nathaniel 0 #26 January 16, 2005 Quote These are not people I would want on the road with me. You don't have to share the road with them, you can stay at home. Or just keep a safe distance. Quote What's wrong with that requirement? Well, for starters, it's off topic . Just about all the BSR proposals have included some way of testing out, either through experience or through some sort of test.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #27 January 16, 2005 QuoteThese are not people I would want on the road with me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteYou don't have to share the road with them, you can stay at home. Or just keep a safe distance. Really? I work for a living and really in NJ driving is not an option. If you want to live and work, you must drive. How would you feel about this if some ass killed someone you know because they were too cheap to get brakes?? Don't brakes save lives? ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION? QuoteWhat's wrong with that requirement? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteWell, for starters, it's off topic . Just about all the BSR proposals have included some way of testing out, either through experience or through some sort of test It's not off topic. It is the first word IN THE TOPIC. My name is Jason Upchurch and I skydive at Crosskeys in NJ and have a total of 30 jumps. I don't know anything about your jump numbers or rating so I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. Let me know if you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #28 January 16, 2005 QuoteMy name is Jason Upchurch and I skydive at Crosskeys in NJ and have a total of 30 jumps. I don't know anything about your jump numbers or rating so I'm not sure what angle you're coming from. Let me know if you can. Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #29 January 16, 2005 Quote Don't brakes save lives? ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION? Brakes save lives by comparison to how many people would die if they attempted to drive the same way except for not having brakes. But that's not a fair comparison, people wouldn't drive the same way if they didn't have brakes. What brakes do, essentially, is allow you to drive differently (ie, faster, and closer to other cars). You should not expect all people would fly their canopies the same way if they were required to buy a canopy that performs differently from the one they'd have purchased without restriction. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #30 January 16, 2005 Quote Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day. Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards. Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #31 January 16, 2005 QuoteQuote Some people seem more comfortable being a noise from the dark rather than a voice in the light of day. Some people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards. Come to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like. nathaniel I agree that what happened to PK was inexcusable. But if you are not doing something wrong in the first place the villain has no leverage. I give them my home address and tell them to bring it on. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #32 January 16, 2005 QuoteSome people live lives that are vulnerable to the types of villains that are known to patrol these boards. I appreciate what you are saying. There are malicious people all around and the internet is no exception. I was only asking about your jump numbers so that I can better assess what group you're coming from. No personal information requested really. I just noticed that it's people in my category that seem to be disagreeing with the idea of a WL BSR (i.e. those that would be required to show the proficiency before a high WL). If you were 1,000 plus (or grandfathered as one of the proposals suggests) then this would put you in the minority. What is the motive for opposing a BSR? Those for the BSR are promoting saving lives. The only opposition seems to be money. Even then there is a "test-out" proposal floating out there as well. I wouldn't care if it costs more money to skydive. I have a will and therefore a way. QuoteCome to Chicago when it's warm & I'll jump with you if you doubt my integrity, or perhaps I'll look you up next time I'm in your vicinity, if you like. This is awesome and a true testament to the community of this sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #33 January 17, 2005 just curious....what about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs? we are very safety concious at my home DZ but not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age). i jump a sabre 190 w/l @ about 1.2 - never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy (recommended to me by my coaches, the DZO and the S&TAs). wouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #34 January 17, 2005 Quotewouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs? That is a whole other issue altogether. I can't think of a single DZ that follows all the BSR's. Look at the poll in the Instructors forum. The vast majority feel DZO's put $ ahead of safety. The problem is USPA gets it's $ from jumpers that are required to have membership by the DZO's. This puts USPA's purse strings in the hands of DZO's. So if USPA does something that DZO's don't like, they can pull the strings and cut off USPA. So you have the orgasnization that is making and enforcing the rules being control by the people they are supposed to be regulating. IOW, the fox is guarding the henhouse. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crewkeith 0 #35 January 17, 2005 there are a lot of people out there with lots of money that make lots of jumps and learn nothing and listen to no one. what about the ones with 300 jumps that still frap in every jump but now they can do it with a smaller canopy cause they have the numbers to get it ??? education. .The skies are no longer safe I'm back Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #36 January 17, 2005 Quotethere are a lot of people out there with lots of money that make lots of jumps and learn nothing and listen to no one. what about the ones with 300 jumps that still frap in every jump but now they can do it with a smaller canopy cause they have the numbers to get it ??? Hence the proficiency card. Not just jump numbers but more an evaluation. It's not foolproof. Any fool can still manage to kill themselves despite the best efforts of others to prevent it. I see people trying to solve a problem and I'm on board with that. I like the jump number idea with respect to the WL ratio but a liscence requirement and attention to the hook turns should be considered as well. Again, from someone who has never attempted a hp landing with a high WL ratio Quoteeducation. zactly. jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #37 January 17, 2005 Quotejust curious....what about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs? we are very safety concious at my home DZ but not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age). i jump a sabre 190 w/l @ about 1.2 - never had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy (recommended to me by my coaches, the DZO and the S&TAs). wouldnt a minimum w/l BSR just create a run to non-sanctioned DZs? My first two tandem jumps were at a non-USPA sanctioned DZ. With that said, I don't know hwo this USPA BSR would affect non-USPA-sanctioned DZ's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 January 17, 2005 Quote Money should never be opposite saftey. Period. Well, clearly money is part of the equation. Everyone has explained to me that the cost of losing USPA membership is not an acceptable price of the BSR, hence safety will be sacrified in the name of grandfathering. Raising the cost of an A license by X dollars will result in the loss of Y new jumpers. It may be *only* 10%, could be less, could be more. But there's no shortage of people posting here that can only do a jump or two at a time. Often they're advised to save their money up to do the training in a shorter time frame. Some of them will be lost with any incremental increase in the student costs. Even for those that still make it through, that extra money may translate into money that doesn't go to manufacturers. They may gain in more frequent canopy/container sales, but I suspect otherwise. So let's stick to reality - money does matter and must be considered when you hit diminishing returns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 January 17, 2005 Quote Part of the problem is the ones you mentioned could give a shit less about someone else. To the ones you mentioned in your first paragraph its all about "me". They feel they should not have to earn anything, everything is their right. Fuck it, let Darwin have them. The deserve each other. I am sick and tired of debating death with some punk who can't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight. So in giving me a backhanding compliment about my debating ability, you suggested I only harped on the negatives. And yet, all you've done is bitch that low timers aren't qualified to talk. In short, nothing constructive at all, just sanctioned personal attacks. This approach has cowed many people into silence on this topic, but is hardly a form of leadership. I'm suppose to respect this? And if your drive is based on intense personal experiences, rather than objective thinking, how are you different from the mom that wrote "Jumping Through Clouds?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 January 17, 2005 Quote I agree that what happened to PK was inexcusable. But if you are not doing something wrong in the first place the villain has no leverage. I give them my home address and tell them to bring it on. Like when his Ex called the police on him and had his firearms taken away? Even on an unfounded charge, the damage is already done before the target can defend himself. I hadn't even realized what happened - in light of that I agree with Nathaniel. We got too many people here who can't be trusted to play nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #41 January 17, 2005 You are a smart dude....I'll jump with you anytime."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #42 January 17, 2005 Quoteeducation. Yep that is THE answer. I would like to see a program in place that MAKES people get that education. And then PROVE they can handle and apply it before they are allowed to try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #43 January 17, 2005 Quotewhat about those of us that jump at non-sanctioned DZs? not all BSRs are followed (actually all are except the minimum age) Non USPA DZ's follow the BSR's (partially) in an attempt to adhere to the 'standard industry practice'. In the case of a lawsuit, you can avoid neglegence claims by folowing 'standard indusrty practice'. If you do it the way every other DZ, as well as the USPA reccomends, the injured party was a victim of bad luck, and as outlined in the waiver, skydiving is dangerous, and you are choosing to make a jump of your own free will. Why your DZ is soft on the age policy, I don't know (most likely to attract more students, and thier money). Whatever the case may, be a WL BSR doens;t present a financial advantage or disadvatage to the DZO. Additionally, the presence of a Wl BSR sends a message to students and newbies that this is a valid area of concern, and if your DZ enforces it or not, it is worthy of some consideration when selecting your canopies. Quotenever had a standup landing until i jumped that canopy This is a function of your training, as well as the canopies you had been previously jumping, and not related to WL. If your student canopies were clapped out F-111 (like mnay student canopies), you would be hard pressed to have a nice landing on them. If you were given a Sabre 210 (as opposed to your 190) I'm sure that would have wroked just fine for you as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #44 January 17, 2005 >Pro WL BSR folks are barking up the wrong tree in their attempt to > prevent these landing injuries. People who make hard turns at low > altitude (via riser or toggle) have much more potential for injury > than those who fly the canopy straight in . . . . Ah, but people who CAN turn low have a much lower potential for injury. A very large percentage of injuries occur to people who never hook turn (and thus don't know how) who try to turn low. Someone who had a little flat-turn education is not at as much rish. > Answer: Continue on your current path. Everyone tells students that. No one does it. It's like telling people to go to their reserve if they ever get low - they just won't do it unless they PRACTICE it. >Jumpers need a healthy fear of turns at low altitude instead of new > WL restrictions. No panic turns. No HP turns until they've passed a > training course. Will you ban them from the DZ after they make a panic turn and kill themselves? BSR's that are really only enforceable after someone is seriously injured or killed aren't that useful. If they were useful, we'd just have a BSR that said "do not get seriously injured or killed" and the problem would go away. If anything, prohibiting people from practicing low turns will lead to less educated jumpers and therefore more fatalities from people turning too low without knowing how. Education is the only thing that can solve this problem, and a wing loading BSR is a good way to force them to _get_ that education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #45 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteBecause the way I see it, it's those that want to downsize to an aggressive WL ratio that also want the hp landings. Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings". "Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). Arguments in favor of additional restrictions are full of untested assumptions like people who downsize are the ones doing the hook turns, this matters to me because it's my choices they seek to restrict and they've never seen me fly a canopy or discussed my safety choices or thought processes. Even if some of these assumptions were true the outcome of a wing loading chart for example may be counter productive, if someone is getting bored with their 1.0 loaded canopy are they more likely or less to try a low level turn? All sorts of red herrings are thrown in here like inability to do flat turns to justify inappropriate training. I can play that game too: Most people bounce because they intentionally turn low and screw up. You can do that on any canopy and have a bad day and you're more likely to do it if you're not getting what you want from the canopy you're flying because some canopy nazi has taken the fun from an important part of your chosen sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisgr 0 #46 January 17, 2005 What do you define as ‘higher performance’ canopies? What do you consider to be ‘inappropriate training’? Most people who favor the proposals do not wish to restrict your choices without giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your abilities. The proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #47 January 17, 2005 >Money should never be opposite saftey. Period. It always is. Does Perris have a VR canopy simulator? Do they have all their students spend 20 minutes in the tunnel before their first release dive? Does Perris (or any DZ) maintain their aircraft to part-121 standards? Is there a guy who stands in the main landing area all day to make sure the tetrahedron is always pointing in the right direction, to help prevent traffic problems? The reason DZ's don't do the things above is because they are expensive and inconvenient. The trick is finding a balance that's safe enough while being cheap enough to be practical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #48 January 17, 2005 QuoteWhat do you define as ‘higher performance’ canopies? This is exactly why I put it in quotes. It's an ambiguous term but higher speed and more responsive to control input would do for now. Quote What do you consider to be ‘inappropriate training’? Training with the good intention of improving safety that doesn't address the skills shortages or attitudes that actually lead to the majority of fatalities that are used to 'sell' the training requirement. I like Fineman's example so let me borrow it. If you want to get rich you might study rich people and after a lengthy process observe that rich people tend take a lot of shirts to the dry cleaners. You might then conclude that to get rich you need only send a bunch of shirts to be dry cleaned each week. It is obviously an incorrect conclusion. Unfortunately this is about the level of science being applied to BSRs on canopy sizes (as one example), especially when they are set conservatively and the outcome may be counter productive when you wind up boring jumpers who want to progress. Quote Most people who favor the proposals do not wish to restrict your choices without giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your abilities. The proposals recommend that a qualified instructor watches and evaluates your CC skills and ‘discusses your safety choices and thought processes’. If you can demonstrate your skills and pass the evaluation, you can fly your canopy of choice. That's not what a conservative wing loading chart based on a single metric (jump numbers) represents nor how it will be applied to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #49 January 17, 2005 Ah....the ignorance of the selfish generation......me me me me me.....its all about self..... Listen up mate.....most people bounce on good canopies because they do stupid things low down without leaving themselves any margin for error..... We all want to have fun, but there are limits, from the time you begin your 1st jump training, till you do 100, 1000, 10000 jumps.....no one is "free" to do everything they want without restriction.....life just ain't like that.....for anyone..... I've never had "fun" dealing with death and injury, because its MY job AND responsibility to prevent that happening.....and it sure does spoil my day, week, month or year even..... Most of the "canopy Nazi's" are jumpers who have as much right to enjoy their skydiving as you do, however part of their responsibilities involve keeping people safe on the DZ, failure to do that means that ultimately, DZ's would be forced to close. Operating a DZ means complying with a myriad of laws, all of which are imposed by outside agencies.....CAA, State, and Federal laws......and DZ's don't just exist by accident.......it is damn hard work, and it never ends.......failure to comply means shutdown...... Where are you gonna jump then????..... Bad PR can kill a DZ easily.....and the media just love to jump on skydiving as a source of headlines.......people don't want to come to a DZ with a bad safety record.....whether its the DZ's fault or not...... I want to protect my sport, my livelihood, and that of my 25 staff, so we can continue to enjoy, and let others enjoy our passion far into the future......also my huge investment in aircraft, equipment and facilities means a lot to me......... If you choose to threaten all that because you refuse to accept my advice or instruction, and you are stupid, irresponsible, or just plain careless, then you are not welcome at my DZ...... You want freedom to do what you want???.....go start your own DZ........ All we're trying to do is to make it happen SAFELY for everyone.....even you..... Calling concerned people "Nazis" is way out of line......and if you did it to my face, I'd punch you in the mouth......My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #50 January 18, 2005 "Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). (quote) Do you want to buy my stiletto 107 it's for sale cheap should be a lot of fun for you.... ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)