jraf 0 #26 February 3, 2004 QuoteYou're so clueless it's not even funny. You on the other hand are a scholar and a gentleman. I also appreciate your oppinion on the topic, which you have so elaborately vocalized. Salutations!jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #27 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuote 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! Yes indeed. You have not noticed the rest of my profile though - as my interests I stated inter-gallactic travel as well as yarn spinning and of course babalui!jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #28 February 3, 2004 The letter makes sense to me. "...allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills." Progression to a faster canopy should always be skills-based. Counting jump numbers or hours spent in a lecture hall are ... well ... um ... er ... great ways to amuse bean counters, but not realistic measures of skill. The bottom line is: every jumper should have to demonstrate the following list of canopy control exercises ... before he/she is allowed to jump a faster canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clint 1 #29 February 3, 2004 Since USPA hasn't done anything yet with making canopy progession better, then you should try. This is why all these canopy schools are popping up. The skilled canopy pilots of today are taking it upon themselves to teach canopy progession safely. 3 yrs ago, how many canopy schools were there? Maybe 2-5 and that's a high estimate. Now there is many. Who are teaching them, PD, Icurus, and many other top canopy pilots. So maybe USPA is just letting the canopy pilots do all the work. Maybe USPA is working on it and it might be coming out next year. It's not easy to make regulations, it takes time! I personally started my own canopy school and have been teaching it for the past 3yrs because I was tired of watching people bounce all the time. If you want to do something for your friends jumping HP canopies, watch them and critic them. Sure you might not have the experience to tell them what they are doing right and wrong but the more you watch the better you see things, good and bad. Get out there with a camera and shoot video. Video is the best tool out there for anyone learning HP landings. It doesn't need to be HP landings either! Everyone loves to see themselves on video, well most anyway, and once you see what you are doing, on video, right or wrong, then you can change your way of landing to make you safer and the people around you. Jay Moleski and I started swooping together back in '95 and we had several friends just starting to swoop also. I remember coming in from a landing and I was low and I knew it and for the next hr I was getting debriefed by everyone. We all sat in front of the hanger watching EVERY landing and studing them. VIDEO, I can't express how much this helps you. Friends could tell you that you "stabbed" it and you would say no you didn't, You weren't there. Then they show you the video and WOW, you stabbed it. "Video is the one eye that doesn't lie" So if USPA didn't do anything yet about canopy control, then you try to do something about it and YOU WILL LEARN so much more than waiting for USPA to do something about it! SO do what you can to help your friends.Clint MacBeth Skydive Moab 435 259 JUMP M.O.A.B. Mother Of All Boogies Sept 19 - 23, 2012 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #30 February 3, 2004 Quote I do this for fun and I don't want my fun to be regulated. You are being regulated. Here is a short list of regulations that you have been exposed to in the skydiving enviroment: As a student: -Ground school -AAD, helmet -120 day repack cycle for reserve done by an FAA rigger -Seat belt -FAA Commercial Pilot -FAA approved aircraft for parachute jumping -FAA anual on aircraft -First jumps with Instructor/s -Graduation day/evaluation/test -If you hold any USPA licences, then written test + air skills eval. Now that you are a licensed skydiver: -Seat belt -All of the above FAA regulation for the aircraft -120 day repack cycle for reserve -Wind restriction other than D lic. wich you don't have -Demo restriction -Regulations to become an instructor (hopefully not!) such as licence/number of jumps/free fall time And the list can go on and on. For being a guy who does not want to be regulated well it seems to me you chose the wrong sport.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #31 February 3, 2004 First of all, please read the entire thread and notice that I call for no more regulation than we have now. Enough is enough. In adition, my dear little regulatory enthusiast the avatar picture you have is against regulation itself - a Pitt Special is not alowed to let skydivers out in inverted flight closer than 5 miles from a functioning arfield. Having said that I have to ask what your point is. Aside from telling me that I am without clue, you have not made any yet. Pray, speak up if you have anything of merit to say.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #32 February 3, 2004 QuoteYou're so clueless it's not even funny. no, he is not clueless. yes, it is not funny. yes, you did not contribute anything to this discussion. yes, i think hans is stirring the shit, yet again, with a sharpened stick but in some ways i must agree with him. i think wingloading regs will effect very little change while adding yet another beaurocratic hoop for all to jump through. it's an honor system either way. my opinion and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #33 February 3, 2004 Tell that to the WFFC about the Pitts. I doubt they are doing anything that is against FAA reg. With that I am not saying I do everything by FAA/USPA book. What I am saying is that some regulations are needed to have some sort of safety in a inheritably unsafe sport. We need to minimize the risks as much as we can. My friend we are an evolving sport hence regulations must evolve as well. Many recognized the problem associated with HP canopies and not enough experience/training. USPA came out with Free Fall regulations when skydivers stared to take longer delays than just S/L or H&P and saw the difficulty in flying your body at terminal velocity. Those for the most part still work and some are being reviewed. The SIM is been up-dated and improved every year. Just look at the new D requirements for instance. Now we have a problem that was not there when people were jumping rounds or big F-111 squares. The problem is relatively new and usually regulations and restrictions are always behind. You are among the very minority in being stubborn about the fact that we do not need additional regulations. You are wrong buddy and many very experienced jumpers (more than you me combined) can testify that. They saw one too many going in or getting fucked up because they were under a 1.6 WL at <100 jumps and without proper training. We need new training methods and regulations to overcome this problem; I too believe that training is the answer and not regulations but many will not train if not regulated (pun intended). You said you’ll never swoop. Think twice. I once said I’ve done it never again, yeah right, that was just the beginning. Wake up dude it’s noon!Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #34 February 3, 2004 QuoteWith 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. I honestly don't have an opinion on the subject - I haven't been in the sport long enough to know enough about this topic to form an opinion. But it seems that the FAA doesn't even want to spend the time or money to update 20 year old FARs that include outdated skydiving equipment and procedures. Why would they bother with trying to force regulation on our wingloading?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #35 February 3, 2004 QuoteI 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. Its a good idea. It should have been done years ago. QuoteI oppose regulation in general. Next thing we will have fine wisethinkers proposing regulations as to who can jump with whom We already have that. Try jumping with someone without a license"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
lawrocket 3 #36 February 3, 2004 Taking the emotional element aside, jraf makes some good points. It seems his arguments can be best summarized by stating: 1) We have enough regulation, and other regulation is bad for the sport 2) Most of the landing fatalities that occur are of those whom these proposed regulations seemingly will not touch, i.e., 500 plus jumps. 3) Regulations themselves would be fruitless, since people openly defy the regulations we already have. If I'm wrong, hans, correct me. But, why don't we focus on those points he's making, which I think are valid points, though I do disagree with Hans to an extent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #37 February 3, 2004 Agreed, agreed and once again agreed. Regulation of skydiving is no different than regulation of meat prices in the '70s or regulation of rent levels in New York City. It leads to chaos and defiance. There are plenty of high quality canopy control schools (as metioned by one of our interlocutors) and people who want, will lern. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania just deregulated helmet laws for motorcyclists. Florida has the same. Why regulate skydiving even more?jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #38 February 3, 2004 He does not make any good points neither do you. QuoteWe have enough regulation, and other regulation is bad for the sport In this case let's get rid of all the regulations, they are bad aren't they. Is skydiving anarchy the answer? Quote Most of the landing fatalities that occur are of those whom these proposed regulations seemingly will not touch, i.e., 500 plus jumps. If you are trained (forced or not) then at 500 jumps you will be a better canopy pilot than if you are not/were not trained. Also who says tha canopy training has to be stopped at the 500 jump mark? QuoteRegulations themselves would be fruitless, since people openly defy the regulations we already have. So according to the argument because some people defy regulations (the vast minority by the way) then forget about regulations to begin with. If anybody sees some valid points in jraf's view please let there be light.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 February 3, 2004 QuoteHe does not make any good points neither do you. Um, I said I disagree with Hans to an extent. I also have earlier said that I think the regulations are a great idea. I think that jraf has valid points. However, after analyzing the point-counterpoint, I side against him. A blanket statement like "He does not make any good points and neither do you" does not do justice to this discussion. As you see in my post, I narrowed jraf's points to "center the discussion" and get away from the personal attacks. Jeez.... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #40 February 3, 2004 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 S&TA's would still be able to ground anyone, this just gives some backbone to their discussion to newer jumpers with recommendations that they can prove to the S&TA satisfaction that they have the skills to get around it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #41 February 3, 2004 QuoteWhy regulate skydiving even more? Because people who don't know better are doing stupid things and getting killed. If someone knows the risks and screws up, that is one thing...to not know, and get killed its another. Regulation is in everything. I can fly a plane cause the FAA says I can. I can fly a Complex aircraft cause the FAA says I can. I can fly a HP plane cause the FAA says I can. I can pilot a twin, but Im not allowed casue I have not shown that to the FAA. Same thing with flying jumpers...I dare say I'd be a better jump pilot than folks that just have the right tickets...But the FAA says I can't. I had to be 15 to ride a motorcycle. 16 to drive a car. I still can't legally ride a motorcycle since I don't have a motorcycle endorsment...But I can carry radioactive's and explosives since I do have those endorsments. I could not buy beer till I was 21, and I could not smoke till I was 18. I could not put into my 401 K till I was 21. I can't pull at 1,000 feet, You can't do Tandems, I can't do AFF. Like it or not regulations are here, and more will come."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
mnischalke 0 #42 February 3, 2004 QuoteWith that I am not saying I do everything by FAA/USPA book. What I am saying is that some regulations are needed to have some sort of safety in a inheritably unsafe sport. We need to minimize the risks as much as we can. Well, I call bullshit on this. So you're saying you don't follow every rule all the time, but there needs to be more rules? More rules for everybody else to follow but you? mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyangel2 2 #43 February 3, 2004 QuoteAs of now an S&TA may prohibit someone from jumping at a dropzone and may not let them jump a certain size canopy. I worked at a DZ years ago. The owner was never afraid to ground someone he thought was on too small a canopy or jumping out of control. Many a time, he told them to take their business else where. He was just protecting his business.May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #44 February 3, 2004 Wow, Have all the regulations prevented you from doing all that? You've never flown a twin? You've never flown jumpers? You've never rode a motorcycle on the street? You never drank until 21 or smoked until 18? Wow mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #45 February 3, 2004 QuoteHave all the regulations prevented you from doing all that? Some of them, and the times I did were the exception, not the norm. QuoteYou've never flown a twin? Not as PIC...There was a rated pilot in the right seat. QuoteYou've never flown jumpers? Yes I have, but not for money. It was legal, but I can't fly for a DZ. QuoteYou've never rode a motorcycle on the street? Yes, I have, but I can't go to the store a demo one without a motorcycle endorsment. I can't get the tags without the endosment..So while I can borrow a friends, I can't get one without proving I can handle it. QuoteYou never drank until 21 or smoked until 18? I could not buy them and that greatly reduced the amount of risk to me and others. Again I could steal from the old mans liquor cabnet, but the laws kept me from many drinks."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
mnischalke 0 #46 February 3, 2004 So you're saying that regulation was okay to ignore in many cases? Education, not regulation (especially waiverable and unenforcable regulation) may save lives. Think about this for a sec: Do the 20,000 gun laws on the books of the US prevent murders? BTW, in every state I know of, if you do not have a motorcycle license (endorcement) but you are pulled over on a motorcycle, you will be charged with operating without a license. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #47 February 3, 2004 QuoteSo you're saying that regulation was okay to ignore in many cases? Nope the opposite...even though I was able to skirt it in some areas..It was all in my best interest. If I could have bough tabacco at 10 I might have cancer now. If I was able to buy beer at 13 I might be an alcoholic since I didn't know limits back then. I might not have a good job. If I could drive a motorcycle without a license I would not have tried to learn how to ride one...I could have just bought one. I might be dead now. Same with driving...If I didn't have to pass a test to do it on my own, I might be dead, or have killed someone else. If I was allowed to fly a plane without a license I might have balled it up and maybe taken someone out in the process... The same could be said for why I can't fly jumpers in an otter...I have not proven I can do it, so I should not be allowed. All I am for is makeing folks prove they can handle it before they are allowed. It WILL save lives. Why would it be a big deal to not have a motorcycle endorsement? I mean if I can drive a commercial vehicle with explosives on board...surely I can handle a small motorcycle right? I mean I can reach the controls I guess I should be allowed to do what I want right? I mean, Im over 18 and all."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
Hooknswoop 19 #48 February 3, 2004 QuoteAs 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #49 February 3, 2004 Why do you feel the minimum pull altitudes BSR is OK, but the WL idea isn't? Anyone can say an idea is stupid, that is not helpful, nor will you convince many people with that argument. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #50 February 3, 2004 Now that you mention it, with BSRs as iron-clad and unbreakable as the minimum deployment altitude, go ahead and make all the new regulations ya want! Certain folks will ignore the new stuff just like others ignore the min. deployment alt. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
