Chuck Akers wants you to know

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Just now, billvon said:

Well, but you kept the DZ open after the first one, so the risk of another one was acceptable to you.  (Which, sure enough, happened.)

 

All in conformance with my earlier post. The stolen gear fatality happened in my year two, the suicide some months later. Those were 32 years ago. Were that the case every two years and I carried on you might have a point. In the case of swooping, I built that 60' X 200' by 4' deep pond to keep swoopers safe as they learned the skill not to be the attractive nuisance it became. When it became apparent that my support was causing more injuries not preventing them I changed course. 

[sfzombie13 307]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

When it became apparent that my support was causing more injuries not preventing them I changed course. 

so if i get this right, one was too many for you and when you saw that the mitigations you put in place weren't working you filled in the pond.  so much unlike the situation we have with the uspa, you actually took action that stopped the swooping fatalities.  i may be wrong about that last part, did the fatalities stop when you filled in the pond or did they continue and still happen?  if they stopped, then it sounds like you figured out the formula and know what you're talking about.  if not, well, that's a whole other can of worms. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

so if i get this right, one was too many for you and when you saw that the mitigations you put in place weren't working you filled in the pond.  so much unlike the situation we have with the uspa, you actually took action that stopped the swooping fatalities.  i may be wrong about that last part, did the fatalities stop when you filled in the pond or did they continue and still happen?  if they stopped, then it sounds like you figured out the formula and know what you're talking about.  if not, well, that's a whole other can of worms. 

Yes. Filling in the pond and disallowing greater than 180° turns in the high performance area stopped the problem. It certainly made a number of folks unhappy but so does strongly enforcing no off DZ landings (even wingsuiters) and demanding that everyone on the load land in the same direction even if the first person down screws it up and other safety issues. 

I wouldn't say one was too many. After the Pro hooked it in short of the pond I tried to keep some level of perspective. The final straw was when someone did it right. That is he hooked it in such a way that he if he misjudged he would hit the water. The problem was he did not per the rules make it known he was going "pond side" so someone could watch for safety. He hit the water so hard he was knocked unconscious and were it not for an aware packer who sprinted down and pulled him out he would have drowned. After thinking about that for a while I realized there would be only one way to stop swooping injuries and fatalities and took appropriate action.

Edited October 24, 2023 by JoeWeber

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi folks,

I have known Joe Weber for over 30 yrs.  Anyone who jumps at his dz knows that he runs a tight ship.  If you do not follow the rules, you are gone.  End of discussion.

He has had fatalities; it is part of skydiving.  After each & every one, he took absolute corrective action to do his best to prevent anymore.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  There are a lot of things Joe & do not agree on, c'est la vie.

[billvon 2,400]

22 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

All in conformance with my earlier post. The stolen gear fatality happened in my year two, the suicide some months later. 

OK.  So every two years would be unacceptable, but every 15 years or so is acceptable, at least at your DZ.

Which I have no problems with.  Everyone has an acceptable level of injury/death, from you to Chuck to USPA.  And you/they try to reduce them although they know they will never succeed 100%.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

OK.  So every two years would be unacceptable, but every 15 years or so is acceptable, at least at your DZ.

Not exactly. If non swooping fatalities were happening once every 15 years, sure, I'd consider that acceptable. After all, we know they're going to happen somewhere on a fairly regular basis. That much I signed up for. Now if fatalities were happening every other year I'd likely consider myself not up to the job and quit. That holds an important point. I think DZO's, and this is not a widely held opinion amongst DZO's, are responsible parties to the accident rates at their DZ's. Too many DZO's see themselves as just the "guy who sold the ticket" to quote Bill Dause. That does not mean that when someone goes in it's all on us or our fault but that does not mean we are just along for the ride. We can control the environment and allow or disallow things that might increase safety and reduce accidents. To be blunt, with respect to swooping fatalities and injuries, I think Chuck and by extension USPA somewhat fit that model and are willing to look past the unreported swooping injuries that we all know happen in pursuit of a spectator friendly aspect of skydiving. With that I am in disagreement.

Edited October 25, 2023 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 1,913]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

OK.  So every two years would be unacceptable, but every 15 years or so is acceptable, at least at your DZ.

Which I have no problems with.  Everyone has an acceptable level of injury/death, from you to Chuck to USPA.  And you/they try to reduce them although they know they will never succeed 100%.

It isn't really a question of how many deaths or injuries a DZO finds acceptable. There are far too many variables and random events in life to make such a determination about almost any activity. The relevant question is what level of personal responsibility and what efforts to reduce the number of injury incidents is the operator willing to take on. Leadership and cost effectiveness are both parts of this equation. USPA and other national bodies are largely run by industry insiders. Either in operations or equipment sales. They are the leaders and so far they seem quite willing to actively promote and profit from HP canopy activity at the level of harm it is now causing. If you don't like it you don't have to participate. I along with many others actively discourage participation in HP disciplines because of the high rates of injury among those attempting to learn it. It is notable that canopy manufactures can charge the highest prices for what are essentially their most dangerous products. And that they are in a serious competition with each other and sponsor athletes in order to promote these products. But skydivers are and have always been risk takers and thrill seekers. We all have to find our own level of risk. 

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

We can control the environment and allow or disallow things that might increase safety and reduce accidents.

Absolutely.  My attempt at that was to petition USPA to make some changes (which they did, to their credit.)  But I didn't go there to demand that swooping be stopped - because everyone has a different level of risk they are comfortable with, and for some people, swooping is within that threshold.  For 99% of the people on the planet, ANY kind of skydiving is outside their threshold.

Quote

To be blunt, with respect to swooping fatalities and injuries, I think Chuck and by extension USPA somewhat fit that model and are willing to look past the unreported swooping injuries . . . .

I agree.  Just as you are willing to look past the injuries and deaths incurred during (non-swooping) skydiving to support your livelihood, the jumpers you know in the community and the sport in general.

Quote

that we all know happen in pursuit of a spectator friendly aspect of skydiving. With that I am in disagreement.

That I don't agree with.  I don't think Chuck (at least in my few conversations with him) places a high priority of what spectators think of any particular part of the sport.  Sure, it's a factor, which is why we allow spectators onto drop zones at all.  But not a big one.

[gowlerk 1,913]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

because everyone has a different level of risk they are comfortable with, and for some people, swooping is within that threshold.

I would note that many of the swoopers I know personally are also BASE jumpers.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Not exactly. If non swooping fatalities were happening once every 15 years, sure, I'd consider that acceptable. After all, we know they're going to happen somewhere on a fairly regular basis. That much I signed up for. Now if fatalities were happening every other year I'd likely consider myself not up to the job and quit. That holds an important point. I think DZO's, and this is not a widely held opinion amongst DZO's, are responsible parties to the accident rates at their DZ's. Too many DZO's see themselves as just the "guy who sold the ticket" to quote Bill Dause. That does not mean that when someone goes in it all on us or our fault but that does not mean we are just along for the ride. We can control the environment and allow or disallow things that might increase safety and reduce accidents. To be blunt, with respect to swooping fatalities and injuries, I think Chuck and by extension USPA somewhat fit that model and are willing to look past the unreported swooping injuries that we all know happen in pursuit of a spectator friendly aspect of skydiving. With that I am in disagreement.

Hi Joe,

Re:   I think DZO's . . . are responsible parties to the accident rates at their DZ's.

This is exactly why the FAA got the court order against Ted Mayfield's operation.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Absolutely.  My attempt at that was to petition USPA to make some changes (which they did, to their credit.)  But I didn't go there to demand that swooping be stopped - because everyone has a different level of risk they are comfortable with, and for some people, swooping is within that threshold.  For 99% of the people on the planet, ANY kind of skydiving is outside their threshold.

I agree.  Just as you are willing to look past the injuries and deaths incurred during (non-swooping) skydiving to support your livelihood, the jumpers you know in the community and the sport in general.

That I don't agree with.  I don't think Chuck (at least in my few conversations with him) places a high priority of what spectators think of any particular part of the sport.  Sure, it's a factor, which is why we allow spectators onto drop zones at all.  But not a big one.

Fair enough, I guess. I would offer that an individual jumpers opinion on the relative safety of any activity will, by necessity, be subordinate to the opinion of those who live on the sharp end of the stick. And for those, to each their own. In terms of up jumper injury frequency at home I can only report on my sample of one which shows a precipitous drop since the ban. Please also know that I am not petitioning USPA or Chuck to ban swooping only to fully recognize that CP Competitions and youngun's learning are different paradigms.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

25 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It isn't really a question of how many deaths or injuries a DZO finds acceptable. There are far too many variables and random events in life to make such a determination about almost any activity. The relevant question is what level of personal responsibility and what efforts to reduce the number of injury incidents is the operator willing to take on. Leadership and cost effectiveness are both parts of this equation. USPA and other national bodies are largely run by industry insiders. Either in operations or equipment sales. They are the leaders and so far they seem quite willing to actively promote and profit from HP canopy activity at the level of harm it is now causing. If you don't like it you don't have to participate. I along with many others actively discourage participation in HP disciplines because of the high rates of injury among those attempting to learn it. It is notable that canopy manufactures can charge the highest prices for what are essentially their most dangerous products. And that they are in a serious competition with each other and sponsor athletes in order to promote these products. But skydivers are and have always been risk takers and thrill seekers. We all have to find our own level of risk. 

Hi Ken,

A number of routine posters on this website support going after the gun mfrs for the deaths caused by what they make.  Think about what would happen if a family went after a canopy mfr after a swooping death.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO no waiver is absolute; at least not here in the good old USA.  Any idea on how many lawyers graduate every year?

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by JerryBaumchen

[sfzombie13 307]

35 minutes ago, billvon said:

But I didn't go there to demand that swooping be stopped

please correct me if i'm wrong, it happens, but i haven't seen anyone that i recall talking about banning swooping.  i do see quite a few comments asking for an answer to a question which never came along with talk about having the uspa stop promoting swooping, but that is reasonable.  kind of like the way they used to use joe camel to promote kids smoking.  it wasn't set up for that to happen, but that was an unintended consequence which later became illegal, or at least was stopped by someone.  maybe a better analogy would be they way they stopped putting smoking in every movie and tv show and stopped showing ads for it on tv. 

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

 i do see quite a few comments asking for an answer to a question which never came along with talk about having the uspa stop promoting swooping, but that is reasonable. 

In what way?

Not show pictures/articles about swoop competitions?  Do stories on Nationals but omit any mention of CP?  Refuse to carry advertising that shows any high performance canopies?  Don't carry incident reports on HP landing injuries/fatalities?

I spent years collecting signatures to end the ban on BASE jumping in Parachutist.  Wouldn't want to see a similar ban on CP.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

In what way?

Not show pictures/articles about swoop competitions?  Do stories on Nationals but omit any mention of CP?  Refuse to carry advertising that shows any high performance canopies?  Don't carry incident reports on HP landing injuries/fatalities?

I spent years collecting signatures to end the ban on BASE jumping in Parachutist.  Wouldn't want to see a similar ban on CP.

I wouldn't want to see a similiar ban, either. In my experience there was a difference, however. When base first caught on at my DZ my jumpers were dying at night, well away from the DZ, at the base of low cliffs or antennas.

Edited October 25, 2023 by JoeWeber

[sfzombie13 307]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

In what way?

i'm not the answer man.  i'm not even a uspa member right now.  i just clarified and added my opinion that it was reasonable. 

[gowlerk 1,913]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

I spent years collecting signatures to end the ban on BASE jumping in Parachutist. 

Why would you do that? Parachutist is a publication of USPA which does not have anything to do with BASE. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Why would you do that? Parachutist is a publication of USPA which does not have anything to do with BASE. 

Ya, it's complicated. Back then if a parachute was used and there was "jumping" there was the idea that we were all in it together. Now we have speed flying and who knows what else and they aren't in the fold so maybe we're evolving. 

[JumpRu 14]

On 10/20/2023 at 12:44 PM, chuckakers said:

 

CP is dangerous. Statistically it's more dangerous than other skydiving disciplines. Welcome to reality.

 

I really like your post, and I am happy to see that you have balanced views on modern skydiving disciplines.

One thing I want to mention: every time I hear 'statistics' that really indicate that we look at things in general. So statement like swooping is dangerous is no different then skydiving is dangerous. Dangerous for whom? Anyone who is trying anything above their skill level in skydiving is at risk to themself and sometimes to others. 

Try to jump on large formation without proper training - you endangering yourself everyone on it, try to fly angle without proper training and skills - you are the danger to everyone on a load, list can be continued. I don't want to say obvious things.

So same deal with swooping... Somehow everyone thinks they are great pilots with above average skills. That is the only explanation I have. Take small wing, add higher degree turn, add competition or demo environment and you increasing risk. That is also obvious.

 

So when we say swooping is dangerous we really not saying anything... We ignore all those tiny little details like how many years in sport, how many swoops, on what wings, previous competition experience and etc and so on. I do believe that swooping is safe but you have to be honest and do things adequate to your experience and skills. Like do you need canopy loaded above 2? Do you have to do high degree turn? Swoop in traffic? Swoop thru the course? Participate in competition? 

It is amazing what kind of answers you get from people who got in accident... Like I am asking a person did you have any formal training? And answer is YES, many courses from top level pilots... And then I ask how long have you been swooping - answer was about a year.. WTF??? I don't want to go in more details not to embarrass the person. But that is perfect example of how swooping can be dangerous for someone like that.

 

Another misconception is that you can be all you want to be and you just need to try harder and you will be on top level. Try to do the same with RW... Turn 20+ average on 4 way? I am sorry but just jump numbers is simply not enough for that, some people simply can't achieve that level of performance no matter how much they spend money and time and that is ok! Not everyone can be champions.  But with canopy piloting everyone thinks they are next big thing:) and all you have to do is downsize and pay for some coaching. 

Quote

 

 

[BMAC615 205]

2 hours ago, JumpRu said:

It is amazing what kind of answers you get from people who got in accident... Like I am asking a person did you have any formal training? And answer is YES, many courses from top level pilots... And then I ask how long have you been swooping - answer was about a year.. WTF??? I don't want to go in more details not to embarrass the person. But that is perfect example of how swooping can be dangerous for someone like that.

This is a rhetorical question, but, “Why was a top level pilot coaching this person?”

[billvon 2,400]

On 10/25/2023 at 7:06 PM, gowlerk said:

Why would you do that? Parachutist is a publication of USPA which does not have anything to do with BASE. 

Because it's stupid to ban something simply because it is slightly different.  It would be like Car and Driver banning any pictures of, or any mention of, motorcycles or three wheelers.

[billvon 2,400]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:31 PM, BMAC615 said:

This is a rhetorical question, but, “Why was a top level pilot coaching this person?”

In my experience, when a 100 jump wonder says something like that, "I got coaching" really means "I asked him a question once."

[gowlerk 1,913]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Because it's stupid to ban something simply because it is slightly different.  It would be like Car and Driver banning any pictures of, or any mention of, motorcycles or three wheelers.

The world is full of stupid. I guess we all have to pick our own battles. I won't go over the arguments here. I'm sure you heard them all and it is off topic anyway.

[OrphanBlue 39]

"We will be celebrated in story and song." ~Lt. Commander Worf, son of Mogh

https://youtu.be/P6kIMx1m9YE?si=XFdyRKDgzyuXiIBq

Ya'll got plenty of stories...