Recommended Posts
cocheese 0
How do you guys put up with all the cry babies? And nobody knows how to flare anymore... if they even attempt it.
I can't be a dzo. I would end up on the news for sure.
Oh and Thank You to all those who get us assholes in the air. I love you guys.
Moving on from the tiresome AAD debate.
billvon 2,379
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>What about the blatant hypocrisy?
Yeah! And the blatant hypocrisy of DZ's that tell people they have to spot - but have their pilots use GPS! And of course DZ's that don't allow people to jump drunk - but have bars on the DZ! Evil hypocrites.
Seriously, DZ's can do whatever they like to try to keep their jumpers safe. They can require AAD's as a few places do. They can require AAD's up to X jumps as Otay does. They can prohibit swooping as Perris does. They can require all students to go through the ISP, or require them to stay on large canopies until they have their A. They can prohibit drinking on their DZ. Up to them. It's not hypocritical for a DZO to try to keep their customers alive - even if it personally inconveniences you.
>After 30 years in the sport I can count on one hand how many times I was
>in freefall below 2000' and I always knew where I was.
OK. Sounds like an AAD rule wouldn't affect you, then, beyond having to shell out the money. Unless of course you were disabled or unconscious, in which case it would save your life.
(I assume you weren't saying "a no pull can't happen to me".)
Yeah! And the blatant hypocrisy of DZ's that tell people they have to spot - but have their pilots use GPS! And of course DZ's that don't allow people to jump drunk - but have bars on the DZ! Evil hypocrites.
Seriously, DZ's can do whatever they like to try to keep their jumpers safe. They can require AAD's as a few places do. They can require AAD's up to X jumps as Otay does. They can prohibit swooping as Perris does. They can require all students to go through the ISP, or require them to stay on large canopies until they have their A. They can prohibit drinking on their DZ. Up to them. It's not hypocritical for a DZO to try to keep their customers alive - even if it personally inconveniences you.
>After 30 years in the sport I can count on one hand how many times I was
>in freefall below 2000' and I always knew where I was.
OK. Sounds like an AAD rule wouldn't affect you, then, beyond having to shell out the money. Unless of course you were disabled or unconscious, in which case it would save your life.
(I assume you weren't saying "a no pull can't happen to me".)
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhat about the blatant hypocrisy? They require AAD's because they claim to be so concerned about their customers' safety, yet allow/encourage small canopies & swooping which places jumpers at far greater risk of injury/death than allowing them to jump w/out an AAD.
Ding ding ding ding! You hit the nail on the head there.
If jumper safety is important enough to implement rules for mandatory AADs, then the most effective rules of all would be wing loading restrictions and bans on hook turns. But that ain't gonna happen, because hook turns are cool.
Back in the old days low pull contests used to be the cool thing to do. But we eventually realized the folly of that, changed the culture of acceptance for it, and recognized it for the danger it was. And nowadays, hook turns are the new low pulls - hurling yourself at the ground only to pull out and save yourself at the last possible fraction of a second. Cool, man!
Meanwhile, let's force those old farts to buy an AAD, even though they have decades of experience proving that they're heads-up on altitude awareness, and have never been known to go low or mishandle a malfunction. Yeah, that's what we need to improve safety!
billvon 2,379
>Back in the old days low pull contests used to be the cool thing to do. But
>we eventually realized the folly of that, changed the culture of acceptance
>for it, and recognized it for the danger it was.
So are drop zones hypocrites for enforcing the unnecessary and redundant "pull by 2000 feet" rule, but letting people jump without AAD's? They claim to be concerned about the customer's safety, and enforce a rule that does almost nothing, but let them jump without a device that has saved dozens of lives?
>we eventually realized the folly of that, changed the culture of acceptance
>for it, and recognized it for the danger it was.
So are drop zones hypocrites for enforcing the unnecessary and redundant "pull by 2000 feet" rule, but letting people jump without AAD's? They claim to be concerned about the customer's safety, and enforce a rule that does almost nothing, but let them jump without a device that has saved dozens of lives?
chuckakers 369
QuoteQuoteMeanwhile, let's force those old farts to buy an AAD, even though they have decades of experience proving that they're heads-up on altitude awareness, and have never been known to go low or mishandle a malfunction.
And yet the reason for the new rule at San Marcos is that an old fart with decades of experience died when he took it in at terminal without an AAD on his rig.
I don't personally agree with mandated AAD's, but facts are always facts. All the experience in the world won't help when you are unable to get something over your head.Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
motomike 1
Does this mean they will stop the less the 200 jump wonders from camera on their head? or does someone have to die to make a rule?
billvon 2,379
>Does this mean they will stop the less the 200 jump wonders from camera
>on their head? or does someone have to die to make a rule?
That's traditionally what inspires USPA to add a BSR.
>on their head? or does someone have to die to make a rule?
That's traditionally what inspires USPA to add a BSR.
QuoteDoes this mean they will stop the less the 200 jump wonders from camera on their head? or does someone have to die to make a rule?
If you and I and everyone else refused to jump w/ those wonders with cameras on their head most of that problem would go away.
I don't think that works for small canopies, as many of them will get out on their own pass.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteMeanwhile, let's force those old farts to buy an AAD, even though they have decades of experience proving that they're heads-up on altitude awareness, and have never been known to go low or mishandle a malfunction.
And yet the reason for the new rule at San Marcos is that an old fart with decades of experience died when he took it in at terminal without an AAD on his rig.
I don't personally agree with mandated AAD's, but facts are always facts. All the experience in the world won't help when you are unable to get something over your head.
Right. But every experienced jumper who chooses to jump without an AAD does so because they knowingly accept that risk, and are willing to live or die by it. And as far as the drop zone's liability goes, those jumpers sign the waiver and accept personal responsibility for their own safety. So it's unnecessary and unwarranted for the drop zones to implement mandatory-AAD rules.
I believe in the personal responsibility model. not in the "I want the drop zone/USPA/government to make me safe" model.
skypuppy 1
Quote>Does this mean they will stop the less the 200 jump wonders from camera
>on their head? or does someone have to die to make a rule?
That's traditionally what inspires USPA to add a BSR.
hasnpt worked with hook turns....
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
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
billvon 2,379
>hasnpt worked with hook turns....
True. Sometimes it takes many years.
True. Sometimes it takes many years.
chuckakers 369
QuoteAnd as far as the drop zone's liability goes, those jumpers sign the waiver and accept personal responsibility for their own safety. So it's unnecessary and unwarranted for the drop zones to implement mandatory-AAD rules.
I believe in the personal responsibility model. not in the "I want the drop zone/USPA/government to make me safe" model.
John, I'm with you on personal responsibility, but I can't speak to the "unnecessary" thing, as I left my law degree in my other pants.
Bottom line - if a DZO says AAD's, then AAD's it is. The other bottom line of course is that we get to vote with our money.
I vote with you.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
...And yet the reason for the new rule at San Marcos is that an old fart with decades of experience died when he took it in at terminal without an AAD on his rig...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Never said it couldn't happen. This is another example of stupid legislation being pushed as an emotional response to a specific incident.
I don't want an AAD because of 1) the expense and 2) the real (albeit minimal) possibility of a misfire at a bad time which could kill me.
(Please don't dismiss this without thinking - If your justification for mandatory AADs is based on the slight possibility that it might be helpful you cannot ignore, with your credibility intact, the equally slight possibility that it can kill people.)
This is not about the DZO's rights. Nobody is claiming they don't have the "right" to impose this policy - we're claiming it's a stupid policy which ultimately harms the sport. He has the right to demand you wear military paratrooper boots if you want to play at his DZ. If he did, would you be questioning the logic of this decision or would you be berating people who disagree, advising them that they can simply take their business elsewhere?
"Voting with your feet" is an empty argument. This is not like bowling, where all one would have to do is drive a few miles to a different facility. Few of us live in an area where we have two or more DZ's within an hour's drive from home. Some of us have only one within a three-hour drive.
Political commentary removed
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Never said it couldn't happen. This is another example of stupid legislation being pushed as an emotional response to a specific incident.
I don't want an AAD because of 1) the expense and 2) the real (albeit minimal) possibility of a misfire at a bad time which could kill me.
(Please don't dismiss this without thinking - If your justification for mandatory AADs is based on the slight possibility that it might be helpful you cannot ignore, with your credibility intact, the equally slight possibility that it can kill people.)
This is not about the DZO's rights. Nobody is claiming they don't have the "right" to impose this policy - we're claiming it's a stupid policy which ultimately harms the sport. He has the right to demand you wear military paratrooper boots if you want to play at his DZ. If he did, would you be questioning the logic of this decision or would you be berating people who disagree, advising them that they can simply take their business elsewhere?
"Voting with your feet" is an empty argument. This is not like bowling, where all one would have to do is drive a few miles to a different facility. Few of us live in an area where we have two or more DZ's within an hour's drive from home. Some of us have only one within a three-hour drive.
Political commentary removed
chuckakers 369
Quote...And yet the reason for the new rule at San Marcos is that an old fart with decades of experience died when he took it in at terminal without an AAD on his rig...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Never said it couldn't happen. This is another example of stupid legislation being pushed as an emotional response to a specific incident.Quote
To get started, you sound like you are replying to something I said to you. My comments above were on reply to John Rich - just to be clear.
I don't want an AAD because of 1) the expense and 2) the real (albeit minimal) possibility of a misfire at a bad time which could kill me.
(Please don't dismiss this without thinking - If your justification for mandatory AADs is based on the slight possibility that it might be helpful you cannot ignore, with your credibility intact, the equally slight possibility that it can kill people.)Quote
You can choose to jump or not jump with an AAD for any reason you like, but as for your "number 2" above, well-established statistics are very much against you. There are very few incidents in which an AAD misfire has caused an injury or fatality, but countless verified saves and incidents that may not have been incidents had the person had one or had the one on their rig turned on.
Your comment that the possibility of an AAD being "helpful" is as "equally slight" as that of an AAD killing people is historically inaccurate and thus statistically ludicrous.
If you're going to have an intelligent debate, you might at least want to have factual data on your side.
Also note that I said in my post that I was not endorsing mandatory AAD use, which you implied with your comment above that I was "justifying" mandatory AAD use. I was not. If anything, I was and am justifying a DZO making any rule promoting safety he or she feels is good for the DZ. You didn't make the investment of money, effort, resources, and risk of emotional and financial ruin. The DZO did, and good for you that there are people willing to do that. Without them you don't have a sport at all.
This is not about the DZO's rights. Nobody is claiming they don't have the "right" to impose this policy - we're claiming it's a stupid policy which ultimately harms the sport. He has the right to demand you wear military paratrooper boots if you want to play at his DZ. If he did, would you be questioning the logic of this decision or would you be berating people who disagree, advising them that they can simply take their business elsewhere?Quote
Whoa! Easy there, Skippy. I didn't berate anyone. The person I was replying to - John Rich - is a dear friend with more experience and true wisdom in his little finger than most skydivers will ever have, and a person whose opinion I respect very much. The comment of mine you opened your post with was simply pointing out an irony I saw in John's statement, and a correct one from an historically factual perspective.
"Voting with your feet" is an empty argument. This is not like bowling, where all one would have to do is drive a few miles to a different facility. Few of us live in an area where we have two or more DZ's within an hour's drive from home. Some of us have only one within a three-hour drive.Quote
Voting with you feet is never an empty argument. It's a matter of how much effort a consumer is willing to expend to cast their vote. If you don't want to turn a 3-hour drive into a 5-hour drive, move and get a new job. Don't want to do that? Buy a bowling ball.
The concept that anything that makes the sport bigger is good and anything that doesn't is bad is bad is crap. It might be good for YOU if the sport gets bigger, but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport itself. Don't believe me? Look at the commercialization of Mt. Everest.
The basic premise here is more of the left-wing secular mind-set which believes that it is possible to eliminate all accidents & tragedies from the human experience simply by passing enough laws & hyper- regulating people. Thus, when an accident occurs we don't just say "Damn, shit happens" but instead respond with even MORE laws & regulations.
For years the USPA leadership has engaged in hand-wringing, trying to figure out a way to increase participation in the sport. Meanwhile, they support policies which make it more difficult for beginners to become skydivers.
If mandatory AAD policies are adopted at the DZ's in my area it will put me out of the sport for good.QuoteUSPA has nothing to do with this specific situation, but while we are on the subject I will mention my irrefutable rules of growing the sport that I think you will actually agree with....More people would skydive if it was cheaper. More people would skydive if it was safer. And more people would skydive if it was more convenient. Your drive to the DZ came to mind on that last one.
Left-wing secular? Coming from a conservative, all I can say is get off the political bench! The DZO at Skydive San Marcos is a business owner. Without respect to his political views, he and his wife have made a decision - knee-jerk maybe, but it's their business and they are solely responsible for their jumpers and may choose to do whatever they want.
As I said in my previous post, I do not endorse mandatory AAD use, but I do endorse DZO's right to do what they see fit to sleep at night.Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
billvon 2,379
>"Voting with your feet" is an empty argument.
Would you really continue to jump at a DZ who regularly sent up students with drunk instructors? Who never maintained their jump aircraft? Who used unrated pilots? Would you really say "well, it's not like I can leave, better keep this guy in business?"
Would you really continue to jump at a DZ who regularly sent up students with drunk instructors? Who never maintained their jump aircraft? Who used unrated pilots? Would you really say "well, it's not like I can leave, better keep this guy in business?"
skypuppy 1
You can choose to jump or not jump with an AAD for any reason you like, but as for your "number 2" above, well-established statistics are very much against you. There are very few incidents in which an AAD misfire has caused an injury or fatality, but countless verified saves and incidents that may not have been incidents had the person had one or had the one on their rig turned on.
Your comment that the possibility of an AAD being "helpful" is as "equally slight" as that of an AAD killing people is historically inaccurate and thus statistically ludicrous.
If you're going to have an intelligent debate, you might at least want to have factual data on your side.
Also note that I said in my post that I was not endorsing mandatory AAD use, which you implied with your comment above that I was "justifying" mandatory AAD use. I was not. If anything, I was and am justifying a DZO making any rule promoting safety he or she feels is good for the DZ. You didn't make the investment of money, effort, resources, and risk of emotional and financial ruin. The DZO did, and good for you that there are people willing to do that. Without them you don't have a sport at all.
_______________________________________________
While they may be orders of magnitude difference, one still has to admit to the fact that being saved by an aad is a remote possibility for any one person who is current and experienced (we're discounting students and tandems here).
As far as injuries or deaths (or incidents which are potential injuries or deaths) caused, I don't know that they're as scarce as you imply, simply because there are a substantial number of 2-out situations every year caused inadvertently by aads, which would have simply been a 'relatively low and uneventful opening' on a rig not equipped with an aad. And I think that many of these 2-out situations (some of which could lead to fatalities or injuries) are either not reported or are glossed over when it actually is the presence of the aad which caused the situation. That is not to mention the 'several' incidents of aads firing mid-swoop. So indeed, both are still rare.
As far as voting with your feet, I have had to do so here in Canada. When a certain dzo brought it in he reassured everyone it would only be up to a certain experience level, but that has been eroded until now you cannot do a jump without one at his dz (only took three years to change his mind).
The trend here in Canada though is for 'some' dzo's to get together and attempt to make a bsr nation-wide to bring in mandatory aads, because some are upset that if they do the policy on their own, people will go down the road to jump. So, while it is there right, misguided as it may be, to enforce mandatory aads on there own dz's, it should not be their right to change bsr's across the country so that you CANNOT vote with your feet, something they have tried to do, and I am sure, will try again.
Your comment that the possibility of an AAD being "helpful" is as "equally slight" as that of an AAD killing people is historically inaccurate and thus statistically ludicrous.
If you're going to have an intelligent debate, you might at least want to have factual data on your side.
Also note that I said in my post that I was not endorsing mandatory AAD use, which you implied with your comment above that I was "justifying" mandatory AAD use. I was not. If anything, I was and am justifying a DZO making any rule promoting safety he or she feels is good for the DZ. You didn't make the investment of money, effort, resources, and risk of emotional and financial ruin. The DZO did, and good for you that there are people willing to do that. Without them you don't have a sport at all.
_______________________________________________
While they may be orders of magnitude difference, one still has to admit to the fact that being saved by an aad is a remote possibility for any one person who is current and experienced (we're discounting students and tandems here).
As far as injuries or deaths (or incidents which are potential injuries or deaths) caused, I don't know that they're as scarce as you imply, simply because there are a substantial number of 2-out situations every year caused inadvertently by aads, which would have simply been a 'relatively low and uneventful opening' on a rig not equipped with an aad. And I think that many of these 2-out situations (some of which could lead to fatalities or injuries) are either not reported or are glossed over when it actually is the presence of the aad which caused the situation. That is not to mention the 'several' incidents of aads firing mid-swoop. So indeed, both are still rare.
As far as voting with your feet, I have had to do so here in Canada. When a certain dzo brought it in he reassured everyone it would only be up to a certain experience level, but that has been eroded until now you cannot do a jump without one at his dz (only took three years to change his mind).
The trend here in Canada though is for 'some' dzo's to get together and attempt to make a bsr nation-wide to bring in mandatory aads, because some are upset that if they do the policy on their own, people will go down the road to jump. So, while it is there right, misguided as it may be, to enforce mandatory aads on there own dz's, it should not be their right to change bsr's across the country so that you CANNOT vote with your feet, something they have tried to do, and I am sure, will try again.
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
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhoa! Easy there. I didn't berate anyone. The person I was replying to - John Rich - is a dear friend with more experience and true wisdom in his little finger than most skydivers will ever have, and a person whose opinion I respect very much.
Wow. Thanks for the compliment, Chuck. You're making me blush!
QuoteNever said it couldn't happen. This is another example of stupid legislation
Quotebeing pushed as an emotional response to a specific incident.
You are mistaking a democratic process with a business decision. You may not like it but it is not you are not the one with a large financial investment on the line.
SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
pchapman 261
But when has a dead, experienced skydiver ever cost a DZO?
Maybe there have been suits; I don't know. But normally, the rare event of a dead skydiver doesn't affect the DZO's investment.
Normally a DZO doesn't ask people to chip in an extra $1500 to jump at the DZ. Yes, gas prices go up, jump costs go up, whatever,. But never before DZ's with mandatory AAD rules have I had a DZO ask me to spend an extra $1500 to jump at their DZ and supposedly protect his ass.
Nowadays, with so jumpers many having AADs anyway, there's less and less need to make AAD rules. The battle for AAD's is already won; now mandatory AAD rules just tend to stick it to a few people,
Maybe there have been suits; I don't know. But normally, the rare event of a dead skydiver doesn't affect the DZO's investment.
Normally a DZO doesn't ask people to chip in an extra $1500 to jump at the DZ. Yes, gas prices go up, jump costs go up, whatever,. But never before DZ's with mandatory AAD rules have I had a DZO ask me to spend an extra $1500 to jump at their DZ and supposedly protect his ass.
Nowadays, with so jumpers many having AADs anyway, there's less and less need to make AAD rules. The battle for AAD's is already won; now mandatory AAD rules just tend to stick it to a few people,
Those numbers only reflect the number of fatal incidents without an AAD that one could have possibly prevented. While those numbers do represent the fatalites we could hope to eliminate with mandatory use of AADs, it in no way indicated the overall usefulness of AADs across the board.
What we don't know is the number of times an AAD has prevented a fatality becasue those incidents go unreported. Those numbers, if available, would be a better indication of the overall benefit AADs provide to the sport.
I would suggest that if you took the overall number of AAD fires each year, and split that in half guessing that half of them would not have resulted in a fatality if an AAD had not been present, there would still be enough fatalites left to make low pull/no pull the number one killer of skydivers.
I guess Airtech and Vigil might have an idea about those numbers, but not every unit that fires makes it's way back to the factory. You can't even track sales of replacement cutters, because you don't know how many of them are actaully in use and how many on 'stock' on a riggers shelf.
Much like open canopy non-fatal incidents that go unreported, this is another area where more transperecy in the industry regarding accident reports would be of service. If there was a no-penalty way of submitting accident reports, and sactions in place for DZs who do not report incidents, the industry as a whole would be much better off.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites