would you discuss it?

[shermanator 3]

Just a hypothetical question.

If you were driving past a military base, looked up, and saw a couple skydivers with malfunctions, and saw it happen from start to finish, would you openly discuss what you saw?

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Yeah, why not? Skydiving malfunctions are not very damaging to the military's image or national security

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If you were driving past a military base, looked up, and saw a couple skydivers with malfunctions, and saw it happen from start to finish, would you openly discuss what you saw?

This sounds like an offshoot of the Elsinore incident, based on the fact that it was military related, and that nobody from the DZ is talking about the incident.

The difference between that incident and your example is that if you're just driving by, you have no relation to the military base, it's operators, or their financial bottom line.

Skydive Elsinore is a private enterprise, and holding a military training contract represents additional income. If that military entity asked the DZ to not comment on the incident, then out of respect for their customer, they would most likely comply (to include the employees also keeping quiet).

As for the fun jumpers, we all know that fun jumpers often times have loyalties to their home DZ, and in almost every case, a jumper will have loyalties to any DZ over the press. They'll be more likely to 'serve' the DZ by keeping quiet then 'serve' the press by granting an interview.

In terms of the actual incdident, it appears that it was a canopy collision, and as such represents value in the area of training or prevention. We all know that canopy collisions are bad and need to be avoided. Not commenting on the details 'most likely' is not putting the community at-large at any additional risk.

If the incident was caused by a flaw being revealed in a popular pice of gear or method of jumping, I would expect the DZ to step up and reveal the details in an effort to stop a repeat incident, but that is not the case here. It was a canopy collision, and those are already a prominent topic of conversation these days, and simply adding the details of another is not going to change that.

[JohnRich 4]

We already know what happened in Elsinore - a low altitude canopy collision.

What more do you think there is to learn from that? Everyone already knows not to run into other canopies.

And nobody likes all the bashing of friends, drop zones, gear, manufacturers, etc. that goes on in those speculative threads. That discourages people from posting. If everyone would just stick to known facts, people would be more willing to post.

Quite often there are no new lessons to be learned from an incident. Just repetition of the same old lessons that we already know.

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

Quote

If you were driving past a military base, looked up, and saw a couple skydivers with malfunctions, and saw it happen from start to finish, would you openly discuss what you saw?

This sounds like an offshoot of the Elsinore incident, based on the fact that it was military related, and that nobody from the DZ is talking about the incident.

The difference between that incident and your example is that if you're just driving by, you have no relation to the military base, it's operators, or their financial bottom line.

Skydive Elsinore is a private enterprise, and holding a military training contract represents additional income. If that military entity asked the DZ to not comment on the incident, then out of respect for their customer, they would most likely comply (to include the employees also keeping quiet).

As for the fun jumpers, we all know that fun jumpers often times have loyalties to their home DZ, and in almost every case, a jumper will have loyalties to any DZ over the press. They'll be more likely to 'serve' the DZ by keeping quiet then 'serve' the press by granting an interview.

In terms of the actual incdident, it appears that it was a canopy collision, and as such represents value in the area of training or prevention. We all know that canopy collisions are bad and need to be avoided. Not commenting on the details 'most likely' is not putting the community at-large at any additional risk.

If the incident was caused by a flaw being revealed in a popular pice of gear or method of jumping, I would expect the DZ to step up and reveal the details in an effort to stop a repeat incident, but that is not the case here. It was a canopy collision, and those are already a prominent topic of conversation these days, and simply adding the details of another is not going to change that.

Police report. Public document. Should have all the "facts" anyone needs.

Although details of exactly how it happened could be useful. Identifying the errors is the only way to use incidents - especially canopy collisions - as learning tools.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX