Hooknswoop 19 #76 February 4, 2004 QuoteI disagree! We know you do. You don't like our solution. OK, what's yours? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #77 February 4, 2004 why do we all seem to be saying the same things and still butting heads? yes, training is the answer. more attention should be paid to canopy flight while we are learning and under the supervision of a school. my canopy training consisted of fulfilling the flight maneuvers on my A card. even then i was simply asked if i had completed them. at about 70 jumps i had the audacity to attempt and pull off (barely) a 180 and a 360. ONCE. a year ago. once. is a wonder I aint ded. that was then. i was talked to. i listened. i flat turned, i rear riser landing, i front riser landing. i collapsed my canopy way up high. i upsized. i landed straight in. i still land straight in. it worked on me. that's what i have to go on. i guess mileage varies. yes yes yes. more training under canopy while a student and under direct control and tutelage of school and even on A card during coaching jumps. yes yes yes good idea. but imposing subjective regulation on wingloading? not a bullseye IMO.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #78 February 4, 2004 QuoteI would hope that you, Lou, and Chuck would agree that if DZ's would only start by teaching the ISP and using the basic canopy program incorporated within, many would be better prepared. That would help a lot. But the canopy coaching should not stop at 25 jumps. There is so much that needs to be learned after ISP for canopy skills that isn't being taught/learned. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #79 February 4, 2004 Quotenot a bullseye IMO. What do you think the 'bull's-eye' is then? Quoteyes, training is the answer. more attention should be paid to canopy flight while we are learning and under the supervision of a school. How do suggest this be accomplished? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #80 February 4, 2004 Yes, I don't give a solution as it already exists and is readily available. Look, listen and learn. There are many people who think that jumping out of a plane makes them special. Really, you and I know it's no big deal. Surviving is the deal. You can not regulate the self preservation instinct. Those who have it will look, listen and learn till they know what they can safely do. Those without a self preservation instinct will probably sustain injury or death. To give a pretty good example: Drunk driving is very illegal. The fact that operating motor under influence of alcohol is regulated does not stop people from getting killed while doing it. That is how much that regulation is worth.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #81 February 4, 2004 QuoteYes, I don't give a solution as it already exists and is readily available. Look, listen and learn. That clearly isn't working, sorry. Any other ideas? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #82 February 4, 2004 QuoteTo give a pretty good example: Drunk driving is very illegal. The fact that operating motor under influence of alcohol is regulated does not stop people from getting killed while doing it. That is how much that regulation is worth. jraf There isn't a solution in place as many have alreay made it clear that "we" have a problem in skydiving. If a solution doesn't work then it isn't a solution, it's the wrong answer. I guess all the ad campaigns and emphasis placed on drunk driving on society as a whole hasn't had an impact then eh? It won't stop it entirely, I agree, it will and does continue to happen. But if just one person is alive today becasue of those ad campaigns or one skydiver doesn't drive himself into the ground because someone took the initiative to make canopy training better then it's all worth it IMO. Frankly, I think you just like to bitch and I would be surprised if you took the time to think of a viable alternate solution instead of bitching."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #83 February 4, 2004 QuoteAFF currently gives you enough skills to survive and thrive if you are a little more than half witted. That's where you are completely wrong. AFF does NOT teach enough skills in the MODERN skydiving world. And that is where the problem lies. You have not evolved at all if you believe what you just posted. Get your head out of the sand.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #84 February 4, 2004 Hook, Agreed, but how do you eat the elephant? A bite at a time my friend........... Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #85 February 4, 2004 I knew it was a lot easier to trash other's ideas than to come up with ideas, but I never realized it was this easy. Anyone else have any ideas on a solution to the growing number canopy related injuries and fatalities? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #86 February 4, 2004 Lou, "Experience is something you gain two seconds after you need it." Unless, you listen and learn. People as yourself and Hook have a great deal of knowledge, it's a shame some people are to busy beating the breeze to listen. Blues Brother, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #87 February 4, 2004 Scott, regulation is not a solution. Most of us are able to make their own choices in life and don't need a drill sargeant to guide them through the day. It's all about choices. Some choose to take bigger risks than other. Let the people have their choice. I oppose regulating this sport. If you think that is bitching, so be it. I still voice my opposition. Regulation is good in institutions.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #88 February 4, 2004 QuoteI knew it was a lot easier to trash other's ideas than to come up with ideas, but I never realized it was this easy. this is rather ambiguous. can you clarify?namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaoskitty 0 #89 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteI knew it was a lot easier to trash other's ideas than to come up with ideas, but I never realized it was this easy. this is rather ambiguous. can you clarify? I interpreted it to mean that this letter identifed a serious problem, and actually proposed solutions instead of just bitching about the problem. Its very clear to me that Derek is asking those who disagree with the proposed WL regulations, for alternate solutions. Think about it, and get back to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #90 February 4, 2004 >Yes, I don't give a solution as it already exists and is readily available. If that solution worked, there would not be dozens of dead skydivers and dozens of letters to parachutist discussing how that system doesn't work. >There are many people who think that jumping out of a plane makes > them special. Really, you and I know it's no big deal. I hope that came out wrong; it is a very big deal, and not taking it as such can kill you very quickly. >Surviving is the deal. Agreed. Much of this discussion involves how to do just that, and how to teach others how to do that. >You can not regulate the self preservation instinct. Agreed again. But without training, someone's self preservation instinct may just lead them to toggle turn at 50 feet to avoid an obstacle, and that may kill them. We need education to prevent those sorts of deaths. >Those without a self preservation instinct will probably sustain injury or death. And on occasion, that very same instinct may _cause_ it (unless they get training.) >To give a pretty good example: Drunk driving is very illegal. The fac >t that operating motor under influence of alcohol is regulated does > not stop people from getting killed while doing it. That is how much > that regulation is worth. Hmm. Do you honestly think that making drunk driving legal and relying on a "suggest that your pal doesn't drive drunk" system would keep drunk driving fatalities at about the same level? Or do you think they would actually go down? Any canopy regulation will not stop canopy fatalities; pull altitude regulations did not stop low pulls. But it will help get people education, and that _will_ reduce fatalities. It will also give DZO's, instructors and S+TA's assistance in getting people the training they need (and, on rare occasions, keeping them off canopies that will kill them.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #91 February 4, 2004 Bill: There has been some serious misunderstanding. You and I obviously went through or are talking of completely different AFF training requirements. In my AFF course I was tought not only basic skydiving skills, but more importantly canopy control was POUNDED into my head. I was told about landing acuracy I was told about the effect of winds on landing I was told about the effect of low toggle turns and how to avoid them. I was told many other things about canopy controll. With every AFF level the amount of information passed on to me increased. I went through the prescribed coach jumps and they included comments on canopy control. When I got my A license I was ready to safely jump on my own. I have received great training and strong warning as to what is going to get me in trouble. That is the way it is done at ZHills. Its my home DZ. I must admitt it probably is the top Ivy League school of skydiving. OK so I was lucky to have graduated there and they performed an excellent job, which is to say they took the course requirements seriously. As mentioned, you probably are talking of a different AFF program than I. Maybe the West Coast AFF is different than what we have in Florida. In case it is not, I suppose someone is not doing their job well. That would not be a problem of new regulation, but of enforcing the existing.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #92 February 4, 2004 JRaf, After reading & rereading that article, I have come to my own conclusion that the authors were right on the ball. I am going to buy them all a Coke or something next time I see them....=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #93 February 4, 2004 >>Any canopy regulation will not stop canopy fatalities; pull altitude regulations did not stop low pulls. But it will help get people education, and that _will_ reduce fatalities. It will also give DZO's, instructors and S+TA's assistance in getting people the training they need (and, on rare occasions, keeping them off canopies that will kill them.) >> There are a couple of common factor's in "serious accidents" happenig when skydivers are trying to land perfectly good parachutes. IMO Since USPA and the GMDZO's almost have a monoply on jumping in the US they are as follows. 1) The majority of skydivers getting killed trying to land a perectly good parachute are USPA members 2) The majority of dropzones where skyivers are getting killed trying to land a perfectly good parachute are GMDZ's IMO The GMDZ's & and ST&A's already have ability to require what you suggest. In most cases they control what happens on their DZ and who jumps what. Reserve out of date? go home. . "DZO's, instructors and S+TA's assistance in getting people the training they need (and, on rare occasions, keeping them off canopies that will kill them.)" Just say no! "Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole neww way to kill ourselves" Very old joke! R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdog 0 #94 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs of now an S&TA may prohibit someone from jumping at a dropzone and may not let them jump a certain size canopy. That does depend on the DZ. When I was an S & TA, I had the DZO override my decision to ground a jumper...... QuoteWhy waste time, money and effort on imposing new legal documents that people will find a way to go around So that they get the education and training they need. Derek Wow, I think I would have resigned as S&TA right then and there! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 14 #95 February 4, 2004 >Reserve out of date? go home. Bad example... the FAA controls the reserves and repacks.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #96 February 4, 2004 Lets ask the basic question: Who will benefit from the new regulation? Skydivers? Absolutely not. Those who want to take greater risks than others will keep on taking them no matter what. Those who stand to reap the financial benefits of a potential regulation like this are those who signed the letter, God bless their little hearts. That is why they included so many exceptions and grandfather clauses in their proposal. They want a regulation that is different for "us" and different for "them" They want more compulsory courses so that they can taech them and get the dough. As with all other regulation prposed by interest groups, this is for money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #97 February 4, 2004 I believe that if the S&TA go's to manifest and tells them soandso isn't allowed to manifest without my permission, he would/could only be overruled by the DZO. I don't think it would be a BSR, just looking out for the individual and the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #98 February 4, 2004 >Reserve out of date? go home. >>Bad example... the FAA controls the reserves and repacks.>> Not going to argue over semantic's the FAA may control the requirement about the reseves being in date..... but the DZ enforces it on a day to day basis. Guess why? because the pilot who fly's for the DZ can get in deep doo doo (lose their ticket) if the DZO allow's folks with out of date reserves to jump out of their airplanes. After the twin otter crash at perris the FAA went to USPA and "suggested" that the skydiving industry (DZO's) start enforcing the seatbelt requirement's or the FAA would take some type of corrective action. The problem that had been going on for years was suddenly resolved. No more walking to the front of the airplane from the rear and standing up on T.O. to help the pilot out with the C.G. Now most airplanes had seat belts for every jumper and most jumpers use them. Seatbelts are a FAA "controls" the requirement for seatbelts. But the DZO's have been reminded of their responsiabilites for enforcing the seatbelt rule by the FAA (pilot deep doo doo), and other jumpers who don't want to get crushed in case of a crash landing by a meat missle help enforce it. R.I.P. Who says skydivers are stupid we invented a whole new way to kill ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #99 February 4, 2004 QuoteLets ask the basic question: "How do we fix the problem?" -That is the basic question. You can post your answer(s) to that question here. Part of the problem or part of the solution............ Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #100 February 4, 2004 QuoteLets ask the basic question: Who will benefit from the new regulation? Jumpers not getting killed will benefit all of us. QuoteThose who want to take greater risks than others will keep on taking them no matter what. Not if you don't let them....I don't see many folks pull low at Zhills. Quote Those who stand to reap the financial benefits of a potential regulation like this are those who signed the letter, I would not make a dime..And I would ahve gladly signed the letter...What about me? You very easy to see beef is with the greenies. QuoteThat is why they included so many exceptions and grandfather clauses in their proposal. They want a regulation that is different for "us" and different for "them" No, it would be unfair to make folks buy a new canopy...So theonly fair way to do it is just like they did when they raised the legal drinking age....If you were able to drink when it came into law...then you still could. So there is a precident. Instead of just bitching which is easy...Why don't you shut up, and do something positive. In the battle of life it is not the critic who counts...Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or how the doer of deads could have done better."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
