict, so he heard about it on his car radio. Douh!

I later worked with a guy who had also driven Handy-Dart buses. He said that the girl was messed in the head before she jumped and on several occassions, he had to pull her out of bars before she was old enough to drink legally in Ontario.

Since then few Canadian DZs drop students younger than 18 or 19 or 21 or whatever is the age of majority in their province. Quebec seems to be the only exception, but Quebec does not operate under British Common Law, instead they prefer the Code Napoleonic.

American tandem manufacturers specifically prohibit taking students younger than 18.

Fast forward 30 years and I had to explain this to a Vancouver-based tort lawyer. It was a scary conversation. Silly me expected that an aviation lawyer would understand case law and precedents. Then he tried to spina yarn about an IAD jump that he did with Dave Williamson in Nova Scotia. I remain cynical as to whether he ever jumped. Next thing I knew he was trying to convince me that letting his 14 year old daughter was a good idea. He was disappointed by my response: NO! It felt like every conversation with him was a test. He was "helping" me with a personal injury lawsuit, but bungled that case 3 ways to Sunday! He wasted 9 years losing a simple case!!!!!!!!

So the "16 with parental consent" is one of those silly Canadian laws that is still on the books, even though it has been obsolete for more than 40 years.

Edited September 9, 2022 by riggerrob

[riggerrob 558]

5 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Under which rationale would you argue against an AAD?

I would never argue against an AAD. Back before electronic AADs (e.g. Cypres) became fashionable - during the mid 1990s - every third accident report included low pull or no pull. Or it included the words 'cutaway a malfunctioned main at a reasonable altitude but pulled the reserve ripcord too late or not at all."

Back around 1984, I watched one of my IAD students do a low cutaway from a partially malfunctioned Para-Commander. Then he never completed the full pull on his S.O.S. handle. I was a good 10 seconds before we saw a white reserve canopy. Fortunately, Saint Francis Xavier Chevrier was on duty that day and saved the student's lazy ass. That sold me on the concept of equipping students with AADs. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

I would never argue against an AAD. Back before electronic AADs (e.g. Cypres) became fashionable - during the mid 1990s - every third accident report included low pull or no pull. Or it included the words 'cutaway a malfunctioned main at a reasonable altitude but pulled the reserve ripcord too late or not at all."

Back around 1984, I watched one of my IAD students do a low cutaway from a partially malfunctioned Para-Commander. Then he never completed the full pull on his S.O.S. handle. I was a good 10 seconds before we saw a white reserve canopy. Fortunately, Saint Francis Xavier Chevrier was on duty that day and saved the student's lazy ass. That sold me on the concept of equipping students with AADs. 

I know you wouldn't argue against it, not for a second. I was wondering what Kleggo was thinking, it was his notion.

[sfzombie13 307]

may as well lock this one now, nothing meaningful is coming from it any longer.  when i hear that sl/iad training is not as safe and that jumping once a month shouldn't be allowed it's a shit show and full of anecdotal crap.  took me over 22 years to get my a and not once was i not as safe as anyone else in the sky.  i went to other dzs and jumped as a student, several times.  as a student that one time when a b licensed jumper was on the wrong landing pattern and turned base directly toward me without seeing me, it was me that was watching and took evasive action to save his sorry ass from hitting me, not the licensed jumper avoiding the student or doing a correct pattern.  and he was a current jumper who jumped several times a weekend.  and by having 63 jumps to get my a, i was not only an expert at hop and pops but great at canopy work, all the way until i downsized to a 1:1 wl main.  maybe next season i'll put it back on and learn how to work it as well as i can work my 218.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Well, then one more anecdote:

Back when I was part of a small club DZ, we had a couple 'annual' groups.

They'd come out once a season and do one S/L jump.

They'd take the full FJC, do their jump and disappear until the next year. Each year there were some that didn't come back, and some new ones in each group.

They were all treated as 'first time' students, although the ones that had done it before (and done reasonably well) were given a bit more freedom under canopy.

FWIW, it was out of a 182, one student per pass, and the pilots knew their stuff well enough that they'd be on jump run with the door opening just as the previous one was touching down.

I actually started out with one of these groups, but after that first jump said "I have to do THAT AGAIN".

 

[riggerrob 558]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, then one more anecdote:

Back when I was part of a small club DZ, we had a couple 'annual' groups.

They'd come out once a season and do one S/L jump.

They'd take the full FJC, do their jump and disappear until the next year. Each year there were some that didn't come back, and some new ones in each group.

They were all treated as 'first time' students, although the ones that had done it before (and done reasonably well) were given a bit more freedom under canopy.

FWIW, it was out of a 182, one student per pass, and the pilots knew their stuff well enough that they'd be on jump run with the door opening just as the previous one was touching down.

I actually started out with one of these groups, but after that first jump said "I have to do THAT AGAIN".

 

Yes, we'd often turn onto jump run and I'd encourage the next student to lean his head out the door to look at the target. Often the previous student was on short final as the second student was climbing out. That was the best way to avoid low-altitude canopy collisions.

[kleggo 138]

On 9/8/2022 at 2:12 PM, JoeWeber said:

Under which rationale would you argue against an AAD?

just MY rational that it's one more thing I'm being told to do.

like most, I don't like being told what to do and for years I avoided DZs that mandated AADs.

As an aside I once asked a DZ owner in So Cal if he was going to mandate AAD's. He laughed and said, "Craig if you bounce, I'm just going to fire up the front end loader and fill in the hole." That was several years ago.

Then I started doing a bit of wingsuiting with others = sketchy. My and their inexperience led to several near collisions.

I bought an AAD for the WS rig.

I have no intentions of buying one for the CReW rig.................... yet.

Be well.