Horror in the Parachutist

[jraf 0]

I just read a lengthy piece of epistolar work signed by some of our truly on this site. Having gone through both the works of William Sheakspeare and my college accounting book I must admit I did not quite understand the intention of the authors.

The letter is full double indemnities, clauses pointing to grandparents and suggestions for exceptions to be made for the in-crowd.

Dear friends, before committing so much intellectual capacity to written word please think what message you are trying to convey. Lots of words don't necessarily bring lots of content. Regulation is good in social states not in organizations governing sports.

Natural selection is the best licensing authority. I for one do not attempt high performance landings. Just not enough experience.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[skybytch 259]

I think the mesage that was intended to be conveyed was conveyed quite clearly. I don't expect 100% of skydivers to agree with said message. There's nothing there that hasn't been posted and discussed in these forums ad infinitum, ad nauseum already. This just takes the discussion to a larger audience.

I hope that USPA will commit to exploring options like what is proposed in that letter. If you feel strongly against it, be sure to let the USPA Safety and Training Committee members know your opinions on this subject. Because if you don't... you won't have a right to say shit about it if/when some form of mandatory canopy control training and/or wingloading restrictions are imposed.

[gerryfuss 0]

where is this letter and what is it about?

[Nightingale 0]

since they specified that the restrictions could be waivered by an instructor or S&TA, if you're a good canopy pilot, you'd have nothing to fear.

[skybytch 259]

The letter was just posted in Talkback. It's in the February issue of Parachutist.

[jraf 0]

I have nothing to fear because I doubt it will ever be imposed. I definitely will talk to Richard Schachner to point to him the lack of clarity of the said writing and to the lack of logic it represents.

I oppose regulation in general. Next thing we will have fine wisethinkers proposing regulations as to who can jump with whom. As to the waivers, that is sensless itself.

As of now an S&TA may prohibit someone from jumping at a dropzone and may not let them jump a certain size canopy. That power is at the discretion of the S&TA now. Why waste time, money and effort on imposing new legal documents that people will find a way to go around. Waste, waste and once again waste, I call!!!

There are no such regulations for skiing and that is far more dangerous than skydiving as far as I am concerned. If we decide to regulate, then lets better start imposing a beer curfew at the DZs so that hung over skydivers don't hurt themselves.

Ridiculous idea, is it not?

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[NightJumper 0]

Ridiculous idea, is it not?

No it is not a ridiculous idea, it is a great idea. If it is regulation that you fear, then you should want this, for if we do not regulate ourselves, the government (AKA the FAA) will do it for us. Trust me, that is the last option that you want.

Mike
S&TA

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

if we do not regulate ourselves, the government (AKA the FAA) will do it for us. Trust me, that is the last option that you want.

Exactly!

Although that would most likely put a large damper on folks with low jump number and high wingloadings, I'm sure that it would be highly constrictive and may not have the appropiate "outs" for folks that don't fit into the FAR (assuming it would be a far) correctly.

With the FAA, you give those guys an inch to regulate something and it will become a huge nightmare, with more regulation then anyone ever wanted.

Honestly, I really hope that the USPA steps up, drops a sack and really does something with this idea/ideas like it. However, we've all seen gross BSR violations before in skydiving, I don't see it doing much good at some DZs that don't care/non-USPA DZs (obviously).

If the USPA would devise a way to actually inforce the BSRs, then I think it would be a great idea.

At the very least, if it doesn't do a bit of good for safety, maybe having BSRs in place would keep the FAA from doing something.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lawrocket 3]

I'll respond:

First, the letter is pretty clear and concise. The message is clear, and you understood it. It is clear you understood EXACTLY the letter's point. If you did not understand it, you have no business speaking to Richard Schachner or Scooby Doo or anybody regarding the problems with same. Why not? If you did nto understand it, you have no business complaining about it.

Second: You oppose regulations. Next thing you know you'll have regulations about "who can jump with whom." Tough shit. We have them. I have to jump with a coach or an AFF instructor. BEcause I'm not licensed. As you can tell, I cry a river daily over this requirement that has my safety in mind.

Third: Again, the message is quite clear. The wording is meant to convey that purpose. As in known in general society, one does not want to refer to a Judge as "dude" or a cop on a traffic start as "hunny-bunny." Letters are written to the reader. It is hoped that those in the suits who draft policy for the USPA will read this letter. Should the letter have said, "Hey, Rastas. I've got some good shit to suggest. I think that there iz a mucho problemo with canopy regz."

While the idea may be good, we as a society tend to take objective and well-laid out thoughts more seriously than conversational writings. The writing was intended to be persuasive.

Fourth: Most of us are aware of your petty quarrels with the greenies. I try to stay out of them. WHy not take a higher ground?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[newsstand 0]

The letter is written far better than your post.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[skygod7777 0]

hans i don't know what the hell you said, but your just bitchin because you can aren't you.

what do you care if you don't do high performance landings anyway

just givin yea shit man, for naming me mini vern.

lata

[nbblood 0]

Personally, I agree that it is much better for skydivers to regulate themselves as opposed to the FAA stepping in. Also, I've seen canopy pilots that have no business jumping their current canopies. They're not only a danger to themselves, they're a danger to others in the sky around them. I try to keep in mind that any decision I make not only affects me, it affects the other skydivers around me, either directly or indirectly. I wish everybody would too. I support this letter, if not for the individuals making canopy choices, then for other skydivers and me that may suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Personally, I also look forward to canopy courses and instruction. I consider myself a safe canopy pilot, but I always welcome feedback and instruction. It makes me better. If that costs me $$, that's fine too.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[billvon 2,379]

>Natural selection is the best licensing authority.

After losing several friends to said authority, and helping one close friend recover from brain damage from the same authority, I no longer find myself able to say "I don't care; just let em die." You may feel the same in time; you may not. Sorry about the long letter, but it's a complex topic, and is not easily covered in a few low-syllable-count snappy sayings.

[jumperconway 0]

Quote

The letter is written far better than your post.

Agreed and I believe well thought out. I also believe that since many student programs are coached all the way through the A license, that way more emphasis should be put on canopy control while under direct supervision of an instructor.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The letter is written far better than your post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed and I believe well thought out. I also believe that since many student programs are coached all the way through the A license, that way more emphasis should be put on canopy control while under direct supervision of an instructor.

I second that....

=========Shaun ==========

[jumpwally 0]

JRAF,,just what is your experience level any how? I didn't see your name on the World Team roster. geezzz

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[JohnMitchell 14]

[

There are no such regulations for skiing and that is far more dangerous than skydiving as far as I am concerned.

Quote

A few years back, I saw life insurance actuarial table that showed the relative dangerousness of various sports. Sorry, but skydiving is way more dangerous than skiing, safer only than hanggliding and, most dangerous, mountaineering. As a skydiver, I've had to go to a lot more funerals than my skiing friends. Always remember, you have to survive each jump, one at a time.

• Quote

[jraf 0]

Quote

>Natural selection is the best licensing authority.

After losing several friends to said authority, and helping one close friend recover from brain damage from the same authority, I no longer find myself able to say "I don't care; just let em die." You may feel the same in time; you may not. Sorry about the long letter, but it's a complex topic, and is not easily covered in a few low-syllable-count snappy sayings.

Bill the letter is not long - it's long winded. You want a regulation with plenty of exceptions for "friends and family". Worst of all you want regulation!!!

As I have mentioned before, if you are so concerned about safety, lets impose:

1. a minimum 8 hours between last drink and jump - and put an enforcer with a brethalizer at the plane door.
2. regulate the helmets that we are/are not? to wear. As you well know they officialy give NO protection
3. regulate the footwear worn by skydivers. Tevas, barefoot and other related footware is obviously dangerous

I could go on for hours. One of the things that attracted me to this sport is the relative freedom. Its the fact that I can be with fellow adventurers, people who explore and sometimes push themselves to the limit. If you want to regulate, please join the North Korean Parachute Association - I'm sure they have a regulation for every occasion

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Natural selection is the best licensing authority.

I have to ask, are you against minimum pull altitudes, AAD's for students, 100-hour aircraft inspections, required pilot's licenses, rigger licenses, 120-re-pack requirements, etc?

Derek

[jraf 0]

I am against new regulation that will not make much sense. I oppose double standards proposed by the authors of the letter.

As to the minimum pull altitude? It probably makes sense and is purely theoretical anyway.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[jraf 0]

Quote

JRAF,,just what is your experience level any how? I didn't see your name on the World Team roster. geezzz

Oh, dear you have not noticed my name there? Well that is probably because I am not on it. I have no intentions of being there. Jumping is a joy and pleasure to me, not a competition. I do this for fun and I don't want my fun to be regulated. Please notice that I have said I don't hook or swoop. That is my personal choice. Let others make their's on their own.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[nicknitro71 0]

You're so clueless it's not even funny.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Surf 0]

Those exceptions bug me too. There are plenty of people alive today who may die because they were grandfathered.

In my own newbie opinion, leave just the S&TA waiver in place, this way every jumper in the air will have to be reevaluated. This way the S&TA gets to make the call on the individuals skill level.

Anyone who feels they should be exceptions to the rule should have no problem showing their S&TA that they can fly.

"Nothing is written"- T.E. Lawrence

[freeflynick 0]

Quote

I do this for fun and I don't want my fun to be regulated. Please notice that I have said I don't hook or swoop. That is my personal choice.

Then why does your profile state, under Disciplines of Choice: Para-ski, SWOOPING??
I dont think you are doing yourself much justice on this thread!

Hobbes: "How come we play 'War' and not 'Peace'?"
Calvin: "Too few role models."

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

As I have mentioned before, if you are so concerned about safety, lets impose:

1. a minimum 8 hours between last drink and jump - and put an enforcer with a brethalizer at the plane door.
2. regulate the helmets that we are/are not? to wear. As you well know they officialy give NO protection
3. regulate the footwear worn by skydivers. Tevas, barefoot and other related footware is obviously dangerous

Interesting one this; but isn't there a difference here regarding control and how it might affect others?

Something like aircraft servicing is obviously outside the remit of the skydiver boarding the plane and needs to be regulated. He/she has to trust in the integrity of the system.

Footwear - well, that should be at the discretion of the CCI. If you're not comfortable, then you shouldn't be wearing sandals etc. But it's not likely to affect anyone else, so

Canopies - everyone is different, and the reprecussions could be serious for others. Trying to think up rules connected to jump nos is silly - what would you tell someone with 100 jumps who wanted to go elliptical but previously had 100+ hrs on a paraglider before turning to skydiving? What scares me is the number of "A" licence holders who don't know collision avoidance rules, let alone the effect of aspect ratio and wing loading. Sure, accidents do happen, but we need better canopy education - there's too much emphasis on the dive itself during training.

For the British "B" licence standard, we have to make 5 consecutive, pre-declared spot landings. However, there is nothing to stop someone doing this on a 190 and then getting a 135 which they can barely land later.

Why couldn't we have a parallel set of qualifications with requirements for elliptical canopies, swooping etc. After all, we have something for Canopy RW! Putting requirements into "B", "C" levels etc might be erroneous as a number of jumpers without the canopy experience would be grandfathered in, thus defeating the point.

Sorry, I've rambled.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13