flyangel2 2 #201 November 2, 2004 QuoteThe US criminal justice system has found that over 67% of first-time offenders punished with jail terms end up back in jail after release. It has also found that the recidivism rate is significantly reduced by mentoring and rehabilitation. Oh Christ John, we are talking about a cypress fire, not murder One more time, if you don't like it, go some where else.May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #202 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe US criminal justice system has found that over 67% of first-time offenders punished with jail terms end up back in jail after release. It has also found that the recidivism rate is significantly reduced by mentoring and rehabilitation. Oh Christ John, we are talking about a cypress fire, not murder One more time, if you don't like it, go some where else. Doesn't bother me except that I think it a suboptimal response for the reasons stated. And the fact that someone CAN go somewhere else is just another reason that it's suboptimal. Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyangel2 2 #203 November 2, 2004 QuoteWhy is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment? What gets me upset is when people that don't run the DZ feel they have a better idea. The DZOs and the managers are the ones who have put in the time, money, and energy to have the DZ. They have final say in what rules and policies are set up. Until you or I owe and operate a DZ, we need to just shut up and follow the rules. If we don't like it, we can go some where else.May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #204 November 2, 2004 >Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment? I think people are not getting exasperated at your opinion, but rather at the fact that you've posted it 12 times so far. At this point I think everyone understands your position, which is a valid one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #205 November 2, 2004 QuoteWhy is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment? I don't think people are upset about you suggesting an alternative to anything. People get upset when you insist that your view is the only enlightened one and all others are "suboptimal". QuoteDoesn't bother me It does "bother" you, it bothers the hell out of you or you would let it go.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #206 November 2, 2004 Quote>Why is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment? I think people are not getting exasperated at your opinion, but rather at the fact that you've posted it 12 times so far. At this point I think everyone understands your position, which is a valid one. Why does Ron insist that I want to do nothing, then, when I've said 12 times already that I think additional training is needed. Maybe I have to say it 13 times!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #207 November 2, 2004 QuoteWhy is it so upsetting that I suggest training as an alternative to punishment? Its not that you sugest training...Its just you call everyone elses plans "Suboptimal", but you never come up with any plan that you think it "Optimal"...You just nit pick others ideas and call them bad, but never offer a sugestion, or action plan to make them better...EVEN WHEN WE ASK YOU. You would rather just bitch about everyone elses plans than do anything about the problem."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
billvon 2,400 #208 November 2, 2004 Last warning for both of you. This is not the place for this kind of crap. I don't care how good your plan is or who said what first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #209 November 3, 2004 QuoteLast warning for both of you. This is not the place for this kind of crap. I don't care how good your plan is or who said what first. I don't see how you can consider what I wrote as an attack...You have said the SAME thing to him. All I want is for John to come up with a plan...Something other than saying more training is needed. He shoots everyones plans down, but never comes up with a plan of his own....I am really interested in what kind of training he thinks is needed that is not already covered. He is a teacher...He knows more about education than I....But saying we need to re-train someone without saying how or what is not an answer. I have yet to see him give any plan or program for training....On this issue or the BSR one. I would REALLY like to see his plan. He is more than qualified to come up with one. I'm sorry if you think I am bashing him...But he IS the expert on education here and I really want to hear his plan."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
jerm 0 #210 November 21, 2004 QuoteThere are always ways around being caught in this sport (esp if you are your own rigger). so because people can get around rules we shouldn't have them? Quote And if there wasn't, you will just have people with the rather illogical thought "Hell, I'm not going to get grounded" and turn off their AAD. These are often the types that are bullet proof and get sucked into a dive and distracted. I know you know the type, we've all seen them. i debate this on the grounds that most of the people who get complacent about alti-awareness are the types that won't jump w/o their cypres. As someone said above.. i'd much rather have someone pulling low on purpose.... at least they're prepared for it and likely evaluated things.... QuoteI've seen that, and I also know of DZs that the DZO/S&TA will take anyone. There are some jumpers that post on this board that were banned at a couple DZs and finally found one to jump at, despite the calls. the phrase "go kill yourself on someone else's DZ" comes to mind. Getting frounded at my DZ may not stop them from jumping, but my dz won't be under the microscope if they crater. i know that ultimately we agree on the larger issue, just debating the details. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #211 November 21, 2004 Quote>If you have a CYPRES fire, you are on free time for the rest of your life. I'd have to disagree with that. There are people who pull low because they are trying to avoid someone above them and have a cypres fire. An incident which would have ordinarily resulted in nothing more than an argument over better tracking now becomes a 'cypres save.' certainly, but at issue in the perris case, and most likely in windsor's post (i apologize if this is wrong, W), is the case of the cypres fire due to loss of alti awareness. Sure some people notice at 1200 ft and would probably have had their main inflated before impact and end up with 2 out... but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #212 November 21, 2004 Quote Doesn't bother me except that I think it a suboptimal response for the reasons stated. And the fact that someone CAN go somewhere else is just another reason that it's suboptimal. what bothers me is that the fear of getting grounded is more likely to motivate people to keep better track of their altitude than is the fear of hitting the ground at high-speed. The cypres has removed many people's fear of death. In that regard it's almost a shame the cypres works so well. If a few more people were bouncing due to cypres failures the problem would probably go away pretty quickly. take your pick if you think better awareness or quitting the sport would be the cause, but too much faith in the device is what i believe to be the enabler here. People have already been trained with "don't rely on your cypres, it's a backup, it can fail" then they hear about how it's the only viable AAD cause all the others have problems.... and they hear about all the cypres saves... so they basically get programmed into cypreses not failing. what training would undo this? shall we shart cataloggin cypres failures and keeping it posted at the DZ? Perhaps the plan IS suboptimal, but i have yet to hear a better one. Look at it this way: It can appear that the cypres has effectively negated the consequences of losing altitude awareness. So where's the motivation to keep aware if there are no consequences? Sub-optimal as the plan may be, it provides consequences to the (in)action, and i think it's far superior to lessening the reliability of the cypres in order to make the point. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LiveLifeGoJump 0 #213 November 21, 2004 I have seen a 'Cypres save' (v-close to DZ air space) and I was scared (watching from the ground). When a jumper is that low and still no pull then something has to be done for his own safety. Apart from that no DZ owner/CCI wants the inspections/inquiries etc. that would follow. I think they have every right to introduce rules that they feel appropriate in these situations. I used to jump without AAD (approx 160 jumps) and the lack of AAD did not give me cause for concern. My pull height was approx. 3,000ft if I was at terminal V (lowest was 1,800 on a 2,200 lob). My pull height has not (nor will not) alter now I have Cypres for the following reasons (in that order). 1: Cost of Cypres cutter-reserve repack (and new main/freebag if not found). 2: The thought of terminal V. at 750-800 ft scares me ridgid. 3: I don't want to risk being grounded/banned at my local DZ. 4: I want time to deal with any possible main canopy mal, get stable & dump my reserve myself above Cypres hieght. I was taught that AAD was a backup device (which may fail) to deploy the reserve if you were UNABLE to do so yourself (for whatever reason inc. loss of alti-awareness) but that it was up to me to allow enough time to carry out whatever was necessary to deploy the main and/or reserveand be under canopy before I reached AAD firing altitude. Surely your life is worth more than the FEW SECONDS freefall time gained by dumping low. There will be occasions when it is NECESSARY to pull lower than normal (ie. another jumper tracks above you) but if the low pull is used as an EMERCENCY PROCEDURE to avoid an obvious danger created by others then I don't think the CCI would ground YOU (more likely to ground the jumper that caused the incident). Grounding gives the jumper time to reflect on his/her mistakes and should also include some additional retrain/re-emphasis on alti-awareness. You can't teach them (on the ground) to pull high but you can teach/re-emphasize the reasons to do so (ground school for first jump attempts to teach various skills that are that can only be learnt fully whilst in the air). Does anyone out there want yo jump with (on even on the same lift as) someone with so little regard for their own life? After all, if they are not bothered about their own life, it is unlikly that they are bothered about YOURS either. DZs set rules for everyone's safety (inc. that of those on the ground in the surrounding area who don't want to be hit on the head by a skydiver still in freefall), YOU set the rules for YOUR OWN safety in ADDITION to the DZ's. Get out, Land on a green bit. If you get the pull somewhere in between it would help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #214 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Perhaps the plan IS suboptimal, but i have yet to hear a better one. I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground. Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerm 0 #215 November 21, 2004 Quote I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground. Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month. Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though. The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change? I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness. With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tdog 0 #216 November 21, 2004 QuoteI think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. I disagree – and have an example to prove it. I had a friend who loved to drive at the posted speed limit + 40... Despite what he thought, he was really endangering others and himself as he used all four lanes of the highway during rush hour. But – he had no close calls so he felt invincible. He lost his drivers license for six months (think being grounded for cypress fire). He got his license back (think jumping again). Still had the attitude - I am the best driver on the road - I can handle going faster than others... Got another ticket. This time - "defensive driving" class. (think being instructed, not grounded, for cypress fire) The instructor threw out the typical syllabus and had a heart to heart with the students. Apparently she talked mainly about how easy it is to take someone else's life while driving - and taught the whole class from the perspective of the innocent drivers that get killed by others. I think she had gory pictures and stories from victim’s families. I wish I could have been in that classroom, because some magic must have happened. My friend came out of that class a changed person - and to this day - credits that class for changing his perspective on life. My point, I don’t think the same consequences work for the whole population and the wide array of attitudes (and even ages of participants) out there – so there is no one way to train/punish people who have a cypress fire. If I were the person who had to deal with cypress incidents, I would probably take the options everyone in this thread have offered and put them in a list. I would post the rule that "all cypress fires have serious consequences to be determined by management." When it came time to handle the incident, I would use the option I thought was best for the individual – ranging from “this is not funny, please never come back” to “god, I saw you shake in fear with the view of death in your eyes – lets go back up, and in the plane, tell us all what happened, and tomorrow lets talk about it on the ground.” My two cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #217 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground. Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month. Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though. The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change? I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness. With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education. If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. There is thousands of years worth of evidence that training works in pretty much all human activities. No-one has presented a shred of evidence that grounding improves anyone's attitude. Grounding may breed more resentment than attitude adjustment in type "A" personalities.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerm 0 #218 November 21, 2004 Quote If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that. I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire. I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding. Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences. You can try to pre-emptively train people, but i've found that outside of low-timers who know they need it, the people who really need the training are they ones who don't show up to safety day, don't go to the free seminars on the DZ and already know what they need to know. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #219 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that. I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire. I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding. Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences. Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #220 November 21, 2004 I imagine that "what will work" is going to depend on what the cause of the problem was in the first place and on the jumper's attitude. A person losing altitude awareness because he/she's focused on something else and doesn't multitask well is different from the jumper whose cypres fires because he wanted to turn that last point and pulled too low, despite remaining aware of his altitude. If I were the dzo, I don't think I'd want to become a psychotherapist for a bunch of jumpers, trying to figure out what mental process caused the f-up or how I might be even *more* helpful in keeping them safe from themselves. I think making a policy like this basically says, "figure it out yourselves!" IMHO that's a pretty good approach. Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #221 November 21, 2004 > but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerm 0 #222 November 21, 2004 Quote Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work. because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal. I agree that they should get the training. that's good after the fact, but it's not a deterrent. you plan sound good for people who've done it, the time-off is supposed to get people more aware before it's done. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LiveLifeGoJump 0 #223 November 21, 2004 Quote 30 days off is a pretty big deal. *** In parts of the UK a 30 day grounding would only miss 1 jump day (or 3 in a GOOD month). seriously though. ALL of the following TOGETHER may work Grounding re-emphasis on posible dangers of low pulls (to self & others) during ban days. Instructor evaluated jumps after ban LOG BOOK ENTRY by CCI (log book entry not allowed, no jumping a that DZ EVER) Money is no object to some but bans can be enforced at that centre (even at all centres is necessary & justified due to a relatively low number of DZs that are easy to contact via e-mail/fax etc. Get out, Land on a green bit. If you get the pull somewhere in between it would help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #224 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work. because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal. . Well, I disagree. You can go jump elsewhere during a grounding from 1 DZ. If they say you have do make 3 coached jumps before you can jump there again, then you either do it or don't go there again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #225 November 21, 2004 Quote> but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low. Bill, Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a guess on your part. Kallend, Have you ever had to remove someone from one of your classes for disruptive behavior? Or maybe I should put it this way. Has there ever been a student in one of your classes who's behavior affected the other students in a negative way and should have been removed? Agreed is spelled with an "r". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 9 of 10 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jerm 0 #215 November 21, 2004 Quote I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground. Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month. Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though. The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change? I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness. With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #216 November 21, 2004 QuoteI think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. I disagree – and have an example to prove it. I had a friend who loved to drive at the posted speed limit + 40... Despite what he thought, he was really endangering others and himself as he used all four lanes of the highway during rush hour. But – he had no close calls so he felt invincible. He lost his drivers license for six months (think being grounded for cypress fire). He got his license back (think jumping again). Still had the attitude - I am the best driver on the road - I can handle going faster than others... Got another ticket. This time - "defensive driving" class. (think being instructed, not grounded, for cypress fire) The instructor threw out the typical syllabus and had a heart to heart with the students. Apparently she talked mainly about how easy it is to take someone else's life while driving - and taught the whole class from the perspective of the innocent drivers that get killed by others. I think she had gory pictures and stories from victim’s families. I wish I could have been in that classroom, because some magic must have happened. My friend came out of that class a changed person - and to this day - credits that class for changing his perspective on life. My point, I don’t think the same consequences work for the whole population and the wide array of attitudes (and even ages of participants) out there – so there is no one way to train/punish people who have a cypress fire. If I were the person who had to deal with cypress incidents, I would probably take the options everyone in this thread have offered and put them in a list. I would post the rule that "all cypress fires have serious consequences to be determined by management." When it came time to handle the incident, I would use the option I thought was best for the individual – ranging from “this is not funny, please never come back” to “god, I saw you shake in fear with the view of death in your eyes – lets go back up, and in the plane, tell us all what happened, and tomorrow lets talk about it on the ground.” My two cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #217 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote I suggested having additional instruction as an alternative. Say, requiring 3 - 5 jumps with an instructor in which altitude awareness drills are performed. No audible allowed, maybe even no visual altimeter, just keeping track of time and the ground. Explain how that is not better than just sitting on the ground for a month. Maybe it is..... so long as the person has to pay for their jump AND the instructor's. Money can be a motivating factor and provide them with consqeuences, to their actions. I still don't think it'll hit them as hard as sitting down, though. The problem that i see with it is that it'd be quite easy for people to rationalize these as training jumps and pay extra attention cause they have an evaluator and no audible. Sure they can perform under supervision, but where's the incentive to really change? I think it's more about attitude. Driver's ed is not gonna stop people from going back out and speeding. The threat of 30 days (enforceable) suspension if they get caught just might. As i said above, i think downtime re-institutes consequences for losing awareness. With most breakoffs at 4-5k, a cypres fire due to unawareness is a HUGE fuckup, and needs an aittitude adjustment, not just education. If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. There is thousands of years worth of evidence that training works in pretty much all human activities. No-one has presented a shred of evidence that grounding improves anyone's attitude. Grounding may breed more resentment than attitude adjustment in type "A" personalities.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #218 November 21, 2004 Quote If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that. I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire. I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding. Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences. You can try to pre-emptively train people, but i've found that outside of low-timers who know they need it, the people who really need the training are they ones who don't show up to safety day, don't go to the free seminars on the DZ and already know what they need to know. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #219 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote If you really believe that sitting on your backside is better than training, why do we bother to have instructors at all? Learn to skydive by sitting down and thinking for a month. Much cheaper than AFF. That's not what i'm saying and you know it. You should go into politics with debate logic like that. I'm considering what is more likely to produce results BEFORE they have a cypres fire. I'm not saying there shouldn't be training, i'm saying that the threat of training is less likely to keep people aware than the threat of grounding. Sure people should receive coaching IF THEY HAVE a cypres fire, however i would rather people not have them in the first place. So how do we deter people from performing the reckless behavior? Set up rules with consequences. Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #220 November 21, 2004 I imagine that "what will work" is going to depend on what the cause of the problem was in the first place and on the jumper's attitude. A person losing altitude awareness because he/she's focused on something else and doesn't multitask well is different from the jumper whose cypres fires because he wanted to turn that last point and pulled too low, despite remaining aware of his altitude. If I were the dzo, I don't think I'd want to become a psychotherapist for a bunch of jumpers, trying to figure out what mental process caused the f-up or how I might be even *more* helpful in keeping them safe from themselves. I think making a policy like this basically says, "figure it out yourselves!" IMHO that's a pretty good approach. Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #221 November 21, 2004 > but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #222 November 21, 2004 Quote Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work. because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal. I agree that they should get the training. that's good after the fact, but it's not a deterrent. you plan sound good for people who've done it, the time-off is supposed to get people more aware before it's done. Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LiveLifeGoJump 0 #223 November 21, 2004 Quote 30 days off is a pretty big deal. *** In parts of the UK a 30 day grounding would only miss 1 jump day (or 3 in a GOOD month). seriously though. ALL of the following TOGETHER may work Grounding re-emphasis on posible dangers of low pulls (to self & others) during ban days. Instructor evaluated jumps after ban LOG BOOK ENTRY by CCI (log book entry not allowed, no jumping a that DZ EVER) Money is no object to some but bans can be enforced at that centre (even at all centres is necessary & justified due to a relatively low number of DZs that are easy to contact via e-mail/fax etc. Get out, Land on a green bit. If you get the pull somewhere in between it would help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #224 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work. because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal. . Well, I disagree. You can go jump elsewhere during a grounding from 1 DZ. If they say you have do make 3 coached jumps before you can jump there again, then you either do it or don't go there again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #225 November 21, 2004 Quote> but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low. Bill, Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a guess on your part. Kallend, Have you ever had to remove someone from one of your classes for disruptive behavior? Or maybe I should put it this way. Has there ever been a student in one of your classes who's behavior affected the other students in a negative way and should have been removed? Agreed is spelled with an "r". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 9 of 10 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,623 #224 November 21, 2004 QuoteQuote Explain how saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to make 3 altitude awareness training jumps with an instructor before we let you jump here again" is not a consequence and won't work, but saying "If you have a CYPRES fire you will have to sit on the ground for a month before we let you jump here again" is a consequence and will work. because 3 training jumps is a minor inconvenience and 30 days off is a pretty big deal. . Well, I disagree. You can go jump elsewhere during a grounding from 1 DZ. If they say you have do make 3 coached jumps before you can jump there again, then you either do it or don't go there again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #225 November 21, 2004 Quote> but the people with only their reserve from the cypres cutter? borrowed time, no question. Ageed, but they make up only about 5-10% of all cypres fires. Most cypres fires happen when people open their main or reserve too low. Bill, Do you have any wide based study to back up this statement or are you going by just the ones you have seen. 5-10% sounds like a guess on your part. Kallend, Have you ever had to remove someone from one of your classes for disruptive behavior? Or maybe I should put it this way. Has there ever been a student in one of your classes who's behavior affected the other students in a negative way and should have been removed? Agreed is spelled with an "r". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
