Ron 10
Recommended Posts
Quote
>What justifies taking this decision away from a some or all of the
> participants?
A lot of deaths.
That's an appeal to emotions, not a rational argument. "then the terrorists have already won" etc. We've gone over this before, and all I've seen so far is some mystical ramblings about individuals' experiences. Hey, I'm impressed, but it doesn't add up to a justification for proposals about wing loadings. Start with cause and effect, throw in some deductive logic and we'll talk.
Quote
We don't do that now. Try jumping a BASE rig at a DZ, or pulling at 1000 feet and explaining "I'm an adult, I can take those risks." The pull altitudes were put in place because people were killing themselves pulling at 500 feet, and it has worked to prevent fatalities.
Again, I credit this to the introduction of the reliable AAD. Prevent fatalities no, prevent no/low pull fatalities yes.
IMO regulations and devices like the AAD serve a good purpose, but not the one you're thinking. They don't prevent people from hurting themselves through risky behaviour & accident -- it is simply impossible to contain human nature in this fashion -- but to foster the development of the sport. If we didn't have all these rules we'd be killing ourselves with bad gear and poor freefall technique instead of killing ourselves with hook turns and collisions. We don't do it for the killing part, we do it for the immense joy and beauty it brings into the world. Again, I don't think it's possible to separate out the risk with regulations due to essential human nature. Particular risks yes, total risk no.
This is a reason I'll respect to support regulations of this sort. Not sure I agree with it, but I'll respect it.
nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
2 of 11 had over 1,000 jumps and 6 of 11 had over 600 jumps. You're right something needs to be done. My point is just that this is a bigger problem than just low-timers. Keep up your great efforts. I always appreciate reading your posts.
Ron 10
Quote2 of 11 had over 1,000 jumps and 6 of 11 had over 600 jumps
Sorry 600 jumps, I thought it was 500.
Most had a wingload around 1.5. In the plan I wanted to put in place you would need either 500 jumps or pass a test to be allowed to jump that wingload.
It is not a perfect fix..The perfect fix is for everyone to seek the knowledge and skills to be able to handle those kinds of wingloads before they jump them...However right now almost anyone can jump almost any wingload at anytime....
Thats not good.
Hell I don't like regulation, but sometimes it just makes sense.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 1,827
QuoteQuoteIt's not clear who should be subject to the proposed regulations -- based on the limited data we have experienced jumpers have shown they are just as capable of hurting themselves on small (and large) canopies as newer jumpers
Jumpers with less than 1,000 jumps get killed MUCH more than jumpers with over 1,000.
Its a fact. Just look at the fatality reports.
.
Not surprising considering the median number of jumps of USPA members is around 250 (USPA web site data). There are simply more jumpers with less than 1000 jumps.
More US troops than British have been killed in Iraq. Does that mean US troops are less capable, or is it just because there are more of them?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,739
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>A lot of deaths.
>That's an appeal to emotions, not a rational argument.
You may have an emotional reaction to it, but that's not the issue. The issue is that a lot of people are dying under good canopies. It's the #1 cause of death in this sport. That's not an emotional reason, it's a statistical one.
>IMO regulations and devices like the AAD serve a good purpose, but
>not the one you're thinking. They don't prevent people from hurting
> themselves through risky behaviour & accident -- it is simply
> impossible to contain human nature in this fashion -- but to foster
> the development of the sport.
Ding ding! Exactly right. And the most important part of the new canopy regulations would not be to regulate, it would be to get people into canopy control classes so they can "place out" of the regulations. Education, not regulation, will save people. The regulation is just a way to get them to sit in a classroom.
>That's an appeal to emotions, not a rational argument.
You may have an emotional reaction to it, but that's not the issue. The issue is that a lot of people are dying under good canopies. It's the #1 cause of death in this sport. That's not an emotional reason, it's a statistical one.
>IMO regulations and devices like the AAD serve a good purpose, but
>not the one you're thinking. They don't prevent people from hurting
> themselves through risky behaviour & accident -- it is simply
> impossible to contain human nature in this fashion -- but to foster
> the development of the sport.
Ding ding! Exactly right. And the most important part of the new canopy regulations would not be to regulate, it would be to get people into canopy control classes so they can "place out" of the regulations. Education, not regulation, will save people. The regulation is just a way to get them to sit in a classroom.
Ron 10
QuoteNot surprising considering the median number of jumps of USPA members is around 250 (USPA web site data). There are simply more jumpers with less than 1000 jumps.
And I would venture to say that folks with over 1000 jumps do more jumps per year than guys with 300.
So the guys over 1,000 jumps have more possible occurrences.
And just to step into another realm that you and I both know...Flying.
You can't just get a private ticket and hop into a Bonanza...Or a Pitts special. There are sign offs from the FAA, and insurance restrictions that prevent that in most cases.
If the FAA makes you get an endorsements to fly something high performance....Why not have one from the USPA for the same thing?
And it interesting to note that the FAA put those endorsments in place cause people without training were just hopping into HP aircraft and getting killed...The same thing that is happening here.
Hell if you issue is just jump #..Give it to everyone that wants to jump a high WL.......I know I'll pass it. And if I can't then I have no business on that canopy.
But there should be some gradient that takes into account the lessons that experience will teach you.
Thats why I like the Germain WL chart. You can progress at a normalized pace withut jumping through hoops...But if you think you are more skilled and can prove it, you can progress faster.
How is any of this a bad idea?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quote
>>A lot of deaths.
>That's an appeal to emotions, not a rational argument.
You may have an emotional reaction to it, but that's not the issue. The issue is that a lot of people are dying under good canopies. It's the #1 cause of death in this sport. That's not an emotional reason, it's a statistical one.
It may pertain to the debate as a whole but it's orthogonal to the arguments. It's a reason for what? I know, it's a purported reason for WL regulations. What's the reasoning? The inductive part of this argument has yet to turn up.
nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
billvon 2,739
>It may pertain to the debate as a whole but it's orthogonal to the
> arguments. It's a reason for what? I know, it's a purported reason
> for WL regulations. What's the reasoning?
Given:
USPA exists partly to make this sport safer.
If USPA can take an action to make the sport safer, it is within their charter to do so.
One way to determine what is making the sport unsafe is to look at the factors involved in fatalities.
Many skydivers want to jump small, heavily loaded canopies.
Now my assumptions:
If there is one factor involved in most fatalities, addressing that factor will likely affect the number of fatalities.
Poor canopy control is the primary factor in good-canopy fatalities, and good-canopy fatalities are the #1 cause of fatalities.
Education is the best way to cure poor canopy control.
Most skydivers will not take advantage of voluntary education.
Therefore, having a mechanism to essentially 'entice' jumpers to get education will reduce fatalities under canopy. Since many jumpers want to jump small canopies, essentially requiring education before they can jump small canopies will reduce fatalities. The primary reason for the WL limits is to get people into this education. A secondary reason is that if someone performs exactly the same screwup on a 1.2 to 1 vs a 2 to 1 canopy, they will more likely survive under the lighter wingloading. This helps keep them alive until they _get_ that education.
> arguments. It's a reason for what? I know, it's a purported reason
> for WL regulations. What's the reasoning?
Given:
USPA exists partly to make this sport safer.
If USPA can take an action to make the sport safer, it is within their charter to do so.
One way to determine what is making the sport unsafe is to look at the factors involved in fatalities.
Many skydivers want to jump small, heavily loaded canopies.
Now my assumptions:
If there is one factor involved in most fatalities, addressing that factor will likely affect the number of fatalities.
Poor canopy control is the primary factor in good-canopy fatalities, and good-canopy fatalities are the #1 cause of fatalities.
Education is the best way to cure poor canopy control.
Most skydivers will not take advantage of voluntary education.
Therefore, having a mechanism to essentially 'entice' jumpers to get education will reduce fatalities under canopy. Since many jumpers want to jump small canopies, essentially requiring education before they can jump small canopies will reduce fatalities. The primary reason for the WL limits is to get people into this education. A secondary reason is that if someone performs exactly the same screwup on a 1.2 to 1 vs a 2 to 1 canopy, they will more likely survive under the lighter wingloading. This helps keep them alive until they _get_ that education.
Ron 10
Bill I have to disagee on this part
Its not an assumption...Its a fact.
QuoteNow my assumptions:
Poor canopy control is the primary factor in good-canopy fatalities, and good-canopy fatalities are the #1 cause of fatalities.
Its not an assumption...Its a fact.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Just a general response (you happened to be the last post, Ron).
It seems that most have agreed that this a problem, that needs addressing. The thread seems to have shifted toward arguments for and against WL restrictions and additional training.
I am actually in favor of both solutions wroking together, but the reality is that the WL restrictions will be harder to establish and enforce. There are generally accepted restrictions in skydiving, such as 100 jumps doesn't get you an X brace sub 100, but even then , sometimes a jumper will slip through.
The education is the key for a solution TODAY. Better informed jumpers, even if they are on questionable wings, will fare better if placed in a bad situation. An advanced canopy control course (not swooping, but advanced in regards to the barely adequate training given during AFF) to coincide with a B license would be ideal. A jumper seeking a 'B' license has shown that they are going to stick with skydiving, and are at the point where they are going to be thinking about a their first set of gear beyond thier ultra conservative first rig.
Every jumper wants to progress through the license program. This means they will all attend the course in order to qualify for the license. As far as existing 'B' license holders and up, my guess is that if there is a canopy control course being held on the DZ, people will hang around and pick up whatever info they can. As this couse wouldn't be for a profit (maybe the S&TA or AFF I could get $15 or $20 for their time) nobody would mind the hangers on.
This idea is not rocket science. I would guess that every DZ has a qualified jumper who wouldn't mind spending 30 minutes going over some addtional info on canopy control. USPA or not, this is something that each DZ can implement TODAY.
As far as WL restrictions, I would endorse the USPA persues this as quiclky as possible. Even a simple 1.0 or less for a 'A' license jumper would go a long way. In conjunction with my above plan, it would keep the WL reasonable unitl each jumper has been to the canopy course. Addtionally, most jumpers (who are poor) will not be in a position to purchse a new wing on the day they earn thier B license, so the 1.0 or under would stay with them through a little more experience.
These are some simple and easy ideas, that could be put into motion TODAY, if only as a band-aid while the USPA works on some more intricate and premanant measures.
So WTF? Is it going to be naother ten years and 113 jumpers before we see any action?
It seems that most have agreed that this a problem, that needs addressing. The thread seems to have shifted toward arguments for and against WL restrictions and additional training.
I am actually in favor of both solutions wroking together, but the reality is that the WL restrictions will be harder to establish and enforce. There are generally accepted restrictions in skydiving, such as 100 jumps doesn't get you an X brace sub 100, but even then , sometimes a jumper will slip through.
The education is the key for a solution TODAY. Better informed jumpers, even if they are on questionable wings, will fare better if placed in a bad situation. An advanced canopy control course (not swooping, but advanced in regards to the barely adequate training given during AFF) to coincide with a B license would be ideal. A jumper seeking a 'B' license has shown that they are going to stick with skydiving, and are at the point where they are going to be thinking about a their first set of gear beyond thier ultra conservative first rig.
Every jumper wants to progress through the license program. This means they will all attend the course in order to qualify for the license. As far as existing 'B' license holders and up, my guess is that if there is a canopy control course being held on the DZ, people will hang around and pick up whatever info they can. As this couse wouldn't be for a profit (maybe the S&TA or AFF I could get $15 or $20 for their time) nobody would mind the hangers on.
This idea is not rocket science. I would guess that every DZ has a qualified jumper who wouldn't mind spending 30 minutes going over some addtional info on canopy control. USPA or not, this is something that each DZ can implement TODAY.
As far as WL restrictions, I would endorse the USPA persues this as quiclky as possible. Even a simple 1.0 or less for a 'A' license jumper would go a long way. In conjunction with my above plan, it would keep the WL reasonable unitl each jumper has been to the canopy course. Addtionally, most jumpers (who are poor) will not be in a position to purchse a new wing on the day they earn thier B license, so the 1.0 or under would stay with them through a little more experience.
These are some simple and easy ideas, that could be put into motion TODAY, if only as a band-aid while the USPA works on some more intricate and premanant measures.
So WTF? Is it going to be naother ten years and 113 jumpers before we see any action?
Ron 10
Quotebut the reality is that the WL restrictions will be harder to establish and enforce
I don't agree...I think they would be MUCH easier to establish WL restrictions than a new training program. Look how poorly the ISP has been handled.
The USPA could very easily say "You will not jump an elliptical till you have a "D". And you will not pass this wingload chart.....unles you pass this test."
To place an new method of instruction they would have to do MUCH more work.
This is why I favor regulations that can be tested out of if you can prove you have the skill.
But in the mean time we would stop the blood loss until we could improve the training programs...
Make no mistake, I think education is THE answer...However we don't know really the best way to create that course yet, and how to make it so the people take it.
Regulations would stop the stupid stuff from happening (Like a guy with 300 jumps and a 1.8 Xbraced canopy). Until we could establish a good education program and make sure it is avalible to everyone.
Like I said just look at the mess the USPA did with the ISP.
Regulation is also not out of line with the charter of the USPA and it is also not a new concept to the USPA...Look at all the BSR's.
Plus there is a precident when you look at other national organizations and their regualtions.
Why is it that the USPA the largest skydiving organization is not doing anything about a major problem that other organizations were able to see and do something about?
Cause the USPA is lazy and very ineffectve. The USPA is more concerned with its new building and a museum than ensuring the saftey of its members.
11 Deaths last year....the number 1 cause of fatalities and still the USPA does nothing.
The ISP is a good step, but they can't even make the member DZ's do it. And it targets the wrong group anyway.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 1,827
QuoteQuoteNot surprising considering the median number of jumps of USPA members is around 250 (USPA web site data). There are simply more jumpers with less than 1000 jumps.
And I would venture to say that folks with over 1000 jumps do more jumps per year than guys with 300.
So the guys over 1,000 jumps have more possible occurrences?
Well, what I stated was verifiable data. What you stated was assumption.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
***I think they would be MUCH easier to establish WL restrictions than a new training program. Look how poorly the ISP has been handled.
------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the WL restrictions, and gettign them enforced would be tough. Where do you draw the line? How many jumps? What WL? What shapes? What sort of test do you need to advance? Etc.
I could come up with a 30 min presentation in less than two hours. Covering some basics like spotting from under canopy, stratagies for off field landings, reinforcing patterns and traffic managment. Make Bill Vons list available to all (incidentally, I know a USPA RD who is on the S and T commitee who handed out copies of the list to all the board members). Some aerodynamics and discuss the casue and effect relationship between the jumpers weight shifting under the canopy, and the canopies response to this. Done.
This is what I mean by it's not rocket science to impletent a program. Put this info into the jumpers hands, don't tie it up in red tape for years.
I know that EVERY dz has a jumper who knows what they are talking about, who would step up , and help the people out on a Sat night. If you know this jumper at your DZ, say something to them about it. Print this thread and show them. Make it happen. Just do it. I wanna be like Mike.
------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the WL restrictions, and gettign them enforced would be tough. Where do you draw the line? How many jumps? What WL? What shapes? What sort of test do you need to advance? Etc.
I could come up with a 30 min presentation in less than two hours. Covering some basics like spotting from under canopy, stratagies for off field landings, reinforcing patterns and traffic managment. Make Bill Vons list available to all (incidentally, I know a USPA RD who is on the S and T commitee who handed out copies of the list to all the board members). Some aerodynamics and discuss the casue and effect relationship between the jumpers weight shifting under the canopy, and the canopies response to this. Done.
This is what I mean by it's not rocket science to impletent a program. Put this info into the jumpers hands, don't tie it up in red tape for years.
I know that EVERY dz has a jumper who knows what they are talking about, who would step up , and help the people out on a Sat night. If you know this jumper at your DZ, say something to them about it. Print this thread and show them. Make it happen. Just do it. I wanna be like Mike.
Ron 10
QuoteWell, what I stated was verifiable data. What you stated was assumption.
Just cause its an assumption does not make it wrong.
Here is some stuff for ya.
Airspeed. 9 Members X 1,000 jumps = 9,000 jumps
GK 9 X 1,000 jumps = 9,000
Majik 5 X 500 = 2500.
Just from skydive city. 735 AFF jumps at least one JM on each jump. However most are AFF1 with 2 JM...but we will use the smaller number. = 735
So just last year Airspeed, Majic, GK, and the AFF guys at ZHills alone did 21235 jumps. Not one ended in a death, much less a canopy death.
With just those numbers it would take 84.9 people doing 250 jumps to equal just those 3 teams and one DZ of AFF in one year.
Plus your data only includes those with around 250 jumps...That could also include those that did NO jumps that year, but HAD 250 jumps.
I still think that for total number of jumps made a year that more are made by those with over 1,000 jumps.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
rjf98 0
I've got to disagree with you about adding it to a license. Take a look at all the crap about D licenses requiring a night jump.
I've heard plenty of people complain "Well, I'll never do a night jump, I just won't get out of the plane" Maybe, but the license says you are an expert, you can't be that without a night jump.
I can hear it now. "I'll never jump an elipticle wing, why should I have to take the class?"
Enforcement is another issue. I believe Ron has brought it up before (maybe I'm wrong so don't fly off the handle at me there guy). Is USPA set up to actually assist gear manufacturers so that they can do on the spot checks before sales? What about gear stores? Do we require DZ's to check that at the ramp or at manifest? Do we suspend a jumper who allows a new guy to borrow his gear to try it out because he's thinking about taking the test and suddenly because its a 149 and not a 150 he's out of his allowed wing limit?
I don't think USPA really has the teeth to do any of this. I think a BSR is in order, I don't think it's going to solve all of our problems like some here do.
I've heard plenty of people complain "Well, I'll never do a night jump, I just won't get out of the plane" Maybe, but the license says you are an expert, you can't be that without a night jump.
I can hear it now. "I'll never jump an elipticle wing, why should I have to take the class?"
Enforcement is another issue. I believe Ron has brought it up before (maybe I'm wrong so don't fly off the handle at me there guy). Is USPA set up to actually assist gear manufacturers so that they can do on the spot checks before sales? What about gear stores? Do we require DZ's to check that at the ramp or at manifest? Do we suspend a jumper who allows a new guy to borrow his gear to try it out because he's thinking about taking the test and suddenly because its a 149 and not a 150 he's out of his allowed wing limit?
I don't think USPA really has the teeth to do any of this. I think a BSR is in order, I don't think it's going to solve all of our problems like some here do.
Ron 10
QuoteEstablishing the WL restrictions, and gettign them enforced would be tough. Where do you draw the line? How many jumps? What WL? What shapes? What sort of test do you need to advance? Etc.
Getting ALL the DZ's to MAKE all the jumpers attend these classes would be impossible.
Remember the ones that really need these classes, don't think they need them.
QuoteI could come up with a 30 min presentation in less than two hours. Covering some basics like spotting from under canopy, stratagies for off field landings, reinforcing patterns and traffic managment. Make Bill Vons list available to all (incidentally, I know a USPA RD who is on the S and T commitee who handed out copies of the list to all the board members). Some aerodynamics and discuss the casue and effect relationship between the jumpers weight shifting under the canopy, and the canopies response to this. Done.
Like I said the ISP sounded easy, but the USPA can't even get DZ's to do it. And it took them YEARS to fiqure it out.
Also not everyone is you, and not all DZ's will do it. So unless the USPA makes it manditory then you have nothing.
QuoteI know that EVERY dz has a jumper who knows what they are talking about, who would step up , and help the people out on a Sat night
And like I said the ones that NEED this info...Will not attend.
I was at a seminar with Leblanc at one time...I went with a bunch of wannabe hotshot canopy pilots...as soon as they found out they were not really going to get just swooping info..They left.
How do you make them learn? You can't.
But you CAN limit the choices they make till they know better, or they prove themselves.
And its not that hard to implement restrictions...Other organizations have already done it...The USPA has already done it many times...Pull altitudes are an example.
The fact is only education will fix the problem...But the jumpers in question need to realize that then NEED it first.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 1,827
QuoteI've got to disagree with you about adding it to a license. Take a look at all the crap about D licenses requiring a night jump.
I've heard plenty of people complain "Well, I'll never do a night jump, I just won't get out of the plane" Maybe, but the license says you are an expert, you can't be that without a night jump.
Bzzzt - incorrect. the license says nothing of the sort, take a look at yours.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rjf98 0
You are correct. I thought at one time there were associated levels with the licenses (novice - expert). Am I wrong there?
***I've got to disagree with you about adding it to a license. Take a look at all the crap about D licenses requiring a night jump.
I can hear it now. "I'll never jump an elipticle wing, why should I have to take the class?"
=================================
The night jump is not a fair comparison. The night jump can be a risk to your perosnal well being. Some people don't even like driving at night. There is no risk in sitting through a canopy course.
If they want the license, they take the course. Period. Just like you do X number of jumps, or pass the wriiten test.
Don't want to take the course? Fine, you have your 'A' license and all the restrictions that go with it.
The license belongs to the USPA to give out how thay see fit.
As far as enforcing a WL restriction, that why I think thats the more complex part of the solution. The enforcement would most likely be on the part of the DZ's. Make it a BSR, and group memeber DZ's will have to try to enforce it. It won't be an overnight success, but in five or ten years, it will be common place, and accepted. It might not be 100% effective, but it's a step in the right direction.
I can hear it now. "I'll never jump an elipticle wing, why should I have to take the class?"
=================================
The night jump is not a fair comparison. The night jump can be a risk to your perosnal well being. Some people don't even like driving at night. There is no risk in sitting through a canopy course.
If they want the license, they take the course. Period. Just like you do X number of jumps, or pass the wriiten test.
Don't want to take the course? Fine, you have your 'A' license and all the restrictions that go with it.
The license belongs to the USPA to give out how thay see fit.
As far as enforcing a WL restriction, that why I think thats the more complex part of the solution. The enforcement would most likely be on the part of the DZ's. Make it a BSR, and group memeber DZ's will have to try to enforce it. It won't be an overnight success, but in five or ten years, it will be common place, and accepted. It might not be 100% effective, but it's a step in the right direction.
Ron 10
QuoteMaybe, but the license says you are an expert, you can't be that without a night jump.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bzzzt - incorrect. the license says nothing of the sort, take a look at yours.
Mine says "Expert" on it...I can show it to you if ya like.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airspeed. 9 Members X 1,000 jumps = 9,000 jumps
GK 9 X 1,000 jumps = 9,000
Majik 5 X 500 = 2500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term sampling comes to mind.
Its still a fact that they do more jumps than most people, and that AFF I's do more jumps in a week than you even have.
But they are not pounding in left and right? But guys with 250 jumps are.
It is very possible that most of the jumps in the US are made by people with over 1,000 jumps. They are the PROs. I have several friends with over 1,000 jumps....I mean A LOT. Some of my friends make over 800-1000 jumps every YEAR.
You can quote what ever you like. I may not be able to prove I am right, but you can't prove I am not right about this either.
You jump at Chicago....Run around and ask the guys with over 1,000 jumps how many they make a year...Then ask the guys with 250....Let me know what you find..
Or would you call that some cool name to just to try and discredit it?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Arnold Palmer said "It's funny, the more I practice the luckier I get".
Luck favors the prepared.
If this Jan had not been that good. He might have been toast.
It will not hurt.
The greater number of injured and dead jumpers are not guys with 1000 jumps. I think last year there was 1 maybe two with over 500 jumps.
Regulations, tests and a good infusion of common sense is something.
Yes, I would agree...I also would rather do something about it, than do nothing.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites