0
SkydiveJack

FAA to fine Lodi $664,000

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

CAN NOT WAIT for my ass to jump 10 times for 100 bucks..



I hope the plane does not crash....


Me too. Of course what are the odds that a control cable will fail? Ask the people that were on the Twin Otter in San Diego a couple years back. Cool heads and a shit hot pilot are all that saved them from being a big grease spot, and that was on an airplane that was getting good maintenance.

What are the odds the wings come off? Ask the fire crew of a C-130 from a couple years back.

I'm still waiting to see someone actually defend Bill for putting lives in jeopardy to save a buck.


I'll defend Bill -- and every other DZO.

Every 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.

DZOs 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.

Running a drop zone is the very definition of risky business and DZOs should all be appreciated for their willingness to accept those risks, including Bill Dause, who has, in fact, and indisputably, contributed much to sport parachuting over many years -- much more than his detractors suggest, though probably less than his defenders claim.

And JP, we all know exactly how you feel about Bill, but you really ought to consider dropping the polemics because you're not very good at it.

How would the people on the San Diego Twin Otter have any more clue about "the odds that a control cable will fail" than anybody else who hasn't researched all the previous failures and compared them to the number of airplanes and flights and all the rest of the math and stats that go into that calculation? All they have is direct experience about how it feels when said cable fails.

And, D'OH! you just shot your entire argument right between the eyes because you said the cables failed on an aircraft that was, in fact, "getting good maintenance."

So, you know, if a plane getting good maintenance still has a cable failure, then, uh... why exactly is everybody acting like Bill was dripping acid on everybody's leg straps? Seems 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.

:o


Your C-130 reference is even more hysterical: Not only do you repeat your "ask them what the odds are" silliness, you repeat it in terms of a completely different aircraft, with completely different issues, that was engaging in high-G maneuvers at extremely low altitudes in between mountains -- not exactly the kind of operations performed by jump planes or in any way relevant to this discussion. You may as well wonder about the odds that the wheels are going to come off that poorly maintained -- or well-maintained-- tractor trailer next to you on the 99 freeway as you drive to Lodi so your ass can jump 10 times for 100 bucks...

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And, D'OH! you just shot your entire argument right between the eyes because you said the cables failed on an aircraft that was, in fact, "getting good maintenance."



Yes, now imagine the much higher chance of a plane having an issue when it is not "getting good MX"
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that because what we do is dangerous, we shouldn't expect or require maintenance to be kept up to federal and manufactures specs seems off base.

We've come a long way to make this crazy thing we do somewhat reasonable and predictable in the risks and dangers we experience. Writing off this type of thing because we are in a dangerous sport and dangerous business is moving backwards (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all those risks that you have outlined for a DZO, the smart DZO's would make sure their planes are well maintained in order to minimize the risk. Your apparent belief that complying with the FAA mandated maintenance isn't necessary since Skydiving is a risky business doesn't make any sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The idea that because what we do is dangerous, we shouldn't expect or require maintenance to be kept up to federal and manufactures specs seems off base.



Didn't say that.


Quote

We've come a long way to make this crazy thing we do somewhat reasonable and predictable in the risks and dangers we experience. Writing off this type of thing because we are in a dangerous sport and dangerous business is moving backwards (IMO).



Didn't do that.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

including Bill Dause, who has, in fact, and indisputably, contributed much to sport parachuting over many years -- much more than his detractors suggest, though probably less than his defenders claim.



Please specify exactly what Bill has contributed to sport parachuting over the years. I keep seeing that statement, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any supporting facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

With all those risks that you have outlined for a DZO, the smart DZO's would make sure their planes are well maintained in order to minimize the risk.



Concur.

Quote

Your apparent belief that complying with the FAA mandated maintenance isn't necessary since Skydiving is a risky business doesn't make any sense at all.



That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Your apparent belief that complying with the FAA mandated maintenance isn't necessary since Skydiving is a risky business doesn't make any sense at all.



That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold.



But you will still defend Bill for not complying with the FAA? It makes perfect sense B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And JP, we all know exactly how you feel about Bill,



Then you understand how I feel about you and your opinion. And when I want the opinion of someone who has done nothing but take, and hasn't contributed anything worthwhile to this sport, I'll let you know.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

including Bill Dause, who has, in fact, and indisputably, contributed much to sport parachuting over many years -- much more than his detractors suggest, though probably less than his defenders claim.



Please specify exactly what Bill has contributed to sport parachuting over the years. I keep seeing that statement, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any supporting facts.


You 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?

You 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?

Other than that, no, I can't think of any supporting facts.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold.




But that is the way your post came across. I was not the only one who came to that conclusion. Maybe you need to rethink what you wrote.


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.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And JP, we all know exactly how you feel about Bill,



Then you understand how I feel about you and your opinion. And when I want the opinion of someone who has done nothing but take, and hasn't contributed anything worthwhile to this sport, I'll let you know.


Thank you, Your Majesty. Please do tell me when you start talking to yourself.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Quote

Your apparent belief that complying with the FAA mandated maintenance isn't necessary since Skydiving is a risky business doesn't make any sense at all.



That is neither the conclusion I drew nor the belief I hold.



But you will still defend Bill for not complying with the FAA? It makes perfect sense B|


Not defending Bill for not complying.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And, D'OH! you just shot your entire argument right between the eyes because you said the cables failed on an aircraft that was, in fact, "getting good maintenance."



Yes, now imagine the much higher chance of a plane having an issue when it is not "getting good MX"


key word:

"imagine."

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So he ran a business and logged his jumps. That is what sets him up on a pedestal of the 'Greatest Contributor to Skydiving?'



No, and who set him up on a pedestal of the 'Greatest Contributor to Skydiving?'


Quote

What has he done for skydiving as an industry and not for personal gain or record keeping?



Barry, is that you?

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Please specify exactly what Bill has contributed to sport parachuting over the years. I keep seeing that statement, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any supporting facts.



Other than that, no, I can't think of any supporting facts.



FYI:
Bill Dause was on the USPA Board of Directors and served on the R&D Comm.
That comm routinely studied new and existing equipment that came out.
Results were published in Parachutist.
I'd have to go pull mags to get the exacts dates, which I don't feel like doing right now.
To say that Bill Dause has not contributed anything to the sum total of skydiving/parachuting knowledge would be incorrect.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Please specify exactly what Bill has contributed to sport parachuting over the years. I keep seeing that statement, but no one ever seems to be able to come up with any supporting facts.



Other than that, no, I can't think of any supporting facts.



FYI:
Bill Dause was on the USPA Board of Directors and served on the R&D Comm.
That comm routinely studied new and existing equipment that came out.
Results were published in Parachutist.
I'd have to go pull mags to get the exacts dates, which I don't feel like doing right now.
To say that Bill Dause has not contributed anything the the sum total of skydiving/parachuting knowledge would be incorrect.

.

+1

LOL

I was being sarcastic, of course, because the two things I listed are by themselves significant contributions; I just couldn't think of any more at that moment -- including his service on the BOD.

B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Every 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Every 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.


I wonder if the Martin 404 that flew at the WFFC back in the 90's is still flying? It had all the seats inside that we sat on before jumping out of the tiny poop chute. :P
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You 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?

B|



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....

Quote

You 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


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.

B|



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.
POPS #10623; SOS #1672

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"imagine."



Not hard to imagine that a DZ that skips MX could have more MX issues than a DZ that does the proper MX.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0