Don't Bounce a Newbie, I almost did...

[5.samadhi 0]

Quote

You're awesome.

PS: I'm sorry that deal didn't work out for you.

^ haha yes my cashier check scam didn't work and I'm pissed and decided to formulate a theory of personal autonomy and intelligently reply to an internet thread.

Anyways I dont think I'm trading in my good old sabre 1 for a Velocity. Discovered the sabre 10 years ago and am not letting go anytime soon

Quote

People selling gear have a responsibility (IMO) to honestly represent the gear they sell, and to not sell it to people who are clearly unqualified to use it safely.

Why do you think this - just because it seems right to you, Bill?

I am curious about your reason.

You say 'save a life' but what is life worth without personal autonomy?

[billvon 2,400]

>Why do you think this - just because it seems right to you, Bill?

Because I've seen a lot of people kill themselves in the sport and I've seen what it does to their friends and family - and in my opinion it's worth a little effort to try to prevent that.

>You say 'save a life' but what is life worth without personal autonomy?

Any skydiver out there is still perfectly free to kill themselves. Drink a fifth of whiskey, take lots of drugs, do a 230 foot BASE jump with a Velo. I'm just not going to help them do it.

[fencebuster 7]

+1.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I disagree that you should be researching people's experience levels when selling gear. Its their business what they do with the canopy when they get it.

No.

People jumping small canopies that they're not ready for (are too scared to or incapable of turning at low altitudes and/or after plane-out) are unguided meat missiles that pose a threat to other people on the same loads as them.

Often when there's an injury the fun stops until the victim is stabilized and taken away by ambulance or helicopter. When there's a fatality the fun sometimes stops for the day.

I'm not going to sell a small parachute to some one that might later run me down with it or get my loads postponed or cancelled.

I'm not going to risk a lawsuit for negligence from the buyer's family or health insurance company subrogation department when they're likely to injure or kill themselves.

I'd also feel bad if I sold a jumper a canopy which I knew to be too much for him and he got hurt. Some jumpers are just ignorant and deserve sympathy - we often tell them to get advice from their instructors, and a lot of those guys aren't as conservative as they should be. Some probably deserve whatever happens, especially since that's likely to prevent an incident under an even smaller canopy that's likely to be worse (I only know a few people who didn't learn judgement from their first visit to the orthopedic surgeon). Regardless I'd feel bad for their family. It's emotionally painful, time consuming to deal with, and expensive (even with insurance - disability usually only covers 60% of some one's salary, there can be four figure co-insurance payments for health insurance, you pay a lot for last minute air and hotel reservations to go and collect a person that was injured) when a family member gets hurt.

Quote

Plus you lose a sale.

There are usually multiple willing buyers when goods are priced right.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

I disagree that you should be researching people's experience levels when selling gear. Its their business what they do with the canopy when they get it. Depriving people of personal autonomy is never a good thing. Treat people like imbeciles and they will be imbeciles.

Plus you lose a sale.

But you clearly saved yourself some hassle because it is obviously a scam.

Troll

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

>I disagree that you should be researching people's experience levels when selling
>gear. Its their business what they do with the canopy when they get it.

It is their business - but it is your business who you sell it to. People selling gear have a responsibility (IMO) to honestly represent the gear they sell, and to not sell it to people who are clearly unqualified to use it safely.

>Plus you lose a sale.

Yes, you do. But you might save a life.

+1

If this was a face-to-face transaction, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

No responsible skydiver would sell or lend a piece of gear that was obviously too much for an inexperienced jumper to handle. The difference is that you would know the experience level up front.

Why is a long-distance transaction any different?

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[5.samadhi 0]

Well if the skydiver is a child then I would not sell gear they are not ready to use because they have not formed cognitive impulse control. However, skydivers are generally not children (at least in the USA). The parachute is inert fabric that does not impose a 'will' on the skydiver to use it immediately. The 'will' imposed on the fabric is the skydiver's own and is brought about by a decision ("yes I will hook this canopy to this rig and pack/jump it").

The DZO/S&TA is not fabric and has a 'will' and can impose her will on the skydiver if the skydiver makes a poor choice on their dropzone. Why not keep the personal autonomy (ie the ability to make a decision between the purchase of gear and the use of gear) in tact and if concerned remain vigilant on the local level at your own dropzone to care for inexperienced skydivers (in case they should make an unsafe decision)?

By circumventing the skydiver's right to make their own decision you have handicapped the person and the society in general.

Incidentally, I have developed this view from years of political philosophy (drug law) study - NOT skydiving! It extends quite elegantly to skydiving gear purchase though as you can see.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I have developed this view from years of political philosophy (drug law) study - NOT skydiving! It extends quite elegantly to skydiving gear purchase

Not elegant, just a crappy analogy. Many differences.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[5.samadhi 0]

name a difference, if you want to know specifically the argument in political philosophy is an argument against any drug laws pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical (recreational).

Any 'collateral damage' you could describe (ie crackhead goes crazy and murders innocent person) is outweighed by the preservation of autonomy in the individual. If you weight one aspect heavily enough any consequence is acceptable.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Any 'collateral damage' you could describe (ie crackhead goes crazy and murders innocent person) is outweighed by the preservation of autonomy in the individual. If you weight one aspect heavily enough any consequence is acceptable.

Better analogy: drunk driving laws. As an over-21 adult, I can drink myself blotto and pass out face-down and drown in the kiddie pool in my back yard. That's on me - alcohol is legal, and I have the autonomy to do whatever damage I want to my body, ego, and psyche with it.

The second I put my drunk ass behind the wheel is when the state really starts to care about me, because at that point, I have a much higher likelihood of hurting other people in addition to hurting myself.

The guy who has no business being on the Velo 90 is basically driving drunk all the time. Of course there are a lot of times when he'll be able to adequately control the parachute so that he doesn't put himself or anyone else at risk. But, like the drunk driver who gets away with it several times, it doesn't mean that he has adequate control over that canopy.

The DZO and the other jumpers on the dropzone have an interest in having "sober drivers" on the dropzone. They have an interest in having people under canopies that they are adequately able to control given their experience and skill level. Just like not all drunk drivers run into telephone poles and hurt only themselves, not all Velo jockeys pound themselves into the ground and only hurt themselves.

So, if Velo jockey can find a plane and a landing area where there's no one else around, I'd say that's more like the drunk passing out in the kiddie pool and drowning. But dropzones aren't like that. And even if they were, just as I'd hope that my family and friends might have a chat with me about my drinking problem if I were regularly passing out in kiddie pools, I also like the fact that other skydivers will have a chat with Velo jockey, even if he's figured out a way to skydive with 100% clear airspace all the time. Because seeing people you care about hurt themselves still sucks, even if it's their "free will."

"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

[5.samadhi 0]

Quote

Quote

Any 'collateral damage' you could describe (ie crackhead goes crazy and murders innocent person) is outweighed by the preservation of autonomy in the individual. If you weight one aspect heavily enough any consequence is acceptable.

Better analogy: drunk driving laws. As an over-21 adult, I can drink myself blotto and pass out face-down and drown in the kiddie pool in my back yard. That's on me - alcohol is legal, and I have the autonomy to do whatever damage I want to my body, ego, and psyche with it.

The second I put my drunk ass behind the wheel is when the state really starts to care about me, because at that point, I have a much higher likelihood of hurting other people in addition to hurting myself.

The guy who has no business being on the Velo 90 is basically driving drunk all the time. Of course there are a lot of times when he'll be able to adequately control the parachute so that he doesn't put himself or anyone else at risk. But, like the drunk driver who gets away with it several times, it doesn't mean that he has adequate control over that canopy.

The DZO and the other jumpers on the dropzone have an interest in having "sober drivers" on the dropzone. They have an interest in having people under canopies that they are adequately able to control given their experience and skill level. Just like not all drunk drivers run into telephone poles and hurt only themselves, not all Velo jockeys pound themselves into the ground and only hurt themselves.

So, if Velo jockey can find a plane and a landing area where there's no one else around, I'd say that's more like the drunk passing out in the kiddie pool and drowning. But dropzones aren't like that. And even if they were, just as I'd hope that my family and friends might have a chat with me about my drinking problem if I were regularly passing out in kiddie pools, I also like the fact that other skydivers will have a chat with Velo jockey, even if he's figured out a way to skydive with 100% clear airspace all the time. Because seeing people you care about hurt themselves still sucks, even if it's their "free will."

I understand and agree with your reasoning. If the skydiver does not have full cognitive control of her faculties (ie like a drunk person) then canopy selection should be governed by local authority/friend who does have full cognitive faculties.

Canopy selection ought to be governed by local authority (DZO/S&TA) anyways when canopy selection by the individual differs from the safety norm at the level of the local dropzone.

So, in this case the jumper with 200 jumps wouldn't be jumping the velocity 96 if the DZO/S&TA were doing their job despite owning one from a recent purchase.

Basically, I think it boils down to a two-fold point 1) that people do not have a responsibility to make people make responsible decisions...2)people have a responsibility not to deprive other people of their personal autonomy and the ability to make their own decisions

[NWFlyer 2]

Actually, as a seller, I have no responsibility to your so-called right to personal autonomy. I can sell or not sell to you or anyone else for whatever reason I want. My refusal to sell you my hypothetical Velo 90 is not infringing on your rights, it's just cramping your style. There's a difference.

"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

[Blamey 0]

Quote

Actually, as a seller, I have no responsibility to your so-called right to personal autonomy. I can sell or not sell to you or anyone else for whatever reason I want. My refusal to sell you my hypothetical Velo 90 is not infringing on your rights, it's just cramping your style. There's a difference.

This is exactly what I was going to say. 5.samadhi, you are saying the buyer should have the right to buy what they want but why shouldn't the seller have the right to not sell to somebody they don't want to sell to. What about the personal autonomy of the seller?

Why should the buyers need trump the sellers?

The seller has a role in this transaction and has all the right to decide it is a transaction she doesn't want to be involved in.

Your argument would carry weight if there was a third party stepping in to prevent the transaction.

[obelixtim 100]

***Any 'collateral damage' you could describe (ie crackhead goes crazy and murders innocent person) is outweighed by the preservation of autonomy in the individual. If you weight one aspect heavily enough any consequence is acceptable.

[skydiver30960 0]

Quote

Quote

I disagree that you should be researching people's experience levels when selling gear. Its their business what they do with the canopy when they get it. Depriving people of personal autonomy is never a good thing. Treat people like imbeciles and they will be imbeciles.

Plus you lose a sale.

But you clearly saved yourself some hassle because it is obviously a scam.

Troll

Definitely.

Elvisio "THIS" Rodriguez

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Why not keep the personal autonomy (ie the ability to make a decision between the purchase of gear and the use of gear) in tact and if concerned remain vigilant on the local level at your own dropzone to care for inexperienced skydivers (in case they should make an unsafe decision)?

I highlighted the important part in bold. The vigilance and care provided to the inexperienced jumpers takes the form of not selling them equipment that is beyond their experience/skill sets.

Safety in skydiving needs to be in the form of 'action' and not 'reaction'. If a potentially unsafe situation is allowed to exist until such time that it proves itself to be unsafe, then an incident has already takes place and damage has been done. You might be able to 'clean up' the situation moving forward, and prevent another incident or further damage, but what's done is done and in the case of incidents or injury, that's not OK.

The idea is to act before a situation can manifest itself into an incident. Plan your jumps ahead of time, and ensure that every facet of that plan, the who, where, when, what, etc, all meet the generally accpeted norms for what would be considered 'safe'.

No joke, god help the people who actually have to jump with you. Time and time again, you have proven to have a veiwpoint that is greatly skewed away from what I like to call 'reality', and sooner or later it's going to bite you in your real ass, and even though I'm not a religous man, I literally pray that you don't take anyone down with you when the time comes.

[rifleman 61]

+1

A classified advert is legally an invitation to treat not an offer for sale (Fisher v Bell [1961] and confirmed by Partridge v Crittendon [1968]). The seller makes an invitation to treat (negotiate) by placing the ad and the buyer makes an offer to buy at the stated price. It is then up to the seller as to whether he accepts the offer and creates the contract. In this case the seller was quite within his rights to refuse to sell the item based on his conversation with the buyer.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[jumpwally 0]

Nicely put.....ka ching,,,next witness,,,,+1

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[lanceav8r 0]

DZ.com is full of these cashiers check scammers. DO NOT ACCEPT A CHECK of any kind.

[5.samadhi 0]

Quote

+1

A classified advert is legally an invitation to treat not an offer for sale (Fisher v Bell [1961] and confirmed by Partridge v Crittendon [1968]). The seller makes an invitation to treat (negotiate) by placing the ad and the buyer makes an offer to buy at the stated price. It is then up to the seller as to whether he accepts the offer and creates the contract. In this case the seller was quite within his rights to refuse to sell the item based on his conversation with the buyer.

since we all know that responsibility strictly follows legality

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

DZ.com is full of these cashiers check scammers. DO NOT ACCEPT A CHECK of any kind.

That isn't an accurate statement (not the scammers part, the don't take a check part).

I've done business using checks issued by US Banks and had no problems. My bank can confirm that the check isn't counterfeit within a day or two and away I go.

The scammers usually counterfeit checks from banks not in the US and those checks can take days or weeks to come back as fake.

I've even done stuff with personal checks. I just make it perfectly clear that I'm not shipping stuff out until the check clears. My bank is good about this and will notify me right away when the check has cleared. Which has gotten faster than years ago, but can still take a week or so.

Checks aren't automatically bad. You just have to understand how they can be used fraudulently and take precautions against it.
Western Union is the same thing. Not automatically a scammer, but you have to be very, very careful because the scammers use it so much.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[hackish 8]

To the OP: How about simply using a rigger local to the buyer to escrow the transaction. It is a fairly common thing in these parts. The canopy arrives, I inspect it for the buyer, they pay me (cash) I release the canopy and disperse the funds to the seller. The skydiving community is small enough that it's not too hard to find someone you know who knows the buyer/seller.

-Michael

[flashpipe 1]

Vertifly,

Just out of curiosity, why are you getting out of the sport?

You mentioned that you'll be out for the next 18 years or so? Having kids?

:)

[Zlew 0]

Quote

I'll try to scam him back then.

Anyway, is Paypal always a safe bet?

Always watch out for scams when selling something online. I almost got hit with a pay pal scam a few years ago. The Cliff's notes version is they sent dummy e-mails that looked like fund transfer verifications from Paypal (looked real, right return addresses etc.). After a closer look, and logging into my paypal, I found that no funds had moved, and the e-mail was bogus/scam.

[peregrinerose 0]

I am pondering selling a Nitro 120 and just sold a Sabre2 135. The first question I ask of potential buyers is 'how many jumps do you have, what license do you have, and how current are you'. I had a guy with only a couple hundred jumps try to buy the Nitro. He assured me that he is a 'really conservative canopy pilot' and that several instructors at his DZ would vouch for that. Really? What kind of DZ encourages that kind of canopy for a low timer?? I very politely said no. I would rather not sell the canopy at all than have someone get mangled on it.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda