Recommended Posts
beowulf 1
I don't know how robinheid came up with "bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions". Like you I have never met Bill Dause, have never jumped at Lodi, know pretty much nothing about his history and I also don't know and have never met robinheid. If my conclusion based on robinheid's post was incorrect and I was not the only person to arrive at that conclusion then I submit that either it really is what he meant or he is just trying to stir shit.
To me this part of the post suggests that it's ok to ignore FAA requirements if they are deemed useless. Therefore robinheid by his words is supporting Bill's not maintaining his aircraft according to FAA regulations. If that isn't what robinheid meant then he needs to be more clear in his statements.
QuoteSeems to me that the San Diego incident you cite is prima facie evidence that the FAA's cable replacement regimen is useless and the Bill did in fact not expose anyone to any additional risk even if he did violate the letter of the FAA's useless requirement.
To me this part of the post suggests that it's ok to ignore FAA requirements if they are deemed useless. Therefore robinheid by his words is supporting Bill's not maintaining his aircraft according to FAA regulations. If that isn't what robinheid meant then he needs to be more clear in his statements.
Zlew 0
Quote
he is just trying to stir shit.
+1
normiss 622
"This is still America people and innocent until proven guilty. "
As the FAA just did. 
+1,,i'd like to see the numbers too ! Blame on a DZO for a fatality not involving a plane incident or a training incident is like blameing Ford for the fatality when two idiots didn't see each other while texting.... i go in cuz i lost alti awareness or dumped under someone,,,and it counts against the DZO,,,i don't think so....![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083
FB # - 1083
Ron 7
QuoteIt is pretty obvious that there are some people with an axe to grind on this thread and the predictable "holier than thou" crowd as well.
And it is pretty clear some people will defend him no matter what.
Now, for the record, I don't know Bill. Never jumped at his DZ (that I know of). So, I don't have an issue with him personally at all. I do have an issue with owners that ignore MX for long periods.
Seems many folks just don't care about the MX and just care about cheap jumps. They have that right. But when people don't know that the owner is skipping MX to save money... then the buyer is being risked without their knowledge.
Quote
This is still America people and innocent until proven guilty
The FAA looked into it and found him guilty.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
skybytch 259
So he's provided cheap jumps for others and has racked up more jumps than just about anybody else. I can see the first point being "contributing", but what does one person making a lot of jumps do for the sport in general?
And how does that stack up against using non-rated instructors while advertising the use of rated instructors (look at the website) or giving people FAA riggers tickets without making them even touch a rigging tool (I can vouch for that one, he gave me mine; apparently the FAA didn't think much of it since he's not a DPRE anymore), or not requiring the use of seat belts. And these are just things that I have personal knowledge of - I have secondhand knowledge of many other things that happen at Lodi that are sketchy at best and dangerous at worst.
If it were only happening to experienced skydivers, I wouldn't be saying a word. I'd rather my friends not die, but they are all grown up skydivers who can make their own risk assessment decisions. Students and tandem passengers don't have enough information to make those decisions. Nobody has a right to put a tandem passenger or a student at increased risk just to make a buck. Anybody who does so as a regular practice is not contributing good things to the sport, no matter how cheap the jumps are or how many jumps the dzo has logged.
And how does that stack up against using non-rated instructors while advertising the use of rated instructors (look at the website) or giving people FAA riggers tickets without making them even touch a rigging tool (I can vouch for that one, he gave me mine; apparently the FAA didn't think much of it since he's not a DPRE anymore), or not requiring the use of seat belts. And these are just things that I have personal knowledge of - I have secondhand knowledge of many other things that happen at Lodi that are sketchy at best and dangerous at worst.
If it were only happening to experienced skydivers, I wouldn't be saying a word. I'd rather my friends not die, but they are all grown up skydivers who can make their own risk assessment decisions. Students and tandem passengers don't have enough information to make those decisions. Nobody has a right to put a tandem passenger or a student at increased risk just to make a buck. Anybody who does so as a regular practice is not contributing good things to the sport, no matter how cheap the jumps are or how many jumps the dzo has logged.
QuoteI'd rather my friends not die, but they are all grown up skydivers who can make their own risk assessment decisions
Sure, provided that the state of the aircraft maintenance was public knowledge. In that case, jumpers could make their own choices.
Much like the uninformed tandem passenger would assume that instructors are properly rated, a jumper in the US would make the assumption that the aircraft is maintained to the standard set by the FAA.
Poor MX and unrated instructors are one in the same. They are both undisclosed risks to paying customers. Who the customer is, or what the nature of the service may be is of no consequence, people are unknowingly being put in harms way.
Am I there to make a jump? A dangerous, life threatening jump? Yes, indeed, but I am confident in my abilites and the performance of my equipment such that I can survive a parachute descent. I have no confidence in my abilites to survive an airplane crash.
QuoteQuoteEvery time a DZO removes the seats from airplanes so more jumpers can be stuffed in, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to save a buck.
Every time a DZO lets someone jump from a plane, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to make a buck.
What we do is really dangerous, our delusions and illusions thereabout notwithstanding, so it's pretty funny to hear all this whining about whether it's this dangeorus or that dangerous.
When a DZO takes the seats out of a plane in order to carry more jumpers, this is clear to every jumper boarding the plane, and they can make an informed desicion to accept the risk of flying in an airplane without a seat.
When a DZO allows you to exit their aircraft, it is clear to every jumper that they are exiting the aircraft, and they can make an informed decision to accept the rick of making a skydive.
When a DZO operates an aircraft in the US, it is implied that the aircraft has been maintained according the standard set by the FAA. If they choose to ignore that standard, and operate an aircraft maintained below the standard set by the FAA, this is not readily apparent to any jumpers outside of the DZ staff and maintenance personel. Jumpers jumping from such an aircraft are subjected to increased risk without their knowledge or consent.
"Dream on." -- Steven Tyler
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
When a DZO operates an aircraft in the US, it is implied that the aircraft has been maintained according the standard set by the FAA. If they choose to ignore that standard, and operate an aircraft maintained below the standard set by the FAA, this is not readily apparent to any jumpers outside of the DZ staff and maintenance personnel. Jumpers jumping from such an aircraft are subjected to increased risk without their knowledge or consent.
"Dream on." -- Steven Tyler
Well, it's a reality at my home DZ.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
QuoteYou mean, other than providing, for about 40 years, places to jump that drew and draw thousands of people from all over the world to take advantage of airplanes that go up and down all day every day it's even marginally jumpable, at prices that can't be beat, and a real safety record (not FAA compliance record) per million jumps made that is equal to or better than any of the very few DZOs in the world whose operations can match his cumulative DZ jump totals?
Actually he has one of if not THE worst safety records in the business.
He has had 10 fatalities in the past 10 years...in the 10 years prior to that...10 fatalities! (and yes I can provide the proof for that if needed)
He has averaged a death a year at his drop zone for the past 20 years. I can't think of another drop zone that comes anywhere close (note that I am NOT counting aircraft crashes where multiple skydivers die at once).
That's not even including all the people he has had slam into electrical wires, the people who have had their legs amputated because they had less than 25 jumps and Bill allowed them to be jumping with another sub-25 jumper (USPA chastised Bill for that one), nor all the other "incidents" that seem to plague his center.
To the best of my knowledge Bill Dause has done nothing for the sport but provide CHEAP tickets, which is why people love him (that and he doesn't require re-currency jumps, or waivers, current reserves or really make any safety mandates whatsoever).
Please don't make him out to be Bill Booth or Lew Sanborn...true pioneers who have worked diligently to contribute to the safety and beauty of our sport.
Oh I forgot, Bill invented the skyhook or was it the three-ring release system, oh no my bad....it was the pilot chute that Bill invented. Didn't you know Bill invented tracking too. We are all too blessed! Where would we be without his amazing contributions!
If he had done SOOO much for our sport he would have awards and been recognized as a "pioneer" and a "contributor" but those articles and awards don't exist because all that he has supposedly "done" to help the sport is as ficticious as his MX records.
So far numerous people have asked "What has Bill done for the sport of skydiving?" and what was your response....
QuoteYou mean, other than setting one of the most hard-core personal examples of jumping the world has every seen, provable through actual manifests and logbook entries and not just "guesstimated" by skygods who are too cool to log their jumps but who do not hestitate to claim tens of thousands of jumps?
I'm sorry Bill's 30,000+ jumps (if in fact he did that many) did not CONTRIBUTE to the sport. All he did was perform a bunch of skydives.
I generally don't give a damn if my DZO has or hasn't logged 30,000 jumps (by the way, to my knowledge Bill does NOT have his jumps counter-sogned and if so his logs are every bit as BS as your skygod's books). I am much more interested in the DZO's commitment to provide a safe environment then how many skydives he has made.
Just because the man has done a ton of jumps (and nobody disputes that) does not mean he automatically deserves our respect in all things skydiving.
Other than cheap tickets and providing an (unsafe) place to skydive for several decades, he has done nothing for this sport as far as I can tell.
If I am selling the man short, correct me...explain to me how he has actually IMPROVED our sport in any meaningful way.
*** Edit **********
Bill was only a regional director...and only that for about two or three years back in the mid-70's. As to the R&D board he was on, yes the board may have done something what did Bill do during that time period?
It was my understanding that during that period of time, Bill wasn't very involved with the USPA even though he was a director (in fact I know he used to never even bother to send in his photo or bio for voting) which is why he only was a director for a couple years.
By your definition anyone who has ever been a director has given a tremendous amount back to the sport.
If you look back at that period, I remember Bill writing several letters complaining about the USPA, the insurance program, the group member program (a bit later), and basically attempting to be an obstructionist.
-Sammy
congratulations on re-defining chutzpah: someone with two years in the sport, less than 200 jumps, making pronouncements about the value of the contributions made by someone with 30,000+ jumps, thousands of hours of jump pilot time, and 40 years in the sport... and giving history lessons to someone who's been skydiving longer than you've been alive.
LOL
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
QuoteWhen a DZO operates an aircraft in the US, it is implied that the aircraft has been maintained according the standard set by the FAA. If they choose to ignore that standard, and operate an aircraft maintained below the standard set by the FAA, this is not readily apparent to any jumpers outside of the DZ staff and maintenance personel. Jumpers jumping from such an aircraft are subjected to increased risk without their knowledge or consent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dream on." -- Steven Tyler
Regardless of your opinion, what I stated is correct and factual. A person operating an aircraft in the US is legally bound to abide by the regulations set forth by the FAA. It is well within reason for a jumper to expect that an aircraft operator is working within the confines of the law.
QuoteQuote
Maybe. And maybe you ought to re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of jumping to conclusions based not on actual content but on bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions.
Until now I have not contributed, but as someone who has never been to Lodi, knows nothing about Bill and his history (other than what I have read here), who doesn't know you, or anyone else in this discussion and as someone who served as an aircraft mechanic who has changed hundreds of perfectly good parts because they have timed out, I have to say that when I first read your 'skydiving is dangerous' comment I came to the same conclusion about what you wrote. I was not biased, prejudiced, nor had any preconceptions as I read it.
Then I respectfully submit that you re-read what you think you read until you get it instead of arriving at a conclusion influenced not by actual content but by the bias, prejudice and pre-conceived notions advanced by 95 percent of the posters on either side of that one.
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
QuoteQuote"imagine."
Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX.
key word: "imagine."
If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue.
Or am I imagining that?
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
QuoteQuoteI generally don't give a damn if my DZO has or hasn't logged 30,000 jumps (by the way, to my knowledge Bill does NOT have his jumps counter-sogned and if so his logs are every bit as BS as your skygod's books).
Hey, maybe Bill logs jumps like he fills out aircraft log books ;^)
I think if he had filled out his aircraft (maintenance) logs the way you imply, then there would not be a thread called "FAA to fine Lodi $664,000."
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
QuoteQuoteEvery time a DZO removes the seats from airplanes so more jumpers can be stuffed in, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to save a buck.
Not if it is done correctly.
It cannot be done correctly. If you are not strapped into a real seat the way the aircraft was designed, the risk of injury or death in a crash is greater. Period... all to save a buck by stuffing more people into the a/c than it was designed to carry. FYI, this is a big deal in Japan, where they only let the planes carry as many jumpers as they could carry passengers if the seats were in the plane.
QuoteEvery time a DZO lets someone jump from a plane, s/he puts lives in jeopardy to make a buck.
Not if it is done correctly.
It cannot be done correctly. Whenever we jump from a plane in flight, we're dead until we do something about it. This is like saying letting a kid play in traffic does not put the kid's life in jeopardy if done correctly. If you let someone jump out of your plane, you are enabling them to put their lives in jeopardy,. you are aiding and abetting the putting of their lives in jeopardy.
QuoteDZOs put their own lives in jeopardy too -- every time they crank a plane, fill it with jumpers, and let them jump, whether or not they are physically on any of those planes. If they make a mistake -- and sometimes even when they don't -- their entire lives can be ruined in an instant.
Not if it is done correctly.
LOL. Think how many DZs over the years have been sued out of existence even though they did everything correctly. The reason is simple: To a lawyer, a drop zone operation cannot be done correctly.
QuoteYou see a trend here?
Yes.
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
QuoteQuoteQuote"imagine."
Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX.
key word: "imagine."
If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue.
Or am I imagining that?
http://tsb-bst.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp
I'd call this one a MX issue...and I for one, do see a trend here.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
Quote
To me this part of the post suggests that it's ok to ignore FAA requirements if they are deemed useless. Therefore robinheid by his words is supporting Bill's not maintaining his aircraft according to FAA regulations. If that isn't what robinheid meant then he needs to be more clear in his statements.
What you think I "suggest" is a product of your imagination, not what I actually wrote.
Ergo, any conclusion you draw based on that suggestion is invalid.
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
jacketsdb23 45
Quote
If I recall correctly, Bill did not have an actual MX issue; he had an FAA compliance issue.
Or am I imagining that?
It very likely started with this MX issue... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3732320;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.
Quote
Quote
he is just trying to stir shit.
+1
Indeed, said **** being defined as the unfair, ill-conceived, inaccuracte, fact-challenged, and/or off-topic attacks being made on someone who has contributed and will continue to contribute more to sport parachuting than all his detractors on this thread combined -- times ten.
At least.
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
beowulf 1
QuoteQuote
To me this part of the post suggests that it's ok to ignore FAA requirements if they are deemed useless. Therefore robinheid by his words is supporting Bill's not maintaining his aircraft according to FAA regulations. If that isn't what robinheid meant then he needs to be more clear in his statements.
What you think I "suggest" is a product of your imagination, not what I actually wrote.
Ergo, any conclusion you draw based on that suggestion is invalid.
No, my conclusions were based on what you wrote. I quoted your writing. Try rereading what you wrote and if it wasn't what you meant then revise what you wrote.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I have to call bull shit on this one. I can only find 7 going back to 1995.
Yes it is needed.
Sparky
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites