Designer 0 #1 July 8, 2005 Last week I complained about what I saw as "Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight".This week after hearing the extremely sad news about the CK incident,I can only suggest one other answer.Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"?We are not the military,we know our friends will die if any little situation presents itself into a potential disaster.We are supposed to know were everybody is,correct?The more in the air the higher the percentage of possible disaster!I'm all about separate landing areas for 100-ways(just ask TK)separate landing areas for swoopers.Who cares if you have to walk,again you are not safe until your back in the packing area.Unless of course some damn fool tries to swoop the hanger(packing tent),which we know has happened.Thinking caps on,flame on thought and solutions only please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #2 July 8, 2005 Humans are inherently fallible. This is something we have to fight against with preparation and training and so forth. An example of preparation is having a set landing direction for a load. But humans also have egos and are fun- or thrill-seeking. Skydivers especially. This can work against preparation and training sometimes. I don't think we can ever get skydiver perfection. We can perform planned stunts that will cause less or more risk and individual jumpers can act in ways that are less or more careful on each jump. Is it possible to draw a line? And if so, where would we draw it? -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #3 July 8, 2005 >Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"? Yes, because each individual skydiver accepts "acceptable risk." The solution to this particular problem is simple - no high performance approaches in the main area, no turns greater than 90 in the pattern. We regularly landed 380+ people with rules like these in Thailand with zero problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #4 July 8, 2005 QuoteWe can perform planned stunts that will cause less or more risk and individual jumpers can act in ways that are less or more careful on each jump. Landing a canopy after a normal skydive is not a stunt, it is a necessity for survival. And individual jumpers who land their canopy in a way that endangers others should not be tolerated. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #5 July 8, 2005 Quote Landing a canopy after a normal skydive is not a stunt, it is a necessity for survival. And individual jumpers who land their canopy in a way that endangers others should not be tolerated. Sparky I don't think we are seeing the same thing in the first entry in this post. I saw a general complaint about bodycounts/bonecounts in skydiving and an accusation that we know what things are hazardous or contribute to danger, but we still go ahead - we do bigways, we load large planefuls of people with different ideas of landing patterns, we swoop, we have multiple planes in the air at a time, we land near the packing area, etc.. I didn't mean to say that landing a canopy after a normal skydive is a stunt. (Unless it's a swoop. Doubly if there are gates. Triply if the purpose of the load wasn't primarily canopy flight.) And before someone jumps on me for calling a bigway a stunt, defending them by saying the people go to extraordinary lengths to plan for safety and pledge to each person act in a safe manner: that's the preparation and training part I was talking about, which we use to counter the increased danger of doing crazy sh*t like putting so many people in one place in freefall. The last thing I wrote was we can't draw a line and say "this side is safe, and this side is not safe." This extends from the fact we can't quantify the risk increase of each action and we can't quantify the risk amelioration of each preparatory or training measure in order to put them together and decide whether something is sufficiently unlikely to cause injury or death to ourselves or others. We certainly can't do this with precision and speed while in the air when we decide there's "enough room" between us and the second guy down in order to spice up the landing a bit. Instead we ground review, we don't do things that appear super-dangerous unless we have some good excuses, we add preparation and training wherever we can (and sometimes that falls by the wayside when we don't want to spend the time/money or miss the load), and we make in-air decisions using our gut and eyes which make mistakes. And in all that, we don't have hard lines. -=-=-=- Footnote: when I say "crazy sh*t" I mean that in an appreciative way. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #6 July 8, 2005 Quote>Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"? Yes, because each individual skydiver accepts "acceptable risk." I diagree. It's probably semantics but I don't think there are any acceptable losses, but there will always be mistakes made. Quote The solution to this particular problem is simple - no high performance approaches in the main area, no turns greater than 90 in the pattern. We regularly landed 380+ people with rules like these in Thailand with zero problems. True, but not realistic.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #7 July 8, 2005 >It's probably semantics but I don't think there are any acceptable >losses, but there will always be mistakes made. If we didn't accept the risk of getting killed we wouldn't jump tiny canopies and BASE jump. You can't accept a risk and then not accept the results of taking that risk (although we certainly try to avoid them.) >True, but not realistic. It's been done quite often. It's not as much fun, which is why it's not done all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 July 8, 2005 QuoteIf we didn't accept the risk of getting killed we wouldn't jump tiny canopies and BASE jump. Agreed. I just don't see how that translates into the term "Acceptable Losses". Like I said, probably semantics. QuoteYou can't accept a risk and then not accept the results of taking that risk (although we certainly try to avoid them.) Unfortunately way to many new jumpers are doing just this. None of them really BELIEVE that they could die.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #9 July 9, 2005 QuoteThe last thing I wrote was we can't draw a line and say "this side is safe, and this side is not safe." Doing a H/P landing like a 270 in a pattern with other traffic flying a normal down wind, base and final is on the "not safe side". I think that was proven at X-Keys. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #10 July 9, 2005 Quote If we didn't accept the risk of getting killed we wouldn't jump tiny canopies and BASE jump. You can't accept a risk and then not accept the results of taking that risk (although we certainly try to avoid them.) Your right to take risks comes to a screeching halt at the point you crash into me and my canopy at 100 feet off the ground. I'm tired of being endangered by reckless canopy piloting. Edited to say "Hey, Bill, I don't mean 'you' personally." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites johnnyboydan 0 #11 July 9, 2005 I have to agree with Bill on this one. It is true also that when you are final you should not have someone else destory your safe approach. But in a real world Bill is right if you don't want to take that risk you must skydive alone. This is not to say we should not strive for safety. But in all high risk sports it's always there. Just like a race car driver who is crashed into the wall at 200 miles per hour by someone else, before he started the race he knew the risks. We should too.johnnyboy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #12 July 9, 2005 I remember when people didn't get killed under canopy all the time. What was wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #13 July 9, 2005 QuoteI remember when people didn't get killed under canopy all the time. What was wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. But the more I say that the more I get looks like I'm talking about horse 'n buggy days. After a while, I grow weary of preaching to deaf ears. And to answer the original post: No, I don't consider all these losses under canopy to be "acceptable". In fact, landing fatalities under "prefectly good canopies" was probably the biggest culture shock I experienced when I returned to the sport after a long hiatus. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. There's a difference between appreciation / assumption of the risk, and accepting preventable losses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #14 July 9, 2005 QuoteI have to agree with Bill on this one. It is true also that when you are final you should not have someone else destory your safe approach. But in a real world Bill is right if you don't want to take that risk you must skydive alone. This is not to say we should not strive for safety. But in all high risk sports it's always there. Just like a race car driver who is crashed into the wall at 200 miles per hour by someone else, before he started the race he knew the risks. We should too. We are not racecar drivers and this is not a race. If someone wants to fly their canopy in a manner that is a risk to others, they should be the ones to skydive alone. Of course there is risk in skydiving but that risk should be of my choosing not what someone else thinks is acceptable. If I am on final approach at 100 feet and get taken out by someone doing a H/P landing, that is unacceptable. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Designer 0 #15 July 9, 2005 Thanks everybody!I have to agree with Bill also.Acceptable Risk does come with Acceptable Loses.It just sounds "Bad" saying it that way.The Idea that mistakes will be made and that we need to try to minimize those mistakes is 1 answer.Or, take other people out of the flying in my zone to land safe all the time.As much as I hate it sometimes,I must jump alone to protect myself these days.Sad isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites itllclear 1 #16 July 9, 2005 QuoteQuote If I am on final approach at 100 feet and get taken out by someone doing a H/P landing, that is unacceptable. Sparky Mike- It takes two to have a collision. If you know where the swoopers are doing their thing (usually in the main landing area so everyone can see them) don't land there. Tim will get you in the truck. If you don't like landing somewhere else, talk to the DZO about setting and enforcing separate landing areas. If the DZO won't, you have two choices, land out safely and walk, or jump somewhere else. Bill asked: "Harry, why did you land all the way out there. Nobody else did." Harry answered: "Bill, your second sentence answered your question." BSBD Harry P.S. Doesn't the Ghetto need another bird bath?"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #17 July 11, 2005 QuoteIt takes two to have a collision. But it only take one to cause a collision. You can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. And it does not change the fact that getting taken out by someone doing a H/P landing is unacceptable. Sparky Harry, Thanks for the good work this weekend. A/P owner thought is was great.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloud9 0 #18 July 11, 2005 You know if you just think for a minute, this is a fact of our sociality. Of course there are acceptable losses. Every year there are over 50,000 people killed in car wrecks. While we try to lower the figure we continue to drive. There are people that die in swimming pools, foot ball games, and how many die from smoking? We live in an acceptable risk culture why are we surprised when it affects skydiving? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 0 #19 July 11, 2005 QuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #20 July 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also happened in Perris, in the mid 1990s. I watched a hot-shot take-out a guy who had already landed safely. Tore up his knee pretty badly! The hot-shot got grounded for a year! The bottom line is: your freedoms end at the end of my nose. If you want to do high-performance landings, take it to the swoop lane. If you are not willing to take it to the swoop lane, take it to another DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #21 July 11, 2005 QuoteLast week I complained about what I saw as "Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight".This week after hearing the extremely sad news about the CK incident,I can only suggest one other answer.Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"?We are not the military,we know our friends will die if any little situation presents itself into a potential disaster.We are supposed to know were everybody is,correct?The more in the air the higher the percentage of possible disaster!I'm all about separate landing areas for 100-ways(just ask TK)separate landing areas for swoopers.Who cares if you have to walk,again you are not safe until your back in the packing area.Unless of course some damn fool tries to swoop the hanger(packing tent),which we know has happened.Thinking caps on,flame on thought and solutions only please. An experiment was done years ago on a dog. A bell would ring and the floor would momentarily be electrified on one side of the cage. The dog would jump to the other side of the cage which was not electrified. They then would ring the bell and momentarily electrify the floor. The dog would jump to the other side that was not powered. After awhile they would ring the bell and the dog would jump even though the floor was not powered. After a bit of this they would ring the bell and power the floor. But now the floor on the other side was powered on all the time so the dog would jump back where he came from to find that floor too was powered. Eventually, even though being electrocuted, the dog just layed down and took it. This is the attitude we now have in the sport of skydiving today. They are no longer reactive to the electrocution. They just lay down and accept it (well, some fight for a better way despite the odds). Some call it a "cavalier attitude". Some call it "acceptable loses". Some just post "if you're in the sport long enough you'll know someone who dies so get used to it". Some who post on this forum and others believe that there is still another way. We do NOT have to accept these losses. That is what helped motivate me to do a jump pilot website. Has the accident rate gone down? I don't know. We'll only be able to judge this time period when looking back 10 years from now I think. Others may disagree with that view. I had a conversation with Roger Nelson about a week or two before he died. I found myself chatting with him in the middle of his wonderful facility with vibrant, smiling people milling around about a fatality that had happened. We talked dispationately about the accident like we were giving directions to the local gas station. I paused for a moment then said to him "Are we that numb to a person losing their life that we talk about it like this?" His answer was basicly "Yes." We do get numb to the constant barage of fatality / injury info that comes to us. At first it effects us whenever we read about anything bad. Then we begin to only react emotionally if we knew the person well. We just lay down... and take it.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #22 July 11, 2005 death is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #23 July 12, 2005 Quotedeath is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease... Hi Some of us don't mind playing with our nickelHowever when someone else wants to play with my nickel for their own jollies thats wrong. "Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves" R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #24 July 12, 2005 The fewer fatalities there are, the more each one will induce angst and panic among the survivors. It's when you see the least trouble that the moaning is loudest. If somehow there were an entire year without a skydiving fatality, then another, then a third, but on the fourth year someone died, people would wring their hands and gnash their teeth. "O lord lord lord! How can we stop this unacceptable increase in deaths?!? Let the carnage cease!" Rules would be passed. Legislation would be enacted. Skydiving would be restricted, prohibited, banned. Nothing boosts safety anxiety like safety. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #25 July 12, 2005 Quoteif you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it.. You just don't get it. People do not want to risk their life for your sport and pleasure. I do not HAVE to accept the fact that someone else's reckless actions might kill me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
johnnyboydan 0 #11 July 9, 2005 I have to agree with Bill on this one. It is true also that when you are final you should not have someone else destory your safe approach. But in a real world Bill is right if you don't want to take that risk you must skydive alone. This is not to say we should not strive for safety. But in all high risk sports it's always there. Just like a race car driver who is crashed into the wall at 200 miles per hour by someone else, before he started the race he knew the risks. We should too.johnnyboy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #12 July 9, 2005 I remember when people didn't get killed under canopy all the time. What was wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #13 July 9, 2005 QuoteI remember when people didn't get killed under canopy all the time. What was wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. But the more I say that the more I get looks like I'm talking about horse 'n buggy days. After a while, I grow weary of preaching to deaf ears. And to answer the original post: No, I don't consider all these losses under canopy to be "acceptable". In fact, landing fatalities under "prefectly good canopies" was probably the biggest culture shock I experienced when I returned to the sport after a long hiatus. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. There's a difference between appreciation / assumption of the risk, and accepting preventable losses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #14 July 9, 2005 QuoteI have to agree with Bill on this one. It is true also that when you are final you should not have someone else destory your safe approach. But in a real world Bill is right if you don't want to take that risk you must skydive alone. This is not to say we should not strive for safety. But in all high risk sports it's always there. Just like a race car driver who is crashed into the wall at 200 miles per hour by someone else, before he started the race he knew the risks. We should too. We are not racecar drivers and this is not a race. If someone wants to fly their canopy in a manner that is a risk to others, they should be the ones to skydive alone. Of course there is risk in skydiving but that risk should be of my choosing not what someone else thinks is acceptable. If I am on final approach at 100 feet and get taken out by someone doing a H/P landing, that is unacceptable. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #15 July 9, 2005 Thanks everybody!I have to agree with Bill also.Acceptable Risk does come with Acceptable Loses.It just sounds "Bad" saying it that way.The Idea that mistakes will be made and that we need to try to minimize those mistakes is 1 answer.Or, take other people out of the flying in my zone to land safe all the time.As much as I hate it sometimes,I must jump alone to protect myself these days.Sad isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #16 July 9, 2005 QuoteQuote If I am on final approach at 100 feet and get taken out by someone doing a H/P landing, that is unacceptable. Sparky Mike- It takes two to have a collision. If you know where the swoopers are doing their thing (usually in the main landing area so everyone can see them) don't land there. Tim will get you in the truck. If you don't like landing somewhere else, talk to the DZO about setting and enforcing separate landing areas. If the DZO won't, you have two choices, land out safely and walk, or jump somewhere else. Bill asked: "Harry, why did you land all the way out there. Nobody else did." Harry answered: "Bill, your second sentence answered your question." BSBD Harry P.S. Doesn't the Ghetto need another bird bath?"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #17 July 11, 2005 QuoteIt takes two to have a collision. But it only take one to cause a collision. You can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. And it does not change the fact that getting taken out by someone doing a H/P landing is unacceptable. Sparky Harry, Thanks for the good work this weekend. A/P owner thought is was great.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloud9 0 #18 July 11, 2005 You know if you just think for a minute, this is a fact of our sociality. Of course there are acceptable losses. Every year there are over 50,000 people killed in car wrecks. While we try to lower the figure we continue to drive. There are people that die in swimming pools, foot ball games, and how many die from smoking? We live in an acceptable risk culture why are we surprised when it affects skydiving? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 0 #19 July 11, 2005 QuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #20 July 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also happened in Perris, in the mid 1990s. I watched a hot-shot take-out a guy who had already landed safely. Tore up his knee pretty badly! The hot-shot got grounded for a year! The bottom line is: your freedoms end at the end of my nose. If you want to do high-performance landings, take it to the swoop lane. If you are not willing to take it to the swoop lane, take it to another DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #21 July 11, 2005 QuoteLast week I complained about what I saw as "Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight".This week after hearing the extremely sad news about the CK incident,I can only suggest one other answer.Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"?We are not the military,we know our friends will die if any little situation presents itself into a potential disaster.We are supposed to know were everybody is,correct?The more in the air the higher the percentage of possible disaster!I'm all about separate landing areas for 100-ways(just ask TK)separate landing areas for swoopers.Who cares if you have to walk,again you are not safe until your back in the packing area.Unless of course some damn fool tries to swoop the hanger(packing tent),which we know has happened.Thinking caps on,flame on thought and solutions only please. An experiment was done years ago on a dog. A bell would ring and the floor would momentarily be electrified on one side of the cage. The dog would jump to the other side of the cage which was not electrified. They then would ring the bell and momentarily electrify the floor. The dog would jump to the other side that was not powered. After awhile they would ring the bell and the dog would jump even though the floor was not powered. After a bit of this they would ring the bell and power the floor. But now the floor on the other side was powered on all the time so the dog would jump back where he came from to find that floor too was powered. Eventually, even though being electrocuted, the dog just layed down and took it. This is the attitude we now have in the sport of skydiving today. They are no longer reactive to the electrocution. They just lay down and accept it (well, some fight for a better way despite the odds). Some call it a "cavalier attitude". Some call it "acceptable loses". Some just post "if you're in the sport long enough you'll know someone who dies so get used to it". Some who post on this forum and others believe that there is still another way. We do NOT have to accept these losses. That is what helped motivate me to do a jump pilot website. Has the accident rate gone down? I don't know. We'll only be able to judge this time period when looking back 10 years from now I think. Others may disagree with that view. I had a conversation with Roger Nelson about a week or two before he died. I found myself chatting with him in the middle of his wonderful facility with vibrant, smiling people milling around about a fatality that had happened. We talked dispationately about the accident like we were giving directions to the local gas station. I paused for a moment then said to him "Are we that numb to a person losing their life that we talk about it like this?" His answer was basicly "Yes." We do get numb to the constant barage of fatality / injury info that comes to us. At first it effects us whenever we read about anything bad. Then we begin to only react emotionally if we knew the person well. We just lay down... and take it.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #22 July 11, 2005 death is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #23 July 12, 2005 Quotedeath is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease... Hi Some of us don't mind playing with our nickelHowever when someone else wants to play with my nickel for their own jollies thats wrong. "Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves" R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #24 July 12, 2005 The fewer fatalities there are, the more each one will induce angst and panic among the survivors. It's when you see the least trouble that the moaning is loudest. If somehow there were an entire year without a skydiving fatality, then another, then a third, but on the fourth year someone died, people would wring their hands and gnash their teeth. "O lord lord lord! How can we stop this unacceptable increase in deaths?!? Let the carnage cease!" Rules would be passed. Legislation would be enacted. Skydiving would be restricted, prohibited, banned. Nothing boosts safety anxiety like safety. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #25 July 12, 2005 Quoteif you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it.. You just don't get it. People do not want to risk their life for your sport and pleasure. I do not HAVE to accept the fact that someone else's reckless actions might kill me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
mjosparky 3 #17 July 11, 2005 QuoteIt takes two to have a collision. But it only take one to cause a collision. You can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. And it does not change the fact that getting taken out by someone doing a H/P landing is unacceptable. Sparky Harry, Thanks for the good work this weekend. A/P owner thought is was great.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloud9 0 #18 July 11, 2005 You know if you just think for a minute, this is a fact of our sociality. Of course there are acceptable losses. Every year there are over 50,000 people killed in car wrecks. While we try to lower the figure we continue to drive. There are people that die in swimming pools, foot ball games, and how many die from smoking? We live in an acceptable risk culture why are we surprised when it affects skydiving? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #19 July 11, 2005 QuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #20 July 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou can be on the ground, standing still and be part of a collision. Yep. Happened last year in Australia. One person gathering their canopy got taken out by a second person landing. Destroyed a knee, requiring a pretty thorough reconstruction... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also happened in Perris, in the mid 1990s. I watched a hot-shot take-out a guy who had already landed safely. Tore up his knee pretty badly! The hot-shot got grounded for a year! The bottom line is: your freedoms end at the end of my nose. If you want to do high-performance landings, take it to the swoop lane. If you are not willing to take it to the swoop lane, take it to another DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #21 July 11, 2005 QuoteLast week I complained about what I saw as "Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight".This week after hearing the extremely sad news about the CK incident,I can only suggest one other answer.Do we have to accept "Acceptable Loses"?We are not the military,we know our friends will die if any little situation presents itself into a potential disaster.We are supposed to know were everybody is,correct?The more in the air the higher the percentage of possible disaster!I'm all about separate landing areas for 100-ways(just ask TK)separate landing areas for swoopers.Who cares if you have to walk,again you are not safe until your back in the packing area.Unless of course some damn fool tries to swoop the hanger(packing tent),which we know has happened.Thinking caps on,flame on thought and solutions only please. An experiment was done years ago on a dog. A bell would ring and the floor would momentarily be electrified on one side of the cage. The dog would jump to the other side of the cage which was not electrified. They then would ring the bell and momentarily electrify the floor. The dog would jump to the other side that was not powered. After awhile they would ring the bell and the dog would jump even though the floor was not powered. After a bit of this they would ring the bell and power the floor. But now the floor on the other side was powered on all the time so the dog would jump back where he came from to find that floor too was powered. Eventually, even though being electrocuted, the dog just layed down and took it. This is the attitude we now have in the sport of skydiving today. They are no longer reactive to the electrocution. They just lay down and accept it (well, some fight for a better way despite the odds). Some call it a "cavalier attitude". Some call it "acceptable loses". Some just post "if you're in the sport long enough you'll know someone who dies so get used to it". Some who post on this forum and others believe that there is still another way. We do NOT have to accept these losses. That is what helped motivate me to do a jump pilot website. Has the accident rate gone down? I don't know. We'll only be able to judge this time period when looking back 10 years from now I think. Others may disagree with that view. I had a conversation with Roger Nelson about a week or two before he died. I found myself chatting with him in the middle of his wonderful facility with vibrant, smiling people milling around about a fatality that had happened. We talked dispationately about the accident like we were giving directions to the local gas station. I paused for a moment then said to him "Are we that numb to a person losing their life that we talk about it like this?" His answer was basicly "Yes." We do get numb to the constant barage of fatality / injury info that comes to us. At first it effects us whenever we read about anything bad. Then we begin to only react emotionally if we knew the person well. We just lay down... and take it.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #22 July 11, 2005 death is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #23 July 12, 2005 Quotedeath is simply a part of every life, learning to accept it makes living that much easier.... if you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it... if you cant accept that simple fact then you should just stay on the couch and pray you dont die of heart disease... Hi Some of us don't mind playing with our nickelHowever when someone else wants to play with my nickel for their own jollies thats wrong. "Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves" R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #24 July 12, 2005 The fewer fatalities there are, the more each one will induce angst and panic among the survivors. It's when you see the least trouble that the moaning is loudest. If somehow there were an entire year without a skydiving fatality, then another, then a third, but on the fourth year someone died, people would wring their hands and gnash their teeth. "O lord lord lord! How can we stop this unacceptable increase in deaths?!? Let the carnage cease!" Rules would be passed. Legislation would be enacted. Skydiving would be restricted, prohibited, banned. Nothing boosts safety anxiety like safety. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #25 July 12, 2005 Quoteif you risk your life for sport and pleasure, you HAVE to accept the fact that you may lose it.. You just don't get it. People do not want to risk their life for your sport and pleasure. I do not HAVE to accept the fact that someone else's reckless actions might kill me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
