Stunts; pissing on our sport to make money.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

I understand your concern, but I think you're way over-estimating the potential "threat" to the sport. Bill Cole's chuteless jumps didn't kill skydiving in Canada - nor would it have had there been a bad outcome (glad there wasn't, Bill), and the fatality about a year ago where the wingsuit jumper struck the bridge with a lot of spectators on it didn't kill wingsuit flying. Mr. Bills gone bad haven't killed the sport, CRW wraps gone bad haven't killed the sport or CRW, etc., etc.

Risks are taken; some riskier than others, and sometimes there are accidents, but life goes on, and so does the sport. Warnings about hot-dogging jumpers' risking the FAA stepping in to regulate the sport into ruin have been made for the past 40 years. Hasn't happened yet.

I can totally understand where you're coming from...and the precedent set speaks strongly. However, is the reason these warnings have been made for 40 years without action due to them being baseless warnings, or is it due to people prudently following the rules (as was recommended in tdog's post)?

Not to get into Speaker's Corner territory here, but the unfortunate reality of it is, our laws have become increasingly gray as to how they're written and how they're created. More and more government regulation is the norm. I, for one, think it's only a matter of time before Washington decides that we shouldn't have the right to do what we do (the classic argument of 'whose body is it, anyway?' comes to mind). But of course, that's a matter of opinion.

Regardless, it's fairly obvious that the act of passing a law is becoming more and more of a subjective thing. Congress will gladly pass laws completely violating the Constitution (it does so every day), as long as public sentiment is in favor of it.

And operating in that sort of gray area, I think tdog's post is really prudent. As for the wingsuit/CRW argument, I see your point...but I think that given that we're operating in the subjective zone of politicians' perspectives, those are a little different. It's easy to look at those incidents from the outside and say, "That's awful...but wingsuiting/CRW is a commonly-accepted practice in the sport. And usually it goes okay." But something that's deliberately done to attract publicity is another matter. If something goes wrong, the very act of drawing that publicity is to our detriment as a sport. And as we all know, knee-jerk reactions are commonplace when something goes wrong. "There oughta be a law."

We want to continue to live the life we live. And given that the FAA could take away our sport parachuting privilege on a whim, I think we need to be sure to cross all the t's and dot all the i's when attempting a publicity stunt like this. Even if something goes wrong in that case, we risk someone in Washington deciding to make "stopping those crazy people from killing themselves" their cause-of-the-day...but as long as the regulations/waivers are followed, I think we stand a much better chance of not going down that road.

Again, apologies if this political back-and-forth seems geared towards the Speaker's Corner - I just think it's quite relevant to the topic at hand.

Signatures are the new black.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

For those of you supporting this jump; take off your skydiver hat and put on your FAA hat. Here you are some flunky at some outpost FSDO and in comes this guy, who you have no idea who he is, and says that he wants you to OK his chuteless jump. Would YOU say OK? And risk your career in the process?

Yeah, I see what you mean, that's the old problem with regulators: It's hard to regulate well if you know less than the people you are regulating about some very specific topic.

Would I say OK? In my ideal world, if I were the FAA guy involved, I'd set up conditions that would remove most risk to persons and property on the ground, and require the applicants to present documentation demonstrating that they were taking reasonable steps to create a favorable outcome.

I wouldn't issue a document that would imply that their particular stunt plan was "safe" for the participants. I would issue a document allowing the group to engage in aeronautical activities in a certain time and place with specific exemptions for particular regs, and be satisfied that those concerned were voluntarily accepting risks, while others in society would not be harmed.

(I wonder what the regs were in "the old days". There were the Cliff Winters airplane stunts, some involving low altitude parachuting in the 1950s in the US. FMI: http://www.parachutehistory.com/men/wintersc.html
Or, in a relatively more recent era, there was stuntman Jim Bailey in Hawaii in 1981, hanging from the bottom of a plane to try to skid along to a landing in an armor plated suit, who fell to his death when his support hook released early. I saw the disturbing video on TV years ago, and it is out on the web too. So in the past there have been bizarre ways to get yourself killed, that have been in the purview of the FAA.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Stunts is stunts, Skydiving is a sport. If he did a stunt it needs to be viewed as a stunt and not confused with what the rest of us do.

Had this stunt gone badly, I believe the FAA would have viewed it for what it was: a stunt. It appeared to be planned well, but was a much higher risk jump than normal for skydiving. Few people are volunteering to do it, so there's little need to treat the entire sport differently as a result.

People have been doing dumber tricks with far less planning than this one. Me personally, I have some disdain for the stunts that seem more about selling video rather than for the adventure, but I don't see a boycott need here.

[diablopilot 2]

Beautiful. We agree on something.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Beautiful. We agree on something.

This might be a first... Everyone take note of the date and time.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Beautiful. We agree on something.

This might be a first... Everyone take note of the date and time.

...and

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[leewilcox 0]

My understanding is that the FAA FSDO in Puerto Rico was notified in advance with the details of this activity that was to take place within their jurisdiction, including aircraft number and flight crew, in order to protect the crew and the aircraft owner from FAA actions in the event of an awkward outcome. I understand the FAA response was something like you 'should not' do that.

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion" - Democritus

[popsjumper 2]

Tdog, I agree with your basic premise.

For Andy908:
I've never bought into the idea that "if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a-gonna". Someone with that idea always gets a very big surprise in the end.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[chuteless 1]

Did you ever wonder how badly the motorcycle stunts of Evil Knievel hurt the motorcycle sport?

Skydivers are the biggest whiners in the sporting world. Back in 1964, I provided some photos of guys in freefall to accompany a National magazine article, and almost everyone at the dropzone was cryiong because I made a few hundred dollars "on the back of the sport".


No other sport has such a gathering of , " Oh Woe is me...he made money on my sport, that bad man.....What should we do about it.? Maybe whine a bit....

I had to pacify the whiners, but giving a free jump from 7500 ft, to all whose photos had been used, even though they allowed the pix to be taken without complaint,


Ot appears if someone makes money from this sport, and someone doesnt, there is a flood of whiners until the money is shared with those who don't even take part in the stunt.

Andi Dachtler's chuteless jump of August 2006 didnt hurt the sport in Germany. Neither of my chuteless jumps did any harm to skydiving in Canada or anywhere else, and I suggest it helped bring the sport, and what is capable of being done in the sport, to the attention of the public.

CSPA always cried when I made money from jumping...because they couldn't raise a dime for their National Team.

They cried when I managed to get my team to perform at the airshows that were held right near the backyard of the CSPA clubs.

The public liked the stunts, and that is why the air shows wanted our team. They never knew until the last minute what I would do....(like 25 ft risors on a PC ---OOOOOps) or dumping out of an upside down biplane at 1200 feet, and opening very low. The air show organizers and the public loved it....and so did I.



Its time some people in this sport grew up, and got a life.

If you wouldnt do a chuteless jump, thats fine, but good for those that will.More power and credit to them.

Bill Cole D-41

[tdog 0]

Quote

My understanding is that the FAA FSDO in Puerto Rico was notified in advance with the details of this activity that was to take place within their jurisdiction, including aircraft number and flight crew, in order to protect the crew and the aircraft owner from FAA actions in the event of an awkward outcome. I understand the FAA response was something like you 'should not' do that.

I have mixed emotions, but I almost think this makes me even more passionate towards my argument: "If you are going to break the rules, do it quietly and for your own personal satisfaction, not financial gain." In this case they went as far as to vilolate a direct request by the FAA.

If something went "awkward", per your terminology - the FAA would get even greater pressure to be more firm with their enforcement of the rules if it was found out that a direct request/suggestion was ignored.

My opinion only.... Yours may be different.

[chuteless 1]

I didnt break the rules....but I think I bent the Hell out of them.

Isn't that what rules are for????

One official from Transport Canada in Ottawa, asked a second official in Toronto " What are you going to do about Cole's jump?"

The answer he got was " NOTHING....he made not have had a chute when he left the aircraft, but he did go and get one, and he landed with one, so as far as I', concerned, he made a parachute jump. End of story"

I should point out here, that the Official in Toronto was a fantastic supported of anything I did, so he was really ignoring the illegality of the jump.

If anyone can "bend the rules and make some good money" go for it.

Bill Cole D-41

[kimemerson 7]

Yep. I did wonder about Evel Knievel's affect on the motorcycle - as you call it, "sport". But wonder was all I could do becaue I really don't know. And of course, not every motorcycle rider or enthusiast would say they are involved in a "sport". A "passion" or "recreation" or transportation, maybe. (Just for clarity, what is the motorcycle "sport"? )And as far as I can tell from a layman's position, Evel didn't do a damn thing to affect motorcycle sales or ridership or poularity or leaglity in any negative fashion. Maybe he did. But I would argue it didn't last long and didn't spread far. So maybe he didn't. I have no clue. Which is why I doidn't bring him up earlier.

[chuteless 1]

Motorcycling has been a valid sport much longer than skydiving. They speed race, have obstacle courses, and much more, some including sidecars on their bikes.

Now the Hell's Angels is a somewhat different sport....one to stay away from.

Knevel didnt do anything to harm motorcycle sales....and I didnt do anything to harm parachute sales....or anytghing else.

It did however, bring the sport, and what we were capable of doing into the public spotlight.

When Rod Pack did his chuteless jump in 1965, the headline of the Toronto Newspaper read " The greatest Stunt In History". Rod didnt make much money (if any) but he made skydiving get noticed.

Bill Cole D-41

[airtwardo 6]

Evel didn't do a damn thing to affect motorcycle sales or ridership or poularity or leaglity in any negative fashion.

Quote

I think that's the point Bill is making, Evel affected the sport is a most POSITIVE fashion.
He was doing something 'out of the box' which created interest and controversy and brought his sport to the top shelf.

...and made MILLIONS doing it.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[Fast 0]

Quote

Tdog, I agree with your basic premise.

For Andy908:
I've never bought into the idea that "if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a-gonna". Someone with that idea always gets a very big surprise in the end.

Yep. I could care less what people want to do as long as the bureaucrats aren't going to get pissed off about it. A whole lot of them don't really understand the sport fully because they don't participate and they could really put a damper on what we do.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[tdog 0]

Bill,

I read up on your chuteless jump a few years ago and was aware of it when I posted this thread. I respect the skills, training, planning and guts it takes to do such a jump. When I read about it, I got the sense you did it for the personal challenge, and you were not sponsored or doing it for a movie - but instead - for yourself.

My comments are based on the current landscape, and current stunts, and some of the things I see people doing while being sponsored by some of the beverage and other companies that focus their entire brand on being "extreme".

Quote

No other sport has such a gathering of , " Oh Woe is me...he made money on my sport, that bad man.....What should we do about it.? Maybe whine a bit....

That is not me. I have made money on this sport, and if anyone tells me I am an ass for doing so, I will tell them I disagree. For an example, I worked for a month on a national TV commercial, and I was paid very well by skydiving standards for the time I invested.

I have no problems with people making money. I have no problems with people doing crazy daring stuff for their own personal gratification or the personal challenge.

But when the most basic fundamental laws/regulations are ignored - for the sake of a beverage company sponsorship or movie sales to a wuffo audience - I believe it is a tremendously selfish act for one person, or one business's financial gain.

Quote

The public liked the stunts, and that is why the air shows wanted our team. They never knew until the last minute what I would do....(like 25 ft risors on a PC ---OOOOOps) or dumping out of an upside down biplane at 1200 feet, and opening very low. The air show organizers and the public loved it....and so did I.

Without looking at all the rules (not USPA/CSPA recommendations - but the binding government rules) - how many rules did you break for these stunts? Long risers, opening low, etc... These things are not specifically regulated like the requirement to have a two parachute TSO harness/container system is regulated.

Quote

Its time some people in this sport grew up, and got a life.

If that is directed towards me, since I started this thread - then my response is:

"I have a life. It is a passion towards skydiving, jumping, parachuting, jumping off of shit, and in general sharing the sky with the birds. Please don't do anything that hinders my ability to live my life, including publicly broadcasting and selling video of the most fundamental rules being ignored. In exchange, I promise, when I bend the rules to the point I probably snapped them in half, and I will, it will be kept quiet, so I don't hinder your ability to have a life you choose."

[kimemerson 7]

Right you are about motorcycle as a sport. As a non-motorcyclist, I hadn't even thought of it that way. And it illustrates for us the different aspects of one activity: Sport vs recreation or, in our case and this discussion, sport vs stunt. It is this type of distinction, I think, which protects our sport from the scrutiny of the feds when one is engaged in a stunt and not in the sport. Both have their valued place and both can be respected.
As an aside (unless someone else has already brought it up) there are countless examples throughout all sports where the stunts and the daredevil acts - even the accidents - serve to teach the rest of us something new, a new meneuver, something we can all do intentionally as a way to enhance and add to the sport. A number of aerobatic airplane flying maneuvers were "discovered" through someone fucking up. I think that when hearing of one of the very few who step out of the contemporarily accepted norms, we would do well to study and learn from them before we discard prima facie their exploits as wrong, bad, or unacceptable. And you are also right to point out that these events draw sports into the spotlight. Positively so, I suggest. I believe that for the most part any negative spotlight is limited at best. Sometimes it gets the lion's share of the publicity but that's the press. The locker-room and bonfire discussions are commonly more positive. Especially if it is only the one participant who is hurt or killed.
What's wrong with the Hell's Angels?

[grimmie 173]

tdog,
I respect your opinion on the matter. However, we keep crashing jump planes at an alarming rate and folks keep killing themselves under perfectly good canopies. And how many jumpers have harmed our sport by doing bandit jumps into areas they shouldn't have? Or how about our PRO rated jumpers that auger in with thousands of spectators watching? The FAA has way more reasons to shut down skydiving if they wanted to, other than a chuteless jump.
The other side of the coin is the number of young "Videoits" at home watching a stunt like that. They think it's SO cool and decide to come out to a DZ and make a leap. It's like the scene in "Point Break" where Johnny jumps without a chute after Bodie...do you know how many young guys came out to the DZ and wanted to do AFF after that???? And they ALL wanted to jump alone on their first jump. DZ's had a record year after that flick came out!
So in the grand scheme of things I think our sport has more problems in other areas, and a little PR is a good thing. Just my opinion.
p.s. Bill, you have a big set of brass ones, eh!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yep. I did wonder about Evel Knievel's affect on the motorcycle - as you call it, "sport". But wonder was all I could do becaue I really don't know. And of course, not every motorcycle rider or enthusiast would say they are involved in a "sport". A "passion" or "recreation" or transportation, maybe. (Just for clarity, what is the motorcycle "sport"? )And as far as I can tell from a layman's position, Evel didn't do a damn thing to affect motorcycle sales or ridership or poularity or leaglity in any negative fashion. Maybe he did. But I would argue it didn't last long and didn't spread far. So maybe he didn't. I have no clue. Which is why I doidn't bring him up earlier.

The 70s was a golden era for the sport/recreation/use of motorcycles, with annual sales over a million. It was just in the past couple years that it exceeded a million again, mostly from retread buyers who were riding back then.

Evel certainly didn't hurt sales, and I'm sure his antics helped. (Though personally, as a young kid, all I remember is him crashing in practice before any TV broadcasts I was waiting to see)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

For Andy908:
I've never bought into the idea that "if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a-gonna". Someone with that idea always gets a very big surprise in the end.

Maybe so, in theory. But I've still yet to see anyone post anything to persuade me that disastrous intervention into skydiving by the FAA is much more likely now-a-days than in days gone by. Eh, I've spoken my piece.

[billvon 2,400]

>I've never bought into the idea that "if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't
>a-gonna".

Well, except it has happened. As I recall, a wingsuiter once buzzed a bridge wearing non-TSOed gear, hit a cable, and sprayed bystanders with high speed body parts. You could make an argument for "if it gets worse than that, the FAA might just come down on us" but I don't think this is worse than that, or even in the same league.

[skypuppy 1]

After what happened during one of the sponsored events a few years ago at the Royal Gorge, I don't think all companies really care what happens to their performers. (My opinion).

More reputable companies, as Joe Jennings mentioned on his plane-to-plane jumps in a long article in Skydiving Magazine a few years ago, required him to film the stunt 'on spec' at his own risk, paying for his own insurance, and then bought the footage from him after a successful completion.

So no, I don't think a lot of companies really care about what happens on their stunts.

Ask Dar Robinson's family how much the client cares - they may be legally in the clear, but not ethically.

Bill Cole fought for years to get a different class of bsr's approved by CSPA for stuntmen specifically. They never did, and to this day they hate his guts.

Rob Price

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

[skypuppy 1]

Strange. It seems to me you're more upset about this successful stunt then about someone not even close to the minimums, with no aad or audible, and not close to current, going in on a wingsuit jump.

There are way more people going in pushing the limits on having fun, then professional stuntmen doing it to make a buck.

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

[stablesteve 0]

Yes, motorcycling has been a valid sport much longer than skydiving, largely through advances made by trial and error. Advances in our sport have come from people being willing to push the limits hard enough to find where the boundaries are, as with all sports.

Waivers for low altitude aerobatics were not given until it was proven that the people applying were able to successfully able to perform the routines safely. They couldn't do that until they found their limits, usually by pushing the envelope doing something everyone else thought was crazy. Everyone I know that is successful in a given sport pushed the boundaries to get there.

That brings me to Hells Angels. The first Hells Angel I met was on June 12, 1977 at the Livermore DZ in California. I was in the process of being grounded again for searching for the elusive limit, (didn't find it!) when I met Norton Thomas. He jumped at Antioch but was trying other DZ's in the search for his limit. He was the first person to ever say, "I want to jump with you." We drove to Antioch and on our first jump together (a two way) we found ourselves head on after opening. I expected Norton to wait till the last minute and turn right, so I waited and turned left. I hit Norton's center cell and we had a two stack in under ten seconds after opening, then landed it in the peas. We decided right then we had to prove that the only limit was in our imaginations.

As we talked more and more people into trying crw, it was usually Norton that came between me and being grounded, as crw wasn't accepted too well back then. We made the first 8 stack on October 23 1977, in large part due to the efforts of Norton Thomas, CCR#8.
CCS#1. I have no problem with Hells Angels.

Steve Haley, CCR# 1

[tdog 0]

Quote

Strange. It seems to me you're more upset about this successful stunt then about someone not even close to the minimums, with no aad or audible, and not close to current, going in on a wingsuit jump.

There are way more people going in pushing the limits on having fun, then professional stuntmen doing it to make a buck.

Upset? Well, I am just expressing my view point on this thread. I am not upset. I have not lost sleep over it. It is actually very inconsequential to me in the big picture, even though I have strong opinions I have shared here.

Upset about the fatality in MOAB, as I assume that is what you are referencing? Yes, I am very "upset" by it. I watched the skydiver leave the plane (although I had nothing to do with his jump or his choice to jump the gear he did). I met him before the jump, and, a friend was a very close friend of the deceased.

I have been at the DZ for six fatal incidents, and there are an additional two people who died in a plane crash hours after I talked to them about the plane that they were flying, that I met because I was involved in an airshow with skydiving. That makes 8 faces to remember. Each one "hit me" to a different extent. I have lost sleep, and found a tear in my restless eyes over three, and the MOAB one is one of them.

My personal pain is nothing compared to what my friend who knew the skydiver well, must be going thru.

No, this issue does not upset me like seeing someone die and know my friends grieve.

But in the end of the day - no FAA rules were broken in MOAB by the skydiver who made the decisions he did. Sure, the USPA has some recommendations that were broken, but those are not binding laws. Perhaps it makes our sport look bad, but in the end of the day, the FAA won't have egg on their face for not enforcing or turning a blind eye to a regulation.

Yes, I agree - there are bigger fish to fry in skydiving, such as landing incidents due to poorly trained canopy pilots or hot shot swoopers. I watched a friend suffer injuries that would eventually turn fatal on a swoop gone bad. That makes me cry at night... But this thread I started not to discuss what makes me upset emotionally, but what I believe is the selfish acts of others that endanger my freedoms. If you want to discuss the MOAB fatality, there is a thread about it, but I am done discussing it here - as no FAA regulations were broken in that incident.